Poetics. Aristotle. Thomas Twining (Translator). London, UK. 1789.
Sponsored by Perseus Project, Tufts University.
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.
Poetics
1. mvp-aristotle-comment-750
1.
mvp-aristotle-comment-751
31
ἁπλοῦν... διπλοῦν:
see
20, 1457 12
, and
De interpr.
2, 16ª 19
(quoted above on
20, 1457 10
). In the
De Interpretatione (
2, 16ª23
) the general term for a compound is
συμπεπλεγμένον ὄνομα. The
Rhetoric has more than one reference to this chapter on the species of names:
Rhet.
3. 1, 1404 36
οὐχ ἅπαντα ὅσα περὶ λέξεως ἔστιν εἰπεῖν ἀκριβολογητέον ἡμῖν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅσα περὶ τοιαῦτης οἷας λέγομεν. περὶ δ᾽ ἐκείνης εἴρηται ἐν τοῖς περὶ ποιητικῆς. -
3. 2, 1404b5
τῶν δ᾽ ὀνομάτων καὶ ῥημάτων σαφὴ μὲν ποιεῖ τὰ κύρια, μὴ ταπεινὴν δὲ ἀλλὰ κεκοσμημένην τάλλα ὀνόματα ὅσα εἴρηται ἐν τοῖς περὶ ποιητικῆς.
26
ὄντων δ᾽ ὀνομάτων καὶ ῥημάτων ἐξ ὧν ὁ λόγος συνέστηκεν, τῶν δ᾽ ὀνομάτων τοσαῦτ᾽ ἐχόντων εἴδη ὅσα τεθεώρηται ἐν τοῖς περὶ ποιήσεως, τούτων γλώτταις μὲν καὶ διπλοῖς ὀνόμασι καὶ πεποιημένοις ὀλιγάκις καὶ ὀλιγαχοῦ χρηστέον ... τὸ δὲ κύριον καὶ τὸ οἰκεῖον καὶ μεταφορὰ μόναι χρήσιμοι πρὸς τὴν τῶν ψιλῶν λόγων λέξιν.
3.
mvp-aristotle-comment-752
μεγαλειωτῶν
is all but identical with the reading in A
o,
μεγαλιωτῶν, and simpler than
Tyrwhitt's
μεγαλείων ὡς or
Vahlen's
μεγαλείων ὧν. Α
μεγαλειωτὸν ὄνομα would be a name that has been 'made grand', an exaggerated or amplified name. Though a verb
μεγαλειοῦν is not found in extant literature, it is a legitimate derivative from
μεγαλεῖος, which is sometimes used of words (e. g. in
Xenophon
Mem.
2. 1. 34
); and it is presupposed in the LXX. word
μεγαλείωμα. After
μεγαλειωτῶν we may supply
οἷον =
e.g. For similar instances of the omission of
οἷον see
25, 1461ª26
;
An. pr.
1. 4, 26ª8
;
De gen. et corr.
2. 5, 332b14
;
Eth. N.
5. 8, 1133ª7
;
Rhet.
3. 5, 1407ª38
;
3. 6, 1408b6
(etc.). In lieu of
μεγαλιωτῶν (or
μεγαλειωτῶν) the Arabic version is said to imply
Μασσαλιωτῶν— reading which has met with the approval of
Diels (
Berlin Academy, Sitzungsb.1888 p. 53
) as well as others. An expression like
τὰ πολλὰ τῶν Μασσαλιωτῶν, however, is certainly not free from difficulty. The general view seems to be that it is practically equivalent to
τὰ πολλὰ τῶν Μασσαλιωτικῶν; so that
Aristotle is to be credited with the statement that the majority (
τὰ πολλά) of the proper or other names in use at
Massilia
were of the abnormal type described in the text. There is, as far as I know, no hint of anything of the kind in any ancient writer; and it is to my thinking too improbable to be believed without very distinct evidence.
The recent translators, who accept the new reading, must have felt the difficulty, as they tone down the expression by a free rendering of
τὰ πολλά, making the clause mean either 'like so many Massilian expressions' (
Butcher), or 'wie jene massaliotischen Namen' (
Gomperz). It has to be remembered also that it was hardly necessary for
Aristotle to go as far as
Marseilles
for instances of such names. They were certainly not unknown in
Athens
(
Wilamowitz,
Aristoteles und Athen2 p. 29
); and to judge from their appearance in
Plautus, they must have been common enough in the later Attic Comedy.
3.
mvp-aristotle-comment-753
1
Ἑρμοκαϊκόξανθος:
a compound of three river-names, Hermus, Caicus, and Xanthus (comp.
Dindorf in
HSt.
s.v., and
Letronne,
Étude des noms propres grecs p. 62). After this the Greek text must have lost something, as the Arabic version, as translated by
Margoliouth, renders the passage by
Ermocaicon Xanthus qui supplicabatur Dominum caelorum (or
Iovem), which
Diels supposes to represent an hexameter line,
Ἑρμοκαϊκόξανθος, ἐπευξάμενος Διὶ πατρί. I hesitate to adopt this very attractive conjecture, though it has been accepted by both
Butcher and
Gomperz, because the context seems to me to suggest rather a second instance of the same kind of word, a
τετραπλοῦν ὄνομα of some sort. Some such compound as
ἐπευξιθεῶναξ, if one may venture to invent the word, would represent the general sense of the Arabic. As these abnormal compounds were characteristic of the Dithyramb (see on
22, 1459ª9
), and not uncommon in Comedy, it is difficult to see why
Aristotle should have had recourse to what would seem to be an epic or a mock epic for an instance of a
τριπλοῦν ὄνομα.
1457b
ἅπαν δὲ ὄνομα κτέ.
The present survey of the vocabulary of poetry may be compared with that in
Isocrates
190 D
τοῖς μὲν γὰρ ποιηταῖς πολλὰ δέδονται κόσμοι· καὶ γὰρ ... οἷόν τ᾿ αὐτοῖς ... δηλῶσαι μὴ μόνον τοῖς τεταγμένοις ὀνόμασιν, ἀλλὰ τὰ μὲν ξένοις, τὰ δὲ καινοῖς, τὰ δὲ μεταφοραῖς, καὶ μηδὲν παραλιπεῖν ἀλλὰ πᾶσι τοῖς εἴδεσι διαποικῖλαι τὴν ποίησιν.
4.
mvp-aristotle-comment-754
κύριον.
