Search the Perseus Catalog for:

View: By Part

← Previous Next →

Since Tragedy is an imitation of what is best, we should follow the example of skilful portrait-painters; who, while they express the peculiar lineaments, and produce a likeness, at the same time improve upon the original¹. And thus, too, the Poet, when he imitates the manners of passionate men, (or of indolent, or any other of a similar kind,) should draw an example approaching rather to a good, than to a hard and ferocious character: as Achilles is drawn, by AGATHO, and by HOMER.

[15]

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.) — 15 focus

Περὶ δὲ τὰ ἤθη τέτταρά ἐστιν ὧν δεῖ στοχάζεσθαι, ἓν μὲν καὶ πρῶτον, ὅπως χρηστὰ ᾖ.

Ἕξει δὲ ἦθος μέν, ἐὰν ὥσπερ ἐλέχθη ποιῇ φανερὰν ὁ λόγος ἢ ἡ πρᾶξις προαίρεσίν. τινα, φαῦλον μὲν ἐὰν φαύλην, χρηστὸν δ᾿ ἐὰν χρηστήν.

Ἔστι δὲ ἐν ἑκάστῳ γένει· καὶ γὰρ γυνή ἐστι χρηστὴ καὶ δοῦλος· καίτοι γε ἴσως τούτων τὸ μὲν χεῖρον, τὸ δὲ ὅλως φαῦλόν ἐστιν.

Δεύτερον δὲ τὰ ἁρμόττοντα· ἔστι γὰρ ἀνδρεῖον μὲν τὸ ἦθος, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ ἁρμόττον γυναικὶ τὸ ἀνδρείαν ἢ δεινὴν εἶναι.

Τρίτον δὲ τὸ ὅμοιον· τοῦτο γὰρ ἕτερον τοῦ χρηστὸν τὸ ἦθος καὶ ἁρμόττον ποιῆσαι, ὥσπερ εἴρηται.

Τέταρτον δὲ τὸ ὁμαλόν· κἂν γὰρ ἀνώμαλός τις ᾖ ὁ τὴν μίμησιν παρέχων καὶ τοιοῦτον ἦθος ὑποτιθείς, ὅμως ὁμαλῶς ἀνώμαλον δεῖ εἶναι.

Ἔστι δὲ παράδειγμα πονηρίας μὲν ἤθους μὴ ἀναγκαῖον οἷον ὁ Μενέλαος ὁ ἐν τῷ Ὀρέστῃ,

τοῦ δὲ ἀπρεποῦς καὶ μὴ ἁρμόττοντος ὅ τε θρῆνος Ὀδυσσέως ἐν τῇ Σκύλλῃ καὶ ἡ τῆς Μελανίππης ῥῆσις,

τοῦ δὲ ἀνωμάλου ἡ ἐν Αὐλίδι Ἰφιγένεια· οὐδὲν γὰρ ἔοικεν ἡ ἱκετεύουσα τῇ ὑστέρᾳ.

Χρὴ δὲ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἤθεσιν, ὥσπερ καὶ ἐν τῇ τῶν πραγμάτων συστάσει, ἀεὶ ζητεῖν ἢ τὸ ἀναγκαῖον ἢ τὸ εἰκός, ὥστε τὸν τοιοῦτον τὰ τοιαῦτα λέγειν ἢ πράττειν ἢ ἀναγκαῖον ἢ εἰκός,

καὶ τοῦτο μετὰ τοῦτο γίνεσθαι ἢ ἀναγκαῖον ἢ εἰκός. Φανερὸν οὖν ὅτι καὶ τὰς λύσεις τῶν μύθων ἐξ αὐτοῦ δεῖ τοῦ μύθου συμβαίνειν, καὶ μὴ ὥσπερ ἐν τῇ Μηδείᾳ ἀπὸ μηχανῆς καὶ ἐν τῇ Ἰλιάδι τὰ περὶ τὸν ἀπόπλουν·

ἀλλὰ μηχανῇ χρηστέον ἐπὶ τὰ ἔξω τοῦ δράματος ἢ ὅσα πρὸ τοῦ γέγονεν, ἃ οὐχ οἷόν τε ἄνθρωπον εἰδέναι, ἢ ὅσα ὕστερον, ἃ δεῖται προαγορεύσεως καὶ ἀγγελίας· ἅπαντα γὰρ ἀποδίδομεν τοῖς θεοῖς ὁρᾶν.

Ἄλογον δὲ μηδὲν εἶναι ἐν τοῖς πράγμασιν, εἰ δὲ μή, ἔξω τῆς τραγῳδίας, οἷον τὰ ἐν τῷ Οἰδίποδι τῷ Σοφοκλέους.

Ἐπεὶ δὲ μίμησίς ἐστιν ἡ τραγῳδία βελτιόνων, ἡμᾶς δεῖ μιμεῖσθαι τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς εἰκονογράφους· καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι ἀποδιδόντες τὴν ἰδίαν μορφήν, ὁμοίους ποιοῦντες, καλλίους γράφουσιν. Οὕτω καὶ τὸν ποιητὴν μιμούμενον καὶ ὀργίλους καὶ ῥᾳθύμους καὶ τἆλλα τὰ τοιαῦτα ἔχοντας ἐπὶ τῶν ἠθῶν, ἐπιεικείας ποιεῖν παράδειγμα ἢ σκληρότητος δεῖ, οἷον τὸν Ἀχιλλέα Ἀγάθων καὶ Ὅμηρος.

Ταῦτα δὴ δεῖ διατηρεῖν, καὶ πρὸς τούτοις τὰ παρὰ τὰς ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἀκολουθούσας αἰσθήσεις τῇ ποιητικῇ· καὶ γὰρ κατ᾿ αὐτὰς ἔστιν ἁμαρτάνειν πολλάκις. Εἴρηται δὲ περὶ αὐτῶν ἐν τοῖς ἐκδεδομένοις λόγοις ἱκανῶς.

Περὶ ποιητικῆς (OCR draft) Perseus (Aristotle, De arte poetica liber. Rudolf Kassel, editor. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965. Reference edition for passage alignment.) — 15 focus

περὶ δὲ τὰ ἤθη τέτταρά ἐστιν ὧν δεῖ στοχάζεσθαι, ἓν μὲν καὶ πρῶτον, ὅπως χρηστὰ ᾖ.

ἕξει δὲ ἦθος μὲν ἐὰν ὥσπερ ἐλέχθη ποιῇ φανερὸν ὁ λόγος ἢ ἡ πρᾶξις προαίρεσίν τινα ἥ τις ἂν ᾖ, χρηστὸν δὲ ἐὰν 20 χρηστήν.

ἔστιν δὲ ἐν ἑκάστῳ γένει· καὶ γὰρ γυνή ἐστιν χρηστὴ καὶ δοῦλος, καίτοι γε ἴσως τούτων τὸ μὲν χεῖρον, τὸ δὲ ὅλως φαῦλόν ἐστιν.

δεύτερον δὲ τὸ ἁρμόττοντα· ἔστιν γὰρ ἀνδρείαν μὲν τὸ ἦθος, ἀλλ’ οὐχ ἁρμόττον γυναικὶ οὕτως ἀνδρείαν ἢ δεινὴν εἶναι.

τρίτον δὲ τὸ ὅμοιον. τοῦτο γὰρ ἕτερον 25 τοῦ χρηστὸν τὸ ἦθος καὶ ἁρμόττον ποιῆσαι ὡς προείρηται.

τέταρτον δὲ τὸ ὁμαλόν. κἂν γὰρ ἀνώμαλός τις ᾖ ὁ τὴν μίμησιν παρέχων καὶ τοιοῦτον ἦθος ὑποτεθῇ, ὅμως ὁμαλῶς ἀνώμαλον δεῖ εἶναι.

ἔστιν δὲ παράδειγμα πονηρίας μὲν ἤθους μὴ ἀναγκαίας οἷον ὁ Μενέλαος ὁ ἐν τῷ Ὀρέστῃ,

τοῦ 30 δὲ ἀπρεποῦς καὶ μὴ ἁρμόττοντος ὅ τε θρῆνος Ὀδυσσέως ἐν τῇ Σκύλλῃ καὶ ἡ τῆς Μελανίππης ῥῆσις,

τοῦ δὲ ἀνωμάλου ἡ ἐν Αὐλίδι Ἰφιγένεια· οὐδὲν γὰρ ἔοικεν ἡ ἱκετεύουσα τῇ ὑστέρᾳ.

χρὴ δὲ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἤθεσιν ὁμοίως ὥσπερ καὶ ἐν τῇ τῶν πραγμάτων συστάσει ἀεὶ ζητεῖν ἢ τὸ ἀναγκαῖον ἢ τὸ εἰκός, 35 ὥστε τὸν τοιοῦτον τὰ τοιαῦτα λέγειν ἢ πράττειν ἢ ἀναγκαῖον ἢ εἰκὸς καὶ τοῦτο μετὰ τοῦτο γίνεσθαι ἢ ἀναγκαῖον ἢ εἰκός.

φανερὸν οὖν ὅτι καὶ τὰς λύσεις τῶν μύθων ἐξ αὐτοῦ δεῖ τοῦ 1454b 1 μύθου συμβαίνειν, καὶ μὴ ὥσπερ ἐν τῇ Μηδείᾳ ἀπὸ μηχανῆς καὶ ἐν τῇ Ἰλιάδι τὰ περὶ τὸν ἀπόπλουν.

ἀλλὰ μηχανῇ χρηστέον ἐπὶ τὰ ἔξω τοῦ δράματος, ἢ ὅσα πρὸ τοῦ γέγονεν ἃ οὐχ οἷόν τε ἄνθρωπον εἰδέναι, ἢ ὅσα ὕστερον, ἃ 5 δεῖται προαγορεύσεως καὶ ἀγγελίας· ἅπαντα γὰρ ἀποδίδομεν τοῖς θεοῖς ὁρᾶν.

ἄλογον δὲ μηδὲν εἶναι ἐν τοῖς πράγμασιν, εἰ δὲ μή, ἔξω τῆς τραγῳδίας, οἷον τὸ ἐν τῷ Οἰδίποδι τῷ Σοφοκλέους.

ἐπεὶ δὲ μίμησίς ἐστιν ἡ τραγῳδία βελτιόνων ἢ ἡμεῖς, δεῖ μιμεῖσθαι τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς 10 εἰκονογράφους· καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι ἀποδιδόντες τὴν ἰδίαν μορφὴν ὁμοίους ποιοῦντες καλλίους γράφουσιν· οὕτω καὶ τὸν ποιητὴν μιμούμενον καὶ ὀργίλους καὶ ῥᾳθύμους καὶ τἆλλα τὰ τοιαῦτα ἔχοντας ἐπὶ τῶν ἠθῶν τοιούτους ὄντας ἐπιεικεῖς ποιεῖν † παράδειγμα σκληρότητος οἷον τὸν Ἀχιλλέα ἀγαθὸν καὶ Ὅμηρος † .

15 ταῦτα δὴ διατηρεῖν, καὶ πρὸς τούτοις τὰ παρὰ τὰς ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἀκολουθούσας αἰσθήσεις τῇ ποιητικῇ· καὶ γὰρ κατ’ αὐτὰς ἔστιν ἁμαρτάνειν πολλάκις· εἴρηται δὲ περὶ αὐτῶν ἐν τοῖς ἐκδεδομένοις λόγοις ἱκανῶς.

Poetics, Greek text (Ingram Bywater, 1909) (OCR draft) Experimental (Ingram Bywater's Greek text of Aristotle's Poetics, published in 1909.) — 15 focus

Περὶ δὲ τὰ ἤθη τέτταρά ἐστιν ὧν δεῖ στοχάζεσθαι, ἓν
μὲν καὶ πρῶτον, ὅπως χρηστὰ ᾖ.

ἕξει δὲ ἦθος μὲν ἐὰν
ὥσπερ ἐλέχθη ποιῇ φανερὸν ὁ λόγος ἢ ἡ πρᾶξις προαίρεσίν
τινα ᾖ, χρηστὸν δὲ ἐὰν χρηστήν.

ἔστιν δὲ ἐν
ἑκάστῳ γένει· καὶ γὰρ γυνή ἐστιν χρηστὴ καὶ δοῦλος,
καίτοι γε ἴσως τούτων τὸ μὲν χεῖρον, τὸ δὲ ὅλως φαῦλόν
ἐστιν.

δεύτερον δὲ τὸ ἁρμόττοντα· ἔστιν γὰρ ἀνδρεῖον
μὲν τὸ ἦθος, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ἁρμόττον γυναικείῳ τὸ ἀνδρείαν ἢ
δεινὴν εἶναι.

τρίτον δὲ τὸ ὅμοιον. τοῦτο γὰρ ἕτερον τοῦ
χρηστὸν τὸ ἦθος καὶ ἁρμόττον ποιῆσαι ὥσπερ εἴρηται.

τέταρτον δὲ τὸ ὁμαλόν. κἂν γὰρ ἀνώμαλός τις ᾖ ὁ τὴν
μίμησιν παρέχων καὶ τοιοῦτον ἦθος ὑποτιθείς, ὅμως ὁμαλῶς
ἀνώμαλον δεῖ εἶναι.

ἔστω δὲ παράδειγμα πονηρίας μὲν
ἤθους μὴ ἀναγκαίου οἷον ὁ Μενέλαος ὁ ἐν τῷ Ὀρέστῃ,

τοῦ
δὲ ἀπρεποῦς καὶ μὴ ἁρμόττοντος ὅ τε θρῆνος ὁ τοῦ Ὀδυσσέως
ἐν τῇ Σκύλλῃ καὶ ἡ τῆς Μελανίππης ῥῆσις,

τοῦ δὲ ἀνωμάλου
ἡ ἐν Αὐλίδι Ἰφιγένεια· οὐδὲν γὰρ ἔοικεν ἡ ἱκετεύουσα τῇ
ὑστέρᾳ.

χρὴ δὲ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἤθεσιν ὥσπερ καὶ ἐν τῇ τῶν
πραγμάτων συστάσει ἀεὶ ζητεῖν ἢ τὸ ἀναγκαῖον ἢ τὸ εἰκός,
ὥστε τὸν τοιοῦτον τὰ τοιαῦτα λέγειν ἢ πράττειν ἢ ἀναγκαῖον
ἢ εἰκὸς καὶ τοῦτο μετὰ τοῦτο γίνεσθαι ἢ ἀναγκαῖον ἢ εἰκός.

φανερὸν οὖν ὅτι καὶ τὰς λύσεις τῶν μύθων ἐξ αὐτοῦ δεῖ τοῦ
μύθου συμβαίνειν, καὶ μὴ ὥσπερ ἐν τῇ Μηδείᾳ ἀπὸ μηχανῆς
καὶ ἐν τῇ Ἰλιάδι τὰ περὶ τὸν ἀπόπλουν.

ἀλλὰ μηχανῇ
χρηστέον ἐπὶ τὰ ἔξω τοῦ δράματος, ἢ ὅσα πρὸ τοῦ
γέγονεν ἃ οὐχ οἷόν τε ἄνθρωπον εἰδέναι, ἢ ὅσα ὕστερον ἃ
δεῖται προαγορεύσεως καὶ ἀγγελίας· ἅπαντα γὰρ ἀποδίδομεν
τοῖς θεοῖς ὁρᾶν.

ἄλογον δὲ μηδὲν εἶναι ἐν τοῖς πράγμασιν,
εἰ δὲ μή, ἔξω τῆς τραγῳδίας, οἷον τὸ ἐν τῷ
Οἰδίποδι τῷ Σοφοκλέους.

ἐπεὶ δὲ μίμησίς ἐστιν ἡ τραγῳδία
βελτιόνων, ἡμᾶς δεῖ μιμεῖσθαι τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς εἰκονογράφους·
καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι ἀποδιδόντες τὴν ἰδίαν μορφὴν ὁμοίους
ποιοῦντες καλλίους γράφουσιν· οὕτω καὶ τὸν ποιητὴν μιμούμενον
καὶ ὀργίλους καὶ ῥᾳθύμους καὶ τἆλλα τὰ τοιαῦτα
ἔχοντας ἐπὶ τῶν ἠθῶν τοιούτους ὄντας ἐπιεικεῖς ποιεῖν
παράδειγμα σκληρότητος, οἷον τὸν Ἀχιλλέα Ἀγάθων καὶ
Ὅμηρος,

ταῦτα δὴ διατηρεῖν, καὶ πρὸς τούτοις τὰ παρὰ
τὰς ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἀκολουθούσας αἰσθήσεις τῇ ποιητικῇ·
καὶ γὰρ κατ᾽ αὐτὰς ἔστιν ἁμαρτάνειν πολλάκις· εἴρηται
δὲ περὶ αὐτῶν ἐν τοῖς ἐκδεδομένοις λόγοις 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.) — 15 focus

Περὶ δὲ τὰ ἤθη τέτταρά ἐστιν ὧν δεῖ στοχάζεσθαι, ἓν μὲν καὶ πρῶτον, ὅπως χρηστὰ ᾖ.

ἕξει δὲ ἦθος μέν, ἐὰν ο ὥσπερ ἐλέχθη ποιῇ φανερὰν ὁ λόγος ἢ ἡ πρᾶξις προαίρεσίν τινα, χρηστὸν δ᾽ ἐὰν χρηστήν.

ἔστι δὲ ἐν ἑκάστῳ γένει· καὶ γὰρ γυνή ἐστι χρηστὴ καὶ δοῦλος· καίτοι γε ἴσως τούτων τὸ μὲν χεῖρον, τὸ δὲ ὅλως φαῦλόν ἐστιν.

δεύτερον δὲ τὰ ἁρμόττοντα· ἔστι γὰρ ἀνδρεῖον μὲν τὸ ἦθος, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ ὡρμόττον γυναικὶ τὸ ἀνδρείαν ἢ δεινὴν εἶναι.

τρίτον δὲ τὸ¹ ὅμοιον· τοῦτο γὰρ ἕτερον τοῦ χρηστὸν τὸ ἦθος καὶ ἁρμόττον ποιῆσαι, ὥσπερ εἴρηται.

τέταρτον δὲ τὸ ὁμαλόν· κἂν γὰρ ἀνώμαλός τις ᾖ ὁ τὴν μίμησιν παρέχων καὶ τοιοῦτον ἦθος ὑποτιθείς, ὅμως ὁμαλῶς ἀνώμαλον δεῖ εἶναι.

ἔστι δὲ παράδειγμα πονηρίας μὲν ἤθους μὴ ἀναγκαῖον οἷον ὁ Μενέλαος ὁ ἐν τῷ Ορέστῃ,

τοῦ δὲ ἀπρεποῦς καὶ μὴ ἁρμόττοντος ὅ τε θρῆνος Ὀδυσσέως ἐν τῇ Σκύλλῃ καὶ ἡ τῆς Μελανίππης ῥῆσις,

τοῦ δὲ ἀνωμάλου ἡ ἐν Αυλίδι Ιφιγένεια· οὐδὲν γὰρ ἔοικεν ἡ ἱκετεύουσα τῇ ὑστέρᾳ.

χρὴ δὲ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἤθεσιν, ὥσπερ καὶ ἐν τῇ τῶν πραγμάτων συστάσει, ἀεὶ ζητεῖν ἢ τὸ ἀναγκαῖον ἢ τὸ εἰκός, ὥστε τὸν τοιοῦτον τὰ τοιαῦτα λέγειν ἢ πράττειν ἢ ἀναγκαῖον ἢ εἰκός, καὶ τοῦτο μετὰ τοῦτο γίνεσθαι ἢ ἀναγκαῖον ἢ εἰκός.

φανερὸν οὖν ὅτι καὶ τὰς λύσεις η τῶν μύθων ἐξ αὐτοῦ δεῖ τοῦ μύθου συμβαίνειν, καὶ μὴ ὥσπερ ἐν τῇ Μηδείᾳ ἀπὸ μηχανῆς καὶ ἐν τῇ Ιλιάδι τὰ περὶ τὸν ἀπόπλουν·

ἀλλὰ μηχανῇ χρηστέον ἐπὶ τὰ ἔξω τοῦ δράμ²ατος ἢ ὅσα πρὸ τοῦ γέγονεν, ἃ οὐχ οἷόν τε ἄνθρωπον εἰδέ ναι, ἢ ὅσα ὕστερον, ἃ δεῖται προαγορεύσεως καὶ ἀγγελίας· ἅπαντα γὰρ ἀποδίδομεν τοῖς θεοῖς ὁρᾶν.

ἄλογον δὲ μηδὲν εἶναι ἐν τοῖς πράγμασιν, εἰ δὲ μή, ἔξω τῆς τραγῳδίας, οἷον τὰ ἐν τῷ Οἰδίποδι τῷ Σοφοκλέους.

ἐπεὶ δὲ μίμησίς ἐστιν ἡ τραγῳδία βελτιόνων, ἡμᾶς δεῖ μιμεῖσθαι τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς εἰκονογράφους· καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι ἀποδιδόντες τὴν ἰδίαν μορφήν, ὁμοίους ποιοῦντες, καλλίους γράφουσιν· οὕτω καὶ τὸν ποιητὴν μιμούμενον καὶ ὀργίλους καὶ ῥᾳθύμους καὶ τἆλλα τὰ τοιαῦτα ἔχοντας ἐπὶ τῶν ἠθῶν [τοιούτους ὄντας] ἐπιεικεῖς ποιεῖν [παράδειγμα σκληρότητος], οἷον τὸν Ἀχιλλέα Ἀγάθων καὶ Ὅμηρος.

ταῦτα δὴ δεῖ διατηρεῖν, καὶ πρὸς τούτοις τὰς παρὰ τὰς ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἀκολουθούσας αἰσθήσεις τῇ ποιητικῇ· καὶ γὰρ κατ᾿ αὐτὰς ἔστιν ἁμαρτάνειν πολλάκις. εἴρηται δὲ περὶ αὐτῶν ἐν τοῖς ἐκδεδομένοις λόγοις 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.) — 15 focus

Concerning character there are four points to aim at. The first and most important is that the character should be good.

The play will show character if, as we said above,¹ either the dialogue or the actions reveal some choice; and the character will be good, if the choice is good.

20 But this is relative to each class of people. Even a woman is good and so is a slave, although it may be said that a woman is an inferior thing and a slave beneath consideration.

The second point is that the characters should be appropriate. A character may be manly, but it is not appropriate for a woman to be manly or clever.

Thirdly, it should be like.² This is different from making the character good and from making it appropriate in the sense of the word as used above.

Fourthly, it should be consistent. Even if the original be inconsistent and offers such a character to the poet for representation, still he must be consistently inconsistent.

An example of unnecessary badness of character is Menelaos in the Orestes³;

of character that is unfitting and inappropriate the lament of Odysseus in the Scylla⁴ and Melanippe’s speech⁵;

of inconsistent character Iphigeneia in Aulis , for the suppliant Iphigeneia is not at all like her later character.

In character-drawing just as much as in the arrangement of the incidents one should always seek what is inevitable or probable, so as to make it inevitable or probable that such and such a person should say or do such and such; and inevitable or probable that one thing should follow another.

Clearly therefore the denouement⁶ of each play should also be the result of the plot itself and not produced mechanically as in the Medea and the incident of the embarkation in the Iliad. 1454b 1 ⁷

The god in the car⁸ should only be used to explain what lies outside the play, either what happened earlier and is therefore beyond human knowledge, or what happens later and needs to be foretold in a proclamation. For we ascribe to the gods the power of seeing everything.

There must, however, be nothing inexplicable in the incidents, or, if there is, it must lie outside the tragedy. There is an example in Sophocles’ Oedipus.⁹

Since tragedy is a representation of men better than ourselves we must copy the good portrait-painters who, while rendering the distinctive form and making a likeness, yet paint people better than they are. It is the same with the poet. When representing people who are hot-tempered or lazy, or have other such traits of character, he should make them such, yet men of worth [an example of hardness]¹⁰; take the way in which Agathon and Homer portray Achilles.

Keep, then, a careful eye on these rules and also on the appeal to the eye¹¹ which is necessarily bound up with the poet’s business; for that offers many opportunities of going wrong. But this subject has been adequately discussed in the published treatises.¹²

Arabic Poetics (Badawī edition, 1953) (OCR draft) (The ancient Arabic translation of Aristotle's Poetics in ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Badawī's 1953 edition.) — 15 focus

〈الأخلاق؛ الاحتمال والضرورة؛ «الإله بالآلة»〉

فأما فى العادات فلنتكلم الآن فنقول: إن العادات التى منها نتعرف الحق ونستدل عليه — أربع: الأول منها هو أن تكون العادات جياداً، ويكون كل واحد منها — إن كان قول الأمر الذى هو أعرف قد يؤثر بالفعل الإرادى فى الاعتقاد شيئاً — أن تكون حال كل واحدة من العادات هذه الحال. والخير والجيد إن كان موجوداً فهو موجود خيراً فى كل جنس. وذاك أنه قد توجد مرأة جيدة وفعل جيد. هذا على أنه لعله يكون هذا منهم رذل وهذا مزيف.

والثانى ذلك الذى يصلح. وذلك أن العادة التى هى للرجال قد توجد، إلا أنها لا تصلح للمرأة، ولا أيضاً أن ترى فيها ألبتة.

والثالثة الشبيه بذلك: أن الذى له هذه العادة غير ذلك الذى له عادة جيدة إن كان قد يصلح أن يفعل أيضاً، كما تقدم فقيل.

وأما الرابعة فذاك المتساوى. وذلك أنه إن كان إنسان مما يأتى بالتشبيه والمحاكاة مساوياً، ووضع مثل هذا الخلق كذلك على جهة التساوى، فقد يجب أن يكون غير مساو.

وأيضاً أما مثال رذيلة العادة فليس هو ضرورى، وذلك كما كانت الرحمة لأورسطس والحزن عليه. وما كان غير لائق هو أنه لما كان يصلح ويطابق مثل نوح أوديسوس على المعروفة بـ«ـأسقلى» البحرانية، ولا أيضاً النصنصة ونلحبس (!) المعروفة بميلانافى؛ فأما الذى للامتساوى فكحال ايفيغانيا فى دير المعروف [ببنات] بأولى، وذلك أنه ما تشبهت تلك التى كانت تتضرع بتلك الأخيرة.

وقد يجب أن يطلب دائماً مجرى التشابه كما نطلب ذلك فى قوام الأمور أيضاً: إما ما هو على الحقيقة، وإما ما هو ضرورى، وإما الشبيه. وعند هذه تكون العادة ضرورية أو شبيهاً.

