Search the Perseus Catalog for:

View: By Part

← Previous Next →

But, to produce this effect by means of the decoration, discovers want of art in the Poet; who must also be supplied, by the public, with an expensive apparatus¹.

[13]

Poetics. Aristotle. Thomas Twining (Translator). London, UK. 1789.

Sponsored by Perseus Project, Tufts University.

Current edition Experimental

Poetics (Thomas Twining, 1789) (OCR draft) (English) (Thomas Twining's English translation of Aristotle's Poetics, published in 1789 and aligned to the Kassel reference passage sequence.)

Provisional text from uncorrected OCR; expect errors.

Editions (4)

Περὶ ποιητικῆς (OCR draft) (Aristotle, Poetics. Immanuel Bekker, editor, Aristotelis Opera, volume 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1837.) — 14 focus

Ἔστι μὲν οὖν τὸ φοβερὸν καὶ ἐλεεινὸν ἐκ τῆς ὄψεως γίνεσθαι, ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς συστάσεως τῶν πραγμάτων, ὅπερ ἐστὶ πρότερον καὶ ποιητοῦ ἀμείνονος.

Δεῖ γὰρ καὶ ἄνευ τοῦ ὁρᾶν οὕτω συνεστάναι τὸν μῦθον ὥστε τὸν ἀκούοντα τὰ πράγματα γινόμενα καὶ φρίττειν καὶ ἐλεεῖν ἐκ τῶν συμβαινόντων· ἅπερ ἂν πάθοι τις ἀκούων τὸν τοῦ Οἰδίποδος μῦθον.

Τὸ δὲ διὰ τῆς ὄψεως τοῦτο παρασκευάζειν ἀτεχνότερον καὶ χορηγίας δεόμενόν ἐστιν.

Οἱ δὲ μὴ τὸ φοβερὸν διὰ τῆς ὄψεως ἀλλὰ τὸ τερατῶδες μόνον παρασκευάζοντες οὐδὲν τραγῳδίᾳ κοινωνοῦσιν· οὐ γὰρ πᾶσαν δεῖ ζητεῖν ἡδονὴν ἀπὸ τραγῳδίας, ἀλλὰ τὴν οἰκείαν.

Ἐπεὶ δὲ τὴν ἀπὸ ἐλέου καὶ φόβου διὰ μιμήσεως δεῖ ἡδονὴν παρασκευάζειν τὸν ποιητήν, φανερὸν ὡς τοῦτο ἐν τοῖς πράγμασιν ἐμποιητέον.

Ποῖα οὖν δεινὰ ἢ ποῖα οἰκτρὰ φαίνεται τῶν συμπιπτόντων, λάβωμεν. Ἀνάγκη δὲ ἢ φίλων εἶναι πρὸς ἀλλήλους τὰς τοιαύτας πράξεις ἢ ἐχθρῶν ἢ μηδετέρων.

Ἂν μὲν οὖν ἐχθρὸς ἐχθρὸν ἀποκτείνῃ, οὐδὲν ἐλεεινὸν οὔτε ποιῶν οὔτε μέλλων δείκνυσι, πλὴν κατ᾿ αὐτὸ τὸ πάθος·

οὐδ᾿ ἂν μηδετέρως ἔχοντες.

Ὅταν δ᾿ ἐν ταῖς φιλίαις ἐγγένηται τὰ πάθη, οἷον εἰ ἀδελφὸς ἀδελφὸν ἢ υἱὸς πατέρα ἢ μήτηρ υἱὸν ἢ υἱὸς μητέρα ἀποκτείνει ἢ μέλλει ἤ τι ἄλλο τοιοῦτον δρᾷ, ταῦτα ζητητέον.

Τοὺς μὲν οὖν παρειλημμένους μύθους λύειν οὐκ ἔστιν, λέγω δὲ οἷον τὴν Κλυταιμνήστραν ἀποθανοῦσαν ὑπὸ τοῦ Ὀρέστου καὶ τὴν Ἐριφύλην ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἀλκμαίωνος·

αὐτὸν δἐ εὑρίσκειν δεῖ, καὶ τοῖς παραδεδομένοις χρῆσθαι καλῶς. Τὸ δὲ καλῶς τί λέγομεν, εἴπωμεν σαφέστερον.

Ἔστι μὲν γὰρ οὕτω γίνεσθαι τὴν πρᾶξιν ὥσπερ οἱ παλαιοὶ ἐποίουν, εἰδότας καὶ γινώσκοντας, καθάπερ καὶ Εὐριπίδης ἐποίησεν ἀποκτείνουσαν τοὺς παῖδας τὴν Μήδειαν·

ἔστι δὲ πρᾶξαι μέν, ἀγνοοῦντας δὲ πρᾶξαι τὸ δεινόν, εἶθ᾿ ὕστερον ἀναγνωρίσαι τὴν φιλίαν, ὥσπερ ὁ Σοφοκλέους Οἰδίπους. Τοῦτο μὲν οὖν ἔξω τοῦ δράματος, ἐν δ᾿ αὐτῇ τῇ τραγῳδίᾳ, οἷος ὁ Ἀλκμαίων ὁ Ἀστυδάμαντος ἢ ὁ Τηλέγονος ὁ ἐν τῷ τραυματίᾳ Ὀδυσσεῖ.

Ἔτι δὲ τρίτον παρὰ ταῦτα τὸν μέλλοντα ποιεῖν τι τῶν ἀνηκέστων δι᾿ ἄγνοιαν ἀναγνωρίσαι πρὶν ποιῆσαι.

Καὶ παρὰ ταῦτα οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλως· ἢ γὰρ πρᾶξαι ἀνάγκη ἢ μή, καὶ εἰδότας ἢ μὴ εἰδότας.

Τούτων δὲ τὸ μὲν γινώσκοντα μελλῆσαι καὶ μὴ πρᾶξαι χείριστον· τό τε γὰρ μιαρὸν ἔχει, καὶ οὐ τραγικόν· ἀπαθὲς γάρ. Διόπερ οὐδεὶς ποιεῖ ὁμοίως, εἰ μὴ ὀλιγάκις, οἷος ἐν Ἀντιγόνῃ τὸν Κρέοντα ὁ Αἵμων.

Τὸ δὲ πρᾶξαι δεύτερον.

Βέλτιον δὲ τὸ ἀγνοοῦντα μὲν πρᾶξαι, πράξαντα δὲ ἀναγνωρίσαι· τό τε γὰρ μιαρὸν οὐ πρόσεστι, καὶ ἡ ἀναγνώρισις ἐκπληκτικόν.

Κράτιστον δὲ τὸ τελευταῖον, λέγω δὲ οἷον ἐν τῷ Κρεσφόντῃ ἡ Μερόπη μέλλει τὸν υἱὸν ἀποκτείνειν, ἀποκτείνει δὲ οὒ ἀλλ᾿ ἀνεγνώρισεν, καὶ ἐν τῇ Ἰφιγενείᾳ ἡ ἀδελφὴ τὸν ἀδελφόν, καὶ ἐν τῇ Ἕλλῃ ὁ υἱὸς τὴν μητέρα ἐκδιδόναι μέλλων ἀνεγνώρισεν.

Διὰ γὰρ τοῦτο, ὅπερ πάλαι εἴρηται, οὐ περὶ πολλὰ γένη αἱ τραγῳδίαι εἰσίν. Ζητοῦντες γὰρ οὐκ ἀπὸ τέχνης ἀλλ᾿ ἀπὸ τύχης εὗρον τὸ τοιοῦτον παρασκευάζειν ἐν τοῖς μύθοις· ἀναγκάζονται οὖν ἐπὶ ταύτας τὰς οἰκίας ἀπαντᾶν, ὅσαις τὰ τοιαῦτα συμβέβηκε πάθη.

Περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς τῶν πραγμάτων συστάσεως, καὶ ποίους τινὰς εἶναι δεῖ τοὺς μύθους, εἴρηται ἱκανῶς.

Περὶ ποιητικῆς (OCR draft) Perseus (Aristotle, De arte poetica liber. Rudolf Kassel, editor. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965. Reference edition for passage alignment.) — 14 focus

1453b 1 ἔστιν μὲν οὖν τὸ φοβερὸν καὶ ἐλεεινὸν ἐκ τῆς ὄψεως γίγνεσθαι, ἔστιν δὲ καὶ ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς συστάσεως τῶν πραγμάτων, ὅπερ ἐστὶ πρότερον καὶ ποιητοῦ ἀμείνονος.

δεῖ γὰρ καὶ ἄνευ τοῦ ὁρᾶν οὕτω συνεστάναι τὸν μῦθον ὥστε τὸν 5 ἀκούοντα τὰ πράγματα γινόμενα καὶ φρίττειν καὶ ἐλεεῖν ἐκ τῶν συμβαινόντων· ἅπερ ἂν πάθοι τις ἀκούων τὸν τοῦ Οἰδίπου μῦθον.

τὸ δὲ διὰ τῆς ὄψεως τοῦτο παρασκευάζειν ἀτεχνότερον καὶ χορηγίας δεόμενόν ἐστιν.

οἱ δὲ μὴ τὸ 9 φοβερὸν διὰ τῆς ὄψεως ἀλλὰ τὸ τερατῶδες μόνον 10 παρασκευάζοντες οὐδὲν τραγῳδίᾳ κοινωνοῦσιν· οὐ γὰρ πᾶσαν δεῖ ζητεῖν ἡδονὴν ἀπὸ τραγῳδίας ἀλλὰ τὴν οἰκείαν.

ἐπεὶ δὲ τὴν ἀπὸ ἐλέου καὶ φόβου διὰ μιμήσεως δεῖ ἡδονὴν παρασκευάζειν τὸν ποιητήν, φανερὸν ὡς τοῦτο ἐν τοῖς πράγμασιν ἐμποιητέον.

ποῖα οὖν δεινὰ ἢ ποῖα οἰκτρὰ φαίνεται τῶν 15 συμπιπτόντων, λάβωμεν. ἀνάγκη δὴ ἢ φίλων εἶναι πρὸς ἀλλήλους τὰς τοιαύτας πράξεις ἢ ἐχθρῶν ἢ μηδετέρων.

ἂν μὲν οὖν ἐχθρὸς ἐχθρόν, οὐδὲν ἐλεεινὸν οὔτε ποιῶν οὔτε μέλλων, πλὴν κατ’ αὐτὸ τὸ πάθος·

οὐδ’ ἂν μηδετέρως ἔχοντες·

ὅταν δ’ ἐν ταῖς φιλίαις ἐγγένηται τὰ 20 πάθη, οἷον ἢ ἀδελφὸς ἀδελφὸν ἢ υἱὸς πατέρα ἢ μήτηρ υἱὸν ἢ υἱὸς μητέρα ἀποκτείνῃ ἢ μέλλῃ ἤ τι ἄλλο τοιοῦτον δρᾷ, ταῦτα ζητητέον.

τοὺς μὲν οὖν παρειλημμένους μύθους λύειν οὐκ ἔστιν, λέγω δὲ οἷον τὴν Κλυταιμήστραν ἀποθανοῦσαν ὑπὸ τοῦ Ὀρέστου καὶ τὴν Ἐριφύλην ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἀλκμέωνος,

25 αὐτὸν δὲ εὑρίσκειν δεῖ καὶ τοῖς παραδεδομένοις χρῆσθαι καλῶς. τὸ δὲ καλῶς τί λέγομεν, εἴπωμεν σαφέστερον.

ἔστι μὲν γὰρ οὕτω γίνεσθαι τὴν πρᾶξιν, ὥσπερ οἱ παλαιοὶ ἐποίουν εἰδότας καὶ γιγνώσκοντας, καθάπερ καὶ Εὐριπίδης ἐποίησεν ἀποκτείνουσαν τοὺς παῖδας τὴν Μήδειαν·

ἔστιν δὲ 30 πρᾶξαι μέν, ἀγνοοῦντας δὲ πρᾶξαι τὸ δεινόν, εἶθ’ ὕστερον ἀναγνωρίσαι τὴν φιλίαν, ὥσπερ ὁ Σοφοκλέους Οἰδίπους· τοῦτο μὲν οὖν ἔξω τοῦ δράματος, ἐν δ’ αὐτῇ τῇ τραγῳδίᾳ οἷον ὁ Ἀλκμέων ὁ Ἀστυδάμαντος ἢ ὁ Τηλέγονος ὁ ἐν τῷ τραυματίᾳ Ὀδυσσεῖ.

ἔτι δὲ τρίτον παρὰ ταῦτα τὸ 35 μέλλοντα ποιεῖν τι τῶν ἀνηκέστων δι’ ἄγνοιαν ἀναγνωρίσαι πρὶν ποιῆσαι.

καὶ παρὰ ταῦτα οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλως. ἢ γὰρ πρᾶξαι ἀνάγκη ἢ μὴ καὶ εἰδότας ἢ μὴ εἰδότας.

τούτων δὲ τὸ μὲν γινώσκοντα μελλῆσαι καὶ μὴ πρᾶξαι χείριστον· τό τε γὰρ μιαρὸν ἔχει, καὶ οὐ τραγικόν· ἀπαθὲς γάρ. διόπερ οὐδεὶς 1454a 1 ποιεῖ ὁμοίως, εἰ μὴ ὀλιγάκις, οἷον ἐν Ἀντιγόνῃ τὸν Κρέοντα ὁ Αἵμων.

τὸ δὲ πρᾶξαι δεύτερον.

βέλτιον δὲ τὸ ἀγνοοῦντα μὲν πρᾶξαι, πράξαντα δὲ ἀναγνωρίσαι· τό τε γὰρ μιαρὸν οὐ πρόσεστιν καὶ ἡ ἀναγνώρισις ἐκπληκτικόν.

κράτιστον δὲ 5 τὸ τελευταῖον, λέγω δὲ οἷον ἐν τῷ Κρεσφόντῃ ἡ Μερόπη μέλλει τὸν υἱὸν ἀποκτείνειν, ἀποκτείνει δὲ οὔ, ἀλλ’ ἀνεγνώρισε, καὶ ἐν τῇ Ἰφιγενείᾳ ἡ ἀδελφὴ τὸν ἀδελφόν, καὶ ἐν τῇ Ἕλλῃ ὁ υἱὸς τὴν μητέρα ἐκδιδόναι μέλλων ἀνεγνώρισεν.

διὰ γὰρ τοῦτο, ὅπερ πάλαι εἴρηται, οὐ περὶ πολλὰ 10 γένη αἱ τραγῳδίαι εἰσίν. ζητοῦντες γὰρ οὐκ ἀπὸ τέχνης ἀλλ’ ἀπὸ τύχης εὗρον τὸ τοιοῦτον παρασκευάζειν ἐν τοῖς μύθοις· ἀναγκάζονται οὖν ἐπὶ ταύτας τὰς οἰκίας ἀπαντᾶν ὅσαις τὰ τοιαῦτα συμβέβηκε πάθη.

περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς τῶν πραγμάτων συστάσεως καὶ ποίους τινὰς εἶναι δεῖ τοὺς μύθους 15 εἴρηται ἱκανῶς.

Poetics, Greek text (Ingram Bywater, 1909) (OCR draft) Experimental (Ingram Bywater's Greek text of Aristotle's Poetics, published in 1909.) — 14 focus

Ἔστιν μὲν οὖν τὸ φοβερὸν καὶ ἐλεεινὸν ἐκ τῆς ὄψεως
γίγνεσθαι, ἔστιν δὲ καὶ ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς συστάσεως τῶν πραγμάτων,
ὅπερ ἐστὶ πρότερον καὶ ποιητοῦ ἀμείνονος.

δεῖ γὰρ
καὶ ἄνευ τοῦ ὁρᾶν οὕτω συνεστάναι τὸν μῦθον ὥστε τὸν
ἀκούοντα τὰ πράγματα γινόμενα καὶ φρίττειν καὶ ἐλεεῖν
ἐκ τῶν συμβαινόντων· ἅπερ ἂν πάθοι τις ἀκούων τὸν τοῦ
Οἰδίπου μῦθον.