The
κύριον ὄνομα is the established and familiar term for a thing, as distinct from the
γλῶττα, the
μεταφορά and the other
ξενικὰ ὀνόματα (see on
22, 1458ª22
). In actual usage, however, the
κύριον ὄνομα is more especially opposed to the metaphor. As the metaphor is an
ἀλλότριον ὄνομα (
infra b7), the
κύριον ὄνομα is much the same thing as the
οἰκεῖον or 'proper' name for the thing; comp.
Rhet.
3. 2, 1404b 31
τὸ δὲ κύριον καὶ τὸ οἰκεῖον [=
i. e.
τὸ
οἰκεῖον]
καὶ μεταφορὰ μόναι χρήσιμοι πρὸς τὴν τῶν ψιλῶν λόγων λέξιν. Hence it is that in Latin
proprie often represents the
κυρίως, and
propria nomina the
κύρια ὀνόματα of Greek writers.
Horace has an attempt at a more literal translation of the latter term in
A. P.
234
Non ego inornata et dominantia nomina solum verbaque, Pisones, satyrorum scriptor amabo. In
Isocrates
190 D-E
the designation for the words in common use, in contradistinction to those belonging more especially to poetry, is
τὰ τεταγμένα or
τὰ πολιτικὰ ὀνόματα.
4.
mvp-aristotle-comment-755
κόσμος.
The term reappears in
22, 1458 b 33
. As
Aristotle's explanation is lost (see on b33), the technical sense to be attached to it is a matter of conjecture. In
Isocrates
190 D
(see above on b1) the metaphor, the strange word, and the coined word are grouped together under the general head of
κόσμοι; and
Aristotle himself in the
Rhetoric (
3. 2, 1404 b5
and
1405ª14
) uses the verb
κοσμεῖν in an equally wide sense, to denote the embellishment of style by means of metaphor and other unusual forms of expression. In the present passage, however, it is clear that the term
κόσμος must have a special meaning, since instead of including the
γλῶττα, the
μεταφορά, etc., it is expressly distinguished and made to stand apart from them. The only positive hint we have in the
Poetics of the sense of the term is in
22, 1459ª11
, where it is said to be allowable not only in epic poetry, but also in oratory and in the iambic parts of Tragedy:
ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἰαμβείοις διὰ τὸ ὅτι μάλιστα λέξιν μιμεῖσθαι ταῦτα ἁρμόττει τῶν ὀνομάτων ὅσοις κἂν ἐν λόγοις τις χρήσαιτο· ἔστι δὲ τὰ τοιαῦτα τὸ κύριον καὶ μεταφορὰ καὶ κόσμος.
Aristotle is generally supposed to be referring to the
epitheton ornans; in support of which interpretation
Tyrwhitt and others point to the use of
κόσμος in
Rhet.
3. 7, 1408 a 13
μηδ' ἐπὶ τῷ εὐτελεῖ ὀνόματι ἐπῇ κόσμος· εἰ δὲ μή, κωμῳδία φαίνεται, οἷον ποιεῖ Κλεοφῶν· ὁμοίως γὰρ ἔνια ἔλεγε καὶ εἰ εἶπειεν ἂν πότνια συκή.
This passage in the
Rhetoric, however, does not justify this view.
πότνια is regarded there as a
κόσμος, not because it is a certain kind of epithet, but because it is a
γλῶττα (
v. on b4), and therefore one of the unusual words which according to the
Rhetoric (
3. 2, 1404 b5
) serve to embellish the style. An
epitheton ornans need not be of this kind; in
γάλα λευκόν, for instance, the epithet is
κύριον ὄνομα. As the
κόσμος, according to the classification in the text, is a special kind of word, distinguished from the
κύριον ὄνομα on the one side and the
γλῶττα,
μεταφορά, etc., on the other, we may perhaps suppose it to be the ornamental synonym, a word, for example, like
Πηλείδης for Achilles,
Ἤφαιστος for fire,
ὄλεθρος for one who causes destruction - the kind of word which in the ancient classification of tropes came under the heads of synecdoche, antonomasia, and metonymia (comp.
Volkmann,
Rhetorik der Gr. u. Röm. p. 421-5). If
Aristotle's
κόσμος does not include such synonyms, he has ignored what he elsewhere (
Rhet.
3. 2, 1404b39
) knows to be an important element in the poetic vocabulary.
Cicero
De Oratore
3. 167
distinguishes between the 'coined' word,
factum verbum (
Aristotle's
πεποιημένον ὄνομα), the 'transferred' word,
translatum verbum (
i. e.
μεταφορά), and the 'ornamental equivalent',
ornandi causa proprium proprio commutatum; this last being apparently identical with the
κόσμος of the
Poetics. We must not forget that
Aristotle recognizes some words as being more beautiful than others:
Rhet.
3. 2, 1405 a 6
καὶ ἀπὸ καλῶν [
scil.
δεῖ μεταφέρειν]·
κάλλος δὲ ὀνόματος τὸ μέν, ὥσπερ Λικύμνιος λέγει, ἐν τοῖς ψόφοις ἢ τῷ σημαινομένῳ [
i. e. either in its sound or in its associations],
καὶ αἶσχος δὲ ὡσαύτως with which we may compare the definition of
Theophrastus (
ap.
Demetr.
De eloc.
173
),
κάλλος ὀνόματός ἐστι τὸ πρὸς τὴν ἀκοὴν ἢ πρὸς τὴν ὄψιν ἡδὺ ἢ τὸ τῇ διανοίᾳ ἔντιμον (
v.
Rabe,
De Theophrasti libris περὶ λέξεως p. 44). It would be strange if this very obvious artifice of poetical expression were overlooked by
Aristotle in a book like the
Poetics.
6.
mvp-aristotle-comment-756
γλώτταν.
The term is sufficiently general to include foreign, dialectical, and also obsolete words-all words (or senses) in fact which require explanation, because outside the limits of ordinary Attic Greek (comp.
Rhet.
3. 1, 1404a33
τῶν ὀνομάτων ἀφείκασιν [
i. e. the tragedians]
ὅσα παρὰ τὴν διάλεκτόν ἐστιν). For instances in the
Poetics see
22, 1458 b 21
and
25, 1461a10
; others are to be found in
Rhet.
3. 3, 1406a7
, where the use of
γλώτται in prose is said to be a frigid affectation:
μία δὲ [
scil.