ومن البين أن أواخر الخرافات إما ينبغى أن تعرض لها وتنوبها من العادة نفسها، وليس كالحال فيما كان من الحيلة عند «ميديا» وكما كان إلى «الياذس» من انقلاب المراكب، لا للغرق، لكن إنما ينبغى أن نستعمل نحو خارج القينة، وآخرها الحيلة إما بمقدار ما احتملوا هؤلاء المذكورين، وإما بمبلغ ما لا يمكن الإنسان أن يقف ويعرف أو بمبلغ ما يحتاجون أخيراً فى المقولة أو القول. وذلك أن كل شىء يسلم إلى الآلهة يرى ويبصر؛ فأما ما هو خارج عن النطق فلا ينبغى أن يكون فى الأمور، وإلا كان هذا المعنى خارجاً عن المدائح، بمنزلة ما كان ما أتى به أوديفس من محاكاة سوفقلس حريصاً.

والتشبيه والمحاكاة هى مدائح الأشياء التى هى فى غاية الفضيلة، أو كما يجب أن يشبهوا المصورون الحذاق الجياد؛ وذلك أن هؤلاء بأجمعهم عندما يأتون بصورهم وخلقهم من حيث يشبهون يأتون بالرسوم جياداً، كذلك الشاعر أيضاً عندما يشبه الغضابى والكسالى يأتى هذه الأشياء الأخر التى توجد لهم فى عاداتهم، فعلى هذا ينبغى للحذاق أن يأتوا بمثال الصعوبة، بمنزلة ما أبان أوميروس من خبر أخيلوس.

وهذه ينبغى أن تحفظ؛ ومع هذه أيضاً الاحساسات التى تلزمهم فى صناعة الشعر من الاضطرار، وذلك أن كثيراً ما قد يكون فى هذه زلل وخطأ. وقد تكلم فيها كلاماً كافياً فى الأقاويل التى أتى بها.

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.) — 15 focus

In respect of Character there are four things to be
aimed at. First, and most important, it must be good.

Now any speech or action that manifests moral purpose
of any kind will be expressive of character: the character
will be good if the purpose is good.

This rule is relative
to each class. Even a woman may be good, and also a
slave;
though the woman may be said to be an inferior
being, and the slave quite worthless.

The second thing
to aim at is propriety. There is a type of manly valour;
but valour in a woman, or unscrupulous cleverness, is in-
appropriate.

Thirdly, character must be true to life: for
this is a distinct thing from goodness and propriety, as here
described.

The fourth point is consistency: for though
the subject of the imitation, who suggested the type,
be inconsistent, still he must be consistently inconsistent.

As an example of motiveless degradation of character, we
have Menelaus in the Orestes;

of
character indecorous and inappropriate, the lament of Odysseus in
the Scylla, and the speech of Melanippe:

of inconsistency, the
Iphigenia at Aulis, — for Iphigenia the suppliant in no
way resembles her later self.

In the portraiture of character, as in the structure of the
plot, the poet should always aim either at the necessary
or the probable.
Thus a person of a given character should speak or act in
a given way, by the rule either of necessity or of probability;
just as this event should follow that by necessary or probable
sequence.

It is therefore evident that the unravelling
of the plot, no less than the complication, must arise out
of the plot itself,

it must not be brought about by the
Deus ex Machina as in the Medea, or in the Return of
the Greeks in the Iliad.
The Deus ex Machina should
be employed only for events external to the drama, —
for antecedent or subsequent events, which lie beyond
the range of human knowledge, and which require to be
reported or foretold; for to the gods we ascribe the power
of seeing all things.

Within the action there must be
nothing irrational. If the irrational cannot be excluded,
it should be outside the scope of the tragedy.
Such is
the irrational element in the Oedipus of Sophocles.

Again, since Tragedy is an imitation of persons who
are above the common level, the example of good portrait-
painters should be followed.
They, while reproducing
the distinctive form of the original, make a likeness
which is true to life and yet more beautiful.
So too
the poet, in representing men who are irascible or
indolent, or have other defects of character, should
preserve the type and yet ennoble it.
In this way
Achilles is portrayed by Agathon and Homer.

These then are rules the poet should observe. Nor
should he neglect those appeals to the senses, which,
though not among the essentials, are the concomitants of
poetry;
for here too there is much room for error. But
of this enough has been said in our published treatises.

Aristotle on the Art of Poetry (Ingram Bywater, 1909) (OCR draft) Experimental (Ingram Bywater's English translation of Aristotle's Poetics, published in 1909.) — 15 focus

In the Characters there are four points to aim at. First
and foremost, that they shall be good.

There will be an
element of character in the play, if (as has been observed)
what a personage says or does reveals a certain moral
purpose;
and a good element of character, if the purpose
so revealed is good.

Such goodness is possible in every
type of personage, even in a woman or a slave, though the
one is perhaps an inferior, and the other a wholly worthless
being.

The second point is to make them appropriate. The
Character before us may be, say, manly;
but it is not appro-
priate in a female Character to be manly, or clever.

The
third is to make them like the reality, which is not the same
as their being good and appropriate, in our sense of the
term.

The fourth is to make them consistent and the same
throughout;
even if inconsistency be part of the man before
one for imitation as presenting that form of character, he
should still be consistently inconsistent.

We have an in-
stance of baseness of character, not required for the story,
in the Menelaus in Orestes;

of the incongruous and un-
befitting in the lamentation of Ulysses in Scylla, and in
the (clever) speech of Melanippe;

and of inconsistency in
Iphigenia at Aulis, where Iphigenia the suppliant is utterly
unlike the later Iphigenia.

The right thing, however, is
in the Characters just as in the incidents of the play to
endeavour always after the necessary or the probable;
so that
whenever such-and-such a personage says or does such-
and-such a thing, it shall be the probable or necessary
outcome of his character;
and whenever this incident
follows on that, it shall be either the necessary or the
probable consequence of it.

From this one sees (to digress
for a moment) that the Dénouement also should arise out
of the plot itself, and not depend on a stage-artifice, as in
Medea, or in the story of the (arrested) departure of the
Greeks in the Iliad.

The artifice must be reserved for
matters outside the play for past events beyond human
knowledge, or events yet to come, which require to be
foretold or announced; since it is the privilege of the Gods
to know everything.

There should be nothing improbable
among the actual incidents. If it be unavoidable, however,
it should be outside the tragedy, like the improbability in
the Oedipus of Sophocles.

But to return to the Characters.
as Tragedy is an imitation of personages better than the
ordinary man, we in our way should follow the example of
good portrait-painters, who reproduce the distinctive features
of a man, and at the same time, without losing the likeness,
make him handsomer than he is.
The poet in like manner,
in portraying men quick or slow to anger, or with similar
infirmities of character, must know how to represent them
as such, and at the same time as good men, as Agathon
and Homer have represented Achilles.

All these rules one must keep in mind throughout, and
further, those also for such points of stage-effect as directly
depend on the art of the poet, since in these too one may
often make mistakes.
Enough, however, has been said on
the subject in one of our published writings.

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.) — 15.11 focus

examples either of mildness or severity. So Achilles is drawn as a good character even by Homer [F]. These rules ought to be observed and not only these but such also as regard those objects of the other senses, that necessarily accompany dramatic poetry;

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.) — 15.11 focus

and those who are similarly affected in their manners, should form an example of equity, or asperity: such as Agatho and Homer have represented Achilles. ¹ These things, indeed, it is necesary to observe; and besides these, such perceptions of the senses as are attendant upon poetry, besides ²³⁴⁵ the necessary ones.10 For in these, errors are fre-. quently committed.

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.) — 15 focus

In moribus autem quattuor sunt quae oportet sectari, unum ac primum, ut boni sint.

habebit autem mores, si, ut dictum est, manifestum faciat oratio vel actio studium quoddam, et bonos quidem, si bonum.

inest autem hoc in quovis genere: nam et mulier est bona et servus; quamquam fortasse alterum genus deterius, alterum omnino vile est.

secundum vero ut apti sint: sunt enim viriles quidam mores, sed non aptum mulieri esse virilem vel terribilem, tertium ut similes: hoc enim aliud atque bonos mores et aptos facere, ut dictum est.

quartum vero ut sibi constent: etenim quamvis inconstans sit qui imitationem praebet et eiusmodi mores suppeditat, tamen constanter inconstantem esse oportet.

est

autem exemplar pravitatis morum haud necessarium qualis Menelaus in Oreste,

eorum qui absurdi et non apti lamentatio Ulixis in Scylla et Melanippae oratio, eorum qui sibi non constant Iphigenia Aulidensis:

nam quae supplicat nihil similis videtur ei quae postea est.

decet autem etiam in moribus, ut in factorum compositione, semper sectari sive quod necessarium sive quod verisimile, ut talem talia dicere vel facere sive necessarium sive verisimile sit, utque hoc post illud fieri sive necessarium sive verisimile sit.

itaque manifestum est etiam solutiones fabularum ex ipsa fabula debere contingere, et non sicuti in Medea ex machina et in Iliade quae pertinent ad discessum:

sed machina utendum in iis 3 quae extra fabulam sunt, sive quae ante acciderunt, quae homo scire non potest, sive quae postea, quae indigent praedictione et expositione: omnia enim cernere dis tribuimus.

quod ratione careat nihil inesse in factis decet, sin minus, extra tragoediam, ut quae sunt in Oedipo Sophoclis.

sed quoniam imitatio est tragoedia meliorum, imitari nos decet bonos pictores: etenim illi propriam cuiusque speciem dum praebent, similes exhibentes, meliores pingunt; sic quoque pocta dum imitatur iracundos et inertes et qui cetera huiusmodi in moribus habent [eos qui tales sunt] bonos facere debet [exemplar asperitatis], sicut Achillem Agatho et Homerus.

haec igitur decet observare, et insuper eas perceptiones quae praeter necessarias poesin comitantur: nam in his quoque peccari saepe solet. dictum autem de iis in libris editis quantum est satis.

La poëtique d'Aristote (André Dacier, 1692) (OCR draft) Experimental (André Dacier's French translation of Aristotle's Poetics, published in 1692.) — 15.11 focus

Puiſque la Tragedie eſt une imitation de ce qu'il y a de plus excellent parmi les hommes, nous devons imiter les bons Peintres, qui en donnant à chacun ſa veritable forme, & en les faiſant ſemblables, les repreſentent toûjours plus beaux. Il faut tout de même qu'un Poëte qui veut imiter un homme colére & emporté, ou quelqu'autre caractére ſemblable, ſe remette bien plus devant les yeux ce que la colére doit faire vray-ſemblablement, que ce qu'elle a fait, & c'eſt ainſi qu'Homere & Agathon ont formé le caractére d'Achille.

11.

Poetica d'Aristotile (Bernardo Segni, 1549) (OCR draft) Experimental (Bernardo Segni's 1549 Florentine Italian translation, aligned to the Kassel reference passage sequence.) — 15 focus

Vanto a' coſtumi ſon quattro coſe, che biſogna hauere in confideratione Vna, & la principale è, in che modo i coſtumi ui fieno buoni.¹

Ha rà costume il parlare, & laattione, ſe ella (ſi come s'è detto) e detto) vi farà qualche elettione manifeſta. Fia il coſtu me cattiuo, ſe l'elettione fia cattiua. Et buono, ſe l'elet. tione fia buona.

Et queſto ſi può vedere in ciaſchedun genere, conciofia che la Donna, & il ſeruo poſſa eſſer buono, anchor che forse l'un de due ſia men buo no, & l'altro fia in tutto cattiuo Nel ſecondo luogo è quando i coſtumi ſono contienienti, concioſſa che e ſi poffa efprimere vn coſtume forte;

ma e non è già conueniente à vna Donna l'apparire o forte, ò terribile. Nel terzo luogo è, che e' fia fimile.

Et ciò non è il medefimo col fare il costume, è buono, ò conueniente; ficome 10'ho detto Nel quarto & vltimo è, che e fia uguale;

et auuenga che l'Iftrione, che fa l'imitatione, & che tal coftume ci mette dauanti appariſca inequale: nondimeno detta inequalità debbe eſſere retta ugual mente.

In effempio di coſtume cattiuo, & non neceffa rio fiaci Menelao nello Oreſte.

Et di coſtume indecoto,& non conueniente il pianto dVliffe nella Scilla:& il parlare che fa Menalippe.

Et di coſtume inuguale, fiaci Ifigenia nella Aulide; doue ella, fupplicheuole da prima, non appariſce la medefima in vltimo.

Debbefi nel formare coſtumi, coſi come nel formare il fuggetto, ricercaruiſi ſempre il neceffario,ò il verifimile; & fa re, che l'un caſo ſucceda doppo l'altro nell'uno de' due modı. Et diqui è manifeſto, che gli ſcioglimenti d'eſſe Fauole da eſſe Fauole debbono dependere;

& non fi come è nella Medea, per via di Macchine, ò come è quella nella Iliade, quando i Greci voleuon con l'arma ta ritornarfene à cafa.

Ma la Macchina ſi debbe vſare nelle coſe, che fon fuori della Tragedia, ò in tutte quel le, che ſeguite imprima, era impoſsibile, che vno le fapeſſe; o intutte quelle, che, douendo ſeguire dappoi, hanna biſogno d'eſſere indouinate, o racconte:concio RR ΙΑΤΡΟΙΕΤICA ſia che agli Dei s'attribuiſca la preſcienza di tutte le co ſe.

Che egli è nel vero coſa diſconueneuole à crederfi, che nelle attioni ſteſſe non ſia coſa alcuna da ſcior la Fauola;& ſe pure ella non v'è, ella ſarà fuori della Tragedia:ficome ella è tolta nello Edippo di Sofocle.

Ma conciofia che ella ſia imitatione d'huomini, & di coſe eccellenti; perciò imitiſi in queſto il modo tenuto da buon dipintori, 1 quali nel formar le propie figure per renderle ſimili le dipıngono ſempre più belle. Che il Poeta medefimamente nello imitare vno adirato, vno da poco,ò vnaltro di ſimili coſtumi, debbe ſempre fingerlo per eſſempio dell'una, ò dell'altra qualità di coſtu meiſicome fa Homero d'Acchille, che lo finge vno ef ſempio di Fortezza, Et queſte ſono le cofe, che auuere tir' fi debbono;

& oltradiqueſto quei ſentimenti, che conſeguitano alla Poetica neceſſariamente: conciofia: che mediante queſti noi cinganniamo molteuoltex Della qual materia n'ho 10 ragionato à bastanza negli ſcritti ſopra di ciò dati fuori gilansiodo

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.) — 15 focus

Ceterum de moribus quattuor sunt quae spectare oportet. unum quidem et primum, quomodo boni sint.

habebit autem mores, si, ut dictum est, oratio aut actio manifestam efficiat praeelectionem aliquam; malos quidem, si malam, bonos vero, si bonam,

est vero hoc in unoquoque genere: etenim mulier est bona et servus, etiamsi fortasse ex his illud quidem peius, hoc omnino malum est. secundum est, quando sint convenientes: est enim virorum mos,

sed non conveniens mulieri, fortem vel terribilem esse. tertium quando sint similes:

hoc enim aliud est ab eo quod est bonos et convenientes mores facere, ut dictum est. quartum,

quomodo aequales: tametsi enim inaequalis quidam sit qui praebet imitationem, et talibus moribus suppositus sit,

tamen aequaliter inaequalem oportet esse. est autem exemplum improborum morum non ex necessitate, ut Menelaus in Oreste,

eius vero quod non deceat et non conveniat, tum lamentatio Ulyssis in Scylla, tum Menalippae dictio.

at inaequalium in Aulide Iphigenia: nullam enim in partem similis est, dum orat, ei quae apparet posterius.

oportet autem et in moribus, ut etiam in rerum constitutione, semper quaerere vel necessarium vel verisimile; et hoc post hoc fieri vel ex necessitate vel ex verisimilitudine.

apparet igitur et solutiones fa¿ bularum ex ipsa oportere fabula contingere, et non ut in Medea a machina, et in Iliade ea quae sunt circa renavigationem.

sed machina uti opus est ad ea quae sunt extra actionem, aut quaecunque ante facta sunt, quae fieri non potest ut homo sciat, aut quaecunque postea, quae egent praedicatione et nuntiatione: omnia enim videre tribuimus diis.

at sine ratione in rebus nihil esse oportet: sin minus, id extra tragoediam sit, ut quae sunt in Oedipode Sophoclis.

quoniam autem tragoedia est meliorum imitatio, oportet nos imitari bonos formarum fictores. etenim illi cum tribuant propriam formam, faciendo similes pulchriores fingunt. sic etiam oportet poetam imitantem et iracundos et socordes et alia talia habentes in moribus, cum tales sint, probitatis facere exemplum ac duritiae, at Achillem bonum etiam Homerus.

iam vero haec oportet servare, et ad haec ea quae sub sensum cadunt consequentia poëticae, praeter illa quae sunt ex necessitate: etenim secundum ipsa saepenumero contingit peccare. dictum autem est satis de ipsis in editis libris.

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.) — 15 focus

Circa mores autem quatuor sunt que oportet coniecturare '

unum quidem et primum, quatinus boni sint ; habebit autem morem quidem si, sicut dictum est, faciat manifestum sermo aut actio electionem que sit, bonum autem si bona.

Est autem in unoquoque genere; et enim mulier est bona et servus, et quidem forte horum hoc quidem peius, hoc autem totaliter pravum est. —

Secundum autem congruentia; est enim virilis quidem mos, sed non congruens mulieri aut virilem aut diram esse. —

Tertium autem quod simile ; hoc enim alterum a bonum morem et congruum facere, sicut dictum est. —

Quartum autem quod regulare. Et si enim irregularis aliquis sit qui imitationem exhibet et talem morem supponens, tamen regulariter irregularem autem esse. —

Est autem exemplum malignitatis quidem moris non necessarium, puta Menelaus qui in Horeste,

indecentis autem et non congruentis lamentatio Odysei in Skyla et que Melaniptis series;

irregularis autem que in Aulide Ifigenia; nichil enim visa est ministrans posteriori. —

Oportet autem et in moribus sicut et in rerum consistentia semper querere aut quod necessarium aut quod verisimile, ut talem talia dicere aut agere sit necessarium aut verisimile, et hoc post hoc fieri aut necessarium aut verisimile. —

Manifestum igitur quod et solutiones fabularum oportet ex ipsa fabula accidere et non sicut in Medea ab ingenio et in Iliade que circa simplicem ;

sed ingenio utendum deinde extra opus, aut quecumque ante hoc fuerunt que non possibile hominem nosse, aut quecumque posterius que indigent preappellatione et nuntiatione ; omnia enim attribuimus diis videre.

Irrationabile autem nichil esse in rebus, si autem non, extra tragodiam, puta quod in Oidipode Sophocleis. —

Quoniam autem imitatio est tragodia meliorum, nos oportet imitari bonos ymaginum pictores; et enim illi assignantes propriam formam similes facientes meliores pingunt ; sic et poetam imitantem et iracundos et desides et alia talia habentes in moribus tales entes epieikees facere ; exemplar duriciei velut Achillem Agathon et Homerus.

Hec itaque observare eas que preter eas que ex necessitate assequentes sensus poetice ; et enim secundum ipsas est peccare multotiens ; dictum est autem de ipsis in traditis sermonibus 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.) — 15 focus

‏فاما فى العادات فلنتكلم الان فنقول ان العادات التى منها يتعرف الحق ويستدل عليه اربع الاول منها هو ان يكون العادات جيادا

‏ويكون كل واحد منها ان كان قول الامر الذى هو اعرف قد يوثر بالفعل الارادى فى الاعتقاد شيا ما ان يكون حال كل واحد من العادات هذه الحال

‏والخير والجيد ان كان موجودا فهو موجود [خيرا] فى كل جنس وذاك انه قد يوجد مرة جيدة وفعل جيد هذا على انه لعله يكون هذا منهم ردل وهذا مزيف

‏والثانى ذلك الذى يصلح وذلك ان العادة التى هى للرجال قد توجد الا انها لا تصلح للمرة ولا ايضا ان ترى فيها الثيه

‏والثالثة الشبيه بذلك ان الذى له هذه العادة غير ذلك الذى له عادة جيدة اذ كان قد يصلح ان يفعل ايضا كما تقدم فقيل⸫

‏واما الرابعة فذاك المتساوى وذلك انه ان كان انسان مما ياتى بالتشبه والمحاكاة مساو ووضع مثل هذا الخلق كذلك على جهة التساوى فقد يجب ان يكون غير مساو

‏وايضا اما مثال رذيلة العادة فليس هو ضرورى وذلك كما كانت الرحمة لاورسطس

‏والحزن عليه وما كان غير لايق هو انه لما كان يصلح ويطابق مثل نوح اودسيوس على المعرفة باسقلى البحرانية ولا ايضا الٮصٮصه وٮلجس المعروفة بميلانافى

‏فاما الذى للا متساو فكحال ايفيغانيا فى دير [المعروف ببنات اوى] وذلك انه ما تشبهت تلك التى كانت تتضرع بتلك الاخيرة

‏وقد يجب ان يطلب دايما مجرى التشابه كما نطلب ذلك فى قوام الامور ايضا اما ما هو على الحقيقة واما ما هو ضرورى واما الشبيه وعند هذه تكون العادة ضرورية او شبيه

‏ومن البين ان اواخر الخرافات انما ينبغى ان تعرض لها وتنوبها من العادة نفسها وليس كحال فيما كان من الحيلة عند ميديا وكما كان مما كان الى اٮٮلس من انقلاب المراكب [لا للغرق]

‏لكن انما ينبغى ان يستعمل نحو خارج القينة واخرها الحيلة اما بمقدار ما احٮملوا هولا المذكورين واما بمبلغ ما لا يمكن الانسان ان يقف ويعرف او بمبلغ ما يحتاجون اخيرا ڡى المقولة او القول وذلك ان كل شى نسلم الى الالهة يرى ويبصر

‏فاما ما هو خارج عن النطق فلا ينبغى ان يكون فى الامور والا كان هذا المعنى خارجا عن المدايح بمنزلة ما كان ما اتا به اوديقس من محاكاة سوفقلس حرٮصا

‏والتشبيه والماحكاة هى مدايح الاشيا التى هى فى غاية الفضيلة او كما يجب ان سٮهوا المصورون الحذاق الجياد وذلك ان هولا باجمعهم عند ما ياتون بصورهم وخلقهم من حيث يشبهون ياتون بالرسوم جيادا كذلك الشاعر ايضا عند ما يشبه الغضابى والكسالى ياتى هذه الاشيا الاخر التى توجد لهم فى عاداتهم فعلى هذا ينبغى للحذاق ان ياتوا بمثال الصعوبة بمنزلة ما اجاں اوميرس من خبر اخيلوس

‏وهذه ينبغى ان تحفظ ومع هذه ايضا الاحساسات التى تلزمهم فى صناعة الشعر من الاضطرار وذلك انه كثيرا ما قد يكون فى هذه زلل وخطا وقد تكلم فيها كلاما كافيا فى الاقاويل التى اتى بها

Arabic Poetics (Abū Bishr Mattā; Tkatsch edition, unaligned) (OCR draft) Experimental (Tkatsch's edition of the medieval Arabic translation in its original, unaligned segmentation.) — 15 focus

‏ويكون كل واحد منها ان كان قول الامر الذى هو اعرف قد يوثر بالفعل الارادى فى الاعتقاد شيا ما

‏ان يكون حال كل واحد من العادات هذه الحال

‏والثانى ذلك الذى يصلح وذلك ان العادة التى هى للرجال قد توجد الا انها لا تصلح للمرة ولا ايضا ان ترى فيها الثيه

‏وايضا اما مثال رذيلة العادة فليس هو ضرورى وذلك كما كانت الرحمة لاورسطس والحزن عليه وما كان غير لايق هو انه لما كان يصلح ويطابق مثل نوح اودسيوس على المعرفة باسقلى البحرانية ولا ايضا الٮصٮصه وٮلجس المعروفة بميلانافى فاما الذى للا متساو فكحال ايفيغانيا فى دير [المعروف ببنات اوى] وذلك انه ما تشبهت تلك التى كانت تتضرع بتلك الاخيرة

‏ومن البين ان اواخر الخرافات انما ينبغى ان تعرض لها وتنوبها من العادة نفسها وليس كحال فيما كان من الحيلة عند ميديا وكما كان مما كان الى اٮٮلس من انقلاب المراكب [لا للغرق] لكن انما ينبغى ان يستعمل نحو خارج القينة واخرها الحيلة اما بمقدار ما احٮملوا هولا المذكورين واما بمبلغ ما لا يمكن الانسان ان يقف ويعرف او بمبلغ ما يحتاجون اخيرا ڡى المقولة او القول وذلك ان كل شى نسلم الى الالهة يرى ويبصر

‏كذلك الشاعر ايضا عند ما يشبه الغضابى والكسالى ياتى هذه الاشيا الاخر التى توجد لهم فى عاداتهم فعلى هذا ينبغى للحذاق ان ياتوا بمثال الصعوبة بمنزلة ما اجاں اوميرس من خبر اخيلوس

‏وهذه ينبغى ان تحفظ ومع هذه ايضا الاحساسات التى تلزمهم فى صناعة الشعر من الاضطرار وذلك انه كثيرا ما قد يكون فى هذه زلل وخطا

—

Notes on the current edition

Poetics

1. This seems intended to explain his third precept, of resemblance in the manners; to reconcile it with his first, and to shew what sort of likeness the nature of Tragic imitation requires. Compare Part I. Sect. 3.-and Part IV. Sect. 5.

Commentary

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

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-521

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-522

1454a17 χρηστά. χρηστός, which, as Aristotle tells us in the context (20), may be applied to anything good of its kind, is replaced in b 13 by ἐπιεικής ; it is equivalent to σπουδαῖος as used in 2, 1448 a 2 , the common opposite of both being φαῦλος οι πονηρός.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-523

18 ὥσπερ ἐλέχθη: in 6, 1450 b 8 .

a 21

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-524

τὸ μὲν χεῖρον: Pol. 1. 5, 1254 b 13

τὸ ἄρρεν πρὸς τὸ θῆλυ φύσει τὸ μὲν κρεῖττον τὸ δὲ χεῖρον

. — H. A. 9. 1, 608 b 8

διόπερ γυνὴ ἀνδρὸς ἐλεημονέστερον καὶ ἀρίδακρυ μᾶλλον, ἔτι δὲ φθονερώτερον καὶ μεμψιμοιρότερον καὶ φιλολοίδορον μᾶλλον καὶ πληκτικώτερον· ἔστι δὲ καὶ δύσθυμον μᾶλλον τὸ θῆλυ τοῦ ἄρρενος καὶ δύσελπι καὶ ἀναιδέστερον καὶ ψευδέστερον κτέ.