τὸ δὲ διὰ τῆς ὄψεως τοῦτο παρασκευάζειν
ἀτεχνότερον καὶ χορηγίας δεόμενόν ἐστιν.

οἱ δὲ μὴ τὸ
φοβερὸν διὰ τῆς ὄψεως ἀλλὰ τὸ τερατῶδες μόνον παρασκευάζοντες
οὐδὲν τραγῳδίᾳ κοινωνοῦσιν· οὐ γὰρ πᾶσαν δεῖ
ζητεῖν ἡδονὴν ἀπὸ τραγῳδίας ἀλλὰ τὴν οἰκείαν.

ἐπεὶ δὲ
τὴν ἀπὸ ἐλέου καὶ φόβου διὰ μιμήσεως δεῖ ἡδονὴν παρασκευάζειν
τὸν ποιητήν, φανερὸν ὡς τοῦτο ἐν τοῖς πράγμασιν
ἐμποιητέον.

ποῖα οὖν δεινὰ ἢ ποῖα οἰκτρὰ φαίνεται
τῶν συμπιπτόντων, λάβωμεν. ἀνάγκη δὴ ἢ φίλων εἶναι
πρὸς ἀλλήλους τὰς τοιαύτας πράξεις ἢ ἐχθρῶν ἢ μηδετέρων.

ἂν μὲν οὖν ἐχθρὸς ἐχθρόν, οὐδὲν ἐλεεινὸν οὔτε
ποιῶν οὔτε μέλλων, πλὴν κατ᾽ αὐτὸ τὸ πάθος·

οὐδ᾽ ἂν
μηδετέρως ἔχοντες·

ὅταν δ᾽ ἐν ταῖς φιλίαις ἐγγένηται τὰ
πάθη, οἷον ἢ ἀδελφὸς ἀδελφὸν ἢ υἱὸς πατέρα ἢ μήτηρ
υἱὸν ἢ υἱὸς μητέρα ἀποκτείνῃ ἢ μέλλῃ ἤ τι ἄλλο τοιοῦτον
δρᾷ, ταῦτα ζητητέον.

τοὺς μὲν οὖν παρειλημμένους μύθους
λύειν οὐκ ἔστιν, λέγω δὲ οἷον τὴν Κλυταιμνήστραν ἀποθανοῦσαν
ὑπὸ τοῦ Ὀρέστου καὶ τὴν Ἐριφύλην ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἀλκμέωνος,

αὐτὸν δὲ εὑρίσκειν δεῖ καὶ τοῖς παραδεδομένοις χρήσθαι
καλῶς. τὸ δὲ καλῶς τί λέγομεν, εἴπωμεν σαφέστερον.

ἔστι μὲν γὰρ οὕτω γίνεσθαι τὴν πρᾶξιν, ὥσπερ οἱ παλαιοὶ
ἐποίουν εἰδότας καὶ γιγνώσκοντας, καθάπερ καὶ Εὐριπίδης
ἐποίησεν ἀποκτείνουσαν τοὺς παῖδας τὴν Μήδειαν·

ἔστιν δὲ
πρᾶξαι μέν, ἀγνοοῦντας δὲ πρᾶξαι τὸ δεινόν, εἶθ᾽ ὕστερον
ἀναγνωρίσαι τὴν φιλίαν, ὥσπερ ὁ Σοφοκλέους Οἰδίπους· τοῦτο
μὲν οὖν ἔξω τοῦ δράματος, ἐν δ᾽ αὐτῇ τῇ τραγῳδίᾳ οἷον
ὁ Ἀλκμέων ὁ Ἀστυδάμαντος ἢ ὁ Τηλέγονος ὁ ἐν τῷ
τραυματίᾳ Ὀδυσσεῖ.

ἔτι δὲ τρίτον παρὰ ταῦτα τὸ μέλλοντα
ποιεῖν τι τῶν ἀνηκέστων δι᾽ ἄγνοιαν ἀναγνωρίσαι πρὶν
ποιήσαι.

καὶ παρὰ ταῦτα οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλως. ἢ γὰρ πρᾶξαι
ἀνάγκη ἢ μὴ καὶ εἰδότας ἢ μὴ εἰδότας.

τούτων δὲ τὸ μὲν
γινώσκοντα μελλῆσαι καὶ μὴ πρᾶξαι χείριστον· τό τε γὰρ
μιαρὸν ἔχει, καὶ οὐ τραγικόν· ἀπαθὲς γάρ.
διόπερ οὐδεὶς
ποιεῖ ὁμοίως, εἰ μὴ ὀλιγάκις, οἷον ἐν Ἀντιγόνῃ τὸν Κρέοντα
ὁ Αἵμων.

τὸ δὲ πρᾶξαι δεύτερον.

βέλτιον δὲ τὸ ἀγνοοῦντα
μὲν πρᾶξαι, πράξαντα δὲ ἀναγνωρίσαι· τό τε γὰρ μιαρὸν
οὐ πρόσεστιν καὶ ἡ ἀναγνώρισις ἐκπληκτικόν.

κράτιστον δὲ
τὸ τελευταῖον, λέγω δὲ οἷον ἐν τῷ Κρεσφόντῃ ἡ Μερόπη
μέλλει τὸν υἱὸν ἀποκτείνειν, ἀποκτείνει δὲ οὔ, ἀλλ᾽ ἀνεγνώρισε,
καὶ ἐν τῇ Ἰφιγενείᾳ ἡ ἀδελφή τὸν ἀδελφόν, καὶ
ἐν τῇ Ἕλλῃ ὁ υἱὸς τὴν μητέρα ἐκδιδόναι μέλλων ἀνεγνώρισεν.

διὰ γὰρ τοῦτο, ὅπερ πάλαι εἴρηται, οὐ περὶ πολλὰ
γένη αἱ τραγῳδίαι εἰσίν. ζητοῦντες γὰρ οὐκ ἀπὸ τέχνης
ἀλλ᾽ ἀπὸ τύχης εὗρον τὸ τοιοῦτον παρασκευάζειν ἐν τοῖς
μύθοις· ἀναγκάζονται οὖν ἐπὶ ταύτας τὰς οἰκίας ἀπαντᾶν
ὅσαις τὰ τοιαῦτα συμβέβηκε πάθη.

περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς τῶν
πραγμάτων συστάσεως καὶ ποίους τινὰς εἶναι δεῖ τοὺς μύθους
εἴρηται ἱκανῶς.

Poetics, Greek text (Franz Ritter, 1839) (OCR draft) Experimental (Franz Ritter's 1839 Greek edition, corrected against OCR of the represented copy and aligned to the conventional Perseus chapter-and-subchapter sequence.) — 14 focus

Ἔστι μὲν οὖν τὸ φοβερὸν καὶ ἐλεεινὸν ἐκ τῆς ὄψεως για νεσθαι, ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς συστάσεως τῶν πραγμά των, ὅπερ ἐστὶ πρότερον καὶ ποιητοῦ ἀμείνονος.

δεῖ γὰρ καὶ ἄνευ τοῦ ὁρᾶν οὕτω συνεστάναι τὸν μῦθον ὥστε τὸν ἀκούοντα τὰ πράγματα γινόμενα καὶ φρίττειν καὶ ἐλεεῖν ἐκ τῶν συμβαινόντων· ἅπερ ἂν πάθοι τις ἀκούων τὸν τοῦ Οἰδίποδος μῦθον.

τὸ δὲ διὰ τῆς ὄψεως τοῦτο παρασκευάζειν ατεχνότερον καὶ χορηγίας δεόμενόν ἐστιν.

οἱ δὲ μὴ τὸ φοβερὸν διὰ τῆς ὄψεως ἀλλὰ τὸ τερατῶδες μόνον παρασκευάζοντες οὐδὲν τραγῳδίᾳ κοινωνοῦσιν· οὐ γὰρ πᾶσαν δεῖ ζητεῖν ἡδονὴν ἀπὸ τραγῳδίας, ἀλλὰ τὴν οἰκείαν.

ἐπεὶ δὲ τὴν ἀπὸ ἐλέου καὶ φόβου διὰ μιμήσεως δεῖ ἡδονὴν παρασκευάζειν τὸν ποιητήν, φανερὸν ὡς τοῦτο ἐν τοῖς πράγμασιν ἐμπ ποιητέον.

ποῖα οὖν δεινὰ ἢ ποῖα οἰκτρὰ φαίνεται τῶν συμπιπτόντων, λάβωμεν. ἀνάγκη δὲ ἢ φίλων εἶναι πρὸς ἀλλήλους τὰς τοιαύτας πράξεις ἢ ἐχθρῶν ἢ μηδετέρων.

ἂν μὲν οὖν ἐχθρὸς ἐχθρὸν ἀποκτείνῃ, οὐδὲν ἐλεεινὸν οὔτε ποιῶν οὔτε μέλλων δείκνυσι, πλὴν κατ᾿ αὐτὸ τὸ πάθος·

οὐδ᾽ ἂν μηδετέρως ἔχοντες.

ὅταν δ᾽ ἐν ταῖς φιλίαις ἐγγένηται τὰ πάθη, οἷον εἰ ἀδελφὸς ἀδελφὸν ἢ υἱὸς πατέρα ἢ μήτηρ υἱὸν ἢ υἱὸς μητέρα ἀποκτείνει ἢ μέλλει ἤ τι ἄλλο τοιοῦτον δρῷ, ταῦτα ζητητέον.

τοὺς μὲν οὖν παρειλημμένους μύθους λύειν οὐκ ἔστιν, λέγω δὲ οἷον τὴν Κλυταιμνήστραν ἀποθανοῦσαν ὑπὸ τοῦ Ὀρέστου καὶ τήν Ἐριφύλην ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἀλκμαίωνος·

αὐτὸν δὲ εὑρίσκειν δεῖ, καὶ τοῖς παραδεδομένοις χρῆσθαι καλῶς. τὸ δὲ καλῶς τί λέγομεν, εἴπωμεν σαφέστερον.

ἔστι μὲν γὰρ οὕτω γίνεσθαι τὴν πρᾶξιν ὥσπερ οἱ παλαιοὶ ἐποίουν, εἰδότας καὶ γινώσκοντας, καθάπερ καὶ Εὐριπίδης ἐποίησεν ἀποκ¹τείνουσαν τοὺς παῖδας τὴν Μήδειαν·

ἔστι δὲ πρᾶξαι μέν, ἀγνοοῦντας δὲ πρᾶξαι τὸ δεινόν, εἶθ᾽ ὕστερον ἀναγνωρίσαι τὴν φιλίαν, ὥσπερ ὁ Σοφοκλέους Οἰδίπους. τοῦτο μὲν οὖν ἔξω τοῦ δράματος, ἐν δ᾽ αὐτῇ τῇ τραγῳδίᾳ, οἷος ὁ Ἀλκμαίων ὁ Ἀστυδάμαντος ἢ ὁ Τηλέγονος ὁ ἐν τῷ τραυματίᾳ Οδυσσεῖ.

ἔτι δὲ τρίτον παρὰ ταῦτα τὸν μέλλοντα ποιεῖν τι τῶν ἀνηκέστων δι᾽ ἄγνοιαν ἀναγνωρίσαι πρὶν ποιῆσαι.

καὶ παρὰ ταῦτα οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλως· ἢ γὰρ πρᾶξαι ἀνάγκη ἢ μή, καὶ εἰδότας ἢ μὴ εἰδότας.

τούτων δὲ τὸ μὲν γινώσκοντα μελλῆσαι καὶ μὴ πρᾶξαι χείριστον· τό τε γὰρ μικρὸν ἔχει, καὶ οὐ τραγικόν· ἀπαθὲς γάρ. [διόπερ οὐδεὶς ποιεῖ ὁμοίως, εἰ μὴ ὀλιγάκις, οἷον ἐν Ἀντιγόνῃ τὸν Κρέοντα ὁ Αἵμων.]

τὸ δὲ πρᾶξαι δεύτερον.

βέλτιον δὲ τὸ ἀγνοοῦντα μὲν πρᾶξαι, πράξαντα δὲ ἀναγνωρίσαι· τό τε γὰρ μικρὸν οὐ πρόσεστι, καὶ ἡ ἀναγνώρισις ἐκπληκτικόν.

κράτιστον δὲ τὸ τελευταῖον, λέγω δὲ οἷον ἐν τῷ Κρεσφόντῃ ἡ Μερόπη μέλλει τὸν υἱὸν ἀποκτείνειν, ἀποκτείνει δὲ οὐ ἀλλ᾽ ἀνεγνώρισεν, καὶ ἐν τῇ Ἰφιγενείᾳ ἡ ἀδελφὴ τὸν ἀδελφόν, καὶ ἐν τῇ Ελλῃ ὁ υἱὸς τὴν μητέρα ἐκ διδόναι μέλλων ἀνεγνώρισεν.

διὰ γὰρ τοῦτο, ὅπερ πάλαι τοεἴρηται, οὐ περὶ πολλὰ γένη αἱ τραγῳδίαι εἰσίν. ζητοῦντες γὰρ οὐκ ἀπὸ τέχνης ἀλλ᾽ ἀπὸ τύχης εὗρον τὸ τοιοῦτον παρασκευάζειν ἐν τοῖς μύθοις· ἀναγκάζονται οὖν ἐπὶ ταύτας τὰς οἰκίας ἀπαντᾶν, ὅσαις τὰ τοιαῦτα συμβέβηκε πάθη.

περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς τῶν πραγμάτων συστάσεως, καὶ ποίους τινὰς εἶναι δεῖ τοὺς μύθους, εἴρηται ἱκανῶς.

Translations (13)

Poetics (W. H. Fyfe) (OCR draft) Perseus (William Hamilton Fyfe's English translation of Aristotle's Poetics, Loeb Classical Library, 1939 printing.) — 14 focus

1453b 1 Fear and pity sometimes result from the spectacle and are sometimes aroused by the actual arrangement of the incidents, which is preferable and the mark of a better poet.

The plot should be so constructed that even without seeing the play anyone hearing of the incidents happening thrills with fear and pity as a result of what occurs. So would anyone feel who heard the story of Oedipus.

To produce this effect by means of an appeal to the eye is inartistic and needs adventitious aid,

while those who by such means produce an effect which is not fearful but merely monstrous have nothing in common with tragedy.¹ For one should not seek from tragedy all kinds of pleasure but that which is peculiar to tragedy,

and since the poet must by representation produce the pleasure which comes from feeling pity and fear, obviously this quality must be embodied in the incidents.

We must now decide what incidents seem dreadful or rather pitiable. Such must necessarily be the actions of friends to each other or of enemies or of people that are neither.

Now if an enemy does it to an enemy, there is nothing pitiable either in the deed or the intention,

except so far as the actual calamity goes.

Nor would there be if they were neither friends nor enemies. But when these calamities happen among friends, 20 when for instance brother kills brother, or son father, or mother son, or son mother—either kills or intends to kill, or does something of the kind, that is what we must look for.

Now it is not right to break up the traditional stories, I mean, for instance, Clytaemnestra being killed by Orestes and Eriphyle by Alcmaeon,

but the poet must show invention and make a skilful use of the tradition.

But we must state more clearly what is meant by skilful.

The action may happen in the way in which the old dramatists made their characters act—consciously and knowing the facts, as Euripides² also made his Medea kill her children.

Or they may do the deed but without realizing the horror of it and then discover the relationship afterwards, like Oedipus in Sophocles. That indeed lies outside the play,³ but an example of this in the tragedy itself is the Alcmaeon of Astydamas⁴ or Telegonus in the Wounded Odysseus.

A third alternative is to intend to do some irremediable action in ignorance and to discover the truth before doing it.

Besides these there is no other way, for they must either do the deed or not, either knowing or unknowing.

The worst of these is to intend the action with full knowledge and not to perform it. That outrages the feelings and is not tragic, for there is no calamity. 1454a 1 So nobody does that, except occasionally, as, for instance, Haemon and Creon⁵ in the Antigone.

Next comes the doing of the deed.

It is better to act in ignorance and discover afterwards. Our feelings are not outraged and the discovery is startling.