αἰτία ψυχρότητος]
τὸ χρῆσθαι γλώτταις, οἷον Λυκόφρων Ξέρξην πέλωρον ἄνδρα, καὶ Σκίρων σίννις ἀνήρ, καὶ Ἀλκιδάμας ἄθυρμα τῇ ποιήσει, καὶ τὴν τῆς φύσεως ἀτασθαλίαν, καὶ ἀκράτῳ τῆς διανοίας ὀργῇ τεθηγμένον.
6.
mvp-aristotle-comment-757
μὴ τοῖς αὐτοῖς δέ:
De caelo
1. 3, 269 b 26
ἀνάγκη δὲ πᾶν τὸ φερόμενον ἢ κάτω ἢ ἄνω ἢ κουφότητ᾽ ἔχειν ἢ βάρος ἢ ἄμφω, μὴ πρὸς τὸ αὐτὸ δέ.
6.
mvp-aristotle-comment-758
σίγυνον.
The gloss in
Hesychius is
σίγυνοι· τὰ ξυστὰ δόρατα, ἢ τοὺς ὁλοσιδήρους ἄκοντας (comp.
Schol. Plat. Amat. p. 87 R. and
Apoll. Rh.2. 99
). The word exists in a variety of forms (
HSt.
s. v.
σιβύνη). That it belonged to the Cyprian dialect is said also by
Herodotus
5. 9
σιγύννας δ᾽ ὧν καλέουσι Λίγυες . . . τοὺς καπήλους, Κύπριοι δὲ τὰ δόρατα, and by
Schol. Apoll. Rh.2. 99
σιγύννους δὲ καλοῦσιν οἱ Κύπριοι τὰ ἀκόντια. I suspect we should restore
σίγυνος in the present passage, as there seems to be no trace elsewhere of a neuter form.
Herwerden also (
Lex. gr. suppl.) tacitly assumes
σίγυννος as the nominative in
Aristotle.
7.
mvp-aristotle-comment-759
μεταφορά.
μεταφέρειν, said of a word, means to transfer it from its proper object to another more or less like that (
v.
22, 1459a8
and
Bon.
Ind. 462a1). The substantive
μεταφορά has two meanings, (1) the abstract sense of transference (
e. g. in the present passage, and
infra b 30), and (2) the concrete sense of the word in its transferred or metaphorical application (
e. g.
supra b1;
22, 1458a22, 25, 33
, etc.).
Metaphor, according to
Aristotle, consists in transferring a word from the object to which it is appropriate to another kind of object more or less like it; comp.
22, 1459a8
, and
Top.
6. 2, 140 b 9
ἡ μεταφορὰ ποιεῖ πως γνώριμον τὸ σημαινόμενον διὰ τὴν ὁμοιότητα πάντες γὰρ οἱ μεταφέροντες κατά τινα ὁμοιότητα μεταφέρουσιν.
Four kinds of similarity are noted in the text, that between genus and species, that between species and genus, that between species and species, and that between a thing and its analogue-where there is a similarity of relations. The present classification of metaphors is assumed in
Rhet.
3. 2, 1405 a 3
and
3. 10, 1410 b 36
.
5.
mvp-aristotle-comment-760
λέγω δὲ,
scil.
ἐπιφοράν, or
μεταφοράν.
8.
mvp-aristotle-comment-761
νηῦς κτέ.:
Od.
1, 185
and
24, 308
.
8.
mvp-aristotle-comment-762
ἑστάναι τι:
comp.
infra b 16
ἀφελεῖν τι. In the present passage, however, the indefinite
τι is the subject of the infinitive, in the same way for instance as in
Phys.
5. 1, 224 b 23
τῷ τούτου τι μεταβάλλειν (
intr.), and in
Rhet.
2. 8, 1386 b 12, 13
. It is just as much the subject as
τοῦτο is in
Eth. N.
3. 7, 1114 b 11
τὸ καλῶς τοῦτο πεφυκέναι ἡ τελεία καὶ ἀληθινὴ ἂν εἴη εὐφυΐα. Compare also
Metaph.
4, 1047b13
τὸ γάρ σε ἑστάναι νῦν ψεῦδος μέν, οὐκ ἀδύνατον δέ. The traditional rendering of
ἑστάναι τι is 'a kind of standing' (
stare aliquod, or
stare quoddam in the old versions), but it has not the sanction of
Tyrwhitt and
Hermann, who translate
ἑστάναι τι simply by
stare; which shows that they were not insensible to the grammatical objection against making the
τι qualify an infinitive. See
infra on b 16 (
ἀφελεῖν τι).
9.
mvp-aristotle-comment-763
δὴ μυρί᾽ Ὀδυσσεὺς κτέ.:
Il.
2, 272
.
9.
mvp-aristotle-comment-764
ἀπ᾿ εἴδους:
Rhet.
3. 11, 1413a14
καὶ αἱ παροιμίαι μεταφοραὶ ἀπ᾿ εἴδους ἐπ᾿ εἶδός εἰσιν· οἷον ἄν τις ὡς ἀγαθὸν πεισόμενος αὐτὸς ἐπαγά-
γηται εἶτα βλαβῇ ὡς ὁ Καρπάθιός φησι τὸν λαγώ. ἄμφω γὰρ τὸ εἰρημένον πεπόνθασιν. See
Rhet.
3. 10, 1410 b 14
and
11, 1411b 26
for other instances of this description.
The two quotations in the text, which have been supposed to be fragments either of some epic poet (
Kinkel,
EGF. p. 72) or of a parodist (
Brandt,
Parod. gr. rel. p. 112), were probably both of them from the
Καθαρμοί of
Empedocles. The second,
τεμὼν ἀτειρέι χαλκῷ, is, as
Vahlen has pointed out, identical with part of the Empedoclean line (fr. 143
Diels), preserved by
Theo Smyrnaeus:
Arithm. p. 20
Gelder (=p. 15
Hiller)
η̂ των͂ πολιτικῶν [Πλατωνικῶν Hiller] λόγων παράδοσις τὸ μὲν πρῶτον έχει καθαρμόν τινα ... ὁ μὲν γὰρ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς κρηνάων ἄπο πέντ᾿ ἀνιμῶντά φησιν ἀτειρέι χαλκῷ δεῖν ἀπορρύπτεσθαι, ὁ δὲ Πλάτων ἀπὸ πέντε μαθημάτων δεῖν φησι ποιεῖσθαι τὴν κάθαρσιν. The exact form of the verse of
Empedocles is perhaps irrecoverable, but it is not difficult to see that
Theo's
ἀνιμῶντα is a prosaic substitute for the
τεμὼν preserved by
Aristotle (comp.
Diels,
Hermes15, 173
).
ἀτειρής—a favourite epithet with
Empedocles (
v.