In the Politics we are told that owing to the weakness of the rational faculty in them, the virtue of which women are capable is not so high as that of a man ( Pol. 1. 13, 1260 a 20 ). Rhet. 1. 5, 1361 b 26 summarizes the Greek idea on this point: θηλειῶν ἀρετὴ σώματος μὲν κάλλος καὶ μέγεθος, ψυχῆς δὲ σωφροσύνη καὶ φιλεργία ἄνευ ἀνελευθερίας.

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-525

ὅλως φαῦλον. In the Politics, where the slave is viewed as a being of the very lowest intellectual and moral capacity, Aristotle allows him only the bare modicum of virtue required to enable him to do his work : ἀρετῆς δεῖται μικρᾶς καὶ τοσαύτης ὅπως μήτε δι' ἀκολασίαν μήτε διὰ δειλίαν ἐλλείψῃ τῶν ἔργων ( Pol. 1. 13, 1260 b 35 ).

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-526

τὸ ἁρμόττοντα, scil. τὰ ἤθη ποιῆσαι (see on a 24 τρίτον τὸ ὅμοιον ). In the individual character there must be nothing at variance with that of the class to which the individual belongs; in a woman, for instance, there should be nothing 'unwomanly'. The opposite of ἁρμόττον in 30 is ἀπρεπὲς καὶ μὴ ἁρμόττον. This same use of the term is occasionally found in later criticism, e. g. in Schol. Soph. El. 126

τὸ ῾εἴ μοι θέμις τάδ᾽ αὐδᾶν᾿ λίαν ἠθικὸν καὶ ἁρμόζον γυναιξίν

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-527

a 23 γυναικείῳ, scil. ἤθει; comp. Plato Laws 790 C γυναικεῖά τε καὶ δούλεια ἤθη. ἦθος in this connexion practically means a 'character', i. e. one of the personages, just as it does again further on in 24, 1460 a 11 . An approximation to this sense is found in Plato, who uses the word now and then for a man or other creature possessing character: Phaed. 81 E ἐνδοῦνται δέ [scil. αἱ ψυχαί], ὥσπερ εἰκός, εἰς τοιαῦτα ἤθη, ὁποῖ᾽ ἄττ᾿ ἂν καὶ μεμελετηκυῖαι τύχωσιν ἐν τῷ βίῳ, οἷον τοὺς μὲν γαστριμαργίας... μεμελετηκότας... εἰς τὰ τῶν ὄνων γένη καὶ τῶν τοιούτων θηρίων εἰκὸς ἐνδύεσθαι [v. Stallb. ad loc.]. — Rep. 6, 496 A γενναῖον καὶ εὖ τεθραμμένον ἦθος. — 503 C τὰ βέβαια ταῦτα ἤθη (comp. Festschrift Th. Gomperz dargebracht p. 165).

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-528

ἀνδρείαν. On the ἀνδρεία of women see Pol. 1. 13, 1260 a 22 and 3. 4, 1277 b 21 . In the present passage, however., Aristotle finds a certain incongruity in the idea of an ἀνδρεία γυνή, as though the affinity of ἀνδρεῖος with ἄνδρες were still felt.

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-529

24 δεινὴν has been rightly explained by Günther ( Grundzüge der trag. Kunst p. 280) as meaning 'clever', i. e. 'clever in speech and argument' ('tüchtig im Reden', 'beredt') a quality which according to Greek notions was quite out of place in a woman ( Pol. 1. 13, 1260 a 30 ; 3. 4, 1277 b 23 ). That this rather than 'terrible' is the meaning of δεινὴν here is shown by the illustration in 31,

ἡ τῆς Μελανίππης ῥῆσις

, where the reference is to the δεινότης or 'rhetorical cleverness' of the speech put into the mouth of Melanippe by Euripides.

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-530

τὸ ὅμοιον, scil. τὸ ἦθος ποιῆσαι, as is implied in the clause of in-terpretation, τοῦτο γὰρ ἕτερον τοῦ χρηστὸν τὸ ἦθος καὶ ἁρμόττον ποιῆσαι. Instead of saying ὅμοια, to correspond with ἁρμόττοντα in 22, Aristotle lapses into the singular ὅμοιον, through the influence, as it would seem, of the singular in ἀνδρεῖον μὲν τὸ ἦθος in the context. In the absence of an example in 28 sqq. to illus-trate the neglect of this canon, the meaning of ὅμοιον is not very clear; but a hint of it may be gathered from the language in the analogy in 1454 b 9

ὁμοίους ποιοῦντες καλλίους γράφουσιν

, where ὁμοίους (said of a portrait) means 'like the original'. This may very well be the sense of ὅμοιον in the present passage; the literary portrait produced by the poet should be 'like the original', i. e. like what the personage in question is in history or legend (comp. 1454 b 12 ). The fact of ὅμοιος being used in a somewhat different sense in 2, 1448 a 6, 12 and 13, 1453 a 5 only shows how inattentive Aristotle is at times to uniformity of language.

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-531

25 ὥσπερ εἴρηται, ' in the present sense of this term ( ἁρμόττον)'.

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-532

ὁμαλόν: i.e. the character should always remain the same, with-out change or modification in the course of the play. The canon reappears in Horace A.P. 126

servetur ad imum [scil. persona] qualis ab incepto processerit, et sibi constet.

The logical scheme of these four canons of character may be presented thus: the ἦθος of the dramatic personage should be (1) χρηστόν, not inconsistent with goodness of disposition; (2) ἁρμόττον, not inconsistent with the ἦθος of the class to which the personage belongs; (3) ὅμοιον, not inconsistent with the received idea of the particular personage; (4) ὁμαλόν, not inconsistent with itself.

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-533

ἀνώμαλός τις. Aristotle is perhaps thinking of Achilles, as a character subject to sudden changes of mood; comp. fr. 168 (Teubn.)

Ἀριστοτέλης φησὶν ἀνώμαλον εἶναι τὸ Ἀχιλλέως ἦθος

, and Eustathius on Il. 24, 569 (v. Roemer, Bavarian Academy, Sitzungsb. 1884 p. 297).

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-534

ὁ τὴν μίμησιν παρέχων, as the explanatory καὶ τοιοῦτον ἦθος ὑποτι-θείς shows, means the original of the dramatic portrait, the person-age as known from history or legend.

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-535

μὴ ἀναγκαίου: 'not required for the purposes of the story'. The gratuitous πονηρία of Menelaus in the Orestes is noted again in 25, 1461 b 20 ; the Scholiast also on the Orestes more than once draws attention to the evil nature Euripides has given him ( τὸ κακόηθες τῆς γνώμης). On the reading ἀναγκαίου see J. of Phil. 14 p. 46 . I am not able to quote an Aristotelian instance of ἀναγκαῖος as a feminine, but it is certainly good Attic, and common enough in Plato. Though Aristotle's tendency was to treat such adjectives as of three terminations, his practice varied in the case of several (e. g. βέβαιος, ἑκούσιος, ἐλευθέριος, ἴδιος, τέλειος), if our existing texts are to be trusted.

ὁ τοῦ: comp. τῆς Μελανίππης in the next line. The article has to be restored in like manner before Ὀδυσσέως in 16, 1454 b 26 and Ὀρέστης in 16, 1454 b 31 . In all other passages in the Poetics—and they are very numerous—the rule laid down by Fitzgerald ( Selections from the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle, p. 163) as to the use of the article in Aristotle with the names of dramatis personae is duly observed. The same is true of the Nicomachean Ethics (see my Textual criticism of the Nic. Ethics p. 52), and Politics. In the Politics ὁ Σωκράτης is regularly used for the Socrates in Plato's dialogues, and in 2. 4, 1262 b 11

ὁ Ἀριστοφάνης

means the Aristophanes in Plato's Symposium. The rule in fact is observed in twenty passages in the Politics, and ignored in two only, in 8. 3, 1338 a 28 —where we may restore (ὁ) Ὀδυσσεύς, and in 8. 7, 1342 b 23 —where the true reading is probably (τῷ) Σωκράτει. Similarly in the Rhetoric there are at least eighteen instances of the observance of the rule and but two exceptions, viz. 2. 23, 1400 a 27 —where we may restore (ὁ) Ὀδυσσεύς (comp. 3. 15, 1416 b 1 and b 12 ), and 3. 14, 1415 b 30 —where the correction (ὁ) Σωκράτης is confirmed by the parallel in 1. 9, 1367 b 8 .

1454a31

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-536

1454a ἐν τῇ Σκύλλῃ: comp. 26, 1461 b 32 . The Scylla Aristotle has in mind has been often supposed to be a tragedy of Euripides. But there is apparently no mention elsewhere of a tragedy with this title by Euripides (comp. Wilamowitz, Analecta Eurip. p. 159), and the language in 26, 1461 b 32 seems to point rather to a dithyramb. All discussion has been set at rest by Gomperz's recovery among the Vienna papyri of a fragment of some ancient critical treatise, which mentions the θρῆνος of Ulysses (i. e. a portion of the Scylla) as the work of the dithyrambic poet Timotheus:

εἰσὶν δὲ τινὲς οἱ ὃν μὲν προτίθενται οὐ μειμοῦνται [δὲ], ἄλλον δὲ καὶ τοῦτον καλῶς, εἰ τυγχάνοιεν ἐνέχοντες ἔννοιαν καὶ παράδειγμα παρ᾿ ἡμεῖν αὐτοῖς, ὥσπερ καὶ Τειμόθεος ἐν τῷ θρήνῳ τοῦ Ὀδυσσέως εἰ μέν τινα μειμεῖται καὶ τὸ ὅμοιόν τινι οἶδεν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ τῷ Ὀδυσσεῖ

(v. Gomperz, Vienna Academy, Anz. der phil. hist. Classe 1886, v; comp. Wilamowitz, Timotheos p. 111). To this Aristotle appends a second instance, one from a tragedy, as though conscious of the first being not quite to the point.

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-537

1454a32 ἡ τῆς Μελανίππης ῥῆσις, in the Μελανίππη ἡ σοφή of Euripides ( Nauck, TGF. p. 509 ). The rationalistic argument put into her mouth against the popular idea of monsters ( τέρατα) was in Aristotle's view (see on δεινὴν 24 ) an exhibition of cleverness out of place in a woman.

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-538

1454a32_2 ἡ ἐν Αὐλίδι Ἰφιγένεια: Iph. Aul.1211 sqq. and 1368 sqq.

1454a33

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-539

χρὴ δὲ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἤθεσιν κτέ. There should be a unity of 33 character just as there should be a unity of action in every play. This incidental reference to the action reminds Aristotle of a point (the use of the μηχανή) which had not been considered in his general theory of the plot in chaps. 8-11 .

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-540

1454a34 τὸ ἀναγκαῖον ἢ τὸ εἰκός: comp. especially 9, 1451 38 and 10, 1452 24 .

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-541

1454a35 ἢ ἀναγκαῖον ἢ εἰκὸς, scil. εἶναι ( Bon. Ind. 239a22 ; see on 24, 1459b9 ).

10b. mvp-aristotle-comment-542

1454a37 λύσεις: see 18, 1455b24 , 1456a9 , where the λύσις (the un- ravelling, or dénouement) is distinguished from the δέσις or πλοκή (the knotting, or intrigue). This is the first appearance of these terms in this sense, though they may be presumed to have been already well established in the technical language of the theatre (see on 10, 1452a15 ).

10b. mvp-aristotle-comment-543

1454a37_2 ἐν τῇ Μηδείᾳ: Eurip. Med.1317 .

1454b1

10b. mvp-aristotle-comment-544

1454b μηχανῆς. On the mechanical contrivance, whereby a god or other personage was suddenly brought on, or removed from the stage, see Haigh, Attic Theatre p. 209 . Aristotle regards a dénouement effected by such means as an inartistic way out of the difficulty, or else allowable only in certain exceptional cases (3-6). A similar view of the μηχανή is implied in Plato Crat. 425 D

οἱ τραγῳδοποιοί, ἐπειδάν τι ἀπορῶσιν, ἐπὶ τὰς μηχανὰς κατα- φεύγουσι θεοὺς αἴροντες.

From this theatrical use the term is sometimes metaphorically extended to matters apart from the stage, when a difficulty is solved by means which savour too much of artifice or miracle. Thus even in the present context ( b2) the sudden appearance of Athene in Il. 2. 166 is said to be ἀπὸ μηχανῆς; and in Metaph. A 5, 985 b 18 reason is said to come in as a deus ex machina in the cosmogony of Anaxagoras :

Ἀναξα- γόρας τε γὰρ μηχανῇ χρῆται τῷ νῷ πρὸς τὴν κοσμοποιίαν, καὶ ὅταν ἀπορήσῃ διὰ τίν᾿ αἰτίαν ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἐστί, τότε παρέλκει αὐτόν.

10b. mvp-aristotle-comment-545

1454b2 τὰ περὶ τὸν ἀπόπλουν: Il. 2. 155 ; comp. Porphyry on Il. 2. 144, p. 26 Schrader :

ἡ Ἀθηνᾶ παραγίνεται ἀπὸ μηχανῆς [so cod. Townl.] ὥσπερ καθεύδοντα τὸν Ὀδυσσέα ἐγείρουσα.

His note on Il. 2. 73 (where Agamemnon tries the feeling of his army) is worth quoting as a typical attempt to reconcile Homeric practice and Aristotelian theory:

δια τί ὁ Ἀγαμέμνων ἀπεπειρᾶτο τῶν ᾿Ἀχαιῶν, καὶ οὕτως ἔπραξεν ὥστε ὀλίγου τὰ ἐναντία συμβῆναι ἢ ἐβουλεύετο; καὶ τὸ κώλυμα ἀπὸ μηχανῆς· ἡ γὰρ Ἀθηνᾶ ἐκώλυσεν· ἔστι δὲ ἀποίητον τὸ μηχάνημα λύειν ἄλλως εἰ μὴ ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοῦ μύθου. φησὶ δὲ ὁ Ἀριστο- τέλης (Fr. 142 Teubn.) ποιητικὸν μὲν εἶναι τὸ μιμεῖσθαι τὰ εἰωθότα γίνεσθαι καὶ ποιητῶν μᾶλλον τὸ κινδύνους παρεισάγειν· εἰκὸς δὲ καὶ ἐκ λοιμοῦ πεπονημένους καὶ τῷ μήκει τοῦ χρόνου ἀπαυδήσαντας ... μὴ εὐθὺς παρακαλεῖν ἐπὶ τὴν ἔξοδον ἀλλὰ πειραθῆναι ἡγήσασθαι δεῖν εἰ οὕτως ἔχουσιν . . ἡ δὲ λύσις οὐκ ἀπὸ μηχανῆς· ὅταν γὰρ διὰ τῶν εἰκότων γίγνηται, οὐ μηχανὴ τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν, ἅμ᾽ [? ἀλλ᾽] ὅτε πρόσκειται θεός· ἀλλὰ τοῦτ᾽ εἰπὼν εἱκὸς ἦν αὐτοῖς γίνεσθαι εἰς θεὸν ἀνέθηκε τὸν Ὀδυσσέα διανοηθῆναι ταῦτα δρᾶν ἃ πρᾶξαι ἂν εἰκός ἐστιν

(p. 24-25 Schrader). ¹

1454b2_2

10c. mvp-aristotle-comment-546

ἀλλὰ μηχανῇ κτέ.: μηχανῇ breviter dicit pro theώ ἀπὸ μηχανῆς (Ritter). This clause (which ends apparently with θεοῖς ὁρᾶν in b 6) is a digression within a digression; Aristotle remembers 15. 14541-9 231 that the appearance of a god on the stage may be necessary for a certain purpose, to reveal matters of interest which lie outside the play itself as being either anterior or subsequent to the action of the piece. This may be taken as a tacit apology for the proce- dure of Euripides, who opens several of his plays with a prologue delivered by a god to explain the historical antecedents of the situation, and concludes others with a sort of epilogue, in which a god announces the future fortunes of the personages (see Haigh, Tragic Drama p. 246-7 ). A distorted reminiscence of this state- ment may be recognized in the Horatian precept, A. P. 191

nec deus intersit nisi dignus vindice nodus inciderit

10d. mvp-aristotle-comment-547

1454b6 ἄλογον is a general term for that which cannot be seen to be either necessary or probable (see above 1454 a 36

ἀναγκαῖον ἢ εἰκός

), in other words for that which does not admit of explanation, that which we find unaccountable. It is of frequent occurrence in the later chapters of the Poetics (see esp. 24, 1460 a 28 and 25, 1461 b 14 ). The clause continues the statement in 1454 a 37 - b 2 . No improbability can be allowed within the story ( ἐν τοῖς πράγμασιν) of the play, unless it happens to be in the part only pre- supposed and not actually presented on the stage ( ἔξω τῆς τραγῳδίας). Bonitz ( Ind. 343 a 32 ) seems to take a different view of the clause, connecting it with that which immediately precedes it, μηχανῇ χρηστέον κτέ. The rule in the text is repeated in very similar terms in 24, 1460 27 .

10d. mvp-aristotle-comment-548

1454b6_2 μηδὲν εἶναι, scil. δεῖ, understood from 37.

10d. mvp-aristotle-comment-549

1454b6_3 ἔξω τῆς τραγῳδίας: see on 14, 1453 b 32 .

10d. mvp-aristotle-comment-550

1454b6_4 τὸ ἐν τῷ Οἰδίποδι: see 24, 1400 a 29

1454b8

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-551

ἐπεὶ δὲ κτἑ. At this point Aristotle returns to the subject of the ἤθη, which according to his theory (1454 a 17-26) should be at once χρηστά, ἁρμόττοντα, ὅμοια, and ὁμαλά, in order to meet any doubt that may arise as to the possibility of an ἦθος being at once χρηστόν and ὅμοιον. He shows that the corresponding difficulty has been solved in a sister art, that of the portrait-painter, who without sacrificing the likeness makes a man look handsomer than he is ( ὁμοίους ποιοῦντες καλλίους γράφουσιν); so that, if the painter can do this, there is no reason why the literary artist also should not be able to represent a tragic personage truthfully, with any infirmities of character which form part of the received idea of him ( ὀργίλους καὶ ῥᾳθύμους καὶ τάλλα τὰ τοιαῦτα ἔχοντας ἐπὶ τῶν ἠθῶν b12), and at the same time as a good man (ἐπιεικεῖς b13).

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-552

1454b8_2 βελτιόνων: see 2, 1448 4 , 11 , 18 .

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-553

1454b9 ἡμᾶς, 232 COMMENTARY 1454 b 9 'we poets', as is shown by what follows in οὕτω καὶ τὸν ποιητήν. Aristotle speaks as though his hearers were poets, and studying the art of poetry for practical purposes. The Poetics in fact, whatever else they may be, are a practical treatise on Poetry; and the assumption throughout is that one is to learn from them how to write a good poem. Similarly in Rhet. 1. 8, 1366 a 12

ἡμᾶς

means 'we orators' (

δέοι ἂν τὰ ἤθη τῶν πολιτειῶν ἑκάστης ἔχειν ἡμᾶς

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-554

1454b10 καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι. Aristotle might no doubt have said ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι. Vahlen illustrates the construction from Soph. el. 16, 175 a 27

συμβαίνει δέ ποτε καθάπερ ἐν τοῖς διαγράμμασιν· καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖ ἀναλύσαντες ἐνίοτε συνθεῖναι πάλιν ἀδυνατοῦμεν· οὕτω καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἐλέγχοις εἰδότες παρ᾿ ὃ ὁ λόγος συμβαίνει συνεῖραι διαλύσαι τὸν λόγον ἀποροῦμεν

, and other parallels in Aristotle (v. Bon. Ind. 546 ).

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-555

1454b12 ὀργίλους καὶ ῥᾳθύμους, 'too quick or too slow to anger'; the contrast is like that between ὀξύς and ῥάθυμος in Eth. E. 8. 5, 1240 a 1

ἀνομοίοις χαίρουσιν, οἷον αὐστηροὶ εὐτραπέλοις καὶ ὀξεῖς ῥᾳθύμις

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-556

1454b12_2 καὶ τἆλλα τὰ τοιαῦτα ἔχοντας is added in order to include all similar defects of character, i. e. defects which are not incompatible with a general goodness of disposition.

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-557

1454b14 παράδειγμα σκληρότητος. For the reason for bracketing the two words see J. of Phil. 14 p. 47 . If they are not an ordinary 'adscript', they may possibly represent a marginal note by Aristotle himself to indicate that a second instance, one of σκληρότης [obstinacy?], was to be added. According to Galen (t. 18. 2 p. 879-80 K.) notes of a very similar description were to be found embedded in the text of Hippocrates.

1454b14_2

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-558

Ἀγάθων: perhaps, as Tyrwhitt suggests, in his Telephus ( Nauck, TGF. p. 764 ).

1454b15

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-559

διατηρεῖν. This quasi-imperatival use of the infinitive (without δεῖ οι χρή) is common enough in Aristotle ( Bon. Ind. 343 a 22 ). For the compound διατηρεῖν comp. Eth. N. 10. 8, 1178 a 13

διατηροῦντες τὸ πρέπον ἑκάστῳ

. — Aeschines in Ctes. 6

ὅταν διατηρηθῶσιν οἱ νόμοι

. — Philemon 94. 6 Kock

ὃς γε ταῦτα πάντα διατηρεῖ

. At this point Aristotle sums up by saying that the rules laid down for the μῦθος and ἤθη in a play must be observed throughout by the poet. But besides these general principles of construction, it is necessary in practice to consider the spectators (comp. Teichmüller, Aristot. Forsch. 2 p. 204) and the impression (αἰσθήσεις) the work is likely to make on them when presented on the stage, as it is easy to produce a bad impression through some fault of practical stage-craft. This seems to be the sense of the present 15. 14549-16. 1454 20 233 passage; Aristotle, however, avoids details, and refers to another writing of his for a fuller explanation of his precept. The incident mentioned in 17, 1455 b 26 may perhaps be taken as an instance of the kind of fault he has in mind.

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-560

1454b15_2 τὰ παρὰ τὰς ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἀκολουθούσας αἰσθήσεις. For παρά in a sense approximating to that of διά see Bon. Ind. 562 a 10 and Bernays, Dialoge des Aristot. p. 138. αἰσθήσεις means the impression produced on the spectators, i. e. as we should say, the stage-effect of a play. The qualification, however, τὰς ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἀκολουθούσας τῇ ποιητικῇ, limits the responsibility of the poet to that part of the stage-effect which directly depends on his own art ( ἀκολουθούσας τῇ ποιητικῇ); so far as it depends on that of others — actors, costumiers, and the like — it is not within his province ( 6, 1450b17 ). This interpretation, which is as old as Victorius, is much more probable than that of Bernays and others, who suppose the reference in the text to be to the business of the costumier and stage-manager. Throughout the Poetics Aristotle resolutely ignores all such matters as outside the art of poetry proper; and it is inconceivable that he should have given them any special attention in a work like the dialogue περὶ ποιητῶν ( ἐν τοῖς ἐκδεδομένοις λόγοις). For the plural αἰσθήσεις comp. ὄψεις in 6, 1450 a 13, b 20 , and Kühner, Gr. Gr.³ 2. 1 p. 17 .

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-561

1454b18 ἐν τοῖς ἐκδεδομένοις λόγοις: i. e. in the now lost dialogue περὶ ποιητῶν, as Bernays following Victorius has shown (Dialoge des Aristot. p. 27; comp. Bon. Ind. 226b35 ). The reference must be to a work (1) by Aristotle himself, (2) published and written for publication, and (3) on a kindred subject.

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

1. mvp-aristotle-comment-361

15.1 LA premiere & la plus importante, qu'elles soient bon-nes. Il y a des mœurs dans un discours, ou dans une action, comme je l'ay déja dit, lorsque l'un & l'autre, font connoître l'inclination, ou la réſolution telle qu'elle est; mau-vaiſe fi elle est mauvaiſe, & bonne, fi elle est bonne.]¹

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-362

15.3 Qucyque communément les femmes ſoient plutôt mauvai-ſes que bonnes.]²

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-363

15.3 Et que les valets ſoient abſolument méchans.]³

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-364

15.4 La ſeconde qu'elles ſoient convenables.]⁴

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-365

15.4 La vaillance eſt une vertu morale ; mais elle ne convient point à une femme.]⁵

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-366

15.5 La troisième qu'elles foient ſemblables.]⁶

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-367

15.5 Car autre choſe est des mœurs ſemblables, & des mœurs ou bonnes ou convenables, comme cela a été dit.]⁷

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-368

15.6 La quatrième enfin qu'elles soient égales.]⁸

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-369

15.6 Et ſi l'original d'aprés lequel nous avons tiré notre imitation eft inégal dans ſes mœurs, nous devons le faire partout éga-lement inégal.]⁹

10. mvp-aristotle-comment-370

15.7 On péche contre la bonté des mœurs, quand elles ne font pas neceffaires.]¹⁰

11. mvp-aristotle-comment-371

15.7 Telles font les mœurs de Menelas dans l'Oreste d'Euri-pide.]¹¹

12. mvp-aristotle-comment-372

15.8 Les lamentations d'Ulyſſe dans la Scylla du mème Poë-te, & tout le discours de ſa Menalippe dans la piece qui porte ce nom, péchent contre la convenance, car il n'y a rien de plus indécent.]¹²

13. mvp-aristotle-comment-373

15.9 Le même Poëte a peché contre l'égalité dans ſon Iphige-nie en Aulide, car l'Iphigenie ſuppliante qu'on voit au commen-cement, n'est pas la même que l' Iphigenie courageuse qu'on voit à la fin.]¹³

14. mvp-aristotle-comment-374

15.10 Or dans les mœurs, comme dans la diſpoſition du ſujet, il faut toûjours chercher, ou le neceſſaire, ou le vray-ſembla-ble.]¹⁴

15. mvp-aristotle-comment-375

15.10 De ſorte que les choſes arrivent les unes aprés les autres, ou neceſſairement ou vray-ſemblablement.]¹⁵

16. mvp-aristotle-comment-376

15.10b Il est donc évident par là que le denoüement du ſujet doit ètre tiré du sujet même.]¹⁶

17. mvp-aristotle-comment-377

15.10b Sans qu'on y employe le ſecours d'une machine, comme dans la Medée.]¹⁷

18. mvp-aristotle-comment-378

15.10b Ou comme dans l'Iliade ſur le retour des Grecs.]¹⁸

19. mvp-aristotle-comment-379

15.10c Si l'on ſe ſert d'une machine, il faut que ce ſoit toujours hors de l'action de la Tragedie, ou pour expliquer les choſes qui ſont arrivées auparavant, & qu'il n'eſt pas poſſible que l'hom-me ſçache, ou pour avertir de celles qui arriveront enſuite, & dont il eſt neceſſaire qu'on ſoit inſtruit.]¹⁹

20. mvp-aristotle-comment-380

15.10c Car nous ſommes tous perſuadez que les Dieux peuvent tout voir.]²⁰

21. mvp-aristotle-comment-381

15.10d Il faut absolument que dans tous les Incidens qui compo-ſent la fable il n'y ayt rien qui ſoit ſans raiſon.]²¹

22. mvp-aristotle-comment-382

15.10d Ou, ſi cela est impoſſible, on doit faire en ſorte que ce qui eſt ſans raiſon, ſe trouve toûjours hors de la Tragedie, comme Sophocle l'a ſagement obſervé dans ſon Œdipe.]²²

23. mvp-aristotle-comment-383

15.11 Puisque la Tragedie est une imitation de ce qu'il y a de plus excellent parmy les hommes, nous devons imiter les bons Peintres, qui en donnant à chacun ſa veritable forme, & en les faiſant ſemblables, les reprefentent toûjours plus beaux.]²³

24. mvp-aristotle-comment-384

15.11 Il faut tout de mème qu'un Poète qui veut imiter un homme colére & emporté, ou quelqu'autre caractère ſemblable, ſe remette bien plus devant les yeux ce que la colére doit faire vray-ſemblablement, que ce qu'elle a fait.]²⁴

25. mvp-aristotle-comment-385

15.11 Et c'est ainsi qu' Agathon & Homere ont formé le cara-ctere d'Achille.]²⁵

26. mvp-aristotle-comment-386

15.12 Il faut obferver toutes ces chofes, & outre cela fatisfaire à toutes celles que demandent les deux ſentimens qui font inſepa-rables de la Poëſie, & qui en font les feuls juges.]²⁶

27. mvp-aristotle-comment-387

15.12 Car il arrive tres ſouvent qu'on péche de ce côté-là.]²⁷

28. mvp-aristotle-comment-388

15.12 Mais il en a été affez parlé dans les Traitez que nous avons donnez ſur cette matière.]²⁸

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

108. mvp-aristotle-comment-108

NOTE 108. P. 92.