Best of all is the last; in the Cresphontes,⁶ for instance, Merope intends to kill her son and does not kill him but discovers; and in the Iphigeneia⁷ the case of the sister and brother; and in the Helle⁸ the son discovers just as he is on the point of giving up his mother.

So this is the reason, as was said above,⁹ why tragedies are about a few families. For in their experiments it was from no technical knowledge but purely by chance that they found out how to produce such an effect in their stories. So they are obliged to have recourse to those families in which such calamities befell.¹⁰

Now concerning the structure of the incidents and the proper character of the plots enough has been said.

Arabic Poetics (Badawī edition, 1953) (OCR draft) (The ancient Arabic translation of Aristotle's Poetics in ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Badawī's 1953 edition.) — 14 focus

〈الخوف والإشفاق؛ تصادق الشخصيات؛ التزام عمود الشعر〉

فأما كون الذى للخوف والحزن فانما يحصل من البصر، وقد يوجد شىء ما من قوام الأمور ما هو منذ قديم الدهر وهو لشاعر حاذق. وقد ينبغى أن تقوم الخرافة على هذا النحو من غير إبصار حتى يكون السامع للأمور يفزع وينتهى ويناله حزن عندما يسمع خرافة أوريفيدس من النوائب التى ينفعل بها الإنسان، وإن كان ذلك الشاعر إنما أصلح هذا بالبصر، وعلى أنه بلا صناعة وما هو محتاج إلى مادة.

ومنهم من يعد بالبصر لا التى هى للخوف، لكن التى هى للتعجب فقط، من حيث لا يشاركون صناعة المديح بشىء من الأشياء، وذلك أنه ليس ينبغى أن يطلب من صناعة المديح كل لذة، لكن التناسب. فأما فى تلك التى يعدها الشاعر بالمحاكاة التى تكون بسبب اللذة من غير حزن وخوف فهو معلوم؛ فاذن هذه الخلة ينبغى أن يفعلها فى الأمر...

وهى أن نأخذ أيما هى الأشياء غير الصعبة من النوائب التى تنوب، وأيما هى التى يرى أنها يسيرة.

وذلك أنه قد يجب ضرورةً أن تكون مثل هذه الأفعال الإرادية إما للأصدقاء بعضهم إلى بعض، وأما للأعداء، وإما لا لهؤلاء ولا لهؤلاء. فان كان إنما يكون العدو يعادى عدوه، فليس شىء فى هذه الحال مما يخزن، لا عندما يفعل ولا عندما يكون مزمعاً على أن يفعل. غير أن فى التأثير نفسه والألم لا يكون حالهم أيضاً ولا على أن كانت حالهم حال الاختلاف. وأما متى اختار التأثيرات والآلام فى المحبات والمحبين، بمنزلة إما أن يكون أخ يقتل الأخ، أو ابن للأب، أو أم لابنها، أو ابن لأمه، أو كان مزمعاً أن يفعل شيئاً آخر من مثل هذه، فقد يحتاج فى مثل ذلك إلى هذه الخلة، وهو أن تكون الخرافات التى قد أخذت على هذه لا تحل ولا تبطل، وأعنى بذلك مثل أنه ليس لأحد يبطل من أمر المرأة المعروفة بأقلوطيمسطر أنه لم تنلها المنية من أورسسطس، ولا للمعروفة بأريفيلى من ألقيماون، وأما هو فقد يجد[ه] أيضاً الأشياء التى أفيدت أنها قد استعملت على جهة جيدة. ولنخبر معنى قولنا إنا نقول قولاً على جهة الجودة إخباراً أوضح وأشرح.

فالفعل الإرادى تكون حاله هذه الحال، كما كانوا القدماء يفعلون ويعلمون المعروفين، كما فعل أوريفيدس عند قتل المرأة المسماة ميديا بنيها. وأما معنى ألا يفعل بالإرادة عندما يعرفون وأن يفعلوا من حيث لا يعرفون، ثم يعرفون المحبة والصادقة خيراً فهو حال رديئة، وهذا كحال سوفقلس وأوديفس. فهذه هى خارجة عن القينة نفسها، وأما ما هو فى المديح فبمنزلة القاماون واسطودامنطس، أو حيث يقول على نحو الضربة لأودوسيس.

وأيضاً التى هى ثالثة نحو هذه؛ فهى أمر ذلك الذى كان مزمعاً أن يفعل شيئاً من هذه التى لا برء لها، فانه يدل قبل أن يفعل بسبب فقد الدربة والمعرفة ولأشياء خارجاً عن هذه تجرى على جهة أخرى. وذلك أنه قد يجب ضرورةً إما أن يفعل، وإما ألا يفعل. وإذا فعل فاما أن يفعل وهو عارف، وإما أن يفعل وهو غير عارف، بل مزمع بأن يعرف.

وأيضاً أما للذين يعرفون، وأما للذين لا يعرفون. فمن كان من هؤلاء لا يعرف وهو يعى ولا يفعل فهو أرذل، وذلك أن نشيده حينئذ هو بشع كريهً، وليس هو داخلا فى باب المدح، من قبل أنه قد كان اعتبر. ولذلك ليس إنسان أن يفعل على جهة التشابه إلا أقل ذاك، بمنزلة ما «بأنطيغونى» 〈من موقف هايمون بازاء قريون〉. وأما معنى أن يفعل بالارادة فهو الثانى: والخير لمن هو غير عارف بأن يفعل أن يكون إذا فعل أن يتعرف، وذلك أن الكراهة حينئذ والبشاعة لا يدانيانه؛ وأما الاستدلال والتعرف فهو أعجب وأجود.

وما 〈هو〉 أصلح وأجود 〈هو〉 ما يروى، أعنى ما كان فى الموضع المسمى «كرسفنطس» من المرأة المسماة ميروفا، فيما كانت مستعدة لقتل أحد بنيها، إلا أنها لم تقتله، لكن تعرفت فى الموضع المعروف «بايفيغانيا» 〈أنها〉 أخت لأخيها؛ وتعرف، فى الموضع المسمى «ايلى»، الابن أمه، وتعرفها عندما كان يريد إنشاداً ورواية.

فلهذا السبب عندما تفوهت وتكلم بها، أعنى بالمدائح، منذ قديم الدهر ليست عند أجناس كثيرة ويباحث عنها، لا من الصناعة، لكن من أى حال كانت مما وجدوا وأعدوها بالخرافات، فقد يضطرون أن ينقلوا هذه فى مثل هذه التأثيرات والآلام التى تعرض لها بحسب الخواص.

وأما فى قوام الأمور، وكيف ينبغى أن يكون الذين يركبون الخرافات، فقد قيل قولا كافياً.

Poetics (S. H. Butcher, 1911) (OCR draft) Experimental (S. H. Butcher's English translation from Aristotle's Theory of Poetry and Fine Art, fourth edition, 1911.) — 14 focus

Fear and pity may be aroused by spectacular means;
but they may also result from the inner structure of the
piece, which is the better way, and indicates a superior
poet.

For the plot ought to be so constructed that, even without
the aid of the eye, he who hears the tale told will thrill
with horror and melt to pity at what takes place.
This is the impression we should receive from hearing
the story of the Oedipus.

But to produce this effect by the mere spectacle is a
less artistic method, and dependent on extraneous aids.

Those who employ spectacular means to create a sense
not of the terrible but only of the monstrous, are strangers
to the purpose of Tragedy;
for we must not demand of Tragedy any and every kind
of pleasure, but only that which is proper to it.

And since the pleasure which the poet should afford is
that which comes from pity and fear through imitation,
it is evident that this quality must be impressed upon the
incidents.

Let us then determine what are the circumstances which
strike us as terrible or pitiful.

Actions capable of this effect must happen between
persons who are either friends or enemies or indifferent
to one another.
If an enemy kills an enemy, there is nothing to excite
pity either in the act or the intention,—except so far as
the suffering in itself is pitiful.

So again with indifferent persons.

But when the tragic incident occurs between those who
are near or dear to one another—if, for example, a brother
kills, or intends to kill, a brother, a son his father, a mother
her son, a son his mother, or any other deed of the kind
is done—these are the situations to be looked for by the
poet.

He may not indeed destroy the framework of the received
legends—the fact, for instance, that Clytemnestra was slain
by Orestes and Eriphyle by Alcmaeon—

but he ought to show invention of his own, and skilfully
handle the traditional material.
Let us explain more clearly what is meant by skilful handling.

The action may be done consciously and with knowledge
of the persons, in the manner of the older poets.
It is thus too that Euripides makes Medea slay her children.

Or, again, the deed of horror may be done, but done in
ignorance, and the tie of kinship or friendship be discovered
afterwards.
The Oedipus of Sophocles is an example. Here, indeed, the
incident is outside the drama proper; but cases occur where
it falls within the action of the play: one may cite the
Alcmaeon of Astydamas, or Telegonus in the Wounded Odysseus.

Again, there is a third case,—
knowledge of the persons and then not to act. The fourth
case is> when some one is about to do an irreparable deed
through ignorance, and makes the discovery before it is done.

These are the only possible ways. For the deed must
either be done or not done, and that wittingly or unwittingly.

But of all these ways, to be about to act knowing the
persons, and then not to act, is the worst.
It is shocking without being tragic, for no disaster follows.

It is, therefore, never, or very rarely, found in poetry.
One instance, however, is in the Antigone, where Haemon
threatens to kill Creon.
The next and better way is that the deed should be perpetrated.

Still better, that it should be perpetrated in ignorance,
and the discovery made afterwards.
There is then nothing to shock us, while the discovery
produces a startling effect.

The last case is the best, as when in the Cresphontes
Merope is about to slay her son, but, recognising who he is,
spares his life.
So in the Iphigenia, the sister recognises the brother just
in time.
Again in the Helle, the son recognises the mother when on
the point of giving her up.

This, then, is why a few families only, as has been already
observed, furnish the subjects of tragedy.
It was not art, but happy chance, that led the poets in
search of subjects to impress the tragic quality upon their
plots.
They are compelled, therefore, to have recourse to those
houses whose history contains moving incidents like these.

Enough has now been said concerning the structure of
the incidents, and the right kind of plot.

Aristotle on the Art of Poetry (Ingram Bywater, 1909) (OCR draft) Experimental (Ingram Bywater's English translation of Aristotle's Poetics, published in 1909.) — 14 focus

The tragic fear and pity may be aroused by the Spectacle;
but they may also be aroused by the very structure and
incidents of the play—which is the better way and shows
the better poet.

The Plot in fact should be so framed
that, even without seeing the things take place, he who
simply hears the account of them shall be filled with horror
and pity at the incidents; which is just the effect that the
mere recital of the story in Oedipus would have on one.

To produce this same effect by means of the Spectacle is
less artistic, and requires extraneous aid.

Those, however,
who make use of the Spectacle to put before us that
which is merely monstrous and not productive of fear, are
wholly out of touch with Tragedy; not every kind of
pleasure should be required of a tragedy, but only its own
proper pleasure.

The tragic pleasure is that of pity and
fear, and the poet has to produce it by a work of imitation;
it is clear, therefore, that the causes should be included in
the incidents of his story.

Let us see, then, what kinds of
incident strike one as horrible, or rather as piteous.
In a
deed of this description the parties must necessarily be either
friends, or enemies, or indifferent to one another.

Now when
enemy does it on enemy, there is nothing to move us to
pity either in his doing or in his meditating the deed, except
so far as the actual pain of the sufferer is concerned;

and
the same is true when the parties are indifferent to one
another.

Whenever the tragic deed, however, is done within
the family—when murder or the like is done or meditated
by brother on brother, by son on father, by mother on son,
or son on mother—these are the situations the poet should
seek after.

The traditional stories, accordingly, must be
kept as they are, e.g. the murder of Clytaemnestra by
Orestes and of Eriphyle by Alcmeon.

At the same time
even with these there is something left to the poet himself;
it is for him to devise the right way of treating them.
Let
us explain more clearly what we mean by 'the right way.'

The deed of horror may be done by the doer knowingly
and consciously, as in the old poets, and in Medea's murder
of her children in Euripides.

Or he may do it, but in
ignorance of his relationship, and discover that afterwards,
as does the Oedipus in Sophocles. Here the deed is outside
the play; but it may be within it, like the act of the Alcmeon
in Astydamas, or that of the Telegonus in Ulysses Wounded.

A third possibility is for one meditating some deadly
injury to another, in ignorance of his relationship, to make
the discovery in time to draw back.

These exhaust the
possibilities, since the deed must necessarily be either done
or not done, and either knowingly or unknowingly.

The worst situation is when the personage is with full
knowledge on the point of doing the deed, and leaves it
undone. It is odious and also (through the absence of
suffering) untragic;
hence it is that no one is made to
act thus except in some few instances, e. g. Haemon and
Creon in Antigone.

Next after this comes the actual per-
petration of the deed meditated.

A better situation than
that, however, is for the deed to be done in ignorance,
and the relationship discovered afterwards, since there is
nothing odious in it, and the Discovery will serve to
astound us.

But the best of all is the last; what we have
in Cresphontes, for example, where Merope, on the point
of slaying her son, recognizes him in time; in Iphigenia,
where sister and brother are in a like position; and in
Helle, where the son recognizes his mother, when on the
point of giving her up to her enemy.

This will explain why
our tragedies are restricted (as we said just now) to such
a small number of families. It was accident rather than art
that led the poets in quest of subjects to embody this kind
of incident in their Plots. They are still obliged, accordingly,
to have recourse to the families in which such horrors have
occurred.

On the construction of the Plot, and the kind of Plot
required for Tragedy, enough has now been said.

The Poetic of Aristotle (Henry James Pye, revised 1792) (OCR draft) Experimental (Henry James Pye's revised 1792 English translation, corrected against the 1788 first edition, aligned to the Kassel reference edition, and supplied with a selective apparatus of substantive 1788 readings.) — 14.3 focus

But to effect this by means of the representation only, is very unskilful and requires the assistance of the manager of the theatre.

The Poetic of Aristotle (Theodore Alois Buckley) (OCR draft) Experimental (Theodore Alois Buckley's English translation, first published in 1850 and represented from the Henry G. Bohn 1857 printing; corrected against a second OCR and aligned to the Kassel reference passage sequence.) — 14.3 focus

but that which is appropriate. ¹ Since, however, it is necessary that the poet should procure pleasure from pity and fear through imitation, it is evident that this must be effected by the circumstances.

Poetica Latine conversa (Franciscus Ritter, 1839) (OCR draft) Experimental (Franz Ritter's Latin translation, corrected against OCR of the represented copy and aligned to the conventional Perseus chapter-and-subchapter sequence.) — 14 focus

Ac potest quod timendum et miserandum ex adspectu nasci, potest etiam ex ipsa compositione factorum, quod est potius et poetae melioris.

oportet enim etiam sine spectatione ita constitutam esse fabulam, ut qui audiat quae agantur fiantque et inhorrescat et misereatur propter ea quae contingunt; id quod acciderit audienti Oedipi fabulam.

spectatione autem hoc parare et ab arte magis alienum et choregia indiget.

qui vero ne quod timendum quidem per spectationem sed nonnisi quod portentosum comparant, nihil cum tragoedia negotii habent: non enim convenit quamcumque voluptatem exigere a tragoedia, sed quae sit propria.

quoniam autem ex miseratione et timore vuluptatem per imitationem debet comparare poeta, hoc factis inserendum esse manifestum est, quae igitur timenda quaeve miseranda sint ex iis quae accidunt, dispiciamus.

necesse autem est aut amicorum inter sese esse tales actiones aut inimicorum aut neutrorum.

quod si inimicus inimicum occidat, nihil quod miserandum neque dum facit neque dum facturus est exhibet, nisi quod ad ipsam perpessionem attinet;

neque qui neutro modo sese habent.

verum cum in amicitiis atrocia acciderint, veluti si frater fratrem vel filius patrem vel mater filium vel filius matrem occidat vel in eo est ut occidat vel aliud huiuscemodi committat, haec consectanda sunt.

ac quas accepimus fabulas, solvere eas non licet, veluti Clytemnestram peremptam ab Oreste et Eriphylam ab Alcmaeone:

ipsum vero invenire decet, et traditis recte uti. sed illud recte quid intelligamus, clarius dicamus..

potest enim sic fieri actio ut veteres instituebant, a scientibus et intelligentibus, quemadmodum etiam Euripides fecit occidentem liberos Medeam:

possunt porro admisisse, sed nescientes sese admisisse quod horrendum, et postea agnoscere cognationem, ut Sophoclis Oedipus. hoc quidem extra fabulam, in ipsa autem tragoedia, ut Alcmaeo Astydamantis vel Telegonus qui in vulnerato Ulixe.

praeter haec tertium etiam, ut qui facturus est per ignorantiam aliquid inexpiabile agnoscat ante facinus perpatratum.

ac praeter haec haud licet aliter: aut enim oportet facere aut non, et scientes aut non scientes.

ex his vero scientem facturum esse et non facere pessimum: habet enim quod foedum, tragicum non habet: quippe atroci malo caret. [quare nemo similiter agit, nisi raro,

ut in Antigona in Creontem Haemo.] perpatrare secundum est.

melius autem nescientem patrare et post facinus agnoscere: abest enim foedum, et agnitio ad percellendum facit.

optimum vero postremum; hoc dico, ut in Cresphonte Meropa in eo est ut occidat filium, non autem occidit sed agnovit, et in Iphigenia soror fratrem, et in Hella filius dum matrem tradere intendit agnovit.

nam propter hanc causam, quod pridem dictum, non circa multas gentes tragoediae versantur. dispicientes enim non arte sed casu tale quid in fabulis instituere didicerunt: coguntur igitur ad has familias animum appellere, quibus eiusmodi calamitates acciderunt.

iam de factorum compositione, et quales esse fabulas deceat, satis dictum est.