Diels,
Index p. 232)—is a reminiscence of
Homer. The same may be said also of
χαλκός, if it meant, as it probably did in
Empedocles (
v.
Bullialdus
ad loc. p. 128 ed.
Gelder), a brazen urn, such as was used in certain rites.
Aristotle elsewhere refers to
Empedocles in a way which implies that his poems might be assumed to be familiar to every one (
v. on b 24). As he regards him as a master of metaphor (
μεταφορικός fr. 70; see on
1, 1447b18
), there is a special propriety in his quoting instances of metaphor from the writings of
Empedocles.
ἀφελεῖν τι.
The recent interpreters seem to agree in supposing this to mean 'a kind of removing' (
auferre aliquod in
Lat.), though a very different view was taken of it by
Victorius,
Heinsius,
Goulston,
Tyrwhitt,
Hermann, and
Ritter, who represent it by
auferre aliquid or
auferre quiddam. The now usual rendering implies that the infinitive is treated as an ordinary substantive, with the indefinite pronoun attached to it in the same way as in
ἡδονή τις,
γένεσίς τις, and the like. There is no recorded instance of this construction in classical Greek. In the parallels in the
Sophistici Elenchi (
22, 178b12 sqq.
) the
τι in
ποιεῖν τι,
πάσχειν τι, and
αἰσθάνεσθαί τι is assuredly (as
Pacius saw) the object after these verbs. Aristotle's assumption is that a generic may be supplanted by a specific term, when it comes to be applied to a special kind of object. Thus
ἑστάναι, said of a ship, is supplanted by
ὁρμεῖν, and
ἀφελεῖν, said of water, by
ἀρύσαι. If he had had the instance cited in b 27 before him here, he might very well have said
τὸ σπείρειν ἀφιέναι τί ἐστι where the
τι would have represented the accusative,
τὸν καρπόν, of the later passage.
11.
mvp-aristotle-comment-765
τῷ δὲ ἀνάλογον
(comp.
Metaph. I 4, 1070b 17
) replaces the
κατὰ τὸ ἀνάλογον in 659,
ἐπιφοράν being again understood. Analogy or proportion is thus defined in
Eth. N. 5. 5. 1131*31,
ἡ ἀναλογία ἰσότης ἐστὶ λόγων καὶ ἐν τέτταρσιν ἐλαχίστοις. In the statement in the text the general form of analogy, B: A :: D: C, is illustrated by an example :—
φιάλη (Β):
Διόνυσος (Α) ::
ἀσπίς (D) :
Ἄρης (C). Metaphor consists in giving the
φιάλη (B) the name belonging to its analogue (D), viz.
ἀσπίς, or vice versa. This transference of a name, as
Aristotle proceeds to tell us (
καὶ ἐνίοτε προστιθέασιν, 619), is sometimes softened by an explanatory addition to the word in its new application. The addition may be either (1) positive or (2) negative. Thus instead of simply speaking of the shield (D) as a cup (B), we may (1) add the term to which the shield is properly related (C), i. e.
Ares, and thus call the shield the 'cup of Ares' (B+C); or (2) we may add a negative epithet, to show that the word is used in a non-natural sense, and describe the shield as 'a cup that holds no wine' (
φιάλη ἄοινος). A string of metaphors from analogy is quoted in
Rhet. 3. 10, 1410b 36
τῶν δὲ μεταφορῶν τεττάρων οὐσῶν εὐδοκιμοῦσι μάλιστα αἱ κατ᾿ ἀναλογίαν, ὥσπερ Περικλῆς ἔφη τὴν νεότητα τὴν ἀπολομένην ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ οὕτως ἠφανίσθαι ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ὥσπερ εἴ τις τὸ ἔαρ ἐκ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἐξέλοι κτέ. The use of such metaphors, as serving for instance to give life to a description of things inanimate, is considered at length in
Rhet. 3. 11
; comp. esp.
3. 11, 1411 b 32
ἐν πᾶσι δὲ τῷ ἐνέργειαν ποιεῖν εὐδοκιμεῖ οἷον ἐν τοῖσδε, “αὐτις ἐπὶ δάπεδόνδε κυλίνδετο λᾶας ἀναιδής”, καὶ “ ἔπτατ᾿ ὀιστός”, ... καὶ “ αἰχμὴ δὲ στέρνοιο διέσσυτο μαιμώωσα”. ἐν πᾶσι γὰρ τούτοις διὰ τὸ ἔμψυχα εἶναι ἐνεργοῦντα φαίνεται· τὸ ἀναισχυντεῖν γὰρ καὶ μαιμᾶν καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ἐνέργεια. ταῦτα δὲ προσήψε διὰ τῆς κατ᾿ ἀναλογίαν μεταφορᾶς· ὡς γὰρ ὁ λίθος πρὸς τὸν Σίσυφον, ὁ ἀναισχυντῶν πρὸς τὸν ἀναισχυντούμενον.
18
11.
mvp-aristotle-comment-766
ἐρεῖ:
comp.
infra b 21, 23, and
εἴρηκεν and
λέγει in the context (b 15, 20). The subject, if one must be supplied, is 'the poet', just as in the parallels in the
Topics it would be 'the disputant'.
12.
mvp-aristotle-comment-767
b 19
προστιθέασιν.
Instead of the metaphor pure and simple, i. e. 'cup' for shield, they add on to it the term to which the proper word (i. e. shield) supplanted by the metaphor (i. e. cup), is relative. The shield being relative to
Ares, the metaphor may be softened by describing it as 'the cup of
Ares'. In the Greek here
ἀνθ᾿ οὗ λέγει = τὸ ἀνθ᾽ οὗ λέγει τὴν μεταφοράν, 'the original term supplanted by the metaphor'; and it has to be taken as the subject of the
ἐστί in
πρὸς ὅ ἐστι; the clause, therefore, might have been thus given :
προστιθέασιν τὸ πρὸς ὅ ἐστι τὸ ἀνθ᾽ οὗ λέγει τὴν μεταφοράν ; comp.