15.2 THE MANNERS SHOULD BE GOOD.

Good, in the usual sense of moral goodness; the only sense which

χρηστα

, applied to manners, will bear, and which, even though the word would admit of other senses, would here be fixed, beyond a doubt, by the plain, unequivocal expression of the whole passage. Dacier admires and follows the nonsense of Le Bossu, who makes

χρηστα ηθη

mean poetically good; that is, well marked by the Poet, in which sense, the rule is equally well observed by Milton in his Satan, and by Richardson in his Grandison. "There are," according to this "best interpreter of Aristotle,"

"deux sortes de bonté dans les mœurs; l'une que l'on peut appeller morale, et qui est propre à la vertu: et l'autre est la poetique, à laquelle les hommes les plus vicieux ont autant de part que les gens de bien."

How could Mr. Harris, with his thorough knowledge of the Greek language, recommend all this, as

"a fine and copious commentary on this part of Aristotle's Poetics?"

[On Music, &c. p. 83, note.] I shall not waste time in confuting, what has been sufficiently confuted long ago¹. Aristotle says plainly, the

ηθος

will be

χρηστον

, if the

προαιρεσις

χρηστη

, and the contrary: —

φαυλον μεν, [sc. ηθος εξει,] εαν φαυλην [sc. προαιρεσιν ποιῃ φανεραν,] χρηστον δε, εαν χρηστην

. See, now, Dacier's version of this:

"Il y a des mœurs dans un discours, ou dans une action, lorsque l'un et l'autre font connoitre l'inclination ou la resolution telle qu'elle est, mauvaise si elle est mauvaise, bonne si elle est bonne."

The best comment I have seen on this passage is that of Heinsius, (cap. xiv.) which I shall therefore give entire.

"Cæterum, in moribus, quatuor tenenda esse docet Aristoteles; quorum primum est, ut sint boni. Quod est exponendum pluribus. Inter ea quæ quam maximè in Tragœdiâ reprehendebat PLATO, vel præcipuum hoc erat;—quod nimirum varia, non uniformis, sit illius imitatio; et occasione oblatâ, probos juxta improbosque imitetur; nonnunquam autem improbos tantum: quo facillimè animum decipi humanum, qui dum solum respicit decorum, quod propositum est illi, bonorum sæpe, et malorum, discrimen non agnoscit, et, ut ipse Poeta, utrosque mores imitatur; quo nihil magis in republicâ perniciosum excogitari potest . Quippe ratione istâ scholam vitiorum, non virtutum, fieri theatrum; et quidem quanto magis hanc in partem inclinamus omnes. Præterea, interpretes Platonis—alium admitti ab eo negant Poetam, quam qui Actiones imitetur; cætera enim delectare quidem, non autem docere; plerumque vero mores vitiare ac corrumpere, ideoque nocere magis quam prodesse. Huic ut occurreret Philosophus, primum hoc de moribus præceptum esse voluit, probi ut essent; tales enim esse in Tragœdiâ non modo posse, quod negabat Plato, sed et, quantum ratio poematis permitteret, debere . Confirmant hoc exempla tragicorum; qui sine ullâ lege hanc tamen legem sunt secuti. Etiam posteriores critici, qui nonnullas veterum hoc nomine notârunt, quod aut omnes, aut plerasque, pessime moratas haberent personas. Qualis est, ex. grat. Euripidæ Orestes; in quo, præter Pyladen, improbi omnium sunt mores. Neque enim hæc mens Aristotelis, aut non alios quam optimè moratos, esse inducendos, aut, si alii inducantur, quos fuisse improbos constat, probos iis tribuendos esse mores: sed, ut, quantum ratio permittit, plures optime morati in eodem inducantur dramate. Quamvis enim et utrique requiruntur, et tam horum quam illorum ratione constet decorum, probos tanto esse præferendos, quanto plus conducunt cum spectantur."

To do full justice to Aristotle's meaning, it must be observed, 1. That what he says should be understood chiefly, though by no means solely, as some have explained it, of the principal characters. 2. That the word

Χρηστος

does not imply a character of high and exemplary virtue. It seems to answer to our popular expression, a good sort of man; and it excludes absolutely, only habitual vice, bad disposition,

πονηρια, ΜΟΧΘΗΡΙA

, as it is expressed in a passage that should be compared with this . 3. That the rule, even with respect to such characters, is not absolute; as is evident from Aristotle's expression, when he gives an example of the violation of it,

παραδειγμα πονηριας ΜΗ ΑΝΑΓΚΑΙΟΝ

: and, again, in cap. xxv.

οταν ΜΗ ΑΝΑΓΚΗΣ ΟΥΣΗΣ, κ. τ. αλ.

. 4. That what he presently adds,

εστι δε εν εκαστῳ γενει

, is a necessary modification of the precept, and shows, that he did not mean to exclude comparative badness of manners, but meant only—as good as may be, consistently with the observance of the other requisites mentioned—the

αρμοττον

, and the

ομοιον

The reason of the precept, Aristotle has not given us. But, it appears, I think, clearly, from his substituting the word

ΒΛΑΒΕΡΑ

(hurtful, pernicious,) for

μοχθηρα

, or

πονηρα

, in his enumeration of the greatest faults of Poetry at the end of cap. xxv. that, however he might differ from Plato as to the hurtful tendency of Tragedy, and of imitative Poetry in general, he so far at least agreed with him, as to admit the danger of those poetical, embellished, and flattering, exhibitions of vice, in which, as one of the most eloquent of modern writers expresses it,

"L'auteur, pour faire parler chacun selon son caractere, est forcé de mettre dans la bouche des mechants leurs maximes, et leurs principes, revetus de tout l'eclat des beaux vers, et debités d'un ton imposant et sententieux, pour l'instruction du parterre."

With respect to characters of atrocious villainy, such as that of Glenalvon in Douglas, which can excite only pure detestation, I believe the ideas of Plato, and perhaps of Aristotle, were very nearly, if not exactly, the same. This admirable writer has expressed in the concluding note of his Nouvelle Eloise:

"En achevant de relire ce recueil, je crois voir pourquoi l'interêt, tout foible qu'il est, m'en est si agréable, et le fera, je pense, à tout lecteur d'un bon naturel. C'est qu'au moins ce foible interêt est pur et sans melange de peine; qu'il n'est point excité par des noirceurs, par des crimes, ni melé du tourment de haïr. Je ne sçaurois concevoir quel plaisir on peut prendre à imaginer et composer le personnage d'un scelerat, à se mettre à sa place tandis qu'on le représente, a lui prèter l'éclat le plus imposant. Je plains beaucoup les auteurs de tant de Tragédies pleines d'horreurs, lesquels passent leur vie à faire agir et parler des gens qu'on ne peut écouter ni voir sans souffrir," &c.

109. mvp-aristotle-comment-109

NOTE 109. P. 92.

15.3 IN GENERAL, WOMEN ARE, PERHAPS, RATHER BAD THAN GOOD. —

"Aristote,"

says M. Batteux,

"ne parle pas içi des femmes en général, mais seulement de celles que les Poetes ont mises sur le Théâtre, telles que Medée, Clytemneitre," &c.

This is polite; but it will not make Aristotle polite. He speaks plainly; and what he says is, I fear, but too conformable to the manner in which the antients usually speak of the sex in general. At least, he is certainly consistent with himself: witness the following very curious character of women in his History of Animals , which I give the reader, by no means for his assent, but for his wonder, or his diversion.

Γυνη, ανδρος ελεημονεστερον και αριδακρυ μαλλον· ετι δε φθονερωτερον τε και μεμψιμοιροτερον, και ΦΙΛΟΛΟΙΔΟΡΟΝ μαλλον, και ΠΛΗΚΤΙΚΩΤΕΡΟΝ. ετι δε και δυσθυμον μαλλον και δυσελπι, και ΑΝΑΙΔΕΣΤΕΡΟΝ ΚΑΙ ΨΕΥΔΕΣΤΕΡΟΝ, ευαπατητοτερον τε, και μνημονικωτερον· ετι δε, ΑΓΡΥΠΝΟΤΕΡΟΝ ΚΑΙ ΟΚΝΗΡΟΤΕΡΟΝ και ολως ακινητοτερον κ. τ. αλ.

To make the reader amends for the pain which this cool and serious invective of the philosopher and the naturalist may have given him, I cannot resist the temptation of presenting him with a specimen of more sportive satire on this subject, in a very pleasant fragment, preserved by Athenæus, from a Comedy of Eubulus.

Ω Ζευ πολυτιμητ᾿, ει κακως εγω ποτε
Ερω γυναικας, νη $\Delta$ι᾿ απολοιμην αρα.
Παντων αριστον κτηματων. ειδ᾿ εγενετο
Κακη γυνη Μηδεια, Πηνελοπεια δε
Μεγα πραγμα. —ερει τις ως Κλυταιμνηστρα κακη;
Αλκηστιν αντεθηκα χρηστην. —αλλ᾿ ισως
Φαιδραν ερει κακως τις· αλλα, νη $\Delta$ια,
Χρηστη τις ην μεντοι ----τις; —οιμοι, δειλαιος·
Ταχεως γε μ᾿ αι ΧΡΗΣΤΑΙ ΓΥΝΑΙΚΕΣ επελιπον.
Τωνδ᾿ αυ ΠΟΝΗΡΩΝ ετι λεγειν πολλας εχω.

Athen. p. 559, or the Excerpta ex Trag. &c. of Grotius, p. 657.

If ever against woman-kind I rail,
Great Jupiter confound me!—for of all
The good things of this world, they are the best.
Medea, you will say, was bad:—agreed;
But, what a jewel was Penelope!
Urge you the wicked Clytemnestra?—I,
Oppose the good Alcestis. If you tell me
Of Phædra, I remind you of the good,
—Stay, let me see the good—Alas! how soon
My memory fails me there; while, of the bad,
Examples in abundance still occur.—

See Athen. p. 559, or the Excerpta ex Trag. &c. of Grotius, p. 657.

110. mvp-aristotle-comment-110

NOTE 110. P. 93.

15.5 RESEMBLANCE----A DIFFERENT THING, &C.

The words,

ώσπερ ἐιρηται

, are embarrassing; for the difference here spoken of had not been mentioned before, as the expression, in its most obvious sense, implies. The only meaning I can find is this. The two requisites, the

ἁρμοττον

and the

ὁμοιον

, propriety, and resemblance, might easily be confounded; the

ὁμοιον

being indeed only the

ἁρμοττον

in another point of view. The violence and fierceness of Medea, for example, which form her historical, or traditional character, and, therefore, the likeness of the Poet's picture, may be said to be

ἁρμοττοντα

, proper or suitable, with respect to the individual, though

ἀπρεπη και μη άρμοττοντα

, improper and unsuitable, to the general character of the sex. And thus Piccolomini:

"la terza conditione che assegna Aristotele à i costumi, la qual consiste in esser simile, non differisce della seconda, posta nell' esser convenevoli, in altro, se non che la conditione del con- venevole riguarda l'universale; com' à dire, che quel costume convenga ad un principe, quello ad un suddito, quello à l'uomo &c. senza considerar questa particolar persona, ò quella: et la conditione del simile riguarda il particolare; come à dire, qual costume convenga di porre in uno che habbia da rappresentar' Achille; qual in quello che habbia da representare Oreste,"

&c. (p. 220.)

Indeed, Aristotle would hardly have thought of admonishing the reader not to confound the two things, had he not seen that they were liable to be confounded. He would not have remarked, that they were different, had they been perfectly, and obviously, distinct. I think then, that the words,

ώσπερ ἐιρηται

, must refer only to the

ἁρμοττον

, and the meaning must be, that, to make the manners like, is a different thing not only from making them good, but even from making them proper, in such a way as had been said—in that sense, in which the word

ἁρμοττοντα

had just been used, and explained by his instance. But if we understand the passage thus, there should be no stop after

ποιησαι

³.

But, why does Aristotle mention at all, a difference so very obvious as that between resemblance, and goodness, of manners?— These two requisites could not easily be confounded, any more than likeness and beauty in a portrait. There was more danger of a reader's thinking the

ὁμοιον

too different from the

χρησον

, and, as a general precept, incompatible with it. And so indeed he seems to have apprehended himself, by what he presently after says about the

μιμησις βελτιονων

, and his rule, that the Poet, in imitation of the painter, should exhibit his characters as much better than they were, or are supposed to have been, as is consistent with the preservation of the likeness⁴.

111. mvp-aristotle-comment-111

NOTE 111. P. 93.

15.6 THOUGH THE MODEL OF THE POET'S IMITATION BE SOME PERSON OF UNUNIFORM MANNERS, STILL THAT PERSON MUST BE REPRESENTED AS UNIFORMLY UNUNIFORM. —

Τεταρτον δε, το όμαλον κ'αν γαρ ἀνωμαλος τις ή, ὁ την μιμησιν παρέχων και τοιουτον ἠθος ὑποτιθεις, όμως όμαλως ἀνωμαλον δει ειναι.

---- "which last words," says an eminent writer,

"having been not at all understood, have kept his interpreters from seeing the true sense and scope of the precept. For they have been explained of such characters as that of Tigellius in Horace; which, however proper for satyr, or for farcical Comedy, are of too fantastic and whimsical a nature to be admitted into Tragedy; of which Aristotle must there be chiefly understood to speak, and to which Horace, in this place, alone confines himself. 'Tis true, indeed, it may be said, that 'though a whimsical or fantastic character be improper for Tragedy, an irresolute one is not. Nothing is finer than a struggle between different passions; and it is perfectly natural, that in such a circumstance, each should prevail by turns."—"But then there is the widest difference between the two cases. Tigellius, with all his fantastic irresolution, is as uniform a character, as that of Mitio. If the expression may be allowed, its very inconsistency is of the essence of its uniformity. On the other hand, Electra, torn with sundry conflicting passions, is most apparently, and in the properest notion of the word, ununiform. One of the strongest touches in her character is that of a high, heroic spirit, sensible to her own, and her family's injuries, and determined, at any rate, to revenge them. Yet no sooner is this revenge perpetrated, than she softens, relents, and pities. Here is a manifest ununiformity, which can, in no proper sense of the expression, lay claim to the critic's

ὁμαλον

, but may be so managed, by the Poet's skill, as to become consistent with the basis or foundation of her character, that is, to be

ὁμαλως ἀνωμαλον

. And that this, in fact, was the meaning of the critic, is plain from the similar example to his own rule, given in the case of Iphigenia: which he specifies (how justly, will be considered hereafter) as an instance of the

ἀνωμαλε

, irregular, or ununiform, character, ill-expressed, or made inconsistent. So that the genuine sense of the precept is, 'Let the manners be uniform; or, if ununiform, yet consistently so, or uniformly ununiform:' exactly copied, according to the reading here given, by Horace. Whereas in the other way, it stands thus: 'Let your characters be uniform, or unchanged; or, if you paint an ununiform character (such as Tigellius) let it be ununiform all the way; i. e. such an irregular character to the end of the play, as it was at the beginning; which is, in effect, to say, let it be uniform:' which apparently destroys the latter part of the precept, and makes it an unmeaning tautology with the former.'"

Comment. on the Ep. to the Pifos, &c. vol. i. p. 104, &c.

I have given this passage entire, that the reader may have it fully in his power to judge, for himself, whether I mistake or misrepresent the meaning of any part of it. I should be sorry to be thought capable of a perfect confidence in my own opinion, however carefully and deliberately formed, when it is opposed by that of such a writer. But, after having repeatedly considered this comment, as it certainly deserves to be considered, with all the attention in my power, I am obliged to confess, that it does not satisfy me, and that the common interpretation still appears to me to stand its ground. — My reasons are these:

1. I cannot think, that such change, irresolution, and temporary inconsistence as arises from "conflicting passions," comes under the meaning of Aristotle's

ΗΘΟΣ ἀνωμάλον

Ηθος

, is the prevailing disposition, the habitual

προαιρεσις

, or settled character. "Electra," it is said, "torn with sundry conflicting passions, is most apparently, and in the properest sense of the word, ununiform." Not so, I think, in Aristotle's sense of the word

ἀνωμαλον

, expressly applied by him here to

ήθη

, or manners. The irregularities of conduct, or of sentiment and speech, arising from passion, seem to be a distinct thing from such as imply a change of the fixed, prevailing, or characteristic manners of the person. When such passionate ununiformity as that above described in Electra, is so managed by the Poet's skill, "as to become consistent with the basis or foundation of her character," that character is not, then, I think, as the ingenious critic considers it to be,

ὁμαλως ἀνωμαλον

, i. e. (as it is expressed in the beginning of the following note, p. 127.) "an ununiform character justly sustained, or, uniformly ununiform:" it is not, if I understand Aristotle rightly,

ἀνωμαλον

at all, in his sense; for he speaks only of anomalous manners; and anomalous manners, plainly, cannot be made "consistent with the basis or foundation of a character," in any other sense, than as that very anomaly itself constitutes the character. And this I take to be Aristotle's meaning: for he is speaking of that anomaly, in which different characters, not, in which "different passions, prevail by turns."

2. The very expression, —

κ'αν γαρ ΑΝΩΜΑΛΟΣ ΤΙΣ ή, ὁ την μιμησιν παρέχων και ΤΟΙΟΥΤΟΝ ΗΘΟΣ ὑποτιθεις

, seems plainly to indicate an ununiform character, such as he explains by the

ὁμαλως ἀνωμαλον

that follows. —

ἀνωμαλά ΤΙΣ

an anomalous PERSON: i. e. a person of inconsistent manners, or character. This expression seems hardly applicable, without violence, to such casual and merely apparent inconsistence, as arises from conflicting passions, and is reconcilable with "the basis or foundation of a character."

3. "The genuine sense of the precept," we are told, "is, Let the manners be uniform; or, if ununiform, yet consistently so, or uniformly ununiform." But, consistently, and uniformly, seem to present different ideas. Aristotle's word,

ὁμαλως

, presents only the latter of these:—uniformly that is, more literally, equally*, evenly, &c. it does not, I think, answer at all to consistently, in the sense in which it is evidently applied, in this explanation, to what is not incongruous—not unaccountable, &c⁵. Had this, therefore, been Aristotle's meaning, he would, probably, have used, either

εικοτως

, or

ευλογως

, or some other such word appropriated to that meaning; not

ὁμαλως

, which is never, as far as I know, used in the sense of consistently⁶.

4. But it is objected, that if we take

ὁμαλως ἀνωμαλον

to mean "uniform all the way, i. e. such an irregular character to the end of the play, as it was at the beginning," this, "is, in effect to say, let it be uniform; which apparently destroys the latter part of the precept, and makes it an unmeaning tautology with the former." The first part of the precept, I think, is, Let the manners be uniform; or, as we say, of a piece. Now to this an objector might say,—"This cannot be an indispensable rule; uniformity cannot be essentially requisite to the manners: for, what, if the Poet should take for the subject of his imita- tion a person whose manners are not uniform?" —The answer, or "second part of the precept," is, "then, that want of uniformity must be such as constitutes the very character itself; for this falls within the rule; the 'very inconsistency' of the character (to use the ingenious critic's own words,) being, in this case, 'of the essence of its uniformity.'" I confess I do not here perceive any thing that can properly be called tautology; for though the philosopher says, indeed, in the second part of the precept no more than he meant to say in the first; yet he plainly apprehended it was more than he might be understood to say, and therefore he subjoined this necessary explanation⁷. What he says is, in short, only this—"Let the manners be uniform: an ununiform character is no exception to this rule."

The Tigellius of Horace offered himself naturally enough, upon this occasion, to the commentators, as an illustration. We need not, however, suppose Aristotle to have thought of so very fantastic and comic a species of incoherence. Mutability and caprice are sometimes found in higher characters, where they are less ludicrous in their appearance, and, sometimes, very serious in their effects. And though, perhaps, any character of the kind may have too much of a comic cast to accord with our ideas of Tragic dignity, we have no reason to conclude, that it would have found the same difficulty of admittance upon the Greek stage, where the Tragic muse did, not unfrequently, condescend to be seen, "

Δακρυσεν γελασασα

I shall only add to this note the following passage from the commentary of Victorius, which appears to me to explain well, in few words, the meaning, and the spirit, of Aristotle's precept.

"Studens ostendere quantopere hoc præceptum cuftodiendura fit, affirmat, si quis fortè varius diſſimiliſque sibi inductus semel fit, eum, talem in omni facto totius fabulæ fervandum esse, ut æquabilitas à Poetâ custodiatur in naturâ illâ inæquabili ostendenda: quod non fieret, fi aliquis levis, nec in eodem proposito permanens, inductus, paulò pofteà firmus et obftinati animi ungeretur. Si morum igitur inæqualitas naturæque inconstantia constanter servanda est, quanto magis natura indoleſque stabilis par sibi ac jugis ad extremum servari debet."

112. mvp-aristotle-comment-112

NOTE 112. P. 93.

15.7 WE HAVE AN EXAMPLE OF MANNERS UNNECESSARILY BAD, IN THE CHARACTER OF MENELAUS, &C.

Mr. Potter, in the introduction to his translation of the Orestes, says of this passage, that it " may be considered as a mysterious oracular sentence, which wants an expounder." I can only say, that I think the commentators would have reason to congratulate themselves, if no sentence of this mangled work wanted an expo- sitor more than this. Whether we read

ἀναγκαιον

, or

ἀναγκαιε

; an unnecessary example of bad manners, or an example of unnecessary badness of manners; the sense seems evidently the same: and that Aristotle could not mean, what the excellent translator of Æschylus and Euripides seems to think he might mean—to "excuse the Poet upon the necessity"—sufficiently appears from another passage, at the end of the 25th chapter, [Tranfl. Part IV. Sect. 7.] where this character is again mentioned as an instance of vitious manners, excused by no necessity—

μη ἀναγκης ἐσης

. Mr. Potter complains of " the little light which the passage derives from the connexion:" I think without reason. For as the other examples given are examples of the violation of his other precepts, relative to propriety, and uniformity, of manners, the connection plainly indicates this to be an example of the similar violation of his first rule—that the manners should be good. So far, then, seems to be clear. In what particular view Aristotle thought the badness of the character not necessary, may be, indeed, less clear. I should suppose him to mean, that the historical, or traditional, character of Menelaus, and the observance of the

ὁμοιον

, by no means obliged Euripides to paint him in such colours. With respect to the plea, that it was necessary, because "the drama could not," otherwise, " have been worked up to this terrible height of Tragic distress," Aristotle's answer would, perhaps, have been similar to that which he makes upon another occasion:—i. e. the Poet should not, originally, have so constructed his plan, as to bring upon himself the necessity of committing so great a fault : —

ἐξ ἀρχης γαρ ἐ δει συνισασα θαι τοικτες

. [ sc.

μυθες

]. cap. xxiv.

113. mvp-aristotle-comment-113

NOTE 113. P. 93.

15.9 OF UNUNIFORM MANNERS, IN THE IPHIGENIA AT AULIS, &C. —

"How does this appear, independently of the name of this great critic? Iphigenia is drawn indeed at first, fearful and suppliant: and surely with the greatest observance of nature. The account of her destination to the altar was sudden, and without the least preparation: and, as Lucretius well observes, in commenting her case, NUBENDI TEMPORE IN IPSO; when her thoughts were all employed, and, according to the simplicity of those times, confessed to be so, on her promised nuptials. The cause of such destination too, as appeared at first, was the private family interest of Menelaus. All this justifies, or rather demands, the strongest expression of female fear and weakness. But she afterwards recants and voluntarily devotes herself to the altar." And this, with the same strict attention to probability. She had now informed herself of the importance of the case. Her devotement was the demand of Apollo, and the joint petition of all Greece. The glory of her country, the dignity and interest of her family, the life of the generous Achilles, and her own future fame, were, all, nearly concerned in it. All this considered, together with the high, heroic sentiments of those times, and the superior merit, as was believed, of voluntary devotement, Iphigenia's character must have been very unfit for the distress of a whole Tragedy to turn upon, if she had not, in the end, discovered the readiest submission to her appointment. But, to show with what wonderful propriety the Poet knew to sustain his characters, we find her, after all, and notwithstanding the heroism of the change, in a strong and passionate apostrophe to her native Mycenæ, confessing some involuntary apprehensions and regrets, the remains of that instinctive abhorrence of death, which had before so strongly possessed her.

Εθρέψας Ελλαδι μέγα φαβ / Θανεσα δ᾽ ἐκ ἀναινομαι.

Once the bright star of Greece / But I submit to die.

"This, I take to be not only a full vindication of the consistency of Iphigenia's character, but as delicate a stroke of nature as is, perhaps, to be found in any writer."

Commentary on the Ep. to the Pifos, &c. vol. i. p. 113, &c.