La poëtique d'Aristote (André Dacier, 1692) (OCR draft) Experimental (André Dacier's French translation of Aristotle's Poetics, published in 1692.) — 14.3 focus

Or de vouloir exciter ces deux paſſions par les yeux, c'est-à-dire, par le moyen du ſpectacle, c'eſt à quoy l'adreſſe du Poëte n'a point de part, cela dépend bien plus de ceux qui fourniſſent les décorations, & qui font toute la dépenſe du Theatre.

2.

Poetica d'Aristotile (Bernardo Segni, 1549) (OCR draft) Experimental (Bernardo Segni's 1549 Florentine Italian translation, aligned to the Kassel reference passage sequence.) — 14 focus

VO adúche il Terribile, & il Cópaſsioneuole Puerfi mediante la viſta, & puofsi muomuouere mediante la compoſitione d'effe faccende; & queſto modo va innanzi, & è da miglior Poeta.¹

Perchè egli è di necefsità, che la Fauola ſia in tal modo cópoſta, che chi ode i caſi ſucceſsí ſenza altrimenti vedergli, ſi ſpauenti, & n'habbia mifericordia;i quali due affetti accaggiono à chi ode il cafo d'Edippo.

Che inuero il mouergli per -uia della viſta manca d'artificio, & ha biſogno di ſpeſa.

Et quegli, che nó muouono ſpauéto per uia dello aſpet to, ma che ſolamente vanno preparando coſe prodigio ſe, non hanno con la Tragedia à far nulla; cóciofia che da lei non ſi debba ricercare di qual ſi voglia maniera piacere:ma quello, che è ſuo propio.

Et perchè il Poeta debbe ire preparando quello, che per via della imita tione naſce dal timor & dalla mifericordia;però è mani feſto, che questo coſi fatto ſi debbe fingere in effe Fauo de.

Ma prédiamo à dire quali fieno i caſi, ch'appariſcono ſpauentofi, & qualı fien' quegli, che appariſcono compafsioneuoli. E' cominciado, di neceſsità che l'attions, che s'appartengono alla Tragedia, vi interuenghino ò infra amici l'ano con l'altrojò infra i nimici, ò infra que iii gli, che non habbino nè l'una nè l'altra qualità.

Se adun che il nimico vi amazza l'altro nimico, vn ſimil caſo ne muoue à mifericordia, ne la può muouere;

infuori che con la confideratione d'eſſa crudeltà.

Queſto ſimil auuerrà, doue tali caſi interuenghino infra quegli, che non ſieno nè nell'uno, nè nell'altro modo diſpoſti. Ma quando i fatti crudeli interuerranno infra gli amici, co me è doue l'un fratello dall'altro, il padre dal figliuolo, & il figliuolo dalla madre ſia, ò debba eſſere ammazzato;ò patiſca,ò debba patire alcun' danno. Queſti, dico, ſono li caſi, che nella Tragedia ſi debbon' mettere.

Ma e' non è già lecito di tramutare le Fauole, che ſono ſtate gia riceuute, come è Clitemneſtra ammazzata da Orefte, & Erifile da Algmeone; anzi al Poeta ſta bene trouar' da ſe delle inuentioni: & le già riceuute vſar rettamente.

Quello che io intenda per Réttamente, dirò io con piu chiarezza. E' ſi può, dico, fare che e'ſegua vna coſa (& ciò fu dagli antichi Poeti offeruato) come ſeguita da chi ſappia, & da chi conoſca quello, che egli ha fatto.

Nel qual modo è da Euripide introdotta Medea, che ammazza i figliuoli. Puoſsi anchora fare, che e' fr commetta vna crudeltà da chi non ſappia quello, che e' fi fa,& che tale l'operi ; & doppo il fatto riconoſca l'amicitia: ſicome è l'Edippo di Sofocle.

Ma queſto caſo è fuori della Tragedia. Et nella Tragedia ſteſſa è come l'Algmeone d'Aſtidamante, & come è Telegono nella Tragedia chiamata Vliſſe ferito. Ecci anchora vn terzo modo da poter' mettere queſte coſe in atto, cioè che vno voglia ben cometterle, nonſappiendole; & innanzi che e' l'habbia commeſſe, ricanoſca contro à chi e' voleua farle:

nè altro modo ci è, fuori de' conti. Conciofia che egli è di neceſsità, che e' ſegua,ò non ſegua un ſimil caſo.

Et queſto medefimo dinuouo è di neceſsità che ſia fatto, ò da chi lo ſappia, ò da chi non lo fappia.

De' quali caſi quello è cattiuiffimo, che ſi tenta da chi fa quello, che e' fa, & non fi manda ad effetto; perchè e' u'è dentro la ſceleterezza, & non v'è dentro il tragico: concioſia che e' non muo ua gli affetti.

Onde neſſun' Poeta l'introduce in ſimil modo, ſenon rade uolte;

ſicome nello Antigone fece Emone di Creonte. Et nel ſecódo luogo di cattiuità fi mette quel caſo, che commette la ſceleratezza, & fa di commetterla.

Ma egli è molto meglio, che ella ſia commeſſa da chi non ſa quello, che e' fi faccia; & che doppo il fatto e' la riconoſca: perchè tal caſo manca di ſceleraggine; & la ricognitione, che vi è détro, muoue grandemente gli affetti. L'ultimo caſo ha l'intero artifitio, come è, dico, nella Tragedia detta Clesfonte; doue Merope douédo ammazzare il figliuolo, non l'ammazza, ma lo riconoſce: & nella Ifigenia la forella il fratello: & in Helle il figliuolo douendo mandar via la madre, la riconoſce.

Diqui naſce (fi come io ho detto diſopra) che le buone Tragedie ſi fanno intorno à poche famiglie, perchè i Poeti ricercando l'inuentione non dall'arte, ma accattandola dalla fortuna, hanno per queſta via intrecciato le Fauole; onde fono eglino Aati conſtretti à dar di cozzo nelle famiglie medeſime; in tutte quelle, dico, doue fimili coſe interuennono.

Sia detto adunche infin' qui à baſtanza quanto alla conftitutione della Fauola; & di che forte, & in che modo ella dabba ſtare.

De poetica (Antonio Riccobono, 1587) (OCR draft) Experimental (Antonio Riccobono's Latin translation, first published in 1587; text represented from Immanuel Bekker's 1831 edition.) — 14 focus

Ac licet quidem terribile et miserabile ex apparatu fieri, licet vero etiam ex ipsa constitutione; id quod prius est et poëtae melioris.

oportet enim etiam sine visu fabulam sic constitutam esse, nt ut audiens res quae fiunt, et horreat et misereatur ex iis quae contingunt.

in quas perturbationes cadet ille qui Oedipodis fabulam audiat.

efficere autem hoc per apparatum est magis artificii expers, et sumptus requirit. atque qui non solum terribile per apparatum sed monstruosum efficiunt, nihil commune habent cum tra- goedia tragoedia: non enim omnem a tragoedia oportet voluptatem quaerere, sed propriam.

quoniam vero ex misericordia et metu per imitationem poëtam efficere oportet voluptatem, id in rebus efficiendum esse manifestum est.

qualia igitur atrocia aut qualia miserabilia appareant, ex iis assumamus quae contingunt. necesse autem est aut amicorum esse inter se tales actiones, aut inimicorum, aut neutrorum.

quodsi inimicus inimicum occiderit, nihil miserabile, neque dum facit neque dum facturus est, monstrat,

praeterquam in illa ipsa perturbatione.

neque qui se neutro modo habent. quando autem in amicitiis sunt perturbationes, ut si frater fratrem aut filius patrem aut mater filium aut filius matrem occiderit aut occisurus fuerit ant aut tale aliquid aliud faciat, haec quaerere oportet.

ac receptas quidem fabulas solvere non licet: dico autem ut Clytaemnestram occisam ab Oreste et Eriphylen ab Alcmaeone. ipsum vero invenire ac traditis recte uti oportet.

idque quod dicimus se recte habere, apertius exponamus. licet enim sic actionem fieri ut antiqui faciebant,

ut eam praestarent scientes et cognoscentes, quemadmodum occidentem filium Medeam Euripides fecit. at licet agere ita ut ignorantes rem agant atrocem,

postea vero amicitiam agno- scant agnoscant, ut Sophoclis Oedipus. atque hoc quidem extra actionem. in ipsa vero tragoedia, ut Alcmaeon Astydamantis vel Telegonus in vulnerato Ulysse.

praeterea tertium est, cum quis aliquid laevi propter ignorantiam facturus erat et priusquam faceret agnovit.

et praeter haec aliter non licet: aut enim facere necesse est aut non,

et scientes aut non scientes. horum autem pessimum est, cum quis facturus fuit et non fecit: sceleratum enim habet et non tragicum, nam sine affectu est.

quare nemo facit similiter nisi raro,

ut in An- tigona Antigona Creontem Haemon: nam fecisse secundum est. ac melius est ignorantem quidem fecisse, cum autem fecerit, agnovisse: sceleratum enim non adest,

agnitio stuporem gignit. optimum vero est postremum. dico autem ut in Cresphonte Merope interfectura quidem filium erat, sed cum agnovisset, non interfecit. et in Iphigenia soror fratrem. et in Helle filius matrem dediturus agnovit.

quapropter quod pridem dictum est, non circa multas sunt tragoe- diae tragoediae familias: quaerentes enim non ab arte sed a fortuna huiusmodi fabulae confectionem invenerunt; itaque ad has domos coguntur occurrere, quibuscunque tales contigerunt perturbationes.

ac de rerum constitutione, et quales fabulas esse oporteat, satis dictum est.

De arte poetica liber (William of Moerbeke, ca. 1277) (OCR draft) Experimental (William of Moerbeke's medieval Latin translation, represented by the 1953 Aristoteles Latinus edition.) — 14 focus

Est quidem igitur quod terribile et miserabile ex visu fieri, est autem et ex ipsa consistentia rerum, quod quidem est prius et poete melioris.

Oportet enim et sine videre sic consistere fabulam, ut audiens res gestas et terreatur et misereatur ex accidentibus ; que quidem utique patietur aliquis audiens Oidipi fabulam.

Per visum autem hoc preparare inartificialius et successu indigens est. —

Qui autem non terribile per visum sed monstruosum solum preparant, nichil tragodia communicant ; non enim omnem oportet querere delectationem a tragodia, sed convenientem. —

Quoniam autem eam que a miseratione et terrore per imitationem oportet delectationem preparare poetam, manifestum quod hoc in rebus faciendum.

Qualia igitur dira aut qualia miserabilia videntur evenientium, sumamus. — Necesse autem aut amicorum esse ad invicem tales actiones aut inimicorum aut neutrorum.

Si quidem igitur inimicus inimicum, nichil miserabile neque faciens neque facturus, preter quam secundum ipsam passionem ;

neque si neutro modo habentes;

quando autem in amicitiis ingeruntur passiones, puta aut frater fratrem aut filius patrem aut mater filium aut filius matrem occidit aut occidet aut aliquid aliud tale agit, hec querendum. —

Assumptas quidem igitur fabulas solvere non est, dico autem puta Klytemnistram morientem ab Oreste et Erifylem ab Alkmeone. —

Ipsam autem invenire oportet et traditis uti bene. Bene autem quid dicimus, dicamus planius. —

Est quidem enim sic fieri actionem, sicut antiqui poetizabant scientes et cognoscentes, sicut et Euripedes poetizavit interficere Medeam.

Est autem agere quidem ignorantes, ignorantes autem agere quod dirum, deinde posterius recognoscere amicitiam, sicut qui Sophocleis Oidipes ; extra quidem igitur hoc opus, aut quia dicentis qui in Tramatia Odyssei.

Est autem tertium preter hec futurum facere aliquid indecentium propter ignorantiam recognoscere ante agere.

Et preter hec non est aliter ' aut enim agere necesse aut non, et scientes aut non scientes.

Horum autem cognoscentem quidem futurum agere et non agere pessimum ; tunc enim odibile habet, et non tragicum ; inpassionale enim. Propter quod quidem nullus facit similiter nisi raro, puta in Antigone Kreontem Aimon.

Agere autem secundum.

Melius autem ignorantem quidem agere, postquam egit recognoscere. Tunc enim odibile non adest; et recognitio stupefactivum.

Optimum autem quod ultimum ; dico autem quale in Kresfonte Merope debebat filium interficere, interfecit autem non, sed recognovit, et in Ifigeneia soror fratrem, et in Elle filius matrem tradere debens recognovit. —

Propter hoc enim, quod quidem olim dictum est, non circa multa genera tragodie sunt. Querentes enim non ab arte sed a fortuna, invenerunt quod tale preparare in fabulis. Coguntur igitur ad has convenientes occurrere, quibuscumque tales acciderunt passiones.

De rerum quidem igitur consistentia et quales quasdam oportet esse fabulas, dictum est sufficienter.