Castelvetro's rendering (in his Basel edition), 'aggiungono la cosa a che ha riguardo quello, in iscambio di che dice'; and
Tyrwhitt's, 'adjiciunt illud, ad quod relativum est id, pro quo translatum dicit.' The distinction here described, between the metaphor with a qualifying addition (positive or negative) and the metaphor without it, is recognized in
Rhet. 3. 11, 1412 b 32
αἱ εἰκόνες τρόπον τινὰ μεταφοραί· ἀεὶ γὰρ ἐκ δυοῖν λέγονται, ὥσπερ ἡ ἀνάλογον μεταφορά· οἷον ἡ ἀσπίς, φαμέν, ἐστὶ φιάλη Ἄρεως καὶ τὸ τόξον φόρμιγξ ἄχορδος. οὕτω μὲν οὖν λέγουσιν οὐχ ἁπλοῦν, τὸ δ᾽ εἰπεῖν τὸ τόξον φόρμιγγα ἢ τὴν ἀσπίδα φιάλην ἁπλοῦν. For the singular
λέγει
v. supra on
ἐρεῖ,
1457b18
. For the difference of number in
προστιθέασιν comp. 4, 1448 b 17; 26, 1461 b 30;
Eth. N. 5. 8, 1132b 34
ἢ γὰρ τὸ κακῶς ζητοῦσιν· εἰ δὲ μή, δουλεία δοκεῖ εἶναι, εἰ μὴ ἀντιποιήσει (see
Vahlen on 26, 1461 b 30, and
Kühner,
Gr. Gr. 2, 1 p. 87
).
12.
mvp-aristotle-comment-768
21
ἐρεῖ τοίνυν κτέ.:
Rhet. 3. 4, 1407a 14(
Roemer)
ἀεὶ δὲ δεῖ τὴν μεταφορὰν τὴν ἐκ τοῦ ἀνάλογον ἀνταποδιδόναι καὶ ἐπὶ θάτερα [καὶ ἐπὶ] τῶν ὁμογενῶν· οἷον εἰ ἡ φιάλη ἀσπὶς Διονύσου, καὶ τὴν ἀσπίδα ἁρμόττει λέγεσθαι φιάλην Ἄρεως.
φιάλη Ἄρεως was the bold metaphor of the dithyrambic poet
Timotheus (fr. 16
Bergk = 22
Wilamowitz). The idea was doubtless suggested by the similarity of shape between a shield and the
φιάλη which
Dionysus sometimes had in his hand in ancient art.
b 24
13.
mvp-aristotle-comment-769
ἢ ὥσπερ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς.
The actual words of
Empedocles, which
Aristotle supposes us to know, are not to be found among his extant fragments; all that can be said of them is that they must have been something like
γῆρας ἡμέρας but different from that in point of phraseology. The metaphor in
Emped. 20. 5
Diels,
περὶ ῥηγμῖνι βίοιο, is not sufficiently like this to be what
Aristotle had in mind. This allusive way of referring to something supposed to be known to the reader is not uncommon in
Aristotle; see 17, 1455 b 9 (
εἴθ᾽ ὡς Εὐριπίδης), 25, 1460 b 36 (
ἔτυχεν ὥσπερ Ξενοφάνει); comp.
Metaph. Γ 5, 1010 a 5
οὕτω γὰρ ἁρμόττει μᾶλλον εἰπεῖν ἢ ὥσπερ Ἐπίχαρμος εἰς Ξενοφάνην.
13.
mvp-aristotle-comment-770
ἑσπέραν βίου:
Alexis fr. 228
Kock
ἤδη γὰρ ὁ βίος οὐμὸς ἑσπέραν ἄγει.
13.
mvp-aristotle-comment-771
25
δυσμὰς βίου:
Plato
Laws 6, 770 A
ἐν δυσμαῖς τοῦ βίου.
14.
mvp-aristotle-comment-772
ὄνομα κείμενον,
an existing or established name, as in
Top. 6. 2, 140b 3
ἔτι εἰ μὴ κειμένοις ὀνόμασι χρῆται, οἷον Πλάτων ὀφρυόσκιον τὸν ὀφθαλμόν, ἢ τὸ φαλάγγιον σηψιδακές, ἢ τὸν μυελὸν ὀστεογενές· πᾶν γὰρ ἀσαφὲς τὸ μὴ εἰωθός; comp. also
Top. 2. 1, 109a 28
εἰσὶ διτταί [scil. καὶ ἁμαρτίαι], ἢ τῷ ψεύδεσθαι ἢ τῷ παραβαίνειν τὴν κειμένην λέξιν οἱ τοῖς ἀλλοτρίοις ὀνόμασι τὰ πράγματα προσαγορεύοντες, οἷον τὴν πλάτανον ἄνθρωπον, παραβαίνουσι τὴν κειμένην ὀνομασίαν (comp.
Bon.
Ind. 380b 31). Metaphor is often a way of supplying the deficiencies of ordinary language (
Meteor. 4. 3, 380 a 18, b 28
;
Rhet. 3. 2, 1405a 36
;
Quintilian 8. 6, 5, 18
). In the present passage
Aristotle reminds us that, if one of the terms in an analogy has no special name of its own, it may still be described in just the same way as in the preceding instances (
ὁμοίως λεχθήσεται), i. e. by a metaphor softened or explained by the mention of that to which the nameless thing or act is relative. Thus the sowing (B) of seed (A) on the part of the husbandman is analogous to the scattering (D) abroad of light or flame (C) on the part of the sun. This act of the sun has no special name; but we may metaphorically call it 'sowing' (B), and then qualify the metaphor by adding the term to which the act (D) itself is relative, viz. 'flame' (C), and speak of the sun as 'sowing flame' —
σπείρων φλόγα (B+C)
σπείρων φλόγα is a qualified metaphor on exactly the same lines as
φιάλη Ἄρεως (see on b 16); the only difference is that in the one case there is an
ὄνομα κείμενον for the thing meant (viz.
ἀσπίς), whereas in the other such a name does not exist in actual language.
14.
mvp-aristotle-comment-773
27
ἐπὶ τοῦ ἡλίου ἀνώνυμον:
for the preposition, comp.
Pol. 3. 1, 1275a 30
ἀνώνυμον τὸ κοινὸν ἐπὶ δικαστοῦ καὶ ἐκκλησιαστοῦ.
Aristotle's use of
ἀνώνυμος has been already considered (on 1, 1447b 9).
14.
mvp-aristotle-comment-774
b 28
πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον.
Aristotle, unconsciously passing from one sense of
ἥλιος to another, is now using it as the prosaic equivalent for the word
φλόξ in the poetical quotation in the next line, i. e. in the sense of sunshine or sunlight, the meaning
ἥλιος has in
Herodotus 8. 23
ἅμα ἡλίῳ σκιδναμένῳ πᾶσα ἡ στρατιὴ ἐπέπλεε ἁλὴς ἐπὶ τὸ Ἀρτεμίσιον, and in several well-known expressions.