If all I knew of the Tragedy in question was from this ingenious defence, I should certainly acquit Euripides. I cannot acquit him, or can only partially acquit him, when I read the Tragedy itself. The fact perhaps is, that the question, whether the critic's censure be just or not, cannot possibly be decided by any general statement of the case. That Iphigenia, so circumstanced as she is here, and very justly, described to be, might at first be timid and suppliant, and, at last, meet death with resolution, and this, without any inconsistence, or duplicity of character, will hardly be disputed. But the question is, whether Euripides has actually so drawn this timidity, and this resolution, as to preserve the unity of character. To determine this fairly, we must, at last, have recourse to the detail of the Poet's execution, and the actual impression which, on the whole, it leaves upon the reader's mind. All depends here upon degree and manner. A single nuance in the colouring, a flight depression or elevation of tone, in the suppliant, or the heroine, may be sufficient to determine the impression this way, or that. What this impression was upon Aristotle's mind, it may be observed that he has marked very precisely and clearly by the expression,

ΟΥΔΕΝ ΕΟΙΚΕΝ Ἡ ἹΚΕΤΕΥΟΥΣΑ ΤΗ ΥΣΤΕΡΗ

:—"the supplicating Iphigenia is NOTHING LIKE the Iphigenia of the conclusion." The expression, I think, does not imply, that he thought the mere circumstance of her supplicating at first for life, and recanting afterwards, was, of itself, necessarily inconsistent, but, that the manner in which she supplicated was such, as to make her, in that part, appear to be a different character, another person, from what she appears to be when she recants.

My own opinion I confess to be, that though the considerations suggested in this ingenious defence of Euripides may prove the censure of Aristotle to be too strongly, or, at least, too generally, expressed, yet they do not prove it to be without foundation. I say, too generally, because perhaps there is but one passage in the speech of the suppliant Iphigenia, to which the

ΟΥΔΕΝ ἐοικεν

is fairly applicable, in its full force. Her speech,

Ει μεν του Ορφέως

, &c. v. 1211, which, on the whole, is highly pathetic, ends with these unhappy lines:

μαινεται δ᾽ ὡς ἐυχεται / Θανειν ΚΑΚΩΣ ΖΗΝ ΚΡΕΙΣΣΟΝ Η ΘΑΝΕΙΝ ΚΑΛΩΣ.

v. 1249. ⁸ I leave it to the reader to determine, whether any intervening circumstances, that can be imagined, will make it at all conceivable, that the same Iphigenia, should, in the short space of time taken up by the recital of, at most, only 35 lines of dialogue, experience such a total change of sentiments, as to express the most heroic resolution, and the utmost sensibility to the glory of dying for her country; as to say,—

— δίδωμι σωμα τ' εμον Ἑλλαδι. / Θυετ , ἐκπορθειτε Τροιαν ταυτα γαρ μνημεια με, / Δια μακρε, και παιδες ἐτοι, και γαμοι, και δοξ᾿ ἐμη.

v. 1397. ⁹

For Greece I give my life. / "Slay me, demolish Troy: for these shall be / Long time my monuments, my children these, / My nuptials, and my glory."

Potter's Eurip. v. 1549.

It seems probable, that Aristotle had chiefly in view the particular lines I have quoted; and had he any way pointed his censure to that passage—had he said,

οὐδεν εοικεν ἡ ΟΥΤΩΣ ἱκετευκσα

, &c. quoting, or referring to, the verses, I think there could have been no objection to the justice of his criticism.

Gravina , who has also defended Euripides in his book Della Tragedia , lays great stress upon a circumstance, which does, indeed, seem to be of considerable moment in the Poet's justification; I mean, the effect of necessity in producing courage and resolution.

" Non é maraviglia, se Ifigenia, quantunque per naturalezza del sesso, timida, ed amorosa della vita, finchè la poteva sperare; poi resa forte dalla necessità, madre spesso anche delle virtù morali, come anima generosamente educata, disprezza la morte, e cangia l'amor della vita in compiacenza di gloria. Il che alla giornata anche osserviamo in persone di nascita e d'animo vile, che condotte alla morte, arditamente l'abbracciano, quantunque al primo avviso costernate rimanessero; perchè l'idea della necessità non avea usata ancor la fua forza."

[Sect. 19.] This seems much to the purpose; and it is supported by its agreement with what we find in the Tragedy itself. For the change in the sentiments and language of Iphigenia is not, as we have seen, produced before the scene in Trochaics between Cly- tæmneſtra and Achilles; the very scene in which the inevitable necessity of the sacrifice is first made clearly apparent. The effect of this on the resolution of Iphigenia is visible also in her speech:

τα δ᾽ ΑΔΥΝΑΘ᾽ ἡμιν καρτερειν ἐ ραδιον. / Αλλα και σε τεθ᾽ ὁραν χρη, μη διαβληθης σρατῳ, / ΚΑΙ ΠΛΕΟΝ ΠΡΑΞΩΜΕΝ ΟΥΔΕΝ.- / Αλλ' ΑΜΗΧΑΝΟΝ-δίδωμι σωμα τεμον Ελλαδι

, &c. v. 1372.

The learned Mr. Markland , in his excellent edition of the two Iphigenias, defends Euripides upon very different ground. He admits the inconsistence, not only in the character of Iphigenia, but in all the characters of the play, except Clytæmneſtra; and even in the chorus. But all this he supposes to have been in- tended by the Poet, as a moral lesson—a striking picture of the "levity and inconstancy of the human mind." And he wonders, which I cannot say I do, that this should have escaped the

ἀγχινοια

of Aristotle¹⁰.

114. mvp-aristotle-comment-114

NOTE 114. P. 94.

15.10b HENCE IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE DEVELOPMENT ALSO, &C. — Heinsius pronounces this whole passage, to the words,

εν τω Οιδ. τε Σοφ.

—inclusively, to be certainly out of its proper place¹¹. And I should be of his opinion, if such digressive and parenthetical insertions were not very usual with Aristotle . The expression, how- ever, should be observed:

φανερον ἐν ὅτι ΚΑΙ τας λύσεις

, &c. that "the development also," &c. i. e. as well as the other incidents of the fable, just mentioned. Most of the versions neglect the word

και

, which is important, and greatly helps the connection. This digression, however, though not unrelated, is but flightly and obliquely related, to his present subject; and seems introduced rather

ἀπο μηχανης

, and in violation of his own rule—

τετο μετα τατο ἡ ἀναγκαιον ἐικο

. It interrupts the connection, and obscures the purport, of the chapter; and though we allow it to be where the author placed it, we may fairly question, whether he has placed it where it should be.

115. mvp-aristotle-comment-115

NOTE 115. P. 94.

15.10b MACHINERY.

Απο μηχανης

. — It appears from Jul. Pollux, lib. iv. cap. 19 . that the term,

μηχανη

, was not applied indiscriminately to the machinery of the play-house in general, but was appropriated to that particular machine, in which Gods and Heroes made their appearance in the air.

Μηχανη δε, θεους δεικνυσι και ήρωας τους ἐν ἀερι

. I hope it was something better than the

Μηχανη

of the French opera, so pleasantly described by Rousseau: — ¹²

"Les chars des Dieux et des Déesses sont composés de quatre solives encadrées et suspendues à une grosse corde en forme d’escarpolette; entre ces solives est une planche en travers, sur laquelle le Dieu s’assaye, et sur le devant pend un morceau de grosse toile barbouillée, qui sert de nuage à ce magnifique char. On voit vers le bas de la machine l’illumination de deux ou trois chandelles puantes et mal mouchées, qui, tandis que le personnage se démene et crie en branlant dans son escarpolette, l’enfume tout à son aise. Encens digne de la divinité."

The account of the machinery of a Greek Theatre, in the chapter of Jul. Pollux above referred to, is curious, and amusing, as far as it is intelligible.

116. mvp-aristotle-comment-116

NOTE 116. P. 94.

15.10c OR THE RETURN OF THE GREEKS IN THE ILIAD.

Και ἐν ΤΗΙ ΙΛΙΑΔΙ τα περι τον ἀποπλουν

. It has been disputed, whether Aristotle here speaks of the Iliad of Homer, or of some Tragedy called The Iliad. See Dacier’s note. But, if we suppose the text to be right here, I see not how we can reasonably reject the first of these interpretations.

Ἡ ΙΛΙΑΣ

, as Beni has well observed, can only be, THE Iliad, i. e. Homer’s Iliad. Dacier supposes the Tragedy to have been called, "The Iliad, or, The return of the Greeks;" and to be that mentioned by Longinus, Sect. 15 , and attributed to Sophocles. But, even supposing a Tragedy to be meant, it seems very clear from Aristotle’s expression, that the title must have been,

Ιλιας

, only; for he says,

ΕΝ τη Ιλιάδι ΤΑ ΠΕΡΙ τον ἀποπλουν

i. e. "the circumstances, or incidents, relative to the return of the Greeks, in [the Tragedy of] The Iliad." — So, cap. xxiv.

ἐν τῇ Οδυσσεια — τα περι την ἐκθεσιν

. — Indeed, The Iliad, taken alone, seems an improbable title for a Tragedy; but Dacier’s junction is still more improbable. He might as well have imagined a Tragedy with this title —

Η Οδύσσεια, η, Ἡ ΕΚΘΕΣΙΣ

. As to the Tragedy of Sophocles mentioned by Longinus, it seems clearly to have been his POLYXENA. ¹³

Supposing, then, the text not to be defective, we cannot, I think, avoid understanding Aristotle to speak of the machinery, (to use the word in his general sense,) in the second book of the Iliad, ¹⁴ where Minerva descends to prevent the return of the Greeks. It is true indeed, as has been objected, that an instance drawn from an Epic Poem is not what one would expect here, where the subject is Tragedy; and, that though there be, in this instance, a difficulty solved — a knot cut — yet this

λυσις

, is not, properly,

λυσις μυθου

in that sense, in which Aristotle applies the term in cap. xviii. ¹⁵ to the final denouëment of a Tragic fable. We must therefore suppose him to have produced this, merely as an obvious and well known example of the sort of supernatural interposition, or machinery, that would be improper in the

λυσις

of a Tragedy. For, that he intended to censure the "

ministeria Deorum

," so necessary to the Epic Poem, and so frequent in the great model of all Epic Poems, cannot be imagined without absurdity, and is by no means necessarily implied, as Dacier seems to think, in this interpretation.

Such appears to me to be the only meaning, and the best apology, which the passage will bear, taking for granted the integrity of the original. But of this, I confess, I doubt. M. Batteux translates " la petite Iliade." But if we admit that sense, as Aristotle certainly would not have called that Poem THE Iliad, without distinction, we must necessarily suppose the text defective, and the word

ΜΙΚΡΑ

to be omitted; ¹⁶ and it seems very probable that this was the case. The illustration, indeed, will still be drawn from an Epic Poem; but from one of an irregular and historic structure, consisting of a string of ill-united stories, and which seems to have been considered as a sort of seed-plot, or nursery, of subjects for the use of the Tragic Poets: so that in referring to it, Aristotle may be understood to refer to such Tragedies as were founded on it; of which he enumerates himself no fewer than eight, and one of these was called ΑΠΟΠΛΟΥΣ; taken, I suppose, like the Polyxena of Sophocles mentioned by Longinus, from that part of the Little Iliad, which related the detention of the Greeks in the Thracian Chersonese, and the appearance of the ghost of Achilles demanding the sacrifice of Polyxena. ¹⁷

117. mvp-aristotle-comment-117

NOTE 117. P. 95.

15.11 OR OF INDOLENT—.

Ραθυμους

: — indolent — nonchalant. Hesychius explains

Ραθυμα, ΜΗ ΠΟΝΗΤΙΚΟΣ ἀλλ᾿ ΕΚΛΥΤΟΣ

. It is improperly rendered, "

timide

," by M. Batteux, and "

mansueto

," by the Italian translators.

118. mvp-aristotle-comment-118

NOTE 118. P. 95.

15.11 SHOULD DRAW AN EXAMPLE APPROACHING RATHER TO A GOOD, THAN TO A HARD AND FEROCIOUS, CHARACTER.

The original is —

Ουτω και τον ποιητην, μιμουμενον και ὀργιλους και ῥαθυμους, και τ'αλλα τα τοιαυτα ἐχοντας ἐπι των ἠθων, ἐπιεικειας ποιειν παραδειγμα η σκληροτητα δει: οἷον τον Αχίλλεα Αγαθων και Όμηρος

. — A passage that has much perplexed and divided the commentators. Of all the explanations which this perplexity has produced, that of Dacier is the most improbable and ill-founded. He forces

ῥαθυμους

into the sense of, emporté, furieux, and makes it

"encherir sur ὀργιλος."

Επιεικεια

, he wrenches from the obvious and proper sense in which it is continually used by Aristotle, into that of probability. And the result of this violent operation upon the passage, is the following strange version: —

"Il faut tout de même, qu’un Poete qui veut imiter un homme colere et emporté, ou quelqu’ autre caractere semblable, se remette bien plus devant les yeux ce que la colere doit faire vraisemblablement (i. e.

ἐπιεικειας

) que ce qu’elle a fait (i. e.

σκληροτητα

!) et c’est ainsi,"

&c.

I may venture to leave all this to the learned reader’s rejection, without any farther comment. I shall only just observe, that the expression,

ΚΑΙ ὀργ. ΚΑΙ ῥαθ.

evidently marks different characters; not, as Dacier makes it, different degrees only of the same character.

Heinsius first suggested, that the phrase

ἐπιεικειας η σκληροτητα

, was elliptical, and

μαλλον

to be understood. But in spite of the "

Attica venustas

," I am much more inclined to suspect an omission of the word. Aristotle would hardly have used a mode of expression so unavoidably ambiguous — or rather, that would, almost unavoidably, lead to a wrong sense; for, the fact is, that all the commentators, before Heinsius, understood the

, as indeed every reader, I believe, would at first naturally understand it, in the disjunctive sense of, or. Besides this, I doubt whether any example of this elliptic phrase occurs in Aristotle’s works. That it may, I will not take upon me to deny; but it seems, at least, very unusual. An instance of it I have not found; but the reader may find many instances of the full phrase,

μαλλον η

, even in this treatise. ¹⁸ However, one, or the other, of these suppositions, it seems necessary to adopt. The passage will then, without forcing the words

ἐπιεικεια

and

σκληροτης

from their usual and proper signification, afford a clear and consistent meaning.

Επιεικεια

is used, I think, here, as it is in cap. xiii. in the general sense of good. ¹⁹

Σκληροτης

plainly relates only to his first instance, of the

ὀργιλος

, the angry character, of which it seems to express the extreme degree. In the Ethics ad Nicom. we have —

ΑΓΡΙΟΙ και ΣΚΛΗΡΟΙ

, as synonymous, or very nearly so. A passage of Plato may serve to illustrate and confirm this sense of the word. ²⁰ Speaking of the

θυμοειδες

, or irascible nature, he says, it may produce the

ἀγριον

: —

και όρθως μεν τραφεν, ἀνδρειον ἂν ειη ΜΑΛΛΟΝ Δ' ΕΠΙΤΑΘΕΝ ΤΟΥ ΔΕΟΝΤΟΣ, ΣΚΛΗΡΟΤΕΡΟΝ τε και χαλεπον γεγνοιτ' ἀν, ὡς το εικος

. — And just before —

ΑΓΡΙΟΤΗΤΟΣ τε και ΣΚΛΗΡΟΤΗΤΟΣ, και αὖ μαλακιας τε και ἡμεροτητος

. ²¹

The sense of the passage, then, will be, that, in order to reconcile the first precept, of the

χρηστον

, with the third, of the

ὁμοιον

, the character should be brought as near to a good one, as is consistent with the circumstance of likeness. Thus, if such a character as that of Achilles is to be drawn, its striking features are to be preserved, but, at the same time, to be rather improved and softened, than exaggerated. For the expression must be observed. Aristotle does not say absolutely, according to the sense of Heinsius, that Achilles ought to be drawn, or was drawn,

παραδειγμα ἐπιεικειας

, but rather so than otherwise; —

ΜΑΛΛΟΝ η σκληροτητα

. M. Batteux has very well expressed the spirit of the rule, though he has generalized it, and made it refer to all that precedes

και ὀργιλους, και ῥαθυμους

, &c. — whereas it appears plainly, from what has been said of the force of

σκληροτης

, that the words,

ἐπιεικειας ποιειν παραδ. η σκληρ.

can be applied only to the

ὀργιλοι

; for as to the

ῥαθυμους

, such a character may, indeed, be flattered into the

ἐπιεικης

, but cannot well, by any distortion, be made to appear

σκληρος

"Loin de charger encore le defaut, il le rapprochera de la vertu"

Still, however, what every one, I believe, naturally expects at the first reading of this passage, as it now stands, is, that after having mentioned two instances of faulty characters, the

ὀργιλοι

, and the

ῥαθυμοι

, Aristotle should mention two corresponding instances of good qualities bordering upon, or connected with, each, and of which the Poet might avail himself, to give to each a favour- able turn. But, instead of this, we have a good, and a bad quality, (

ἐπιεικεια

, and

σκληροτης

,) both of which, as we have seen, can be made to relate only to his first instance, the

ὀργιλος

; so that all the rest, between the words

ὀργιλους

, and

ἐπιεικειας

, must be parenthetical. The harshness and embarrassment of such a construction, led me formerly to suspect an error in one of the words,

ἐπιεικειας

, or

σκληροτητα

; and a conjecture was suggested to me by a passage in the Rhetoric, which, I hope, will at least be thought plausible enough to excuse my laying it before the reader. The suspicion seemed to fall upon

σκληροτητα

; for the

ἐπιεικεια

would answer well enough as a softening, or improvement, of

ῥαθυμια

; as an indolent man, who concerns himself about nothing, and cares only for his own ease, is often spoken of as a quiet, good kind of man. Instead of

σκληροτητα

, then, I thought it not improbable, that Aristotle might have written

ἁπλοτητα

. The passage of Aristotle himself which suggested this to me, is in the first book of his Rhetoric, cap. ix. where, delivering the usual precepts relative to the art of encomiastic misrepresentation, he says,

Ληπτεον δε-----ἑκαστον, ἐκ των παρακολουθουντων αει, κατα το ΒΕΛΤΙΣΤΟΝ· οἷον, ΤΟΝ ΟΡΓΙΛΟΝ και τον μανικον, ῾ΑΠΛΟΥΝ και τον αυθαδη, μεγαλοπρεπη και σεμνον

· κ. τ. αλλ. The whole passage is much to the purpose of this place; and is, plainly, not more applicable to the Rhetorician, with respect to the hero of his oration, than it is to the Poet, with respect to the hero of his poem. A passage of Euripides will add, perhaps, some probability to this conjecture. In the Iphigenia at Aulis, Achilles thus draws his own character: Iphigenia at Aulis, v. 926.

Εγω δ’ ἐν ἀνδρως εὐσεβεστάτου τραφεις, Χειρωνος, ἔμαθον τους τροπους ῾ΑΠΛΟΥΣ ἔχειν. Και τοις Ατρείδαις, ἢν μεν ἡγωνται καλως, Πεισομεθ᾽. — ὅταν δε μη καλως, οὐ πεισομεθ'.

Where the meaning of

τροπες άπλες

, is very well fixed by the two subsequent lines, and by the expression,

ἐλευθεραν φυσιν

, in the verse that follows them.

Plato, also, in the Hippias, talks much of the simplicity, truth, and sincerity, of Achilles; as if, in his view, they were the pro- minent features of what was good in the Homeric character of that hero. When Socrates asks Hippias, whether Achilles is not represented by Homer as an artful, designing character, Hippias answers —

Ἥκιστά γε, ὦ Σωκρατες, ἀλλ᾿ ῾ΑΠΛΟΥΣΤΑΤΟΣ

. And, again,

ὡς ὁ μεν Αχιλλευς εἴη ἀληθης τε και ῾ΑΠΛΟΥΣ· ὁ δε Οδυσσευς πολυτροπος τε και ψευδης

. ²² And the following lines are there quoted, in which Homer has made Achilles strongly mark this feature of his own character: Il. ix. 308.

Διογένες Λαερτιάδη, πολυμηχαν᾿ Οδυσσευ, Χρη μεν δη τον μυθον ἀπηλεγεως ἀποειπειν, Ἧι περ δη φρονεω τε, και ὡς τετελεσμενον ἐσται· Εχθρα γαρ μοι κεινος ὁμως ἀΐδαο πυλησιν, Ὡς χ᾿ ἑτερον μεν κευθει ἐνι φρεσιν, ἀλλο δε βαζει.

The sense, then, of the passage before us, according to this conjecture, would be this: — If the Poet choose for the subject of his imitation a passionate, or an indolent man, he should give to the former the cast of plain sincerity, and honest frankness; and to the other, (the

ῥαθυμος

) that of moderation, gentleness, ²³ good-nature, and what the French, by an expressive word which our language wants, term, bonhommie. But I dwell too long upon a mere conjecture. The evident propriety of the word

σκληροτης

, as applicable to the unsoftened and unflattered character of Achilles, may justly, perhaps, protect it from suspicion; though, on the other hand, the passages I have adduced, added to the improbability of the ellipse supposed by Heinsius, the embarrassment of the parenthesis, and the advantage of leaving the

to its most obvious, disjunctive, sense, prevent me from a total rejection of this idea.

The word

παραδειγμα

, here, is taken by most of the commentators ²⁴ to mean a perfect ideal model — "

summum exemplar

." Of this I see no reason. I take it to be used here, as it is generally, I believe, if not always, used by Aristotle, merely for an example. Of this the reader may easily satisfy himself by consulting the useful index to Mr. Winstanley’s edition.

119. mvp-aristotle-comment-119

NOTE 119. P. 95.

15.11 AS ACHILLES IS DRAWN BY AGATHO AND BY HOMER. PLATO, in the third book of his Republic, gives a very different view of the Homeric Achilles. He makes him a mere compound of extreme pride and extreme meanness:

ὡστε ἔχειν ἐν αυτῳ νοσηματα δυο ἐναντιω ἀλληλοιν, ἀνελευθερίαν μετα φιλοχρηματίας, και αὖ ὑπερηφανιαν θεων τε και ἀνθρωπων

. ²⁵ To which we may add, as a companion, Dr. Jortin’s portrait of Achilles:

"A boisterous, rapacious, mercenary, cruel, and unrelenting brute; and the reader pities none of his calamities, and is pleased with none of his successes!"

²⁶ This is far enough from the

παραδειγμα ἐπιεικειας

. But for a juster account of this matter, and for the best illustration of this passage of Aristotle that can be given, I refer the reader to Dr. Beattie’s analysis of the character of this hero, as drawn by Homer; ²⁷

120. mvp-aristotle-comment-120

NOTE 120. P. 95.

15.12 AND BESIDES THESE, WHATEVER RELATES TO THOSE SENSES WHICH HAVE A NECESSARY CONNECTION WITH POETRY.

Here are two readings:

τας παρα τα ἐξ ἀναγκης ἀκολουθουσας ἀισθησεις τη ποιητικη

: and,

τα παρα τας ἐξ ἀναγκης

, &c. but in both, the object, and general sense of the passage, seem to be the same, though in both, the expression, it must be confessed, is sufficiently embarrassed and obscure. I have preferred the latter, (which is that of Victorius,) as being, on the whole, the clearest. ²⁸

The senses that belong to, accompany, or are connected with, Poetry, are, plainly, the sight, and the hearing, as relative to the

Οψις

, or Spectacle, in the whole extent of that term, and to the

Μελοποιία

or Music. When these are said to be

ἐξ ἀναγκης ἀκολουθουσαι τη ποιητικη

, it cannot be meant that the parts relative to them are essential to the Tragic Poem, like the fable, manners, &c. ²⁹ but only, that they are necessary appendages of the drama in its complete state, as designed for representation. This is perfectly conformable to what was before said of the

Οψις

; ³⁰ that, though confessedly, in one view,

ἥκιστα οἰκειον της ποιητικης

, yet, in another view,

ΕΞ ΑΝΑΓΚΗΣ ἀν εἴη τι μοριον της Τραγωδίας ὁ της Οψεως κοσμος

. ³¹

The drift of the precept is obvious. The decoration should be such as to agree with the rules just laid down for the manners. The scenery, dresses, action, &c. must be

ἁρμοττοντα, ὁμοια

— probability, nature, and the costume, must be observed. Even the

μιμησις βελτιονων

, the improved imitation, has here, too, its obvious application. The squalid hair, and ragged dress, of Electra, ³² must, as well as the

σκληροτης

of Achilles, be a little flattered in the representation, and not too like, &c.

The rule extends, also, to the Melopæia, or the Music; which, from other passages of Aristotle’s works, we may suspect to have been sometimes such, as sacrificed propriety, and just expression — the

ἠθη

, the

πρεπον

, &c. to the depraved taste of what he calls the

Φορτικοι

spectators. ³³³⁴ It is probable that Aristotle alludes, also, to cap. xvii. ³⁵ and to the mistakes, which the Poet is liable to commit, who composes without keeping the stage, and the effects of representation, in his eye. Though the Poet neither painted the scenes, nor made the dresses, yet all this formed one of the six constituent parts of Tragedy; fell, of course, under the direction and control of the Poet, and was of the utmost importance to the success of his piece, at a time when representation was almost essential to the idea of dramatic poetry.

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

15.1. mvp-aristotle-comment-50 15.1

IN FORMING THE MANNERS FOUR THINGS ARE TO BE AT- TENDED TO. THE FIRST AND MOST ESSENTIAL IS, THAT THEY SHOULD BE GOOD.

BEFORE I enter on the particular passage which is the more immediate fubject of this note, I cannot avoid remarking the fuperiority of the dramatic writer, from which we may draw our examples, to any that the author of the Poetic could have recourse to. In regard to fable, as Shakespear was feldom an original inventor, so he was not scrupulously nice in his choice; and as to his arrangement of those subjects which he took for the ground-work of his dramas so as to produce the best tragic. effect, his most sanguine admirers must allow that he has feldom studied it much in the general conduct of the fable, though he has frequently done it in particular parts; and wherever he has done it, he is, as in every other respect, inimitable. But in painting manners, he stands alone and unrivaled: to use the words of the author of the essay on the dramatic character of Sir John Falstaff, • The reader must be sensible of fomething in the compofition • of Shakespear's characters, which renders them essentially different Rr2 from.