Arabic Poetics (Abū Bishr Mattā; Tkatsch edition) (OCR draft) Experimental (The Arabic translation attributed to Abū Bishr Mattā, edited by Jaroslaus Tkatsch in 1928 and aligned to the Kassel reference passage sequence.) — 14 focus

‏فاما كون الذى للخوف والحزن فانما يحصل من البصر وقد يوجد شى ما من قوام الامور ما هو منذ قديم الدهر وهو لشاعر حاذق

‏وقد ينبغى ان تقوم الخرافة على هذا النحو من غير ابصار حتى يكون السامع للامور يفزع وٮٮٮهى ويناله حزن عند ما يسمع خرافة اوريڡٮدس من النوايب التى ينفعل بها الانسان

‏وان كان ذلك الشاعر انما اصلح هذا بالبصر وعلى انه بلا صناعة وما هو محتاج الى ماده

‏ومنهم من يعد بالبصر لا التى هى الخوف لكن التى هى للتعجب فقط من حيث لا يشاركون صناعة المديح بشى من الاشيا وذلك انه ليس ينبغى ان يطلب من صناعة المديح كل لذة لكن الٮٮاسٮ

‏فاما فى تلك التى يعدها الشاعر بالمحاكاة التى تكون بسبب اللذة من غير حزن وخوف فهو معلوم قادر هذه الخلة ينبغى ان يفعلها فى الامر

‏وهى ان ناخذ ايما هى الاشيا غير الصعبة من النوايب التى تنوب وايما هى التى ترى انها يسيرة وذلك انه قد يجب ضرورة ان يكون مثل هذه الافعال الارادية اما للاصدقا بعضهم الى بعض واما للاعدا واما لا لهولا ولا لهولا

‏فان كان انما يكون العدو يعادى عدوه فليس شى فى هذه الحال مما يحزن لا عند ما يفعل ولا عند ما يكون مزمعا على ان يفعل غير ان فى التاثير نفسه

‏والالم لا يكون حالهم ايضا ولا على ان كانت حالهم ايضا حال الاختلاف

‏واما متى احتار التاثيرات والالام فى المحبات [والمحبين] بمنزلة اما ان يكون اخ يقتل الاخ وابن للاٮا وام لابنها او ابن لامه او كان مزمعا ان يفعل شيا اخر من مثل هذه فقد يحتاج فى مثل ذلك الى هذه الخلة

‏وهو ان يكون الخرافات التى قد اخذت على هذه لا تحل وتبطل واعنى بذلك مثل انه ليس لاحد يبطل من امر المراة المعروفة باقلوطميسطر انه لم ينلها الميتة من اورسطس ولا للمعروفة بااريفيلى من القيماون

‏واما هو فقد يجده ايضا الاشيا التى افيدت انها قد استعملت على جهة جيدة ولتخبر معنى قولنا انا نقول قولا على جهة الجودة اخبارا اوضح واشرح

‏فالفعل الارادى يكون حاله هذه الحال كما كانوا القدما يفعلون ويعلمون المعروفين كما فعل اوريفيدس عند قتل المراة المسماة ميديا بنيها

‏واما معنى الا يفعل بالارادة عند ما يعرفون وان يفعلوا من حيث لا يعرفون ثم يعرفون المحبة والصادقة خيرا فهو حال ردية وهذا كحال سوقفلس واوديفس فهذه هى خارجة عن القينة نفسها واما ما هو فى المديح فبمنزلة القاماون واسطودامنطس او حٮٮ ٮقول على نحو الضربة لاودوسيس

‏وايضا التى هى ثالثة نحو هذه فهى امر ذلك الذى كان مزمعا ان يفعل شيا من هذه التى لا برو لها فانه يدل قبل ان يفعل بسبب فقد الدرية والمعرفة

‏ولا شيا خارجا عن هذه يجرى على جهة اخرى وذلك انه قد يجب ضرورة اما ان يفعل واما الا يفعل [واذا فعل فاما ان يفعل وهو عارف واما ان يفعل وهو غير عارف بل مزمع بان يعرف] وايضا اما للذين يعرفون واما للذين لا يعرفون

‏فمن كان من هولا يعرف وهو ٮعى ولا يفعل فهو ارذل وذلك ان نشيده حينيذ هو شنع كريه وليس هو داخلا فى باب المدح من قبل انه قد كان اعتبر ولذلك ليس انسان ان يفعل على جهة التشابه الا اقل ذاك بمنزلة ما ٮاٮ طىعوٮى لقريو يمن

‏واما معنى ان يفعل بالارادة هو الثانى

‏والخير لمن هو غير عارف بان يفعل ان يكون اذا فعل ان يتعرف وذلك ان الكراهة حينيذ والشناعة لا يدانيانه واما الاستدلال والتعرف فهو اعجب [واجود]

‏وما اصلح واجود ما يروى اعنى ما كان فى الموضع المسمى اسڡٮلوٯٮطس من المراة المسمى ميروا فيما كانت مستعدة لقتل احد بنيها الا انها لم تقتله لكن تعرفت فى الموضع المعروف ٮااٮٮعاٮٮا اخت لاخيها وتعرف فى الموضع المسما ايلى الابن امه وتعرفها عند ما كان يريد انشادا ورواية

‏فلهذا السبب عند ما تفوهت وتكلم بها اعنى بالمدايح منذ قديم الدهر ليست عند اجناس كثيرة ويباحث عنها لا من الصناعة لكن من اى حال كانت من ما وجدوا واعدوها بالخرافات فقد يضطرون ان ٮٮٯلوا هذه فى مثل هذه التاثيرات والالام التى تعرض لها بحسب الخواص

‏واما فى قوام الامور وكيف ينبغى ان يكون الذين يركبون الخرافات فقد قيل قولا كافيا

Arabic Poetics (Abū Bishr Mattā; Tkatsch edition, unaligned) (OCR draft) Experimental (Tkatsch's edition of the medieval Arabic translation in its original, unaligned segmentation.) — 14 focus

‏وقد ينبغى ان تقوم الخرافة على هذا النحو من غير ابصار حتى يكون السامع للامور يفزع وٮٮٮهى ويناله حزن عند ما يسمع خرافة اوريڡٮدس

‏من النوايب التى ينفعل بها الانسان وان كان ذلك الشاعر انما اصلح هذا بالبصر وعلى انه بلا صناعة وما هو محتاج الى ماده

‏وهى ان ناخذ ايما هى الاشيا غير الصعبة من النوايب التى تنوب وايما هى التى ترى انها يسيرة

‏وذلك انه قد يجب ضرورة ان يكون مثل هذه الافعال الارادية اما للاصدقا بعضهم الى بعض واما للاعدا واما لا لهولا ولا لهولا

‏فان كان انما يكون العدو يعادى عدوه فليس شى فى هذه الحال مما يحزن لا عند ما يفعل ولا عند ما يكون مزمعا على ان يفعل غير ان فى التاثير نفسه والالم لا يكون حالهم ايضا ولا على ان كانت حالهم ايضا حال الاختلاف

‏ولتخبر معنى قولنا انا نقول قولا على جهة الجودة اخبارا اوضح واشرح

‏فالفعل الارادى يكون حاله هذه الحال كما كانوا القدما يفعلون ويعلمون المعروفين كما فعل اوريفيدس عند قتل المراة المسماة ميديا بنيها واما معنى الا يفعل بالارادة عند ما يعرفون وان يفعلوا من حيث لا يعرفون ثم يعرفون المحبة والصادقة خيرا فهو حال ردية وهذا كحال سوقفلس واوديفس

‏فهذه هى خارجة عن القينة نفسها واما ما هو فى المديح فبمنزلة القاماون واسطودامنطس او حٮٮ ٮقول على نحو الضربة لاودوسيس

‏فمن كان من هولا يعرف وهو ٮعى ولا يفعل فهو ارذل وذلك ان نشيده حينيذ هو شنع كريه وليس هو داخلا فى باب المدح من قبل انه قد كان اعتبر

‏ولذلك ليس انسان ان يفعل على جهة التشابه الا اقل ذاك بمنزلة ما ٮاٮ طىعوٮى لقريو يمن

‏واما معنى ان يفعل بالارادة هو الثانى

‏فلهذا السبب عند ما تفوهت وتكلم بها اعنى بالمدايح منذ قديم الدهر ليست عند اجناس كثيرة

‏ويباحث عنها لا من الصناعة لكن من اى حال كانت من ما وجدوا واعدوها بالخرافات فقد يضطرون ان ٮٮٯلوا هذه فى مثل هذه التاثيرات والالام التى تعرض لها بحسب الخواص

‏واما فى قوام الامور وكيف ينبغى ان يكون الذين يركبون الخرافات فقد قيل قولا كافيا

Notes on the current edition

Poetics

1. Among other public offices, which the wealthier citizens of Athens were, by turns, called upon to discharge, was that of the Choragi, who were obliged, at their own expence, to provide a chorus, dresses, and, perhaps, scenes, and the whole deco-ration of theatrical exhibitions.

Commentary

Commentary on the Poetics (Ingram Bywater, 1909) (OCR draft) (Ingram Bywater's English commentary on Aristotle's Poetics.) focus

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-481

ὁρᾶν: i. e. ὁρᾶν τὰ πράγματα γινόμενα.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-482

1453b 11 φρίττειν denotes the cold shudder ( φρίκη: v. W. H. Thompson on Plato Phaedr. 251 A) experienced in moments of intense fear or horror. This may arise even from the mere thought of something horrible: De motu an. 7, 701 b 22

διὸ καὶ φρίττουσι καὶ φοβοῦνται

. νοήσαντες μόνον. And it is often said to arise from what one hears: Aeschylus Ag. 1242

τὴν μὲν Θυέστου δαῖτα παιδείων κρεῶν ξυνήκα καὶ πέφρικα.

— Sophocles El. 1408

ἤκουσ᾽ ἀνήκουστα δύστανος ὥστε φρίξαι.

— Trach. 1044

κλύουσ᾽ ἔφριξα.

— Plato Rep. 387 C

τὰ περὶ ταῦτα ὀνόματα πάντα τὰ δεινά τε καὶ φοβερὰ ἀποβλητέα, Κωκυτούς τε καὶ Στύγας καὶ ἐνέρους καὶ ἀλίβαντας καὶ ἄλλα ὅσα τούτου τοῦ τύπου ὀνομαζόμενα φρίττειν δὴ ποιεῖ ὡς οἴεται πάντας τοὺς ἀκούοντας.

1453b 13

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-483

ἀτεχνότερον: see on 6, 1450 b 17. In such instances the effect depends too much on the σκευοποιός (or costumier), and too little on the poet himself.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-484

χορηγίας. The word has been taken to mean 'adminiculum' ( Valla), 'impendium' ( Paccius), 'choragi opera et sumptus' ( Heinsius), 'suppeditatio aliena' ( Tyrwhitt), 'expensive apparatus' ( Twining, Hermann), 'apparatus' ( L. and S.), and 'Unterstützung durch äussere Mittel' ( Ueberweg, after Vahlen, Beitr. 2 p. 20). This last rendering, which is practically the same as Tyrwhitt's, is probably right. It aptly points the contrast between the means supplied by the poet himself, and those which are outside his art and have to be furnished by others; and it is also in accordance with Aristotle's use of χορηγία and χορηγεῖν in the Ethics and Politics (v. Bon. Ind. 852 b 52 and 60). Thus in Eth. N. 10. 8, 1178 b 24 he says

τῆς ἐκτὸς χορηγίας ἐπὶ μικρὸν ἢ ἐπ᾿ ἔλαττον δεῖται

(scil. ἡ τοῦ νοῦ ἀρετή), and in 1. 11, 1101 a 15 (comp. 10. 9, 1179 a 11 )

τὸν κατ᾿ ἀρετὴν τελείαν ἐνεργοῦντα καὶ τοῖς ἐκτὸς ἀγαθοῖς ἱκανῶς κεχορηγημένον.

. More than one, however, of the recent interpreters of the Poetics seem to have assumed (with Heinsius) that in a discussion on matters theatrical χορηγία must be supposed to retain its original theatrical sense, that of the service of a choregus. The answer to this is that we constantly find Aristotle even in the Poetics using the technical terms of the theatre in the more general sense they had or had acquired in ordinary language. Instances of this are ἀγωνίζεσθαι (24, 1460 a 9), συναγωνίζεσθαι (18, 1456 a 26), πρωταγωνιστής (4, 1449 a 18), ἐπεισόδιον (17, 1455 a 23), ἐπεισοδιοῦν (17, 1455 b 1), ἐπεισοδιώδης (9, 1451 b 34), ἀπὸ μηχανῆς (15, 1454 b 2), ἐκ περιπετείας (16, 1454 b 29), ὑποκριτικά (20, 1457 a 21). It seems to be agreed too that the duties of the choregus were mainly, if not entirely, with the chorus, and that he had nothing to do with the make-up of the actors ( A. Müller, Gr. Bühnenalterthümer p. 336).

1453b 14

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-485

τὸ τερατῶδες. The reference here is to the appearance of certain of the more monstrous creations of Greek mythology. Such abnormal personages required on the stage a peculiar make-up and special masks: Pollux 4. 141

τὰ δὲ ἔκσκευα πρόσωπα Ἀκταίων ἐστὶ κερασφόρος .. ἢ Ἄργος πολυόφθαλμος, Εὐίππη ἡ Χείρωνος ὑπαλλαττομένη εἰς ἵππον παρ᾿ Εὐριπίδη

(comp. Sommerbrodt, Scaenica p. 204). In existing plays we have a clear instance of a personage of this kind in the βούκερως παρθένος, Io, in Prom. 588 (comp. 674), and in the Furies in the Eumenides, who are said to look more like Gorgons than women ( Eum. 48 ). The prominence of such figures in the dramas of Aeschylus was noted by the ancients: Vita Aeschyli (p. 2 Dind.)

ταῖς τε γὰρ ὄψεσι καὶ τοῖς μύθοις πρὸς ἔκπληξιν τερατώδη μᾶλλον ἢ πρὸς ἀπάτην κέχρηται.

. τὸ τερατώδες on the stage may be φοβερόν, and thus a means—though an illegitimate one (supra b 7)—of producing a tragic effect ( φόβος). When it does not serve this dramatic purpose ( τὸ τερατῶδες μόνον), however, it is out of place in Tragedy, since the pleasure it gives us is not the true tragic pleasure, which depends on the excitement of pity and fear ( τὴν ἀπ᾿ ἐλέου καὶ φόβου ἡδονήν b 12), and on that alone. Aristotle does not stop to explain our pleasure in τὸ τερατώδες, but it is easy to supply the omission, if one remembers that anything of the nature of a τέρας is marvellous ( θαυμαστόν; comp. Herodotus 4. 28 and Plato Hipp. mai. 283 c ), and that the marvellous is recognized by Aristotle ( τὸ θαυμαστὸν ἡδύ, 24, 1460 a 17) as one of the great causes of human pleasure (see on 9, 1452 a 4).

κοινωνοῦσιν = κοινὸν ἔχουσιν ( Bon. Ind. 400 a 39).

1453b 18

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-486

φανερόν. The argument here may be thus restated: A play is essentially a μίμησις πράξεως (6, 1449 b 36 and passim); if it is to arouse pity and fear, therefore, it must do that through the ἐλεεινὰ καὶ φοβερά in its πρᾶξις (ἐν τοῖς πράγμασιν), not through merely material accessories supplied ab extra by others (comp. supra b 7).

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-487

τοῦτο: i. e. τὸ ἐλεεινὸν καὶ φοβερόν. For similar instances of this allusive use of the neuter of the demonstrative, which is so common in all Greek ( Kühner, Gr. Gr. 2. 1 p. 35), see 13, 1453 a 24; 17, 1455 a 26; 24, 1460 a 38.

1453b 19

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-488

ποῖα οὖν δεινὰ ἢ ποῖα οἰκτρά. Aristotle amends his question ποῖα δεινά by the alternative ποῖα οἰκτρά. The tragic poet is not concerned with δεινά in general, but only with those calculated to arouse pity ( οἰκτρά).

ἢ = vel potius, as in De anima 2. 5, 417 a 5

ὧν ἐστὶν ἡ αἴσθησις καθ αὐτὰ ἢ τὰ συμβεβηκότα τούτοις

(v. Pacius ad loc. and Kühner, Gr. Gr. 2. 2 p. 297). As Aristotle proceeds to show, the deed of horror ( τὸ δεινόν) may be either actual or only contemplated; and if actual, it may be either within the play itself, and identical with the πάθος (v. 11, 1452 b 11), or anterior to the action of the play, and distinct from the πάθος. In the Oedipus Tyrannus, for instance, the deed of horror, the slaying of Laius, takes place before the opening of the play, the action of which is made up (1) of a series of φοβερά (alarming incidents) leading up to the catastrophe, and (2) a πάθος, which consists in the agony and remorse of Oedipus (see on 11, 1452 b 13).

1453b 21

τὰς τοιαύτας πράξεις = τὰς δεινὰς πράξεις. With such actions there are three possibilities: the parties concerned (the slayer and the slain, for instance) may be either (1) friends, or (2) enemies, or (3) indifferent to each other; in all three situations there is something δεινόν, but it is only the first that is felt to be especially piteous; it is therefore at once δεινόν and οἰκτρόν, and thus eminently adapted for the purposes of Tragedy ( ταῦτα ζητητέον a 22).

1453b 22

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-489

ἂν μὲν οὖν ἐχθρὸς ἐχθρόν, scil. τοιαῦτα ποιῇ, understood from the preceding εἶναι τὰς τοιαύτας πράξεις. In many instances the ellipse is not so easily supplied, e. g. in Rhet. 1. 6, 1363 a 27

(ἀγαθά ἐστι) καὶ τὰ ἴδια καὶ ἃ μηδείς, καὶ τὰ περιττά.