14.
mvp-aristotle-comment-775
b 29
πρὸς τὸν καρπόν.
Castelvetro's
πρὸς τὸν ἀφιέντα τὸν καρπόν, which has been accepted by several editors, rests on the assumption that the analogy in
Aristotle's mind was simply that between sowing (B) on the part of the husbandman (A), and the nameless act, the emission of light (D), on the part of the sun (C). In that case the epithet
θεοκτίσταν in the quotation must be taken to represent the addition required to soften the metaphor.
14.
mvp-aristotle-comment-776
30
διὸ εἴρηται:
comp.
ὅθεν πεποίηται and
ὅθεν εἴρηται in 25, 1461a 28–29. Quotations similarly introduced will be found in
Rhet. 2. 9, 1387a 33
, and in
2. 10, 1388a 7, 15
. That in the text was perhaps from a tragedy (
Nauck,
TGF.2 p. 856).
31
15.
mvp-aristotle-comment-777
ἔστι δὲ τῷ τρόπῳ τούτῳ κτέ.:
see above on b 16.
προσαγορεύσαντα τὸ ἀλλότριον,
scil.
ὄνομα, as in
Pol. 4. 7, 1293b 39
πέμπτη δ' ἐστὶν [scil. πολιτεία] ἣ προσαγορεύεται τὸ κοινὸν ὄνομα πασῶν. The more usual construction in
Aristotle is
προσαγορεύειν ὀνόματι. In saying
προσαγορεύσαντα τὸ ἀλλότριον ἀποφῆσαι τῶν οἰκείων τι he seems to have fallen into a false antithesis.
φιάλη, in the illustration, is
ἀλλότριον in relation to the shield, and
ἄοινος negatives something
οἰκεῖον in relation to a cup. Words like
ἄοινος come under the general designation of
στερήσεις (
Bon.
Ind. 699 b 42). The free use of them in the metaphors of poetry is noted in
Rhet. 3. 6, 1408a 6
ὅθεν καὶ τὰ ὀνόματα οἱ ποιηταὶ φέρουσι, τὸ ἄχορδον καὶ τὸ ἄλυρον μέλος· ἐκ τῶν στερήσεων γὰρ ἐπιφέρουσιν.
εὐδοκιμεῖ γὰρ τοῦτο ἐν ταῖς μεταφοραῖς λεγόμενον ταῖς ἀνάλογον, οἷον τὸ φάναι τὴν σάλπιγγα εἶναι μέλος ἄλυρον. The instance in
Rhet. 3. 11, 1413 a 1
is
φόρμιγξ ἄχορδος, a way of describing a bow.
33
17.
mvp-aristotle-comment-778
πεποιημένον.
A
πεποιημένον ὄνομα is a word coined by the poet for the occasion, and in this respect unlike the words hitherto considered (the
κύριον ὄνομα, the
γλῶττα, and the
μεταφορά), which are parts of an already existing vocabulary. Such coining of new words was termed
ὀνοματοποιία (
Volkmann,
Rhetorik p. 425).
καλούμενον: comp. 21, 1458a 6
ὀνομαζομένου.
17.
mvp-aristotle-comment-779
b 34
τίθεται.
For the middle comp.
H. A. 7. 12, 588 a 9
διὸ καὶ τὰ ὀνόματα τότε τίθενται, ὡς πιστεύοντες ἤδη μᾶλλον τῇ σωτηρίᾳ. —
Rhet. 3. 13, 1414 b 15
:
δεῖ δὲ εἰδός τι λέγοντα καὶ διαφορὰν ὄνομα τίθεσθαι.
δοκεῖ γὰρ ἔνια εἶναι τοιαῦτα is a parenthesis giving a reason for the instances that come after it; comp. 25, 1460b 24, and the note on
Eth. N. 5. 1, 1129 a 29
in my
Textual Criticism of the Nic. Ethics p. 43; also
Kühner,
Gr. Gr. 2 p. 853.
17.
mvp-aristotle-comment-780
35
ἐρνύγας,
scil.
καλεῖ or
λέγει, to be understood from
τίθεται in the preceding line; comp.
Top. 6. 2, 140 a 3
(quoted on b 25),
Rhet. 3. 3, 1406 a 7
(quoted on b 4), and
Eth. N. 6. 7, 1141 a 9
τὴν δὲ σοφίαν ἔν τε ταῖς τέχναις τοῖς ἀκριβεστάτοις τὰς τέχνας ἀποδί- δομεν, οἷον Φειδίαν λιθουργὸν σοφὸν καὶ Πολύκλειτον ἀνδριαντοποιόν [scil. λέγομεν]. We do not know where
Aristotle found the word, and there is no evidence for the form of the nom. sing.; the correction of
Victorius,
ἔρνυγας, assumes it to have been
ἔρνυξ, like
ἄντυξ; but it is just as likely that it was
ἐρνύγη. An explanation of the word survives in
Hesychius:
ἔρνυτας [sic] ἔρνη. βλαστήματα, κλάδοι. The form in
Hesychius, with a
τ instead of a
γ, has been defended by
Meineke as the acc. pl. of a Cretan word
ἔρους (=
ἔρνος) supposed to be implied in
Ἐπιρνύτιος, a Cretan name for Zeus according to
Hesychius
s. v. (see note in
M. Schmidt's ed.).
Aristotle's view of it, however, is that it is a coined word, not a
γλῶττα as a Cretan word would be; it is to be remembered too that he shows himself elsewhere (25, 1461a 14) not wholly unfamiliar with the Cretan dialect.
17.
mvp-aristotle-comment-781
ἀρητῆρα.
The reference is no doubt to the use of the word in
Il. 1. 11
οὕνεκα τὸν Χρύσην ἠτίμασεν ἀρητῆρα.
Hesychius has the same explanation:
ἀρητῆρα· ἱερέα.
18.
mvp-aristotle-comment-782
ἐπεκτεταμένον κτέ.
The three kinds of word remaining for consideration are abnormal only in form. As they are substantially the same as the usual words, they are said to be intelligible to all (22, 1458b 4), i. e. they do not require explanation as a
γλῶττα might do. The
ἐπεκτεταμένον ὄνομα is the ordinary word lengthened out in one or other of two ways, either through the lengthening of a syllable normally short, or through the insertion of an extra syllable.
Aristotle's standard being Attic, he regards
πόληος for instance as a lengthened form of
πόλεως.