، ، ، ، from those drawn by other writers. The characters of every drama must indeed be grouped; but in the groups of other poets, the parts ' which are not seen do not in fact exist. But there is a certain round- • ness and integrity in the forms of Shakespear, which give them an independence as well as a relation, infomuch that we often meet with passages which, though perfectly felt, cannot be sufficiently explained in words, without unfolding the whole character of the speaker.' See NOTE ON THE ESSAY, page 58, of which I have only quoted a small part, the whole note is well worth the perusal of every admirer of Shakespear, as placing his superiority in the delineation of manners in the clearest light. Indeed, to recommend that original and convincing piece of criticism partially is doing it injustice, since every part of it is replete with elegance of taste and accurate and impartial judgement. In regard to the [A] Analysis of the character of Falstaff; though I first took the book up on the recommendation of a friend, it was with the strongest prejudice against what I thought an indefenfible paradox; yet every word led to conviction; and I laid it down with the firmest assurance, that the author was perfectly in the right. I have fince recommended the perusal of it to several of my friends, who have all opened it with the fame prejudice, and shut it with the fame conviction. That the perusal of the book will not be equally convincing to all I can eafily believe. For, to use the words of the author (page 108), 'How many - forts of men are there whom no evidence can perfuade! How many, • who ignorant of Shakespear, or forgetful of the text, may as well read • heathen Greek or the laws of the land as this unfortunate commentary! • How many who, proud and pedantic, hate all novelty and damn it [A] See Note 1. Chap. VII. • without

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. without mercy under one compendious word [B] paradox! How many more who, not deriving their opinions from the sovereignty of reason, hold at the will of some superior lord, to whom accident or • inclination has attached them, and who, true to their vassalage, are re- • folute not to furrender, without express permission, their base and illgotten poffeffions.' We have another writer also, Henry Fielding, who in his comic epopees, is a most accurate delineator of manners. Howeyer there is one distinction between him and Shakespear, which, though perhaps it gives his pictures a more striking effect, renders them not equal in real merit to those of our great dramatic poet. Shakespear paints for all ages and all countries; while the portraits of Fielding are generally drawn from local and national circumstances [c]. [B] The author of the Dramatic Miscellany seems to have been a critic of this description. He says he cannot think the author serious in his hypothefis. One of the proofs (and he says it is unquestionable) is Falstaff giving an additional wound to Percy. I confess I think with, the author of the Essay, it is rather indecent than cowardly. [c] Dr. Johnson says, 'There is all the difference in the world between the characters of • Fielding and those of Richardson. Characters of manners are very entertaining; but they are to < be understood, by a more superficial observer, than characters of nature, where a man must dive ⚫ into the recesses of the human heart.' BOSWELL'S LIFE OF JOHNSON, Vol. 1. p. 299. This I think would be a very just distinction between the manners of Fielding and Shakespear, but I cannot allow it between Fielding and Richardson. His characters can never be drawn naturally which are drawn contrary to his own intention. Richardson certainly meant Clariffa for a perfect character. And yet Dr. Johnson says of her in another place, that there always appears something in her conduct that she prefers to truth; and he adds, 'that Fielding's • Amelia is the most perfect heroine of a novel.' MRS. PIOZZI'S LETTERS. IN BOSWELL'S LIFE, Vol. 1. p. 342, Johnson says he read Amelia through without stopping. To

L To return to the particular object of the note. The meaning of the. word GOOD, as the first essential of tragic manners, has been a cause of much difference of opinion among the tranflators and commentators of the Poetic. If we consider χρησà here in its usual and obvious sense of morally good, the passage is neither reconcilable with Aristotle's definition of the proper tragic character in chap. XIII, nor with the practice of all the ferious epic and dramatic writers, ancient and modern. To still greater impropriety shall we be driven, if we take up the opinion, originally I believe started by Boffsu, and fince followed by Dacier, Harris, and Metastasio; that Aristotle by χρησὰ meant manners well marked. So strongly expressed, as to shew clearly what the character is, whether good or bad. For such a quality, so far from being diftinguished from the other three requifites, is essential to them all.. Since, whether a character is to be drawn good, or proper, or like, or uniform, it certainly ought to be well drawn, and strongly marked. In short, this is removing the epithet from the character of the manners represented, to that of the mode of representing them, and is nearly equivalent with a person who in laying down rules for composing a good poem, should begin with faying, that the first and most essential rule was, that the poem should. be good. But I think Ariftotle has sufficiently explained his meaning in several parts of this treatise, and especially in the beginning of the second. chapter [D], where he points out the difference as to manners of the objects of tragic and comic imitation; the first of which only he is now treating of particularly. The same idea is, I conceive, kept up with regard to tragic action; viz. that it should be important, in the fixth [D] See Note 1. Chap. II. chapter,

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. chapter [E], and in the thirteenth as to character again, when we are told that illustrious men, like Edipus and Thyestes, or even [F] better characters in preference to worse are the proper objects of tragedy. Accordingly we find this rule universally adhered to in all serious fables whatever. Macbeth and Richard the Third, though they are objects of our detestation, never excite our contempt [G]; they have a dignity, a superiority of character which commands our respect, while their crimes are objects of our abhorrence. In this respect Milton is beyond all praise in his character of Satan [H]. Though I by no means put him in general on a footing with Shakespear as a painter of manners, yet in this single instance he certainly goes beyond him, fince he had a difficulty to encounter, which must have been pronounced infurmountable if he had not furmounted it. He was to represent a being not the creature of his own imagination, but marked by the most sacred authority as the abstract of wickedness and impiety, in such colors as to be a proper, and yet principal epic character; and this he has done in so masterly a manner, that the character of Satan alone is to me a fufficient illustration of the meaning of Ariftotle in this place, and the proper distinction between poetic [Ε] πράξεως σπεδαίας. [F] ἢ Βελλίονος μᾶλλον ἢ χείρονος. [G] In Chap. v. Aristotle in his account of comedy explains what he means by 'worse perfons,” (φαυλοτέρων) not such, he says, as are perfectly depraved, but only those who possess that species of turpitude that will excite ridicule. Is it not natural, when he is speaking of that tragic goodness which he has already opposed to this comic turpitude, for him to mean not abfolute goodness, but that species of it only which is proper to excite respect.

[H] See Beattie's Illustrations on Sublimity, page 613; and Efssay on Poetry and Music, page 78. and

and moral goodness; not because the character is well marked, for that might have been as well done had he been made contemptible, and the manners of Belial and Mammon are as capable of this excellence as those of Satan; but because he never loses our respect, nor ever appears to us • less than archangel ruined.. [1] Perhaps this subject cannot be better illustrated than by a comparison between the scene in the Fatal Curiosity of Lillo, when the wife is exciting her husband to the murder of the supposed stranger; and the scene between Macbeth and his wife. According to Mr. Harris, the manners in both are equally good poetically though not morally; 'Be- • cause it is natural such a wife should perfuade, and fuch a husband be perfuaded; and here we have all we require, because (here he blends, ، or rather confounds two of Aristotle's requisites) all we require is a suit- • able consistence.' To this we may add, that the intent in Macbeth is infinitely more atrocious. Wilmot, urged by extreme necessity, aggra-- vated by the remembrance of former affluence. For, • The needy man who has known better days, • One whom distress has spited at the world, * Is he, whom tempting fiends would pitch upon • To do such deeds, as make the profperous man • Lift up his hands and wonder who could do them.' DOUGLAS. Wilmot, I fay, resolves to reinstate his fortunes, by taking the life of a man he conceives a perfect stranger, with whom he is no otherwise connected, than by the common bands of nature and hospitality. But Macbeth, loaded with large poffeffions and newly acquired honors, is goaded [1] See Note III. Chap. XIII. by

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. by an inordinate ambition to sacrifice his kinfman, his benefactor, and his king. One who under his roof was ، - In double trust, First as he was his kinsman and his subject, Both ftrong against the deed; then as his host, • Who should against the murderer shut the door, • Not bear the knife himself.' Surely in the distinction of these two scenes the poetical GOODNESS OF CHARACTER is sufficiently marked and makes the chief difference between them: but it obviously does not arise from moral goodness, or striking delineation of character; or if it does excel in the latter, it must be from fuperior merit as to one of the three last requifites, propriety, likeness, or uniformity. In the old and middle comedy, the manners, like those in modern farce when it keeps its true character, and in the burlesque epopee, fuch as Hudibras, are represented as devoid of this poetic goodness. [K] But in what we call genteel comedy, and the comic epopee, the manners of the principal characters at least, though drawn in general conformity to those of the age, partake of this goodness in fome degree. Though Tom Jones. is not drawn different from other men as Achilles is, though he is not drawn as a perfect character, and therefore as a monster, like Grandifon and Clariffa, every reader will fee he has no foibles that disgrace him, one only excepted, his venal amour with Lady Bellaston. And there Fielding has committed an error, and every reader feels it, against this rule which Aristole has given, or rather transcribed from the volume of [K] See Note 1. Chap. 11. Sf nature.

nature. I have mentioned this as relative only to the principal characters. The fubordinate ones may be purely burlesque even in comedy and the comic epopee. A character can never be respectable without possessing a sense of honor and of courage. The defect of these qualities is evident in Gil Blas, who, throughout the agreeable novel of Le Sage, for so it is in fpite of this defect, can never interest us; for who can be much concerned for the welfare of a despicable character, who is both a cheat and a coward; and such a character Gil Blas certainly is [L]. ners. The Orphan is a striking instance of a want of this goodness of man- Castalio and Polydore are certainly two unprincipled scoundrels, and Chamont is, as Caftalio calls him, ' a noify boisterous ruffian.' The Chaplain I do not mention as he is intended for a character in low comedy. But if the reader wishes to fee an instance of flagrant violation, not only of goodness but every requifite of manners, he may find it in a speech of Monimia, who when Polydore, in language too gross for quotation and which would degrade him at once from the character of gentleman, had it been addressed to a common prostitute, accuses her and her sex of every vice, the last and most confpicuous of which is unbridled lust, acquiesces in the justice of the charge, and coolly replies, • Indeed, my lord, • I own my sex's follies, I have 'em all; And to avoid its fault must fly from you. [L] See Beattie on Fable and Romance, p. 570 and 572, where, speaking of Fielding's Joseph Andrews, he wonders' what could induce the author to add to the other faults of his hero's father, Wilson, the infamy of lying and cowardice.' The

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. The French poets so far from neglecting this rule of Aristotle, have pushed it to a most ridiculous excess, in which they have been but too much followed by many of our tragic writers. Instead of giving that natural dignity of character, which prevents even vice from becoming despicable, they have substituted an inflated and artificial character, the supposed consequence of high rank. The kings and heroes of Racine and Corneille, put us in mind of Alexander and Cæfar dressed in the hoops of the Italian opera. This false taste is well ridiculed by [M] Lessing, in a criticism on the Earl of Effex, by Banks. After quoting several passages in which Elizabeth speaks like a woman rather than a queen [N], he proceeds, Yes, indeed! these things are intolerable, the refined critics, and perhaps some of my readers will say, for unluckily there are Germans yet more frenchified than the French themselves. It is for their diversion • that I have selected these low passages, according to their notion. I • know their mode of criticising. These little negligences which are so terribly offensive to their delicate ears, and which are so difficult for the poet to find, and who has carefully scattered them here and there, to • render the dialogue more natural and give the discourse an appearance • of being the real inspiration of the moment; these they tack cleverly [M] DRAMATURGIE, Part I. page 96. [N] Telephus aut Peleus cum pauper et exul uterque • Projecit ampullas et sesquipedalia verba • Si curat cor spectantis tetigisse querela.' HOR. < Peleus and Telephus poor banish'd! each • Drop their big fix-foot words and founding speech; • Or else what bosom in their grief takes part.' COLMAN. Sf2 to-

، ، together, and then almost kill themselves with laughing at them; and shrugging their shoulders from mere pity, they gravely pronounce ' that the poor man knows nothing of the great world; that he has not conversed with many queens; that Racine knew much better, but * then Racine had lived at court. ، ، All this is very well, but it does not alter my opinion. If queens either do not, or dare not speak in this manner, so much the worse for ⚫ them. It is not to-day I have learned, that a court is not exactly the place where a poet should study nature. But if pomp and etiquette ⚫ transform men into machines, it is the duty of the poet to change ، • these machines again into men. Let real queens speak as affectedly and politely as they please, those of the poet should speak naturally. Let • him liften attentively to the Hecuba of Euripides, and confole himself ⚫ for having never conversed with other queens [o].' From the principle above-mentioned arose all the abfurd cenfures of the French critics on the fimplicity of Homer, and all the mifrepresentations of the French translators. It is to be lamented that Pope, who in his notes has often treated Mad. Dacier with great afperity, chose to follow her example as to this in his version. The manners of the Iliad are altered too much; but those of the Odyssey are entirely and radically changed [P]. [o] See alfo Beattie on Imagination, Chap. Iv. page 183; and Brumoy's Reflections on: Iphigenia. [P] See this more enlarged on in Note 1, on Chap. xxiv.. NOTE

15.2. mvp-aristotle-comment-51 15.2

A WOMAN, OR EVEN A SLAVE MAY BE DRAWN WITH THIS EX- CELLENCE OF CHARACTER, THOUGH IT IS PROBABLE THAT A WOMAN SHOULD BE WORSE THAN A MAN, AND THAT A SLAVE SHOULD BE ABSOLUTELY BAD.

THIS decifion of Aristotle does not appear very favourable to the ladies [2]. Metastasio is angry with him for having thus without any neceffity, insulted half the human race. But if the principles on which Metastasio explains this passage, as mentioned in the preceding. note are right, there will be no insult at all. For if goodness of manners means manners strongly marked, it will be obvious to common observation that the remark is just, without recurring to Athens, where women were almost as much secluded from the general commerce of the world, in the time of Aristotle, as they are now, but even at the present time in western Europe, where they mix so much and take so active a part in society; I am speaking in general, there may be particular exceptions; but these it is not the province of poetry, at least of tragedy to imitate. A professed delineator of manners almost in our own time, has pronounced the same judgement on the sex. Pope says, and he quotes a lady as the author of the remark, Nothing so true as what you once let fall; • Moft women have no character at all.' [Q] Bossu (whom Mr. Harris calls Ariftotle's best interpreter) observes, ' As for the fex, • Aristotle says in his Poetic, that there are fewer good women than others, and that they do < more harm than good.' In what part of the Poetic did he find this passage? My

My hypothefis it is true, will not afford this excuse for the Stagirite's want of gallantry. But whoever reflects on the fituation of the Grecian women, must know they could not poffefs that goodness of character which I imagine Ariftotle to mean, in an equal degree with men. For they were very little better than in a state of domestic fervitude, and therefore could feldom have opportunities of exerting dignity of character. This is by no means the cafe with the modern female character. Their manners, indeed, are not so strongly marked as those of men, nor afford so much variety, but they are equally capable of this poetical goodness, as far as they are marked, with those of men. I do not mean such characters as Lady Macbeth and Medea, who do not properly pofsess female manners, but such as Juliet, as Constance, as Desdemona, and as Belvidera. As for a flave, our tragic drama knows no such character as existed under that name in the FREE republic of Athens. Zanga and Oroonoko are captive heroes. I would not be understood however, either as wishing to palliate or apologize, for the opinion of Arifstotle in this or any other place where I think him abfolutely in the wrong. Of the unfavourable idea he entertained of the fair sex there can be no doubt. This is proved beyond contradiction, from a passage in his natural history (R) of animals, which Mr. Twining has quoted, and I shall venture to tranflate, as a compleat specimen of the purest absurdity. • Woman is more apt to pity and • fall into tears than man. She is more given to envy, more ready to • find fault, fonder of scandal, and more apt to give blows. She is • also more addicted to anxiety and despondency, more impudent, more * false, more easily deceived and less apt to forget, also more wakeful, [R] Book IX. Chap. I. • and

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. [s] and yet more slothful, and on the whole more obstinate than • men.' Perhaps I may be thought to take up the cause of the most amiable part of our species too warmly, when I declare this passage alone is a fufficient answer to all those, who think Ariftotle never in the wrong. The philosopher is not here speaking of the civil but the natural character of woman, confidered as an animal, as the female of the human race. He is enquiring into the nature of females in general throughout the whole of animated nature. These are his words. Females (he says, with an ، exception as to tigers and bears) are lefs ferocious but more malicious, • deceitful, and infidious than males, and more attentive in nourishing ' their young.- The traces of these manners are to be found, as I may say, in all animals, but they are most confpicuous in those whose manners are most marked, and especially in mankind whose nature is • most perfect, so that these habits will be most confpicuous in them.' And then follows the definition above quoted. Here therefore the ladies are marked as the representatives of the whole creation, with the flattering exception indeed of tigresses and she-bears; but certainly moft of the distinctions between the sexes mentioned by Aristotle are diftinctions of artificial habit, the consequences of custom and education, and not natural habit or instinct. In fome of them, as timidity and softness, the ancient and modern females agree; in others, as impudence and [s] Αγρυπνότερον καὶ οκνηρότερον. Of this apparent paradox, Mr. Twining gives the following humorous solution. ، More able to keep late hours, and at the same time more lazy than men,' might not this be rendered 'fonder of fitting up late, and lying in bed late;' perhaps this may be the cafe in general at present, as the ladies are fonder of dancing, and as yet at least, though I doubt if that will continue, not quite fo fond of sporting as the men. diffimulation,,

diffimulation, they differ, on account of their different mode of life. But wherever male jealoufy and tyranny, in modern times, reduces females to the fituation of flaves, the qualities of flaves will still be found in them. Surely there is not more difference between the characters of men and women, as stated by Aristotle, than there is between a foldier and an attorney (T). And I should hardly impute this to natural instinct. I have heard it observed, that on examining the ruins either of Pompeia or Herculaneum, the bodies of the men were found in the attitude of resistance, the women in that of refignation, which I conceive to be as much the consequence of habit as the discovery faid to have been made of a young man in women's cloaths, by attempting to draw a chair in a method which his dress would not permit [u]. To In a note on the former edition of my translation, I have faid a more perfect character might be found among women than men. trace the causes of this, may perhaps throw fome light on the subject of the preceding note. The qualities that raise men in the esteem of the world, that render them in the general opinion of mankind great and respectable on which poetical goodness of character depends, are often not connected, but [T] I do not mean to say, that there are not particular instances of good or bad dispositions refifting the force of habit; there are certainly rapacious and cunning soldiers, mafculine women, and honeft and even liberal-minded attorneys, for I cannot agree with Mr. Shenstone, or at least am more lucky in my acquaintance with them, as I know several in whom the gentleman, the christian, and the man is NOT (as he afferts) swallowed up in the lawyer. [U] Is not the imputation of these distinctions to natural causes something on the fame principle with the remark of the old groom, who had found, from long experience, that cropped horses were naturally good? frequently

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. frequently even in oppofition to what may strictly be called moral virtue. That a degree of this poetical goodness is not incompatible even with atrocious crimes, has already been observed; and we may add, that in modern times it frequently depends on acknowledged vices, as a certain degree of gallantry and duelling. In regard to the first, how nearly has Fielding made Joseph Andrews an object of ridicule; and what pains is he obliged to employ to excuse him, by his violent attachment to another woman. The same may be observed as to duelling, in the character of Sir Charles Grandison, who, after all the trouble Richardfon has taken to draw him perfect, is neither the object of our love or our respect. Indeed the poet's pencil is not always true to his intention (x). I have no doubt that Rowe, in the Fair Penitent, meant to make Altamont the object of our esteem, and Lothario of our detestation. But he has fo contrived in the execution, that we despise Altamont, and the gallant gay Lothario is the favorite of the spectators, though he is an unprincipled, and in one instance a despicable villain, for no crime can be more truly defpicable than boasting of a woman's favors. The same may be faid of two other characters in different works, Lovelace and Sir Charles Grandifon. But a woman may be drawn perfectly good, and at the same time perfectly interesting, for there is no virtue in the catalogue of moral or christian duties that is not becoming, and does not both give and receive additional lustre, when possessed by that amiable sex. The utmost exertions of patience, and meekness, which at least fink the dignity of the tragic hero, raise the tragic heroine in our esteem. The characters of Imogen, of Desdemona, and of Cordelia, are as nearly patterns of [x] Maffinger has fucceeded in this in his Fatal Dowry, from which Rowe entirely borrowed his plot, though without any acknowledgement. See a comparison between these plays in the Observer, No. 89, 90, 91.

Tt perfection

perfection as human nature will admit, erring only as to that passion which we have already mentioned as furnishing [Y] that μεγάλη ἁμαρτία, that great frailty which causes the distress of virtuous characters without awakening our disgust, or sinking them in our esteem. manners. Before I quit this part of the subject I must make one observation, though it partly anticipates the subject of the next note. It relates to the tendency my fair countrywomen have to violate in real life an example of Ariftotle given to enforce the neceffity of poetical propriety of He tells us ⚫ there is a character of courage and fierceness adapted to men, which would be very improper in a woman.' My own feelings on this head are so much in unison with those of the Stagirite, that I am as much disgusted at seeing a delicate and accomplished woman drawing a bow, or managing a spirited hunter, as I should be at a man's working a pair of ruffles, or embroidering a waistcoat. These exercises are not only unfit for female delicacy but even destructive of female beauty, as they tend to make the arm mufcular, and consequently to rob it of its first grace, rotundity, and softness of outline. There is even something repugnant to our sensations in seeing a woman skilful in things that do not become her sex. In such cases there is a beauty even in awkwardness. There is a masterly stroke in Rousseau's Emilius [z] exemplifying this. Sophia could not fit still. She rose with vivacity. She ran over the whole shop, examined the tools, felt the smoothness ' of the planks, picked up the shavings, looked at our hands, and faid • she liked this kind of work because it was so clean. She playfully ، attempted even to imitate Emilius. With her white and delicate hand • she run a plane over a board, the plane slid on without having any [Y] See Note Iv. Chap. XIII. [z] Vol. II. Part II. • effect.

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. • effect. I thought I beheld the god of love in the air laughing and • beating his wings. I thought I heard him shout with delight, and fay, " Hercules is revenged." ، Homer who lived in more natural times than Aristotle, or the Greek tragic writers, was much more favorable to the characters of women. In what amiable colors has he drawn Helen, the cause of so much war and bloodshed. How different is the behaviour of Hector to her, and that of the pious Æneas of Virgil! Her lamentation over the body of Hector, in the last book of the Iliad, is beyond expreffion beautiful [A]. The cafe with regard to flavery was different, and Homer expresses himself on that head with nearly as much strength as Ariftotle. [B]' Jove fix'd it certain that whatever day • Makes man a flave, takes half his worth away.' POPE'S ODYSSEY, 1. xvii. v. 393- [A] Madam Dacier's criticism on this speech is the very Βαθος of the absurd. • Homer • does not say this only to shew the goodness and humanity of Hector, but also to support the • probability of the poem. For if Hector, who was master in Troy, both on account of ⚫ his own valor and the old age of Priam, had not been in the interests of Helen, there • would have been no likelihood of her not being delivered up to the Greeks in the course of so fatal a war.' Madam Dacier in this remark omits the testimony Helen bears to the paternal tenderness shewn her by Priam. Ἑκυρὸς δὲ, πατὴρ ὡς, ἤπιος ἀιεὶ. There is the fame omission in Pope's tranflation. [Β] Ἥμισυ γὰρ τ᾿ ἀρετῆς ἀποαίνυται ἐυρύοπα Ζεὺς ᾿Ανέρος εὖτ᾿ ἂν μιν κατὰ δέλιον ἦμαρ ἕλησεν. Tt2 ODYSSEY, 1. XVII. v. 322. NOTE

15.3. mvp-aristotle-comment-52 15.3

THE NEXT REQUISITE IS THEIR BEING CHARACTERISTIC.

BY characteristic is meant confonant with the profession, rank, fex, and age of the perfon. This is clearly defined as to the last condition by Horace in his Epistle to the Pifos [c]. The celebrated speech of Jaques in As You Like It, describing the seven ages of man's life, seems an imitation of this passage in Horace. But with all the veneration I have for Shakespear, I cannot agree with Mr. Colman in thinking his alteration in making two of his examples characteristic of station, instead of age, an improvement; fince comparatively confidered, so few men are ever either soldiers or justices. I say two examples, though Mr. Colman makes them three, enumerating the lover in them. But here I think Shakespear has adhered more to general nature than Horace. Love is certainly more naturally characteristic of youth than hunting. An objection has been made to Iago as a deviation from this rule, as the character of an artful revengeful villain is very opposite to that of a soldier: and had Iago been the only foldier in the play the objection would have been just, as in that case he must have been confidered as representing the general manners of the profession. But as in Othello all the principal persons of the drama are soldiers, the manners are characteristic of the individual not of the profeffion. From national prejution. [c] See v. 156 to v. 178 in the original, and v. 230 to v. 265 in Mr. Colman's tranfladice

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. dice we are apt to be rather unfavorable in our representation of French characters; and had Parolles been the only Frenchman in ' All's Well ' that Ends Well, we should not scruple to confider him as an example of fuch prejudice; but as the scene lies in France chiefly, no such idea is ever entertained [D]. As to the propriety of character, the ghosts, witches, and fairies of Shakespear, are deservedly allowed superior excellence, as they certainly act in conformity with the manners, we impute to such imaginary beings did they really exist. Yet Shakespear had here some archetype to follow; for popular opinion had already marked the outline of their habits, which was as advantageous to him in giving them characteristic manners as it was difadvantageous to (E) Milton in giving Satan poetical excellence of manners. But how Shakespear (F) has contrived in such characters as Caliban, the pure creation of his own imagination, to give to what never did, and never was supposed to exist, such manners as we are irresistibly impelled by our feelings to pronounce truly characteristic, is a power of art that criticism is as inadequate to investigate, as genius to imitate. [D] See Bishop Warburton's Defence of Shakespear in this instance against the hypercriticism of Rhymer. [E] See Note I. on this chapter. [F] See Effay on the Dramatic Character of Falstaff, page 75, note. NOTE

15.4. mvp-aristotle-comment-53 15.4

- THE THIRD ESSENTIAL IS LIKENESS. THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THIS AND WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY MENTIONED ABOUT THEIR BEING GOOD AND CHARACTERISTIC.

THESE words obviously imply that though there is a diftinction between them they are liable to be confounded, which is exactly the case with being like and characteristic. But there feems to be almost a direct opposition between likeness and goodness. • For,' as is very juftly remarked by Mr. Twining, 'there was more danger of a reader's thinking the ὅμοιον too different from the χρησὸν, and as a general precept incompatible with it.' I can find no other way of solving this difficulty than by the common effort of unsuccessful and bold commentators alteration of the text, and leaving out the word χρηςόν as supposing it added by a transcriber in conformity to ὥσπερ ἕιρηται, as both goodness and propriety have just been mentioned. ، The difference between propriety and likeness consists merely in this, that the one relates to what is becoming and natural in a person of such an age, sex, or profeffion; the other, to what is appropriated to any particular character, from history or tradition. Mr. Twining illustrates this by the example of Medea, ' where the violence and fierceness which form her ⚫ traditional character, and therefore the likeness of the poet's picture may be said to be proper, or suitable with respect to the individual, • though improper and unfuitable to the general character of the fex.' Mr.