— Rhet. 2. 23, 1397 a 20

καὶ ὅτι εἰ μηδὲ Θησεὺς ἠδίκησεν, οὐδ᾽ Ἀλέξανδρος, καὶ εἰ μηδ᾽ οἱ Τυνδαρίδαι, οὐδ᾽ Ἀλέξανδρος, καὶ εἰ Πάτροκλον Ἕκτωρ, καὶ Ἀχιλλέα Ἀλέξανδρος

(comp. Vahlen on the present passage).

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-490

1453b 23 οὐδὲν ἐλεεινὸν, scil. ποιεῖ. There is nothing in the deed then to call forth pity either for the doer or the sufferer. That the doer of the deed may sometimes claim our pity, is not distinctly said, but it is clear from the instances which follow, Orestes, Medea, Oedipus, etc.; it is incidentally recognized also in the analysis of 'the involuntary' in Eth. N. 3. 1, 1109 b 31

ἐπὶ μὲν τοῖς ἑκουσίοις ἐπαίνων καὶ ψόγων γινομένων, ἐπὶ δὲ τοῖς ἀκουσίοις συγγνώμης, ἐνίοτε δὲ καὶ ἐλέου

(comp. 3. 2, 1111 a 1).

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-491

μέλλων, scil. ποιεῖν, just as in b 21 μέλλῃ = μέλλῃ ἀποκτείνειν. The alternative οὔτε μέλλων is added because pity may be aroused by the spectacle of impending, as well as by that of actually present anguish: Rhet. 2. 8, 1386 a 1

τὰ γεγονότα ἄρτι ἢ μέλλοντα διὰ ταχέων ἐλεεινότερα

(comp. 2. 5, 1382 b 26).

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-492

πλὴν κατ᾿ αὐτὸ τὸ πάθος: i. e. in this, as also in the following case ( οὐδ᾽ ἂν μηδετέρως ἔχοντες), the spectacle of suffering humanity may arouse a certain human feeling (akin to pity) for the sufferer (see on 13, 1452 b 38), but it is not, in the proper sense of the term, 'piteous', since the moral condition of pity is wanting; we cannot say that the man ought not to suffer (comp. 13, 1453 a 4). When the parties, however, are related to one another (

ὅταν δ᾽ ἐν ταῖς φιλίαις ἐγγένηται τὰ πάθη

), the evil comes from a quarter from which it was not to be expected, and the situation is 'piteous' as well as horrible; comp. Rhet. 2. 8, 1386 a 11

(ἐλεεινόν ἐστι) τὸ ὅθεν προσῆκεν ἀγαθόν τι πρᾶξαι [ὑπάρξαι Vahlen] κακόν τι συμβῆναι.

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-493

ἐν ταῖς φιλίαις. φιλία here practically means 'cognatio' (comp. Bon. Ind. 818 b 10).

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-494

1453b 21 ἤ τι ἄλλο τοιοῦτον. As defined in 11, 1452 b 11 πάθος includes other forms of suffering besides violent deaths.

1453b 23

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-495

τὴν Κλυταιμνήστραν ἀποθανοῦσαν, 'the slaying of Clytaemnestra.' For this use of the participle see on 13, 1453 a 4 ( δυστυχούντα). On the alternative spelling Κλυταιμήστρα see Roscher's Lex. s. v. and Vitelli, Studi Italiani 1 p. 239. There is hardly a trace of it in the MSS. of Homer ( Ludwich, Homerica I-V p. 5; comp. Wilamowitz, Commentariolum grammaticum IV p. 11).

1453b 25

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-496

αὐτὸν: emphatic as in 9, 1451 b 36; 21, 1457 a 34; 24, 1460 a 6.

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-497

εὑρίσκειν is followed by an infinitive in 14, 1454 a 11

εὗρον ... παρασκευάζειν

, and (in the middle) in Eurip. Med. 195

οὐδεὶς λύπας ηύρετο μούσῃ καὶ πολυχόρδοις ᾠδαῖς παύειν.

1453b 29

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-498

εἰδότας καὶ γιγνώσκοντας, scil. πράττοντας. Instead of saying ἔστι γίνεσθαι τὴν πρᾶξιν ὑπ᾽ εἰδότων καὶ γιγνωσκόντων, Aristotle introduces the qualification in the clause with ὥσπερ, which thus becomes a substantive part of the statement (comp. 11, 1452 a 23; 18, 1456 a 27; 21, 1457 b 24). γιγνώσκοντας: Rhet. 2. 1, 1378 a 14

ἐνδέχεται μὴ τὰ βέλτιστα συμβουλεύειν γιγνώσκοντας.

— Demosth. 10. 17

ταῦτα τοίνυν ἕκαστον εἰδότα καὶ γιγνώσκοντα παρ᾿ αὐτῷ κτέ.

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-499

Εὐριπίδης: see on 6, 1450 a 25.

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-500

Μήδειαν: Eurip. Med. 1236 .

1453b 31

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-501

ὁ Σοφοκλέους Οἰδίπους: comp. 15, 1454 b 8. Sophocles is named because there were others who had dramatized the Oedipus story ( Nauck, TGF. p. 967) as well as Sophocles.

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-502

μὲν οὖν: see on 22, 1458 a 25.

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-503

ἔξω τοῦ δράματος: 15, 1454 b 7 ἔξω τῆς τραγῳδίας. — 17, 1455 b 8 ἔξω τοῦ μύθου. — 24, 1460 a 29 ἔξω τοῦ μυθεύματος. There is a reference to this form of dramatic construction in Eth. N. 1. 11, 1101 a 32

τὰ παράνομα καὶ δεινὰ προϋπάρχειν ἐν ταῖς τραγῳδίαις.

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-504

1453b 33 ὁ Ἀλκμέων ὁ Ἀστυδάμαντος: Nauck, TGF. p. 777 and 964.

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-505

τῷ τραυματίᾳ Ὀδυσσεῖ: another name perhaps for the Ὀδυσσεὺς ἀκανθοπλήξ of Sophocles ( Nauck l. c. p. 230).

1453b 35

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-506

ἀναγνωρίσαι, scil. τὴν φιλίαν, as in b 31 (see on 16, 1454 b 32).

Remarques sur la poëtique d'Aristote (André Dacier, 1692) (OCR draft) (André Dacier's French commentary on Aristotle's Poetics.) focus

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-327

14.2 Car il faut que la fable ſoit composée, de maniere que celuy qui ne fait qu'entendre les choses qui arrivent, quoyqu'il ne les voye pas, fremiſſe pourtant à ce recit.]¹

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-328

14.3 C'est à quoy l'addreſſe du Poëte n'a point de part, cela depend bien plus de ceux qui fourniſſent les decorations &c.]²

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-329

14.4 Ceux qui ne cherchent pas le terrible par la decoration, mais qui cherchent le monstrueux, s'éloignent encore beaucoup du but de la Tragedie.]³

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-330

14.5 Car la Tragedie n'est pas faite pour nous donner indiffe-remment toute forte de plaisir, mais feulement celuy qui luy est propre.]⁴

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-331

14.5 Ce plaisir, c'est celuy qui, par l'imitation, nait de la compaſſion & de la terreur.]⁵

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-332

14.5 Et par conſequent il eſt clair que le Poëte doit produire en nous ce plaisir par le moyen des choses qu'il reprefente.]⁶

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-333

14.6 Tout ce qui arrive, arrive ou entre des amis, ou entre des ennemis ou entre des personnes indifferentes.]⁷

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-334

14.7 Un ennemy qui tuë ou qui va tuer ſon ennemy, n'excite d'autre pitié que celle qui nait du mal mème.]⁸

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-335

14.9 Mais lorsque de pareils malheurs arrivent entre des amis.]⁹

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-336

14.9 Qu'un frere tue ou va tuer ſon frere.]¹⁰

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-337

14.9 Un fils ſon pere.]¹¹

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-338

14.9 Une mere ſon fils, ou un fils ſa mere.]¹²

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-339

14.9 Ou qu'ils font quelque chose de semblable.]¹³

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-340

14.9 Voilà ce qu'il faut chercher.]¹⁴

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-341

14.10 Voilà pourquoy il ne faut pas changer les fables déja re-ceües, par exemple, il faut que Clytemneſtre ſoit tuée par Ore-ſte, & Eriphyle par Alcmcon.]¹⁵

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-342

14.11 Mais le Poëte doit inventer luy-mème, en ſe ſervant, comme il faut des fables receües.]¹⁶

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-343

14.12 On peut repreſenter des actions qui ſe font par des gens qui agiſſent avec une entiere connoiſſance, & qui sçavent ce qu'ils font.]¹⁷

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-344

14.12 Euripide l'a ſuivie lorſqu'il a repreſenté Medée tuant ſes enfans.]¹⁸

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-345

14.13 On peut auſſi faire agir des gens qui ne connoiſſent pas l'atrocité de l'action qu'ils commettent, & qui après l'avoir com-miſe, viennent à reconnoitre la liaiſon & l'amitié qui étoit en-tr'eux, & ceux ſur qui ils ſe ſont vangez.]¹⁹

14. mvp-aristotle-comment-346

14.13 La mort d'Eriphyle tuée par Alcmæon dans le Poëte Aſtydamas.]²⁰

15. mvp-aristotle-comment-347

14.13 Et la bleſſure d'Vlyſſe par Telegonus.]²¹

Commentary on the Poetics (Thomas Twining, 1789) (OCR draft) (Thomas Twining's notes on Aristotle's Poetics, aligned to the Kassel reference edition.) focus

101. mvp-aristotle-comment-101

NOTE 101. P. 89.

14.4 WHO MAKE USE OF THE DECORATION TO PRODUCE, NOT THE TERRIBLE, BUT THE MARVELLOUS ONLY-.

One would think, that commentators on Aristotle might find enough in this work to satisfy the keenest appetite for difficulties, without any assistance from their own invention. Yet here, they have contrived to perplex one of the plainest passages that can be found. Nothing can well be clearer than Aristotle's expression:

—οἱ δε ΜΗ ΤΟ ΦΟΒΕΡΟΝ, δια της όψεως, άλλα ΤΟ ΤΕΡΑΤΩΔΕΣ ΜΟΝΟΝ, παρασκευαζοντες

. — He is not, as some critics have supposed, examining here three different ways of raising terror, but two only; by the plot itself, which he justly pronounces to be the best way, and by the

ὄψις

, the spectacle, scenes, dresses, &c. As for those Poets, he continues, who make use of the

ὄψις

, for the purpose of exciting, not terror, but wonder only, they are out of the question; this "has nothing to do with Tragedy," &c. If Aristotle, by

τερατωδες

, had meant only, as has been understood, a monstrous degree of the terrible "mostruoso, soprano spavento," as Castelvetro calls it, he surely would not have used so strong an expression as—

ΟΥΔΕΝ τῇ Τραγῳδίᾳ ΚΟΙΝΩΝΟΥΣΙΝ

. He does not here exclude even the

τερατωδες

, absolutely, and in general; but the mere

τερατωδες

;

τερατωδες ΜΟΝΟΝ

—"only the wonderful;" and that,

δια της όψεως

. The marvellous and supernatural, may, we know, in the hands of a Poet of genius, be made a powerful instrument of Tragic terror. Aristotle would hardly, I imagine, have censured a drama like that of Macbeth, as having "nothing in common with Tragedy".

The difficulty, indeed, of managing the visible

τερατωδες

, so as to produce any serious effect, is sufficiently great. We have, I think, but one dramatic Poet who could walk, though others may have dared to walk, "within that circle". The decoration of the Eumenides of Æschylus, and his chorus of fifty furies, with their

μυγμοι

, and their

ὠγμοι

, their snorings, their screams, and their torches, may very well be conceived to have put women and children in a real fright; but whether it produced any sympathetic, illusive, and pleasurable, terror—the only terror in question—I should much doubt. Yet Dacier, very gravely, produces this story of children fainting away, and women miscarrying, with the fright, as an example of Tragic terror excited by the

ὄψις

. According to Dacier's account, the allegorical personage of

Λυσσα

, or Madness, in the Hercules Furens of Euripides, appears in her aerial car, "with a hundred heads, round which hiss a thousand serpents". It is rather difficult to conceive how this could have been managed. These hundred heads, in the passage of the chorus alluded to, v. 884, certainly belong to the serpents, not to

Λυσσα

herself; and the emendation of Reiske seems probable; —

ἑκατογκεφαλοις ὄφεων ἰαχημασι

. "centicipitibus serpentum sibilis". Even so, I can scarce imagine an Athenian audience to have received this exhibition with countenances perfectly Tragic. The arrival of old OCEAN mounted upon his Griffin, in the Prometheus of Æschylus, must, one would suppose, have had as ridiculous an effect, as I remember the entrance of the Minotaur to have had upon the audience, some years ago, in the opera of Teseo.

If such a dramatic entertainment as our Pantomime had existed in the days of Aristotle, he would probably have represented the Tragic Poets, whom he here censures, as encroaching on that province: for, indeed, the

τερατωδες μονον δια της όψεως παρασκευαζομενον

, would accurately enough express the

ἡδονην οἰκειαν

of the pantomime. But, what would the philosopher have said to a species of the drama, of which the

ὄψις

, which he places at the very bottom of his scale [cap. vi.], is the very soul—

ἀρχη και οἷον ψυχη

: and where the

σκεύοποιος

, or the carpenter, takes the lead of the Poet? —To do it justice, however, it has its

Μυθος

, its fable, such as it is, with its beginning, its middle, and its end; though a spectator may be often puzzled to make, as we commonly say, head or tail of its plot. It has also its

δεσεις

and its

λυσεις

, its nœuds and its denouemens, in great abundance; being, indeed, from beginning to end, a continued series of knots, tied by love, and cut by magic. Here are also

περιπετειαι

and

ἀναγνωρισεις

, revolutions, and discove- ries, in plenty; though the chief revolution, indeed, be in the scenery; —

ἡ εἰς το ἐναντιον των ὉΡΩΜΕΝΩΝ μεταβολη

. And with respect to discoveries, the pantomime may be characterized as Aristotle characterizes the Odyssey, —

ἀναγνωρισεις γαρ διολου

— "it abounds throughout with discoveries"; for the poor hero is perpetually discovered, and very seldom

εἰς φιλίαν

. Then there are

Παθη

too, disasters — the

πραξεις ὀδυνηραι

at least, which, to the upper gallery, make the merriest part of the entertainment. An essential character, the clown, is even appropriated to this purpose of suffering, and his clothes well wadded for the reception of blows, kicks, and falls. But Aristotle little foresaw, I suppose, when he wrote his first chapter, that a species of drama without words would one day be invented: still less, probably, could he have imagined, what to the antients would have appeared the strangest part of this business, that, though accompanied throughout by MUSIC, yet it would not imitate "by gesticulated rhythm" —

δια σχηματιζομενων ΡΥΘΜΩΝ

; the gestures of the actors in pantomime, being not at all regulated by the measures of the music, or only occasionally, and accidentally, according to the ear, and inclination, of the performer.

102. mvp-aristotle-comment-102

NOTE 102. P. 90.

14.6 MOST TERRIBLE, OR PITEOUS

After having established, that the terrible and piteous should arise from the circumstances of the action itself, Aristotle proceeds to examine what are the circumstances that will produce the highest degree of terror and pity, within the proper limits; that is, so as to avoid what he calls the

μιαρον

, the shocking, and disgusting . And this, perhaps, led him here to use the words

δεινα

, and

οικτρα

, as being, if I mistake not, rather stronger than

φοβερα

, and

ελεεινα

. For the subject of this chapter seems, in short, to be, the proper management of the

Παθη

or disastrous incidents:

"Comment,"

as Dacier has rightly observed,

"on doit se conduire dans les actions atroces," p. 236.

Without this leading idea it would be difficult to explain satisfactorily some passages that follow.

103. mvp-aristotle-comment-103

NOTE 103. P. 90.