ἐπεκτείνειν has this same sense in
Metaph. Δ 4, 1014 b 17
εἴ τις ἐπεκτείνας λέγοι τὸ υ (in the word φύσις).
4
1458 a 4
Πηλείδου.
The reading of A
c,
Πηλέος, is retained by
Vahlen, who marks a lacuna after the word.
M. Schmidt fills up the assumed gap by the following restoration:
τὸ Πηλέος (Πηλῆος καὶ τὸ Πηλείδου) Πηληιάδεω. It is quite as easy, however, to suppose
Πηλέος to have got in by assimilation to the preceding
πόλεως (or
πόλεος, as it is in A
c); and it must be admitted that a second instance of this sort of lengthening is hardly wanted. As regards
Πηληιάδεω for
Πηλείδου,
Aristotle's view apparently is that the
-ā- in it is epenthetic,
συλλαβὴ ἐμβεβλημένη (v. on 20, 1456b 34). Its other deviations from the normal word (
-ηι = -ει-, and
-εω = -ου) would be, according to ancient theory, instances of
διαίρεσις, 'resolution', with a lengthening of vowels in the resolved diphthongs.
18.
mvp-aristotle-comment-783
ἀφῃρημένον.
As the
ἀφῃρημένον is the opposite of the
ἐπεκτεταμένον ὄνομα (v. supra 1), we may take the term to include (1) a word with a shortened vowel, and (2) a word shortened by the omission of a syllable, whether in the beginning, middle, or end of it, i. e. a word which in the terminology of the grammarians has suffered
ἀφαίρεσις,
συγκοπή, or
ἀποκοπή.
Aristotle's examples, however,
κρῖ,
δῶ, [blank], are all instances of
ἀποκοπή — the term he himself uses with reference to this class of words in 22, 1458 b 2; comp.
Strabo's (364 Cas.) explanation of
Μέσση in
Il. 2. 582
:
ἔνιοι δὲ καὶ κατ᾿ ἀποκοπὴν δέχονται τὴν Μεσσήνην· παραδείγμασι δὲ χρῶνται τοῦ μὲν ποιητοῦ τῷ κρῖ καὶ δῶ καὶ μάψ, καὶ ἔτι ‘ἥρως δ᾽ Αὐτομέδων τε καὶ Ἀλκιμος’ ἀντὶ τοῦ Ἀλκιμέδων . . παρ᾿ Ἐμπεδοκλεῖ δὲ ‘μία γίνεται ἀμφοτέρων ὄψ’, ἡ ὄψις. It is clear that
Aristotle's
ἀφῃρημένον ὄνομα covers a wider ground than the
ἀφαίρεσις of the grammarians, and that it must include their
ἀποκοπή and
συγκοπή. In the preliminary statement in 21, 1457b 2 the shortened word is termed the
ὑφῃρημένον, not the
ἀφῃρημένον ὄνομα. In the interests of uniformity—which one can hardly suppose
Aristotle to have ignored in a matter so technical as this—one must either read
ἀφῃρημένον in 21, 1457 b 2 (with
Spengel), or restore
ὑφῃρημένον throughout the present section. Some of the grammarians seem to have used
ὑφαίρεσις (v. HSt. s. v.) for the dropping of a letter in the middle of a word.
19.
mvp-aristotle-comment-784
5
μία γίνεται ἀμφοτέρων ὄψ:
Empedocles fr. 88
Diels. The reading of the MS.
οησ (see on 18, 1456a) must represent
ὄψις, a gloss on
ὄψ (comp.
Strabo 364, quoted above on 4).
20.
mvp-aristotle-comment-785
ἐξηλλαγμένον.
The 'changed' word is in regard to some one part of it the invention of the poet. To that extent, therefore, it has a certain affinity with the 'coined' word, the
πεποιημένον ὄνομα (21, 1457 b 33).
20.
mvp-aristotle-comment-786
7
δεξιτερὸν κατὰ μαζόν:
Il. 5. 393
(comp.
Plutarch
Qu. conv. 5. 4, p. 677 D, and
Athenaeus 423 ).
8
21.
mvp-aristotle-comment-787
αὐτῶν δὲ τῶν ὀνομάτων κτέ.
Up to this point names have been viewed in reference to their origin, sense, or form. Apart from these aspects, however, they may also be classified according to their gender, and distinguished as masculine, feminine, and neuter. This classification of names according to gender will be seen to be founded on the terminations of the nominatives in Attic. The primary distinction between masculine and feminine terminations seems to have been generalized from the names of objects in which there is a visible distinction of sex, and more especially from the names of men and women (comp.
Aristoph.
Nub. 682
). Thus nouns ending in the consonants Ν, Ρ, Σ, Ψ, Ξ are regarded as normally masculine, because names like
Δίων,
Νέστωρ,
Πάρις,
Πέλοψ,
Κόραξ, are names of males; those ending in the vowels Η, Ω, and Α (long or short) are normally feminine, because
Ἑλένη,
Κλειώ,
Ἥρα,
Μοῦσα are names of females. The names of sexless things (the neuters, as we call them)
Aristotle terms
τὰ μεταξύ, because as a class these words occupy an ambiguous position, their final letters being sometimes those of the masculines and sometimes those of the feminines. Thus
δένδρον,
ἦτορ,
τεῖχος, as ending in the consonants Ν, Ρ, Σ, have what
Aristotle regards as masculine terminations; whereas
κάρα,
τέρμα, etc., have feminine ones; the other neuters also,
μέλι,
γόνυ, etc., as ending in vowels, show a certain affinity with the feminines. This seems to be the rationale of the present scheme of genders; and it is in essentials the same as that of the grammarians, though theirs no doubt is both fuller and more systematic, and leaves fewer facts to be treated as anomalies or exceptions (comp.
Dionysius Thrax p. 15 Uhlig).
Aristotle's classification is based on that of
Protagoras, who distinguished nouns into masculine, feminine, and
σκεύη (
Rhet. 3. 5, 1407b 7
Πρωταγόρας τὰ γένη τῶν ὀνομάτων διήρει, ἄρρενα καὶ θήλεα καὶ σκεύη) — the last of the three terms meaning with him not 'things' but 'names of things', as it does also in
Aristotle, in
Soph. el. 14, 173b 39
καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν θηλέων ὀνομάτων ὡσαύτως, καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν λεγομένων μὲν σκευῶν ἐχόντων δὲ θηλείας ἢ ἄρρενος κλῆσιν. In
Soph. el. 14, 173b 19
we are told that
Protagoras said it was a solecism to make
μῆνις and
πήληξ feminine, evidently because he thought and E to be normally masculine terminations, just as
Aristotle does.