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. Mr. Mason, as he has drawn his Elfrida, whose historical character is one of the worst in the annals of human kind, has preferred general propriety of character to individual resemblance. This subject is discussed at large by M. Leffing, in a criticism on a comedy called SOLYMAN THE SECOND [G], taken from one of Marmontel's tales, from which I shall make a confiderable extract, as it in many places applies strongly to the Elfrida of Mr. Mason, and without design, and confequently without partiality, urges what may be faid on both fides as to such a delineation of an historical character. M. Leffing first quotes the following extract from the JOURNAL ENCYCLOPEDIQUE for January, 1762, page 79. “ “ Solyman," say they,' was one of the greatest princes of his age. His victories, his talents, his virtues, rendered him an object " of veneration even to the enemies he triumphed over. But this hero " so sensible to glory was not insensible to love; though delicate in his " “ pleasures, he felt amid the corruption of a seraglio, that pleasure unaccompanied by sentiment is contemptible. He imagined he had " found this in Roxelana, a young Italian captive, not perhaps inca- “ pable of tenderness but nevertheless artful and ambitious, and skilled " in the means of making her pleasures the fource of her elevation. “ By feigning sensibility herself, she induced Solyman who really felt it, to violate a law of the empire which forbad the sultan to marry. [G] Dramaturgie, Part II. page 70, & feq. We have a very pleasing after-piece on the same subject, in which the character of Roxelana has received additional interest from the powers of Mrs. Abingdon and Mrs. Jordan. " She

" She afcended the throne with him, an ambition in itself pardonable, " if she had not employed her afcendancy over her lover to force him to " fully his glory by the sacrifice of an innocent fon. This woman M. "Marmontel has chofen for the heroine of one of his tales. But how he " has changed her! Instead of Italian he has made her French. Instead " of an artful woman affecting sensibility he has made her the coquet " of a Parifian circle; and instead of a foul overwhelmed by ambition, “ “ “ " " and capable of the boldest and most atrocious actions to fatisfy it, he has given her an undesigning head and an excellent heart. Are fuch changes allowable? Can a poet or a novellist extend the license, whatever it may be, that is given him, to known characters ? Though permitted to change facts, has he a right to paint Lucretia as a coquet, and Socrates as a fine gentleman ?" To this M. Leffing replies : ' I do not chuse to charge myself with • the justification of M. Marmontel on this point. I have already ob- • served [H], that characters should be more facred to the poet than • facts. First, because when the characters are well observed, the facts [H] Dramaturgie, Part I. page 57, where he defends the anachronisms as to the age of Elizabeth in Corneille's Comte de Essex, against the Criticisms of Voltaire. Corneille reprefents her as young when Effex is executed, which really happened near the close of her reign. Lessing says, ' If her character gives the poetic idea of that which history attributes ' to that queen the poet has fulfilled his duty, and we have no business to bring the work to ⚫ the strict tribunal of chronology or history.' In confirmation of this doctrine we have had three tragedies on this subject on our theatre, to which the history of Elizabeth must be much better known than it can be to a French audience, which have all the fame defect without its producing any ill consequence as to their reception on the stage. See Note IV. Chap. xvu. as

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. • as being the consequence of fuch characters can never vary much [1], • as on the contrary the fame facts may be derived from characters en- ⚫ tirely different. Secondly, because the instruction does not lie in the • facts themselves, but in the knowledge that such characters in such • circumstances do and can only produce such facts (K). Nevertheless • Marmontel has done just the reverse. The fact is, that there was formerly in the seraglio an European female flave, who had art enough to get herfelf declared legally married to the emperor. The character • of this flave, and that of the emperor, determine the manner in which ⚫ this fact really happened; and because there might have been many • different characters by whose means it might really have happened, it certainly depends only on the poet, as poet, which, either of the • characters established by history, or of others, he chuses to employ, ⚫ according as the moral he has in view, requires one or the other. All ⚫ that is expected of him, in cafe he chuses other characters than those • which are furnished by history, or even such as absolutely contradict ، ، it, is to abstain also from historical names, and rather ascribe known • [L] facts to unknown persons than give to known persons manners • which do not belong to them. The first encreases our knowledge, or at least feems to encrease it, and pleases even on that account; the [1] This I think will hardly be granted, and indeed seems confuted by the other member. of the sentence. As the leading facts of the story of Elfrida not only might have been, but actually were nearly the fame as represented by Mr. Mason, so had Elfrida been drawn as she really was, undoubtedly the consequential facts might have been entirely different.. [K] The reader will observe that part of the reasoning here arises from M. Lessing's mistake as to the meaning of the Contes Moraux, or moral tales, mentioned in Note I.. [L] See Note Iv. Chap. XVIII.. Uu. fecond

33° ، ، second contradicts the knowledge we already have, and displeases for that reafon. We confider facts as accidental, and what may happen in common to many different persons, but characters on the contrary as something essential and particular. We permit the poet therefore to arrange the first according to his fancy, provided he does not make them contradictory to his characters. But as to the second he may put them indeed in the best light, but he must not alter them. The • least variation feems to destroy the individuality, and give us fictitious ، ، and deceitful perfons, who ufurp the names of other people, and try to pass on us for characters they in reality are not. ، Notwithstanding this, it appears to me a much more pardonable fault not to preserve in the perfons those characters which history has given them, than to err either as to probability or the moral intended to be conveyed in such characters as are chosen at will; for the first • defect may very well be united with genius, but not the second. It • is allowed to be ignorant of a thousand things that every school-boy • knows. It is not the acquifitions of memory, but the power of ، drawing from our own proper funds that conftitutes riches. As to what a poet has heard, or feen, or read, he either forgets it, or does not chuse to know it, just as fuits his purpose. He errs then fometimes through too much security, sometimes through contempt, sometimes through premeditated design, and sometimes not; and he does it so grossly, • and so often, that we poor fouls can never wonder enough at it. Lifting up our hands we cry, How could fo great a man have been ignorant of this? How could it have escaped his recollection ? Did not he take it into confideration? O let us be filent on the subject. • While we are trying to debafe him, we only make ourselves ridiculous ' in his eyes; all that we know more than him amounts folely to what we

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. • we learned at school, without which we should have been completely stupid and ignorant indeed.'

15.5. mvp-aristotle-comment-54 15.5

THE FOURTH IS CONSISTENCY.

BY consistency is meant keeping the character uniform with itself in every respect. Without this it is impoffible for the manners to excel in the other qualities; for a character can never be faid to have poetical go odness, or general propriety of manners, or individual likeness, if these qualities are not uniformly kept up. Horace seems to conceive this admonition chiefly necessary to those poets who draw original characters from their own imagination. [M] • Should you adventuring novelty, engage • Some bold original to walk the stage, • Preserve it well, continued as begun • True to itself in every scene, and one.' COLMAN'S HOR. EP. Tο PIS. 186. Indeed though this rule is equally essential to all characters, original ones will be most liable to offend against it. As there the poet will have nothing to guide him but his own genius, and besides he will be [M] Si quid inexpertum scenæ committis, & audes Perfonam formare novam; fervetur ad imum Qualis ab incepto processerit et fibi conftet.. Uu2 EP. AD PIS. 125. more.

more tempted to take liberties with what he esteems particularly his property, as being the creature of his own invention. He also will efteem himself to be, and indeed actually will be, less liable to detection. The example that Ariftotle gives of failure in this point is the character of Iphigenia in the Iphigenia in Aulis of Euripides, of which more will be faid in the next note. Modern instances of the breach of this rule will be amply furnished by our best poets, serious and comic, epic and dramatic. [N] The character of Hamlet cannot certainly be allowed to be uniform throughout. Befides the neglect or forgetfulness of the poet in making Hamlet, who is only supposed to affect madness, appear often really mad, (an error carefully and effectually guarded against in [o] Edgar,) there are many improprieties which I shall not enlarge upon as they are fufficiently obvious. [N] I have been informed that by order of Mrs. Garrick the tragedy of Hamlet was thrown into Garrick's grave. I think though he was undoubtedly great in that character he was equally fo in many of Shakespear's characters, and superior in Lear. The comic characters I presume were thought too light for so solemn an occafion. If by burying that tragedy with Garrick it was meant to infer that it was loft to the stage with him, a complete edition of Shakespear might, with the utmost propriety, have been interred with that inimitable actor: for what Cardinal Bembó has said of Nature on the tomb of Raffael, may be faid of Shakefpear on the tomb of Garrick. one. [o] When one of the persons assumes a character different from his own it is the business of the actor to mark the distinction, and make the real character appear through the feigned Johnfon has observed, that Garrick did not play Archer in the Beaux Stratagem ' well. The gentleman should break out through the footman, which was not the cafe as ' he did it.' BOSWELL'S LIFE OF JOHNSON, Vol. 11. p. 62. Romeo

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. Romeo also surely acts contrary to the general tendency of his character when after the fall of [P] Paris, on being requested by his dying rival to lay his body by Juliet, he answers coolly, and rather lightly, • In faith I will.' And on recognizing his face he considers him as an object of pity, and feems really concerned for him though his rival, and the occafion of Juliet's death. Valentine's offer of resigning Sylvia to Protheus is a striking instance of the same impropriety in our great dramatic poet; if that play [Q], which I greatly doubt, is really a production of Shakespear. Farquhar has added to this impropriety when he makes Aimwell say to Archer in the Beaux Stratagem, • Take the ten thousand or the Lady;' and in Archer's brutal answer to Dorinda, when the expresses her surprize at the offer. [P] The author of the REMARKS makes a curious observation on these lines spoken by the prince. • And I for winking at your difcords too ' Have loft a brace of kinsmen.' His kinsmen he says are Mercutio and envolio, and therefore proposes to refstore a line which mentions the death of the latter. This ought to be a good lesson to commentators, as it shews how they are able sometimes to fee what is invisible, and to shut their eyes againft what stares them in the face. Mercutio and Paris are obviously the prince's relations. Romeo on first seeing the face of Paris, calls him Mercutio's kinsman. And in the dramatis perfonæ, which is arranged rather according to political than poetical rank, the first character mentioned is Escalus, prince of Verona: the second Paris, kinsman to the prince. [Q] If the hand of Shakespear is to be traced in any part of the Two Gentlemen of Verona, I think it is in the characters of Launce and Speed, which much resemble Lancelot in the Merchant of Venice. In

In the fong supposed to be written by Lovemore for the widow Belmour in the WAY TO KEEP HIM, and which is supposed to give his own sentiments, there is a strong instance not only of inconfiftency but abfolutely of oppofition in this line. Turn the chief of your care from your face to your mind.' Now the only cause of Lovemore's indifference to his wife is her having done this very thing; and the whole tenor of the drama is to enforce the contrary conduct, and shew a woman that the ought, after marriage, to facrifice to the graces as well as to the virtues. There is a fimilar neglect in that excellent comedy the School for Scandal, when Charles Surface says to Sir Oliver on his being difcovered, Believe me when I tell you, (and upon my foul I would not say it if it was not so,) if I do not feel mortified at the exposure of my • follies; it is because I feel at this moment the warmest satisfaction at seeing you my liberal benefactor.' This is quite inconsistent with the character of Charles, and would have exactly suited Joseph in the fame situation, as it conveys a premeditated sentiment, and is besides obvioufly an untruth. I will now produce three instances from works of narrative imitation, and those justly in the highest class of estimation. To begin with Don Quixote. In the part first published by Cervantes, and his subsequent addition in consequence of a fpurious attempt by another hand, he has two distinct characters. • In the first part it is true he is not drawn as an abfolute maniac, when he is not discoursing of knight errantry, ▲ but all his conversation is tinged with fingularity; and the pertinent • things

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. ، things he says are incoherently arranged, and themselves out of place; as for instance, his long speech to the goatherds about the golden age : • but in the second part he is made a man of found judgment and elegant literature when the immediate subject of his madness is not • touched upon [R].' My next instance is from a work which is of undoubted excellence indeed, leaving every work of the same nature far behind. I mean the character of Allworthy in Tom Jones. He has always appeared to me a striking instance of a character at oppofition with himself, though more perhaps in general with that which the author tells you in his own person he is, than with his own conduct in those parts where the author suffers him to act from himself. The author is at great pains to inform us frequently that he is, though no scholar, a man of sense and difcernment, with a benevolence almost angelic; and to press this more forcibly on our minds, he has given him a name strongly expressive of his moral goodness, though all his other characters have common names [s]. But how is he really drawn? He is the dupe of every infinuating rafcal he meets; and a dupe not of the most amiable kind, fince he is always led to acts of justice and severity. The consequence of his pliability is oftener the punishment of the innocent than the acquittal of the guilty; and in such punishment he is severe and implacable. As in the cafe of Jones himself, his fupposed father and mother, and black George. He fuffers his adopted fon and his foundling to be ill treated by an imperious pedagogue, whose [R] See Andrews's Anecdotes, p. 31. Article Books. [s] See Note III. Ch. Ix. whole

، whole character and conversation is a fatire on christianity, and to have their principles corrupted by a hypocritical infidel. The third instance is not so striking, but is I think to be found in a character, whose fingularity as well as general uniformity with itself is universally and defervedly admired, and was a particular favorite with its author on this very account. I mean [T] Sir Roger de Coverly in the Spectator. But is his conduct throughout the work consonant with the original delineation of his character? Or can his fingularities, however amiable and however entertaining, be at all faid to [u]' proceed from • his good sense, and be contradictions to the manners of the world, only as he thinks the world is in the wrong?' There are many comedies whose catastrophe depends entirely on this want of uniformity of manners. I mean those in which the event of the fable turns on an entire and radical change of character in one of the principal persons. Where, as Mr. Harris observes, with as much humour as justice, • The old gentleman of the drama, after having • fretted and stormed through the first four acts, towards the conclufion • of the fifth is unaccountably appeased. At the fame time the diffipated 6. coquette, and the diffolute fine gentleman whose vices cannot be occa- • fional but must clearly be habitual, are in the space of half a scene [T] The character of Sir Roger did not, it feems, fuit the delicacy of Shenstone. In his Essays on Men, Manners, and Things, where he chuses to draw what he calls a character, and a most infipid one it is, and make him talk common-place nonfsense among the tombs at Westminster, he concludes by saying he ' sometimes boafted that he was a distant relation of • Sir Roger de Coverly. If he was, ' I am afraid his lady mother played false, for there is not the most distant family likeness.. [u] Spectator, No. II.. miracu-

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. ' miraculously reformed, and grow at once as completely good as if they ' had never been otherwife.' Some instances may however be produced in which a sudden and yet lasting reformation may not be improbable, as in Lady Townly. We may conceive a young woman of good natural disposition, but led into habits of diffipation by company and fashion, to be really convinced of her error by one striking incident: but we can never believe that any thing can cure the brutal fufpicion of Strictland [x]. [x] No two passions can be more different than jealousy and suspicion. The one is the offspring of brutality, and may be unconnected with love; the other is the certain proof of a most violent and unreasonable passion. Hoadley in the Suspicious Husband has once, and I believe once only, confounded these characters when he makes Strictland say he cannot bear that even a woman should partake in his wife's love. This is jealousy though pushed to excess. Mrs. Brooks in Emily Montague makes Colonel Rivers express the violence of his passion in these words: ' I would engross, I would employ, I would absorb every faculty • of that lovely mind.' Othello reasons, if I may use the expreffion, in the same manner, when he says, • I'd rather be a toad, • And feed upon the vapor of a dungeon, • Than keep a corner in the thing I love • For other's uses.' X x NOTE

15.6. mvp-aristotle-comment-55 15.6

EVEN IF AN INCONSISTENT PERSON IS THE OBJECT OF IMITA- IMITATED SHOULD BE MADE TION, THE CHARACTER SO CONSISTENTLY INCONSISTENT.

MR. TWINING begins one of his notes (101) with the observation that Aristotle affords so many passages to exercise the penetration and conjectures of the critics, that they might be perfectly fatisfied without inventing them when they do not find them. An observation that feems peculiarly applicable to this passage, which I own appears to me perfectly plain, and in the common and literal acceptation very naturally and even necessarily connected with what immediately precedes it. After Aristotle had mentioned consistency as one of the essential requifites of manners, it occurred to him that there might be, and perhaps he recollected there actually were, characters whose leading feature was inconfistency; and that he might be supposed to mean that the manners of such persons were improper for poetical imitation. He therefore explains himself by saying such characters were not improper, provided the inconfiftency was kept up throughout the whole conduct of the character, and the person was not made to act consistently with himself in some instances, and inconsistently in others. A very learned and elegant critic however has chosen to give a new meaning to this observation. One of his objections is, that such an inconsistent character is not proper for tragedy. He was induced to this idea by the character given to Tigellius by Horace, which so naturally suggests itself to the recollection of the reader. But it is by no means improbable, that

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. that such characters may be found in the higher and more serious ranks of life, the consequences of whose inconsistency may be as productive of tragic distress as that of Tigellius is of comic ridicule [x]. Bishop Hurd is at great pains to prove, that by ὁμαλῶς ἀνόμαλον he means that a person in some things inconsistent, may yet be so managed by the poet'as to be made consistent with the basis of his character. And as an example of this, he brings Electra, and strange to tell, Iphigenia, the very character marked out by Aristotle to exemplify blameable inconsistency of manners. The Bishop says, that Iphigenia is more easily vindicated from this charge of inconfiftency, than even Electra, notwithstanding this charge of Aristotle against her. It may be so; but if it is so, if Aristotle knew what he meant, or had any meaning at all, he could not intend to praise in Electra what he censures in Iphigenia. If the character of Iphigenia is an inconsistency confiftent with the basis of the character, it is proof pofitive that such is not the meaning of Ariftotle's ὁμαλῶς ἀνόμαλον, which must be some quality that the manners of Iphigenia did not possess. To bring the very character quoted by Ariftotle as an instance of the breach of a dramatic rule, for an example of the exception to such rule on his own supposed principles, and that by changing the received and obvious meaning of the words defining such exception, can hardly be justified by the canons of fober criticifm. The idea of Mr. Markland, mentioned by Mr. Twining, that the inconfistency of Iphigenia 'was intended by the poet as a moral lesson, [x] See Mr. Twining, Note III, whose observations on this passage, and on the Bishop of Worcester's criticism, are as usual, accurate and convincing. Xx. 2 ' a strik-

34° a striking picture of the " levity and inconfistency of the human mind," reminds us of an observation of Brumoy, on part of the conduct of Jocasta in the Edipus of Sophocles. • We perceive (he says) that the trouble of Edipus has fo much encreased, and that his fcruples con- • cerning the death of Laius have taken such deep root in his heart, that ، ، ، Jocasta, to deliver him from them, becomes all at once pious inftead of impious, as the appeared at first. She goes to confult the gods : admirable character! she is a free-thinker in the first act and now a religious enthusiast, and this because both the effects are produced by the different circumstances she is in. Such is the human heart. In going to the temple she meets the Corinthian shepherd, who reassures her concerning the fate of Edipus, and she thinks no more of the gods.' By the way, after all to take the Bishop's own words, is not the fubstance of them a distinction without a difference? for what is such a character as Tigellius but an inconsistent person drawn consistent with the basis of his character, since that basis is inconsistency ?

15.7. mvp-aristotle-comment-56 15.10

SO ACHILLES IS DRAWN AS A GOOD CHARACTER EVEN BY HOMER.

THE paragraph preceding that of which this sentence is the conclusion, whether from being displaced by transcribers or from the defultory mode of composition so frequently apparent in this work, seems to have little to do with the rest of this chapter. Here however Ariftotle returns to his subject. He has before been giving examples of the breach

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. breach of three of the essential qualities of manners, goodness as in the character of Menelaus, propriety as in Ulysses and Menalippe, and consistency as in Iphigenia. We may now suppose him to recollect his omiffion of the other, of which probably the Achilles in the same tragedy may have been generally quoted as an example, where, in order to give him the requifite poetical goodness of character, the poet has deviated from his traditional manners, and even the manners, according to Plato [v], given him by Homer. In answer to this the critic points out the mode by which the faults of a traditional character may be so represented as not to lose their resemblance, and yet retain the neceffary poetical goodness; and this he not only gives such directions how to perform as must appear to every person perfectly confonant with reason, but he illustrates it by the example of the usual practice of another imitative art. And having done this, he observes that even Homer, who has been supposed to have followed a different plan, has really given the requisite poetical goodness of character to Achilles. The contrary opinion however seems to have been generally adopted, even by the moderns; and many are ready to join in opinion with Dr. Jortin, as quoted by Mr. Twining; ' that Achilles is a boisterous, rapa- ، cious, mercenary, cruel and unrelenting brute; and the reader pities none of his calamities, and is pleased with none of his successes.' This is rather a summary mode of deciding a question by a sentence, which if just, is a compleat condemnation of the father of poetry, and all his admirers. For if Homer has so drawn Achilles as to make him not only [Y] See the passage quoted from Plato's Republic, by Mr. Twining, where the Achilles of Homer is accused of possessing together the two opposite vices of mean rapaciousness, and infolent contempt both of gods and men. compleatly

compleatly bad, but compleatly despicable and uninteresting, the Iliad is effentially defective; and those who have admired it, or rather have pretended to admire it, have acted in opposition to their own feelings. Perhaps many modern readers, and Dr. Jortin among the rest, have never been much interested either in the character of Achilles or in any part of the Iliad or Odyssey; as these divine poems are seldom introduced to us in a very pleasing manner, and as early associations of ideas are not very easily eradicated [z], perhaps some feelings of restraint and punishment may always be connected with a work with which we were first acquainted, under the influence of such circumstances. To recur to my own feelings on this subject, it happened to me, that my first knowledge of the Tale of Troy divine was unaccompanied by any restraint, and yet drawn from the Iliad. (A) Pope's Homer being one of the first books I ever read for my own, amusement, I declare I was as much interested in the character of Achilles as I ever was for the most perfect hero of novel or romance. I certainly was then no critic, and had never heard of Ari- [z] I think this is a strong objection to the use of the fcriptures, in the teaching either English, Latin, or Greek. [A] I do not pretend to say Pope gives an accurate copy of the original, but a much more perfect idea of the general story of the Iliad would be acquired even by Ogilvie's tranflation, read so as to comprehend the whole, than by reading and studying the original in parts. I could gain a more accurate idea of the general and relative situation of a country by looking at a map for ten minutes, than I could by riding over it, without such assistance, in as many years. Mr. Spence declares in his Polymetis, he never perfectly understood the Epistles and Satires of Horace, as to their general connection, till he read Pope's Imitations of them. Pope has not given Achilles virtues denied him by Homer; but a striking instance of the contrary conduct is pointed out by Dr. Beattie in his Essay on Poetry and Music, Part 1, Chap. Iv. page 81.. note. In the same place will be found a complete and unanswerable defence of the Achilles of Homer against such critics as Dr. Jortin. stotle,

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. stotle, and what I read of hím occasionally in the notes I did not understand; but I as certainly could not be deceived as to my own feelings. How often have we heard the absurd story of Achilles being invulnerable every where except in the heel, (which is mentioned by no ancient writer except Statius) imputed to Homer. [B] Tom Brown, of facetious memory, but a very good classical scholar, taking this for granted, makes this curious, and indeed if he were right in his first assertion, just remark. • Homer not only makes Achilles invulnerable every where but in • his heel, but likewise bestows a suit of impenetrable armour upon his in- • vulnerable body. (c) Bully Dawson would have fought the devil with ⚫ these advantages. So far however has Homer been from giving Achilles any unfair advantage over his principal antagonist, that he takes great pains to make Hector his match. Whatever excellence there was in armour made by a divine artist and given by the gods, such armour was possessed by Hector; as he had taken from Patroclus, the arms worn by Achilles through the first nine years of the war; and as for his being invulnerable, befides the proof I have brought [D] elsewhere, and particularly the wound given him by Afteropæus in his hand, in the twentyfirst Iliad; in the eighteenth Iliad, when the body of his friend Patroclus [B] He was the first English critic who noticed the impropriety of calling such irregular compositions as the Odes of Cowley, Pindaric Odes. [c] For an account of this hero, the reader is referred to a note on the second number of the Spectator. Edition of 1789. [D] In a note on verse 112 (82 in the tranflation) of the ninth Olympic Ode of Pindar. is

is on the point of being seized by the Trojans, and he is defired to interfere by a message from Juno, he excuses himself and with some degree of petulance as if to an unreasonable request [E]. 'How can I go into ' the battle? They have got my armour, and I know of no other • whose armour I can put on unless the shield of Ajax Telamon, and ' that is I hope already engaged among the front ranks of the battle.' If Achilles was invulnerable then he did not know it himself. Neither did Eustathius who, though he has a long note on this passage, does not drop the remotest hint of it [F]. [E] See Iliad XVIII. v. 187. I have not taken Mr. Pope's version, because when an author is quoted to establish any point of this fort, his literal sense is necessary; besides the word arms used by Pope is equivocal, but the Greek words ἔνεα and τέυχεα fignify only defensive armour. Pope however, though the words he puts in the mouth of Achilles are not so expressive of indignation as the original, shews he felt the idea, by adding - He cries, (with fury warm'd.') [F] In the note on Pindar above-mentioned, I have taken notice of an observation of a scholiaft on that poet, and another on verse 820 of Iliad XXIII, which shew that Ajax being invulnerable, was a popular story among the ancients. In Villoifon's edition of Homer, with the ancient Scholia, where particular passages are diftinguished by such a mark as this which is called διπλή καθαρά, there is one on that very verse, and its occasion noted in these words, ἡ διπλῆ ὁτι ἐκ τέτων καὶ τῶν τοιέτων φάινεται κάθ Ὁμηρον μὴ ὤν ἄτρωῖος ὁ Αίας : « The mark is put because from this verse and others like it, it appears that Ajax was * not invulnerable according to Homer;' a proof certainly that there was an opinion at least that Homer had made Ajax invulnerable. NOTE

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. !

15.8. mvp-aristotle-comment-57 15.11

THESE RULES OUGHT TO BE OBSERVED; AND NOT ONLY THESE, BUT SUCH ALSO AS REGARD THOSE OBJECTS OF THE OTHER SENSES THAT NECESSARILY ACCOMPANY DRAMATIC POETRY.