14.9 BETWEEN FRIENDS. —

Εν ταις φιλιαις.

—For the wide sense in which Aristotle here uses the word

φιλια

, see Ethic. Nicom. VIII. 1, and 7, ed. Ox. 1716 , and the passage quoted in .

104. mvp-aristotle-comment-104

NOTE 104. P. 90.

14.11 BUT IT IS HIS PROVINCE TO INVENT OTHER SUBJECTS, AND TO MAKE A SKILFUL USE OF THOSE WHICH HE FINDS ALREADY ESTABLISHED. —

Αυτον δε ευρισκειν δει, και τοις παραδεδομενοις χρησθαι καλως.

The expression is too short and general to be clear. It is fairly capable of not less than three different meanings.

Ευρισκειν

, may mean, to invent a subject from pure imagination, as Agatho invented his

ΑΝΘΟΣ

¹: or it may mean only, to find out a new historical subject; or, lastly, to invent, not a subject, but only circumstances and incidents, by which the old subjects may be varied; which is Dacier's idea:

"Le Poete doit inventer lui-même, en se servant comme il faut des fables receuës."

I shall only say, that, on the whole, I prefer the second of these explanations. Aristotle, it is true, had allowed, that a Poet ought not to be chained down to the old traditional stories²; and even, that it would be ridiculous (

γελοιον

) to suppose subjects of pure invention absolutely prohibited. But this is delivered as a permission, not as a precept; and he would hardly have enforced a permission by such an expression as he here uses—

ευρισκειν $\Delta$EI$

. Again—

αυτον ΕΥΡΙΣΚΕΙΝ

, (against Dacier's explanation,) seems plainly opposed to

τοις παραδεδομενοις ΧΡΗΣΘΑI

—"to use old subjects properly, and to invent or find out new subjects: not new incidents for an old subject". This may, perhaps, receive some illustration and support from a similar passage in the Rhetoric. In the second chapter of the first book, he divides the proofs of the orator into two kinds—the

ατεχνοι

, and the

εντεχνοι

. The

ατεχνοι

are the external proofs; witnesses, the torture, writings, and all such proofs as are ready provided to the pleader's hand—

οσα μη δι ημων πεπορισται, αλλα προυπηρχεν

. The

εντεχνοι

he defines to be those argumentative proofs which depend on the art and invention of the orator himself. He then concludes—

ωστε δει τουτων, τοις μεν ΧΡΗΣΑΣΘΑΙ, τα δε ΕΥΡΕΙΝ

: — "of these proofs, the first sort we have only to make a proper use of; the other we must invent".

Commentary on the Poetics (Henry James Pye, 1792) (OCR draft) (Henry James Pye's 1792 English commentary, aligned to the Kassel reference edition.) focus

14.1. mvp-aristotle-comment-46 14.3

THOSE WHO PRODUCE WHAT IS MONSTROUS INSTEAD OF WHAT IS TERRIBLE, BY THE REPRESENTATION, HAVE NONE OF THE PROPERTIES OF TRAGEDY.

THE word used by Aristotle here (τεραζώδες) I conceive to apply in this cafe to any thing wonderful and supernatural, or as Metastasio renders it, ' il monftruoso ed il portentoso.' (A) The critic has first mentioned two modes of producing pity and terror; by the apparatus of the theatre, and by the construction of the fable. Yet he not only gives the decided preference to the last, but he even goes so far as to say it is in fact the only mode that can fairly be esteemed the work of the poet, as being capable of producing the proper end of tragedy without the assistance of theatrical representation; while that which depends on the apparatus is almost independent of the poet, and depends chiefly for its effect on the [B) person who furnishes and arranges the decoration of the spectacle. [A] See Mr. Twining's note on this passage, note ci, in which there is much judicious criticifm. [B] The Choragus which I have rendered manager of the theatre' to make it more obvious to the English reader, was the person who furnished the chorus, the actors, the dresses, &c. at his own expence. This mode of bribing the poorer citizens by the rich, was as popular at Athens as feasting them is in Britain. The fame method was followed by the Roman demagogues towards the close of the republic, though generally by the means of a more barbarous

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. spectacle. But he now proceeds to shew, that the very small share the poet could claim of this effect is entirely lost, when the monstrous is exhibited, merely as such, and unconnected with the terrible, since the trifling powers he does possess in this method of exciting the paffions, viz. the pointing out to the perfon who regulates the apparatus, the objects on which he is to exercise his art, are applied to a purpose not at all connected with the proposed end of tragic imitation [c]. What was the power of the ancient theatrical apparatus to produce terror, we can only learn from history. We are told indeed, though perhaps from no very good authority, that in the Eumenides of Æschylus so many furies in horrid forms were brought on the stage, that children were thrown into fits, and pregnant women miscarried. Whatever may be the authority from which we receive this anecdote, it seems by no means improbable. We know the effect that scenes of this kind have over weak minds at the present hour. No one has I believe ever cenfured the behaviour of Partridge at the theatre, as contrary to nature; and a person who will really feel themselves ill by the supposed influence of animal magnetism, may certainly be strongly affected by theatrical horror. We may also allow, that the decoration of the Athenian stage with its masks and its buskins, was as superior to our own in representing these wonderful and supernatural appearances, as I must think it was inferior in imitating the truth and nature of real life. ! ! barous exhibition than the drama; this being afterwards adopted by the emperors on a larger and more expensive scale, had no small share in reconciling the people to the lofs of their influence in the administration of the government.

[c] The reader who wishes to fee an application of this to the modern pantomime, and a very humourous examination of that species of the drama by the rules of Aristotle, is referred to Mr. Twining, note cr. Nn The

The preternatural beings of Shakespear have been praised so often and by so many critics who stand high in the literary world, that it might feem superfluous to say any thing on the subject, did I not confider it as the duty of a writer, profeffing to illustrate the Poetic of Aristotle by modern examples, not to pass over the poet whose excellence in this respect is unrivalled, and is of a different cast from any thing of the kind in the Grecian drama, and that in a circumstance which I do not recollect to have ever seen noticed.

In the production of fupernatural beings by the Greek tragedians, both from the pieces themselves and the judgement of Aristotle, it appears the terror was produced chiefly, if not entirely by the apparatus. We find none of that solemn language which we at once feel, [D] though we hardly know why to be so strictly characteristic of the shadowy speaker. This is so independent of, and so superior to the art of the Choragus, that no theatrical decoration is capable of heightening its effect. What representation can give us such ideas of the ghost of Hamlet as we received from the terrible and pathetic dialogue between that aweful phantom and his fon. Perhaps the effect is stronger in the closet than on the stage. This is certainly the cafe with Macbeth. The witches with their high-crowned hats and broomsticks, might be objects of terror, in the reign of a monarch who wrote a treatise on their art, against which sanguinary laws were not only in existence but put into frequent and severe execution; but to us they are merely objects of ridicule, as having no hold either on our belief, or the faintest traces of [D] The cause of this is examined and investigated as far as it is capable of investigation, by the author of the Effay on the dramatic Character of Falstaff, page 71. our

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. our recollection of fuch belief; and we are at full leisure to laugh at the grotesque figures of the mafculine and bearded women. The Bishop of Worcester in his Letters on Chivalry, mentions the superior horror of the gothic to the ancient superstition, and how much more we are affected by the ghosts and witches of Shakespear, than by the Lemures of antiquity. The fact as to the ghosts, at least with regard to ourselves is indisputable, and I think the reason of it is sufficiently obvious. The fictions of ancient mythology are only matters of amusement to us; but the gothic superstitions have, to most of us, been at one part of our lives the objects of our belief and our terror. For parental care has seldom been able entirely to guard our infancy from the impressions of the nursery. M. Leffing, in his criticism on the Semiramis of Voltaire, introduces so just a comparison between the machinery of Shakespear and Voltaire, that I shall make no apology for inserting it though it is of some length. • Is it never permitted now to admit a ghost on the scene? Is this • source of the terrible, of the pitiable entirely exhausted? By no means; ' that would be too great a loss to the poetic art. Cannot we produce ، many instances where genius confounds all our philosophy by rendering things terrible to the imagination, which to the cool reason would appear perfectly ridiculous? We must reason differently then; perhaps the first principle we argue from is not well-four.ded. "We “ believe no longer in apparitions." Who has faid this? Or rather, • what does it mean when it is said? Does it fignify that we are so far ⚫ enlightened as to be able to demonstrate their impossibility? Are those • incontestable truths which contradict the idea of such prodigies so universally spread, are they always so much in the minds of the people, Nn 2 ' that

، ' that every thing that is repugnant to them must necessarily appear ridiculous and absurd? That can never be the sense of the phrafe. "We believe no longer in apparitions," then can only mean this. On a fubject on which different opinions may be supported, and which never has been and never can be decided, the prevailing opinion of the ، day occasions the balance to preponderate on the negative side : many • individuals are convinced that there are no apparitions, a great many ⚫ more pretend to be convinced, and these harangue on the subject and give and support the fashionable doctrine. But the multitude are filent, they are indifferent on the subject, they sometimes take one fide ⚫ and sometimes the other, they laugh at ghosts in broad day-light, and • liften with trembling avidity at night to the terrible stories that are < told of them [E]. • The disbelief of spectres in this sense neither can nor ought to prevent the use of them in dramatic poetry. We have all in us at least • the feeds of this belief, and they will be found most in the minds of • the people for whom the [F] poet principally composes. It depends ⚫ on his art to make them vegetate, and on his address, in the rapidity of • the moment to give force to the arguments in favor of the reality of ⚫ these phantoms. If he succeeds, we may be at liberty in common • life to believe as we please, but at the theatre he will be the arbiter of our faith.

[E] I am too well convinced of the accuracy of M. Lessing's knowledge of human nature to doubt the truth of this account of German credulity. It would have better suited this country half a century ago than at present. But, even now, there are more people who will feel the truth of it than will own it, even in England.. [F] Especially the dramatic poet. It is faid of Moliere that he used to read all his comedies to an old female servant, and generally found her decisions confirmed by the public. Shakespear

• Shakespear knew this art, and he is almost the only one who ever • did know it. At the appearance of His ghost, in Hamlet, the hair • stands an end, whether it covers the brain of incredulity or supersti- ⚫tion. M. Voltaire was much in the wrong to appeal to this ghost, • which makes both him and his apparition of Ninus ridiculous. The ghoft of Shakespear really comes from the other world, at least it appears so to our feelings : for it arrives in the solemn hour, in the dead • filence of midnight, accompanied by all those gloomy and mysterious ، accessory ideas with which our nurses have taught us to expect the appearance of spectres; while that of Voltaire's is not fit even to terrify a child. It is merely an actor who neither says or does any thing to perfuade us he is what he pretends to be: on the contrary, all the 'circumstances with which it appears, destroy the illusion and betray the • hand of a cold poet who wishes indeed to deceive and terrify us, but • does not know how to go about it. It is in the middle of the day [G], ،

' in the middle of an assembly of the states of the empire, and preceded by a peal of thunder, that the spirit of Ninus makes its appearance from ⚫ the tomb. From whence did Voltaire learn that apparitions were fo • bold? What old woman could not have told him that apparitions were afraid of the light of the fun, and were not fond of visiting large [G] Shakespear knew the confequence of adapting his scenery to his action, in exciting terror by natural as well as supernatural agents. • The sun is in the heaven; and the proud day, • Attended with the pleasures of the world, • Is all too wanton and too full of gawds To give me audience :- if the midnight bell • Did with his iron tongue and brazen mouth, • Sound one unto the drowzy race of night: If this same were a church-yard where we stand.'- K. JOHN. • affemblies?

'assemblies? Voltaire was undoubtedly acquainted with all this; but ⚫ he was too cautious, too delicate, to make use of such trifling cir- 'cumstances. He was desirous indeed of shewing us a ghost, but he ، was determined it should be one of French extraction, decent, and ' noble. This decency spoiled the whole. A spectre, who takes liber- 'ties contrary to all custom, law, and established order of ghosts, does not seem to me a genuine spectre; and in this case, every thing that does not strengthen the illusion tends to destroy it. 红 • If Voltaire had examined with care, he would have felt the inconveniency, which on another account must attend the bringing a phantom before so many people. On its appearance, all the persons of the assembly (that is to say, all the actors who were representing the ' council of the queen and the states) ought to shew in their counte- ، nances all the terror that the situation required; each ought even to shew it differently from the rest to avoid the cold uniformity of a ballet. How could such a troop of stupid assistants be trained to this exercise? • And when it had fucceeded as well as possible, would not this variety ⚫ of expression of the same sentiment have divided the attention of the spectators, and necessarily have drawn it from the principal characters ? That these may make a strong impression on us, it is not only necessary • that we should fee them, but it is also proper that we should fee nothing else. • In Shakespear, it is only with Hamlet that the ghost converses. In • the scene where the mother is present, the spectre is neither seen or ⚫ heard by her. All our attention then is fixed on him alone; and the ، more we discover in him the signs of a foul distracted by terror and • surprize, the more cause we have to think the apparition which occa- • fions

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. • fions such agitations, as real as he seems to believe it. The [H] ghost ، operates more on us through him, than itself. The impreffion that it • makes on him passes into our minds, and the effect is too sensible and ⚫ too strong for us to doubt of an extraordinary cause. Of this secret, • Voltaire knew little. It is precisely because his spectre tries to ' terrify many people, that it produces little terror in any one. Semi- ⚫ ramis cries out once only, " O, heaven, I die!" and the other assist- ⚫ ants are very little more affected by the shade of Ninus, than they ' would be by the unexpected appearance of a friend, whom they be- ' lieved to be at a distance. • I observe also another difference between the French and English • spectre. The first is only a poetical machine solely employed to [1] • unravel the plot; we take no interest in him. On the contrary, the Not that it was [H] Fielding makes Partridge account for his fear in the fame manner. • the ghost that surprized me neither: for I should have known that to have been only a man • in a strange dress: but when I saw the little man so frightened himself it was that which took < hold of me.' TOM JONES, Book xvr. Chap. v. [1] This intention however is expressly disavowed by Voltaire; and what is rather surprizing, in a paragraph in which he quotes, with approbation, the celebrated rule of Horace, • Nec deus intersit nisi dignus vindice nodus.' • I would have (he fays) these bold attempts never employed, except when they serve at the ' same time to add to the intrigue and the terror of the piece; and I would wish by all means ⚫ that the intervention of these supernatural beings should not appear absolutely necessary. I • will explain myself: if the plot of a tragic poem is so involved in difficulty, that the poet can • only free himself from the embarrassment by the aid of a prodigy, the spectator will perceive • the distress of the author and the weakness of the resource.' DISSERTATION ON TRAGEDY PREFIXED TO SEMIRAMIS. • other

، ، ⚫ other is really an efficient person of the drama, in whose fate we are interested; he excites not only terror, but compaffion also. ، This has probably arisen from the different manner in which these two authors have confidered the general notion of apparitions. Voltaire has regarded the appearance of a dead person as a miracle, and Shakespear as a natural event. Which of the two thought most as a philosopher is a question that we have nothing at all to do with; but the Englishman thought most as a poet.' DRAMATURGIE, Part I. page 39, et seq. ، After all, though there is great truth in much that is here advanced, I do not think an English audience would now endure a ghost from a modern hand, however well executed. That we have still belief in apparitions sufficient for dramatic effect, is obvious from the reception of Shakespear's Ghosts. But we require that the poet should have rather a stronger credulity. This is illustrated by the comparison between the faith of Shakespear and Voltaire in the concluding paragraph of the quotation. Every modern poet must be in the predicament of the 1atter. There is very nearly the fame distinction between the machinery of Homer [K] and Virgil. An instance perhaps of the marvellous pushed too far, may be drawn from Dryden's Edipus. I have read fomewhere, that on the revival of that tragedy, the audience were disgusted with the variety of prodigies, and the ghost of Laius with his numerous attendants. Brumoy, (Vol. I. page 393) speaking of Seneca's Edipus, fays, Creon makes a more [K] See note I, chap. xxiv. ' than

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. ⚫ than infernal description of the prodigies he had feen.' And Dryden in the preface to his tragedy, prides himself for bringing that before the audience which Seneca had only described. Perhaps he chose here to enter the lifts with Shakespear. It would have been more conducive to his reputation, if he had recollected his own words in the prologue to his Tempest, where he tried to imitate and add to the machinery of a play, which was in every respect inimitable. • But Shakespear's magic could not copied be; • Within that circle none durst walk but he.' We have lately seen an attempt of the fame kind by a person of the highest eminence in a fister art, whose recent loss is justly an object of national concern. I mean the fiend at the head of the dying Cardinal in the celebrated picture of Sir Joshua Reynolds, in the Shakespear gallery.