BY this I imagine Aristotle means the theatrical apparatus, such as the dress, and masks of the actors, on the proper adapting of which to various characters, much of the effect of dramatic representation must have depended. In the article of dress both the ancient and modern theatre were much in the fame circumstance; but as to the masks, the ancients, at least in comedy, as we may gather from Julius Pollux, were mechanically exact in adapting them to particular characters, which cannot be the cafe as to the modern stage where the actors appear without such monstrous difguises. However the manners, both as to the dress and the figure of the actors may be divided in the fame way as in the compofition of the drama itself.. For first as to goodness. It is obvious that the dress of the characters not only in tragedy, but in comedy and even farce, must be above the level of real life, as is evident in the theatrical representation of shepherds and beggars. As to the perfon of the performer the fame holds in a more essential degree especially in actresses. In real life we know Yy from

from every day's experience, that very plain women are capable of exciting very violent attachment; and if we look among our acquaintance for those who have formed imprudent connections with the sex, we shall not always find the objects remarkable for their personal charms. But a person who does not feel this particular attachment, or if he does, contemplates it in another person, can only conceive beauty as the natural object of love. [G] A Romeo therefore fighing to an ugly Juliet, and apparently turned of forty, will not only excite ridicule but disgust. The theatre is much more delicate in this refpect than it was formerly. I have seen Mr. Havard and Mrs. Pritchard perform Constant and Lady Brute, when the progress of age and decay was marked not only by their figure but by the tremulous modulation of their voice. This however never appeared in Garrick; he acted even young Hamlet and Archer with propriety till he quitted the stage. One of the most beautiful and elegant women living either on or off the stage will, I hope, forgive me for citing her as an example of an impropriety exactly of an opposite nature; I mean in the character of Mrs. Oakley. I will not pretend to determine how far a most lovely and accomplished woman might, in real life, contrive to render herself disagreeable and troublesome to a husband, by conftant and unreasonable jealousy; but every general spectator will be rather inclined to think the man, whom Miss Farren, from suspicious fondness, cannot bear to have out of her company a moment, an object of envy rather than pity or ridicule. The requifite of goodness alfo on the modern theatre applies to the scenery, as in chambers and cottages; indeed this is also sometimes defective [G] See Hill's Actor, paffim. from

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. from being too good. There is no poffibility of representing the inside of Bobadil's' convenient cabin,' on a London theatre. Secondly, The dress and persons of the performers should be in character, and the scenery likewife. A foldier should not be dressed like a senator or acted by an old or feeble man; neither should the scene represent a room when the dialogue shews the action is in a wood. The third requisite differs from this only as particular characters do from general ones. Prince Henry should not be as fat as Falstaff. Firelocks should not be introduced at the battle of Philippi; nor should the scene represent St. James's Park when Richard falls by the hand of his competitor in Bofworth field. A breach of the fourth requisite consistency was fully exemplified by the practice of the old theatre taken notice of in Note v. on Chap. vI. when one or two characters only were dressed in the habit of the time or place of the drama, and the rest in the fashionable dress of the day. Yy 2 CHAP.

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-101

Ritter, cap. 15 § 1

Quae in exprimendis moribus personarum agentium tragico poetae observanda sint, quae fugienda docetur. Mores hominum in tragoedia agentium proximo post fabulam loco cum supra (c. 6, 14) collocati essent, nemo quidem mirabitur post absolutam fabulae explicationem auctorem adgredi ad morum pertractationem, sed id mirum videbitur unicuique attento animo totum librum perlegenti, ab hoc loco nimium languescere argumenti propositi expositionem, adeo ut modo nonnisi disiecta membra summi philosophi et prudentissimi hominis agnoscere videamur, modo virum ineptum et sola doctrina superbientem intueamur. prius illud cadit in disputationem quae c. 15. continetur. de moribus enim tragoediae pauca quaedam et ieiuna digitis enumerantur adiectis quibusdam non contemnendis observationibus. sed tam arida et tenuis est haec expositio, ut qui eam antecedenticomparaverit, vix Aristotele dignam iudicare possit. num, igitur pro suppositicia habenda est? non puto: nam quae interpolator ille a nobis saepe per hunc librum deprehensus inseruit, ea tot indiciis coarguuntur, ut haec de moribus dicta isti tribuere non possim. itaque sic statuo, Ari! stotelis de moribus disputationem ab isto interpolatore in epitomam redactam et nonnullis in locis mutatam ad nos per venisse. : ὅπως χρηστά ᾖ: hoc praeceptum consequitur ex illis quae с. 13, 1-4. exposita leguntur. conf. c. 2 extr ceterum is cuius probi mores sunt minoribus nihilo minus vін! tiis obnoxius esse et magnis erroribus constrictus teneri potr est. – ὥσπερ ἐλέχθη: epitomator idemque interpolator ad sua ipsius (c. 6, 17) bona ante exprompta provocat. χρηστὸν δ' ἐὰν χρηστήν: quod ante χρηστὸν plerique codices ἢ vel ἢ addunt, id ex proximo versu ( χρηστὰ ᾖ) huc delatum est. in editionibus praeterea legimus φαῦλον μὲν ἐὰν φαύλην, sed hoc additamentum abest ab AcBcNa et. M omnibus et LPQ, neque adesse oportet, cum dicenti nihil propositum sit, nisi ut quos intelligat bonos mores indicet. me: lius adeo et facilius sequentia sic succedunt. nam cum scribit ἔστι δὲ ἐν ἑκάστῳ γένει, ad ἔστι intelligendum est χρηστὸν ἦθος, idque fieri commode potest, si sola illa χρηστὸν δ᾽ ἐὰν χρηστήν praecesserunt. καίτοι γε ἴσως-φαῦλόν ἐστιν: genus muliebre virili comparatum sequius est et deterius, et servorum genus. cum liberis et ingenuis collatum omnino vile est, sed in suo genere unusquisque bene moratus esse ac studere rebus honestis potest. mira haec nobis videri solent, sed Aristotelis non minus severum de feminis iudicium legimus in eius Hi storia animalium IX, 1. p. 608 b 8-15.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-102

Ritter, cap. 15 § 2

δεύτερον δὲ τὰ ἁρμόττοντα: secundum praeceptum est ut poeta personis productis aptos mores affingat, de quibus praeclare agit Horatius in Arte poetica v. 114-124. haec Aristotelia nimium ieiuna et subobscura sunt et inepta brevitate laborant. offendit τὰ ἁρμόττοντα ubi τὸ- ἁρμόττον exspectamus, offendit etiam τὸ ἦθος ubi τι ἦθος vel simile quoddam desideramus: sed haec epitomatori sinistre contrahenti genuinam disputationem imputanda puto. ...

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-103

Ritter, cap. 15 § 3

τρίτον δὲ τὸ ὅμοιον-ὥσπερ εἴρηται: in his neque vola neque vestigium est ingenii Aristotelii. tertium quod poeta in moribus depingendis observare debeat, esse simile ( τὸ ὅμοιον), idque aliud esse quam bonos mores et aptos fingere, ut dictum. quae est illa comparatio, qua "simile" et "bonos aptosque mores" componuntur? quae definitio, qua "simile" aliud esse quam "bonos aptosque mores fingere" declaratur? quid tandem isto ὥσπερ εἴρηται faciemus? num interpolator haec inseruit? fortasse ita est: sed uncis tamen illa includere nolui, quoniam epitomator bonam quandam Aristotelis sententiam male reddidisse videtur, et sententiam quidem ipsam quae subsequitur (§. 6), χρὴ δὲ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἤθεσιν ἀεὶ ζητεῖν ἢ τὸ ἀναγκαῖον ἢ τὸ εἰκός. qui haec sive inseruit sive brevioribus et minus aptis verbis reddidit, sua ne ipse quidem videtur intellexisse. nam exemplis continuo sequentibus non quattuor sed tria tantummodo morum vitia notantur, ut statim videbimus. iam non mirabimur hunc locum ab interpretibus varie acceptum esse. Victorius similes mores eos intelligit qui non abhorreant a moribus eius aetatis, unde homines in scenam producuntur, h. e. congruentes cum historia sive vera sive fabulosa. sed quis eiusmodi mores simpliciter ὁμοίους appellaverit? nec vero omnes omnium tragoediarum personae ex historia repetuntur, neque mores cuiusvis temporis ubique a poeta religiose observandi sunt ac reddendi, immo nonnulla in moribus immutare ille et ad consilium suum accommodare debet. conf. c. 14, 5. Hermannus τὸ ὅμοιον cum explicat οἷα ἂν γένοιτο, ego ei ita consentio, ut haec fere dicere voluisse epitomatorem statuam, h. e. sententiam ipsius Aristotelis hanc fuisse, sed ab homine parum diligente corruptam et obscuratam esse.

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-104

Ritter, cap. 15 § 4

τέταρτον δὲ τὸ ὁμαλόν: conf. Horatii in Arte poetica praeceptum v. 119. sibi convenientia finge, et praecipue v. 125.si quid inexpertum scenae committis et audes personam formare novam, servetur ad imum qualis ab incepto processerit et sibi constet. ὁ τὴν μίμησιν παρέχων est persona in scenam inducta. ea si prae se fert inconstantiam ( τοιοῦτον ἦθος ὑποτιθείς, tragoediae scilicet sive poetae tragoediam scripturo), poeta tamen in depingenda inconstantia constantiam sequi debet, h. e. qui semel inconstans processit, talis usque ad imum servandus est. hoc est ὁμαλῶς ἀνώμαλος εἶναι, acuta sane observatio et Aristotelis persona non indigna.

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-105

Ritter, cap. 15 § 5

ἔστι δὲ παράδειγμα κτλ. tria morum pingendorum praecepta illustrare ita pergit, ut quomodo peccatum sit in primum et tertium singulis exemplis, et quomodo id quod aptum ( τὸ ἁρμόττον) non servatum sit, duobus exemplis demonstret. πονηροῦ ἤθους (quod contrarium τῷ χρηστῷ) exemplar Menelaus est qualem Euripides in Oreste monstravit; τὸ ἁρμόττον violavit Euripides cum in Scylla lamentationem Ulixis et in Melanippa orationem minime convenientem puellae inseruit; inconstantiae vitium deprehenditur in Euripidis Iphigenia Aulidensi. Euripidis nomen epitomator brevitati nimium studens omisit. de singulis ordine dicam. Μενέλαος ὁ ἐν τῷ Ὀρέστη: primum illud praeceptum quo commendatur tragico poetae, ut χρηστὰ ἤθη fingat, Euripides in tragoedia Oreste violavit, cum Menelaum inconstantia foedum atque improbum finxit, eoque magis violavit quod neque argumenti illius natura neque fabulosae historiae traditione cogebatur (hoc est illud μὴ ἀναγκαῖον), sed civibus suis Laconas aversantibus gratificaturus Menelaum Laconem talem descripsit. conf. Marklandius ad Euripidis Iphigen. Aulid. v. 304. qui argumentum Orestae conscripsit monet: τὸ δράμα τῶν ἐπὶ σκηνῆς εὐδοκιμούντων, χείριστον δὲ τοῖς ἤθεσιν· πλὴν γὰρ Πυλάδου πάντες φαῦλοι ἦσαν. θρῆνος Ὀδυσσέως ἐν τῇ Σκύλλῃ: transit ad peccata in alterum praeceptum commissa. Scyllam' nonnisi ex hoc loco et ex c. 26 init. cognovimus. Euripidis fabulam fuisse inde discimus quod media inter Euripideas af-COMMENTARIVS! fertur, drama Satyricum fuisse vir in his litteris versatissimus, Welckerus noster, mox demonstrabit. - καὶ ἡ τῆς Μελανίππης ῥῆσις: Melanippam Euripidis tragoediam saepe, scriptores antiqui respiciunt, ac fragmenta non pauca inde servata sunt. inerat mira et arguta puellae Melanippae ad patrem oratio. illa enim cum geminum partuma Ne ptuno compressa edidisset et in patris stabulis clam exposuisset, ille autem infantulos tamquam monstra ex bubus nata comburere pararet, filia ex placitis Anaxagorae probare studuit, pueros quamvis ex bubus natos non pro monstris habendos esse; item multa alia attulit quibus patri interimendorum puerorum consilium dissuaderet. vid. Dionysii Halic. Rhetor. apud Reiskium vol. V. pag. 300 et 355. propter disputationis subtilitatem ea fabula Μελανίππη ἡ σοφή vocabatur. quemadmodum lamentatio non decet Ulixem virum fortem, sic oratio tam subtilis et parum verecunda non convenit virgini tantis difficultatibus impeditae. sane et illud epitomatorem sapit quod ῥῆσις Μελανίππης tam nude pro exemplo ponitur. – ἡ ἐν Αὐλίδι Ἰφιγένεια: constantiae in moribus observandae praeceptum egressus est Euripides in Iphigenia Aulidensi, nimirum non hoc reprehenditur quod Iphigenia vitam sibi a patre primo supplex deprecatur ac mox rerum condicionem perspiciens mactandam sese offert, sed id recte me iudice vituperatur, quod eadem virgo quae v. 1211-1252. abiecte et humiliter flendo ne immoletur precatur, quaeque adeo ad inhonesta et turpia illa descendit, τὸ φῶς τόδ' ἀνθρώποισιν ἥδιστον βλέπειν, い τὰ νέρθε δ᾽ οὐδέν· μαίνεται δ' ὃς εὔχεται θανεῖν, κακῶς ζῆν κρεῖσσον ἢ θανεῖν καλῶς, quod eadem non multo post (v. 1368-1401) prorsus conversa et tamquam virago fortissima procedit. frustra non Euripidem sed Chaeremonem a se pro auctore fabulae habitum defendere atque hanc reprehensionem diluere conatus est Gruppius in Ariadna p. 487 sqq. et 498 sqq. idem totum hunc locum (§. 5) additamentum esse ab aliena manu insertum :opinatur. vid. p. 557 sqq. hoc si verum esset, tria alia exempla (§. 7) pro insertis maiore etiam iure habenda essent. sed hisce sublatis de moribus disputatio adeo quasi marcescit et vanescit, ut paucula quaedam frusta remaneant: sed cum eadem bonas observationes et pro illo interpolatore nimis egregias contineat, hunc de moribus locum ab illo non scriptum sed insigniter decurtatum et prave dispositum esse coniicere praestat. illud bene monuit Gruppius, ipsum Aristotelem Iphigeniam Euripideam non tam nude designaturum fuisse, cum et Sophocles et Aeschylus Iphigeniam docuerint et Polyidus sophista eodem nomine tragoediam evulgaverit. vid. infra c. 16, 6 et c. 17, 3. sed haec et alia in quibus offendit Gruppius, cur ita se habeant ex nostra ratione liquet. : :

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-106

Ritter, cap. 15 § 6

χρὴ δὲ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἤθεσιν-γίνεσθαι ἢ τὸ ἀναγκαῖον ἢ τὸ εἰκός: hoc quartum esse praeceptum, tragoediarum scriptori in moribus effingendis probe observandum ab Aristotele propositum, ego existimo: sed epitomatorem cum hoc fugisset, et iste mancam esse disputationem credidisset, illas de τῷ ὁμοίῳ nugas (§. 3) suo iudicio inseruit, ut non tria sed quattuor enumerasse videretur. praecipit igitur Aristoteles poetae tragico, ut is in moribus describendis anquirat quod verisimile sit vel necessarium. hoc ipsum fit cum unusquisque agentium pro moribus suis et loquitur et agit, cumque ea accidunt, quae ex moribus illis aut semper aut plerumque consequuntur.

7. mvp-aristotle-comment-107

Ritter, cap. 15 § 7

φανερὸν οὖν ὅτι καὶ τὰς λύσεις- συμτ βαίνειν: si quis fingit quae ex moribus hominum in scenam adductorum aut probabiliter aut necessario eveniunt, fabularum quas pertractavit solutio ex ipsis procedit, neque opus est ut ea externis quibusdam instrumentis efficiatur. sed qui deum ex machina quem vocant adhibet vel deos agere facit quae hominum sunt, is hoc praeceptum violare solet. ad hoc illustrandum quae sequuntur exempla ex Euripide et Homero petita luculente epitomatorem demonstrant, dico illa καὶ μὴ ὥσπερ ἐν τῇ Μηδείᾳ ἀπὸ μεχανῆς καὶ ἐν τῇ Ἰλιάδι τὰ περὶ τὸν ἀπόπλουν, quod statim ostendam ubi verba ipsa explicavero. hoc igitur reprehendit philosophus quod Medea Euripidea solari curru ( μεχανῇ) Corinthum iustasque scelerum poenas incolumis aufugit (v. 1320 sqq.), ut poeta τὸ ἀναγκαῖον vel τὸ εἰκὸς non observaverit. nam qui tanta est morum atrocitate quanta est Medea, quae quidem infantes suos pueros trucidare sustinet, eum non incolumem evasurum sed iustas crudelitatis poenas daturum exspectamus. quae succedunt, καὶ ἐν τῇ Ἰλιάδι τὰ περὶ τὸν ἀπόπλουν, haec non iam pertinent ad verba ἀπὸ μηχανῆς, sed eiusmodi exemplum est, ubi solutio non ex ipso rerum nexu et pro moribus agentium nascatur. reprehenditur locus quidam ex Homeri Iliade, et quidem ille quem etiamnum legimus B. 155- 181. nam cum Agamemnoni duci amicisque placuisset ad tentandam exercitus fidem repetendae patriae consilium simulare, Achivi tanto patriae desiderio moti sunt, ut etiam contra fatum conscensis navibus domum redirent, nisi Minervae interventu excitatus Ulixes id consilium dissuasisset. deae igitur auxilio ad hoc efficiendum non opus fuisse Arist. significavit: immo intervenire deam nunc quidem a nemine exspectari, sed unumquemque ex ducibus ad tam inhonestum inceptum praepediendum pro virili parte niti, hoc moribus corum convenisse. iam haec observatio tam acuta est ut interpolatori tribui nequeat, sed eadem loco adeo non apto posita est, ut qui hoc viro sapientissimo imputare velit prudentiae iniuriam facturus videatur. sed si Aristoteles finita primaria illa disputatione de fabularum tragicarum solutione moribus et rerum nexui rite adaptanda contrarium illud ex Euripide exemplum attulit ac deinceps monuit etiam ab epicis poetis in hoc praeceptum saepe peccari, quo facto si idem illud ex Homero exemplum protulit, sane hoc prudenter et apte institutum esse, ut decet Aristotelem, dicemus. hoc ipsum igitur ego statuo: technicus illam disputationem contrahendo quae media inter utrumque exemplum posita erant sustulit, exempla ipsa (quippe his ubique studet) servavit, sed usque adeo verborum parcus ut etiam Euripidis et Homeri nomina supprimeret. Aristoteles ipse Euripidem Medeae auctorem non reticuit c. 14, 6. Carcini Medea ad partes vocatur in Rhetoricis II, 23. p. 1400 b 9. Hermannus in Commentariis p. 161. veram loci interpretationem postquam tetigit, addit: "sed videndum ne de parva Iliade sermo sit, cuius partem fuisse ἀπόπλουν colligimus ex XXIII, 7 (c. 23, 4). id quidem non aliter fieri potuit, nisi si excidit vocabulum μι κρᾷ." Graefenhanius in Commentariis ad h. 1. p. 112. "innui aliquam tragoediam huius nominis" opinatur, cui assentiens Welckerus (in Museo Rhenano philolog. tom. V. p. 492) hanc tragoediam fuisse Aeschyli Philoctetam, quae alio nomine Ἰλίου πέρσις vocata sit, coniecit. ἀλλὰ μηχανῇ χρηστέον-προαγορεύσεως καὶ ἀγγελίας: μηχανῇ breviter dicit pro θεῷ ἀπὸ μηχανῆς. Horatius in Arte poetica v. 191. commendat hoc, nec deus intersit, nisi dignus vindice nodus inciderit. τὰ ἔξω τοι δράματος quae sint, illatis ἢ ὅσα πρὸ τοῦ γέγονεν .... ὅσα ὕστερον explicatur. ἢ ἄλογον δὲ μηδὲν εἶναι: si quis fingit quae moribus agentium convenienter accidunt et ex ipsa rerum coniunctione consequuntur, nihil a ratione alienum admittere potest. itaque quartum illud praeceptum egreditur qui ἄλογόν τι admiscet. οἷον τὰ ἐν τῷ Οἰδίποδι τῷ Σοφοκλέους: illud ratione caret quod Sophoclis Oedipus rex multis demum annis post Laii caedem a coniuge locasta comperit, qua clade et quo in loco Laius perierit, respicit Oedipi v. 715-754. sed rursus agnosce mihi epitomatorem. observatio bona est, sed tam obscure enuntiata, ut eam omnino non intelligeremus, nisi infra (c. 24, 10) eandem clarius verbis expressam posuisset: illic vero hunc hominem non epitomatoris partes agere sed interpolatoris demonstrabo.

8. mvp-aristotle-comment-108

Ritter, cap. 15 § 8

quarta lege in moribus fingendis observanda absoluta et contrariis exemplis illustrata, iam ad mores revertitur, ut nonnulla quae partim ex primo praecepto partim ex fine tragoediae proposito consequuntur adiungeret. οὕτω καὶ τὸν ποιητήν - ᾿Αγάθων καὶ Ὅμηρος:tragicus poeta quamquam iracundos et socordes et aliis morum vitiis infectos describit, hos tamen meliores ostendere (h. e. ἐπιεικεῖς ποιεῖν) debet quam vulgo esse solent, qualem Achillem alioquin iracundum finxit Agatho in Telepho tragoedia et Homerus in postrema Iliadis rhapsodia. hanc explicationem sumpsi non ex fallaci editionum scriptura sed ex codicum lectione glossematis repurgata. codices enim tantum non omnes. (AcBcNa et Momnes et P, alii) haec exhibent : τὰ τοιαῦτα ἔχοντας ἐπὶ τῶν ἠθῶν τοιούτους ὄντας ἐπιεικεῖς ποιεῖν παράδειγμα σκληρότητος, οἷον κτλ., quae sana sunt et dilucida, si duo interpretamenta avelluntur. nam τοιούτους ὄντας est explicatio verborum τὰ τοιαῦτα ἔχοντας ἐπὶ τῶν ἠθῶν, itemque παράδειγμα σκληρότητος nota est marginalis, ab eo adscripta qui Achillis nomine excitatus hunc fuisse durum virum et obstinatum lectores admonere voluit. Agathonis Telephum ab Athenaeo X.. p. 454 D. commemoratum respici acute coniecit Tyrwhittus. Homerus Achillem Priamo mitem ac plane ἐπιεικῆ in postremo Iliadis libro descripsit. verisimile est eundem Achillem multis Telephi precibus fatigatum sub exitum tragoediae illius ab Agathone evulgatae mitem et placidum prodisse. vulgo. codicibus invitis Aldum auctorem secuti legunt: τὰ τοιαῦτα ἔχοντας ἐπὶ τῶν ἠθῶν, ἐπιεικείας ποιεῖν παράδειγμα, ἢ σκληρότητος δεῖ, οἷον ατλ. sed. vide quam incerto fundamento haec nitantur. particulam ἢ et verbum δεῖ nulli codici inest, ἐπιεικείας ex uno Leidensi affertur. alii suspectum illud ἢ pro aut alii pro potius quam accipiunt, sed illi sententiam hanc non aptam procudunt, quasi duritiae exemplar tragoediae praecipue conveniat, hi Aristoteli loquendi genus ei incognitum offerunt: quamvis enim interdum ante ἢ notio potius a Graecis suppleatur, eiusmodi tamen loci ita conformati sunt, ut omnis significationis dubitatio exclusa sit. 1) Verba τοιούτους ὄντας quamquam ex Mediceis non afferuntur, inesse tamen admodum verisimile est. etiam Victorius illa invenit in "calamo exaratis libris,16.

9. mvp-aristotle-comment-109

Ritter, cap. 15 § 9

καὶ πρὸς τούτοις τὰς παρὰ τὰς ἐξ ἀνάγ κης ἀκολουθούσας αἰσθήσεις τῇ ποιητικῇ: h. e. et insuper eas perceptiones quae praeter necessarias poesin comitantur. an mores boni sint aptique sibique constent, an cum ipsa factorum serie conveniant necne, id ex ipsa poesi necessario percipitur. sed poesin etiam saltatio et musica comitari possunt, quod si fit, in his quoque artibus τὸ ἠθικὸν probe observandum est. nomen αἴσθησις similiter positum c. 7, 6., praepositio παρὰ (praeter) c. 14, 7. τὰς παρὰ τὰς recepi ex AcNa et L: ceteri aut τὰ παρὰ τὰς aut τὰς παρὰ τὰ. quos statim dicit λόγους ἐκδεδομένους, intelligere videtur librum a se περὶ μουσικῆς et περὶ παιδείας olim conscriptum, tum etiam illa quae in Politicis etiamnum de musica (VIII, 5 sqq.) exposita legimus.

Aristotle Poetics 15.11

Thomas Twining (Translator)

Search the Perseus Catalog for:

Current edition Experimental

11.

Notes on the current edition

Commentary

NOTE 108. P. 92.

NOTE 109. P. 92.

NOTE 110. P. 93.

NOTE 111. P. 93.

NOTE 112. P. 93.

NOTE 113. P. 93.

NOTE 114. P. 94.

NOTE 115. P. 94.

NOTE 116. P. 94.

NOTE 117. P. 95.

NOTE 118. P. 95.

NOTE 119. P. 95.

NOTE 120. P. 95.

IN FORMING THE MANNERS FOUR THINGS ARE TO BE AT- TENDED TO. THE FIRST AND MOST ESSENTIAL IS, THAT THEY SHOULD BE GOOD.

A WOMAN, OR EVEN A SLAVE MAY BE DRAWN WITH THIS EX- CELLENCE OF CHARACTER, THOUGH IT IS PROBABLE THAT A WOMAN SHOULD BE WORSE THAN A MAN, AND THAT A SLAVE SHOULD BE ABSOLUTELY BAD.

THE NEXT REQUISITE IS THEIR BEING CHARACTERISTIC.

- THE THIRD ESSENTIAL IS LIKENESS. THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THIS AND WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY MENTIONED ABOUT THEIR BEING GOOD AND CHARACTERISTIC.

THE FOURTH IS CONSISTENCY.

EVEN IF AN INCONSISTENT PERSON IS THE OBJECT OF IMITA- IMITATED SHOULD BE MADE TION, THE CHARACTER SO CONSISTENTLY INCONSISTENT.

SO ACHILLES IS DRAWN AS A GOOD CHARACTER EVEN BY HOMER.

THESE RULES OUGHT TO BE OBSERVED; AND NOT ONLY THESE, BUT SUCH ALSO AS REGARD THOSE OBJECTS OF THE OTHER SENSES THAT NECESSARILY ACCOMPANY DRAMATIC POETRY.

Ritter, cap. 15 § 1

Ritter, cap. 15 § 2

Ritter, cap. 15 § 3

Ritter, cap. 15 § 4

Ritter, cap. 15 § 5

Ritter, cap. 15 § 6

Ritter, cap. 15 § 7

Ritter, cap. 15 § 8

Ritter, cap. 15 § 9

Stable identifiers