14.2. mvp-aristotle-comment-47 14.10

IT NOT BEING ALLOWABLE TO ALTER ESSENTIALLY STORIES THAT HAVE BEEN GENERALLY RECEIVED, BUT, FOR EXAMPLE, CLYTEMNESTRA MUST BE KILLED BY ORESTES, AND ERIPHYLE BY ALCMEON; IT IS THE DUTY OF THE POET TO FIND OUT SUCH TRADITIONAL STORIES, AND EMPLOY THEM SKILFULLY.

TO explain clearly my notion of the spirit of this precept, it will be necessary to give some degree of paraphrafe. The critic has decided on what incidents, and between what persons, the force of the passions of pity and terror should be founded. But he then adds, that it not being allowable

allowable for the poet to alter the essential circumstances of known stories, he ought to feek out for such historical events as furnish those tragical incidents; and having found them, to employ and arrange the circumstances in such a manner, as to give them the greatest force on the feelings of the audience. There are three opinions on the meaning of the phrafe in the original, Αυθὸν δὲ ἑυρίσκειν δεῖ. καὶ τοις παραδεδομένοις χρῆσθαι καλῶς. The most general is, that it directs the poet to invent new fables himself, like the [L] Anthos of Agathon, and arrange the circumstances of traditional stories properly; another is, that the poet should find out new historical subjects; and the third, that he should find out new stories, making a proper use of fables already received, which is that adopted by Dacier, but seems to me wrong as to the last part of the fentence. In my former edition I had followed the first interpretation. But the [M] arguments of Mr. Twining, to which I refer the critical reader, are so convincing in favor of the second, though he has admitted the first into the text of his tranflation, that I have followed him without hefitation. This argument seems confirmed also by what Aristotle says in the last chapter, and repeats again in this, of the scarcity of proper dramatic fubjects. On which account, it may justly be confidered as the duty of the poet to feek diligently for fables which afford fuch incidents.. I cannot however agree with Mr. Twining, in thinking that ἑυρίσκειν is obviously opposed to τοις παραδεδομένοις χρῆσθαι. If that were the cafe, I should be still inclined to adhere to the first tranflation.; but I think it [L] See chap. Ix.. [M] See his note civ.. cannot.

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. cannot be justified without altering the conjunction καὶ, which, taking in the sense of the whole passage, seems to connect and not diftinguish the [N] finding of the fable, and the employment of its circumstances when found. Among all the editors and commentators who have written on Shakefpear's Hamlet, and who have traced its fource in an old novel, founded on an event recorded by Saxo Grammaticus, I am furprized that no one has noticed the striking resemblance between Hamlet and Orestes. But though this has not been remarked by his countrymen, it has not escaped the observation of a French critic. It appears from a letter of the Abbé Le Blanc, to the French dramatic poet Crebillon [o], that the Abbé Prevot has written a comparison between the tragedies of Electra and Hamlet, in which he commends the English poet because wiser than Sophocles, he forbids young Hamlet, by the apparition of the ghost, to attempt any thing against his mother's life.' And Le Blanc himself was so much struck with the resemblance as to say, he is 'inclined to ⚫ think the likeness between the tragedy of Hamlet, and the Greek one • of Electra, is not the mere effect of chance, but that we may eafily • discover the perfon of Oreftes in Hamlet, which Shakespear has ac- [N] The English translators of Aristotle and other Greek writers, have frequently been drawn into error by the Latin word for ἑυρίσκω. INVENIO. of which the English word, IN- VENT, though its derivative, is by no means the proper tranflation. Ποιέω signifies to invent in the sense which is here supposed, and is universally used for it in this work, and its proper Latin translation is FINGO. But though Ariftotle's precepts here, as well as the examples with which he illuftrates them are drawn from received fables, they apply equally to those which are the pure invention of the poet. [o] See Letters on the English and French Nations, Let. LIX. commodated

• commodated to his own manner of writing.' There certainly are more circumstances of co-incidence between the stories of Hamlet and Orestes, than can well be refolved into accident. As the monarch being killed by a brother in one, a coufin german in the other, who possesses his wife and ufurps his throne; the fon robbed of his right, his life treacheroufly attempted, and himself urged to vengeance by supernatural means; the friendship of Hamlet for Horatio, and Orestes for Pylades, both of whom by the way are cyphers in the action, and even the madness of Hamlet when joined with the other circumstances. And here I must remark, that the advantage of Shakespear over Sophocles, allowed by the French critic, arofe from the former not being fettered by this precept of Aristotle; and being at liberty to free his chief character from the horrid crime of matricide, without altering an essential incident of a well-known history.

14.3. mvp-aristotle-comment-48 14.11

I WILL EXPLAIN MORE CLEARLY WHAT I MEAN BY SKILFULLY.

THOUGH Aristotle is here laying down rules for giving the best arrangement to those leading circumstances in received or traditional stories, which the poet is not allowed to alter, it is obfervable, that of all the examples he gives, the story of Alcmæon and Eriphyle is the only one in which the manner of the event, as well as the event itself, is not according to received opinion. Medea is always supposed to destroy her children knowingly, and the incest and parricide of Edipus to be involuntary, and so of the reft.. NOTE

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. !

Commentarius in Aristotelis Poeticam (Franciscus Ritter, 1839) (OCR draft) (Ritter's Latin commentary, extracted from the 1839 volume, divided by Ritter's chapters and sections, and linked to the corresponding Perseus reference subsections.) focus

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-95

Ritter, cap. 14 § 1

Miseranda timendaque rectius excitantur factorum serie solerter instituta et conformata quam tristibus casibus in scena ante oculos spectatorum propositis. timor et miseratio quattuor modis ex rerum connexu nasci solent. Rerum in tragoedia gerendarum compositionem ( τὸν μῦθον) amplius explicaturus, primum monet hoc tragoediae officium nulla alia re satis compensari posse, neque spectaculis quibusdam hominum oculos mentesque percellentibus neque portentis rudes animos tenentibus, deinde pergit exsequi, quot modis quod miserandum et timendum ex rerum complexione oriatur. ἔστι μὲν οὖν - ἐκ τῆς ὄψεως γίνεσθαι: ἐκ τῆς ὄψεως est ex adspectu eorum quae tristia in scena peraguntur, veluti caedes et vulnera et dolores, praeterea homines olim felices et clari sed iam depressi laboribus et squalore sordeque insignes. ὄψις et hic et paulo post non tragoediae pars est, ut c. 6, 4 et 7., sed solito suo munere fungitur. δεῖ γὰρ καὶ ἄνευ τοῦ ὁρᾶν - ἐκ τῶν συμβαινόντων: qui dum agitur tragoedia oculis non utitur vel uti nequit, sed unis auribus quae fiunt percipit, is etiam timere debet et miseratione tangi, si poeta officio suo bene functus est. cave credas verum Aristotelem illud dicere voluisse, quod falsus bis monuit, semel c. 6, 19., iterum c. 26, 3., scilicet tragoediae vim etiam legendo apparere: immo cogitat aliquem qui dum datur fabula non nisi auribus quae funt ( τὸν ἀκούοντα τὰ πράγματα γινόμενα) excipiat. conf. Comment. ad. c. 6, 19.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-96

Ritter, cap. 14 § 2

τὸ δὲ διὰ τῆς ὄψεως τοῦτο παρασκευά - ζειν ἀτεχνότερον καὶ χορηγίας δεόμενόν ἐστιν: non dedit ἀγῶνος καὶ ὑποκριτῶν, neque dare id potuit, quia fabulam legendam et spectandam secum componere non voluit, sed eam quae molesto ac pretioso apparatu indiget coniunxit cum ea quae illo adeo non eget, ut audire res eius argumento consertas sufficiat. itaque posuit χορηγίας δεό μενον, non ἀγῶνος καὶ ὑποκριτῶν: choragia enim cum in fabula agenda magni pretii constaret, cumque a chorago ad orchestram condecorandam et ad chorum conducendum, instituendum, ornandum multo maiores impensae faciendae essent, quam a civitate ad scenam instruendam et actores conducendos, χορηγίαν generatim pro pretioso et operoso apparatu et apte dici posse et eo intellectu h. 1. accipiendam esse manifestum est. - ceterum lectori animum attendenti liquebit scriptorem personatum, quem c. 6, 19. deprehendimus, ex hoc loco sapientiam suam hausisse, sed eundem auctoris sui sententiam non recte accepisse. Aristoteles enim dicit, si quis ad excitandam miserationem et timorem nimium miserando quodam personarum agentium habitu tristique condicione oculis exposita utatur, id esse ἀτεχνότερον καὶ χορηγίας δεόμενον. hoc sane prudenter et modice dictum. quid inde imitator fecit? is omnem modum excedens, ut solent imitatores exaggerare, pronuntiavit (c. 6, 19) totam ὄψιν, h. e. totam actionem oculis excipiendam, ἀτεχνότατον esse ac minime propriam artis poeticae, et hoc dicere sustinuit, quamvis verus Aristoteles paulo ante (c. 6, 4) monuisset ὄψιν esse necessariam tragoediae partem. ἀλλὰ τὸ τερατῶδες μόνον: qui nonnisi miras imagines, ad praestringendos scilicet spectantium oculos, con sectantur, veluti Gigantes et Titanes et Cyclopes, vel insolitos casus, ut sereno caelo fulminum fulgores et tonitruum fragores, illi ad delectandos spectatores non tragoediae vi utuntur, sed artificia quaedam adhibent quae ab arte tragica plane aliena videntur. ex eiusmodi fabulis licet voluptatem aliquam percipiamus, ea tamen non ex ipsa tragoedia manavit: delectatio enim tragoediae propria proficiscitur a miseratione et timore.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-97

Ritter, cap. 14 § 3

τὸν ποιητὴν esse poetam tragicum ex contextu verborum liquet. - “ τοῦτο - ἐμποιητέον: τοῦτο esti τὸi ἐλεεινὸν καὶ τὰ φοβερόν. - ποῖα οὖν δεινὰ ἢ ποῖα οἰκτρὰ φαίνεται τῶν συμπιπτόντων, λάβωμεν: ut sententiam ab Aristotele in sequentibus enuntiatam recte intelligamus, attendere debemus ad verbum φαίνεται, quod non idem est, ac δοκεῖν, sed, apparere et in oculos, incurrere. itaque statim ea timenda et miseranda intelligit, quibus extemplo et facile omnes commoventur. non omnes tragoedias anse comprehendi, ne bonas quidem omnes, ipse ignorare non potuit. λάβωμεν sanum esse vix credo. sententia quamquam manifesta est, tamen difficile est ad indicandum quod verbum ab initio h. 1. positum fuerit. aptum erat λέγωμεν, διίωμεν, είπωμεν, alia, § 4. ἂν μὲν οὖν ἐχθρὸς - μέλλων δείκνυσι: hine discimus miserationem spectantium ex Aristotelis sententia pertinere ad primariam tragoediae personam, certe ad eam quae peragit facinus, non ad eam quae perpetitur: nam setiamsi eius qui occidit inimicum inimicus non miseremur, illum tamen, qui occiditur miseratione complecti possumus, sed id philosophus minus spectavit et curavit, immo nonnisi obiter significavit verbis πλὴν κατ' αὐτὸ τὸ πάθος. iam ubi inimicus inimicum interficit, is sponte inimicoque animo indulgens hoc facit, ut cum innocens esse non possit, nostra in illum miseratio non commoveatur, neque timor in nobis exoritur ne simile quidquam admittamus: nemo enim tam vecordem et nefarium se putat esse, ut propter inimicitias inimicum suum occidat. οὐδ᾽ ἂν μηδετέρως ἔχοντες: siis qui neque odit neque diligit aliquem tollit, id facinus fere aut iure commissum est, aut incredibile videtur. illud spectator, non improbat, hoc incredulus odit. ri § 5 ιτητοὺς μὲν οὖν παρειλημμένους μύθους λύειμ οὐκ ἔστιν κτλ. traditas fabulas solvere, h. e. plane invertere, quamquam non licet, poeta tamen immutare et ad propositum sibi finem adaptare adeo debet. aliter sensit falsus Aristoteles. vid. c. 25, 7. 11/4186. καθάπερ καὶ Εὐριπίδης -τὴν Μήδειαν: adiectum za ὶ indicio est Euripidem in novis tragoediarumscriptoribus referri. Medeae versus significantur 1236-1250 et 1271-1292. - τοῦτο μὲν οὖν ἐξω τοῦ δράματος: facinus ab Oedipo in Sophoclis Oedipo rege agnitum, hare. caedes patris Laii a se perpatrata, pluribus annis ante id tempus cuius casus in ea fabula explicantur, commissum erat. hoc est illud quod ἔξω τοῦ δράματος Aristoteles vocavit. οἷος ὁ ᾿Αλκμαίων ὁ ᾿Αστυδάμαντος: Astydamas tragicus Eriphylam in ipsa fabula trucidari fecit a filio Alcmaeone matrem illam esse nesciente. eodem nomine tragoedia Sophoclis et Euripidis duae olim exstiterunt. ex Euripi deis una inscripta erat ᾿Αλκμαίων ὁ διὰ Ψωφῖδος, altera ὁ διὰ Κορίνθου. tragoediae Sophocliae tria frustula, Euripidearum plura attulit Dindorfius in Αποσπασματίοις Poetarum scenicorum Gr. p. 33 et 77 ὁ Τηλέγονος ὁ ἐν τῷ τραυματίᾳ Ὀδυσσεῖ: fortasse Aristoteli de vero huius tragoediae auctore non satis constitit, ideoque eam cognomine definire maluit quam auctorem non satis certum proferre. Athenaeus pluribus saeculis post aut certius hanc rem exploraverat aut minus ille quam Aristoteles cautum se praestitit: scribit enim XIII. p. 562 F., ubi de Chaeremone agit, ὁ δὲ αὐτὸς ποιητὴς καὶ περὶ τῶν ἐρώντων ἐν τῷ ἐπιγραφομένῳ Τραυματίᾳ φησὶν οὕτως cet. idem XIII. p. 608 E. Ulixem Chaeremonis tragoediam commemorat, unde liquet ab hoc vulneratum Ulixem ad Char remonem auctorem relatum esse. forsitan Athenaeus priore loco scripserit ἐν τῷ Ὀδυσσεῖ τῷ ἐπιγραφομένῳ τραυματία. i

Aristotle Poetics 14.3

Thomas Twining (Translator)

Search the Perseus Catalog for:

Current edition Experimental

2.

Notes on the current edition

Commentary

NOTE 101. P. 89.

NOTE 102. P. 90.

NOTE 103. P. 90.

NOTE 104. P. 90.

THOSE WHO PRODUCE WHAT IS MONSTROUS INSTEAD OF WHAT IS TERRIBLE, BY THE REPRESENTATION, HAVE NONE OF THE PROPERTIES OF TRAGEDY.

IT NOT BEING ALLOWABLE TO ALTER ESSENTIALLY STORIES THAT HAVE BEEN GENERALLY RECEIVED, BUT, FOR EXAMPLE, CLYTEMNESTRA MUST BE KILLED BY ORESTES, AND ERIPHYLE BY ALCMEON; IT IS THE DUTY OF THE POET TO FIND OUT SUCH TRADITIONAL STORIES, AND EMPLOY THEM SKILFULLY.

I WILL EXPLAIN MORE CLEARLY WHAT I MEAN BY SKILFULLY.

Ritter, cap. 14 § 1

Ritter, cap. 14 § 2

Ritter, cap. 14 § 3

Stable identifiers