Aristophanes,
Nub. 658, ridicules this new
ὀρθοέπεια of
Protagoras in the matter of gender.
Stilpo is said to have disputed the propriety of speaking of Athene as a
θεός:
μὴ γὰρ εἶναι αὐτὴν θεὸν ἀλλὰ θεάν· θεοὺς δὲ εἶναι τοὺς ἄρρενας (
Diog. Laert. 2. 116
).
22.
mvp-aristotle-comment-788
9
ὅσα τελευτᾷ εἰς τὸ Ν καὶ Ρ καὶ Σ.
This may seem an overstatement, as there are neuters which have these endings (see 17). The explanation is to be found in
Aristotle's view of the neuters; he does not conceive them as having terminations peculiar to themselves, but as holding an intermediate position between the two main classes, some of them having a masculine and others a feminine termination.
1458a11
22.
mvp-aristotle-comment-789
ἐκ τῶν φωνήεντων
is equivalent to a partitive genitive (comp.
1458 a 11
;
Pol. 5. 1, 1302 a 4
;
Rhet. 1. 9, 1367 b 36
;
10, 1369 b 7
).
Van Cleef,
Index Antiphonteus p. 58, has noted several instances of this use of
ex in
Antiphon.
23.
mvp-aristotle-comment-790
12
τῶν ἐπεκτεινομένων εἰς Α
, 'in
Α among the vowels capable of being lengthened'. The remaining dichronous vowels (see on 20,
1456 b 32
),
Ι and
Υ, are said a little further on to be found in the terminations of neuters (
a 15
).
3.
mvp-aristotle-comment-791
ἴσα... πλήθη.
πλήθη is 'numbers', as the plural of
πλῆθος,
numerus or
summa. It is hardly necessary, therefore, to restore
πλήθει from certain of the apographs.
14
25.
mvp-aristotle-comment-792
οὐδὲ εἰς φωνῆεν βραχύ.
It is to be remembered that there is no Greek noun ending in
Ε or
Ο. A neuter pronoun, like
τοῦτο τοιοῦτο (comp.
Herodian 2 p. 764
Lentz), would be in
Aristotle's classification (see on 20,
1457 b 18
) not an
ὄνομα proper but a
πτῶσις ὀνόματος.
1.
mvp-aristotle-comment-485
21.1
1. Ly a deux fortes de noms, les fimples & les doubles. Les ſimples font ceux qui ſont compoſez de parties qui ne fignifient rien; & les douoles font ceux qui ſont formez d'un mot qui fignifie, & d'un autre qui ne fignifie rien, ou de deux mots qui ont chacun leur fignification.]
1
2.
mvp-aristotle-comment-486
3.
mvp-aristotle-comment-487
4.
mvp-aristotle-comment-488
5.
mvp-aristotle-comment-489
6.
mvp-aristotle-comment-490
7.
mvp-aristotle-comment-491
8.
mvp-aristotle-comment-492
21.6
8. D'où il s'enfuit qu'un mème nom peut être propre & étranger par raport à differentes perſonnes.)
8
9.
mvp-aristotle-comment-493
21.6
9. Car le nom Sigunon, qui eſt un mot propre pour les Cypriens, est un mot étranger pour nous.]
9
10.
mvp-aristotle-comment-494
21.7
10. La metaphore est un tranſport d'un nom qu'on tire de ſa ſignification ordinaire. Il y a quatre fortes de metaphore.]
10
11.
mvp-aristotle-comment-495
12.
mvp-aristotle-comment-496
21.9
12. La metaphore de l'eſpece au genre, comme dans cet endroit du même Poëte, certainement Vlyſſe a fait dix mille bonnes actions.]
12
13.
mvp-aristotle-comment-497
14.
mvp-aristotle-comment-498
15.
mvp-aristotle-comment-499
21.11
15. Enfin la metaphore analogique eſt, lorſque de quatre termes, le ſecond a le mème raport au premier, que le quatrième au troisième.]
15
16.
mvp-aristotle-comment-500
21.12
16. Quelquefois mème on ajoûte la chose à laquelle ſe fait le raport, & qu'on met à la place de celle qui est propre.]
16
17.
mvp-aristotle-comment-501
18.
mvp-aristotle-comment-502
21.14
18. Il arrive quelquefois qu'on tombe ſur des choses qui n'ont point de terme analogique; mais on ne laiſſe pas de s'en ſervir de la même manière.)
18
19.
mvp-aristotle-comment-503
21.15
19. On ſe ſert encore d'une autre manière de cette metaphore. quand après le nom metaphorique, on ajoûte une Epithete qui nie quelqu'une des qualitez qui luy ſont propres.)
19
20.
mvp-aristotle-comment-504
21.
mvp-aristotle-comment-505
22.
mvp-aristotle-comment-506
23.
mvp-aristotle-comment-507
24.
mvp-aristotle-comment-508
21.21
24. Il y a encore une autre difference entre les noms, les uns font masculins, & les autres feminins, & les autres neutres.]
24
178.
mvp-aristotle-comment-178
NOTE 178. P. 107.
21.3
LIKE MANY OF THOSE USED BY THE MEGALIOTA.I have read, in some ludicrous book, of a country that was "lost by the ignorance of geographers." This seems to have been the case of these
Megaliota, if such a people ever existed. They are nowhere recorded. —
Dacier
reads,
μεγαριζοντων —
"ceux qui disent de grandes choses": and cites
Hesychius
Μεγαριζοντες — μεγαλα λεγοντες. But this is too distant from the present reading,
Μεγαλιωτων.
Mr. Winstanley's conjecture —
μεγαλειων, ως
,
1
is somewhat nearer, and, in other respects, preferable: but it is, I think, a strong presumption against its truth, that Aristotle constantly uses
διον, when he gives an instance; never, as far as I recollect,
ὡς.
I have sometimes thought it not very improbable, that the passage might originally have stood thus:
των μεγαλΑ ΔιώΚΟΝτων: i. e. of those who affect, aim at, are fond of, grandeur and pomp of expression; who love hard words, as we say. Nothing more common than this sense of
διωκειν. They who are versed in emendatory criticism, and the theory of transcriptive blunders, know it to have been one source of corruption in antient manuscripts, that the transcribers, when they found vacuities and
lacunae which they could not fill up, rather than reduce the price of their copy by visible imperfection, often chose to write the passage as if there had been no such chasms; especially when that could be done, as in this case, with some passable appearance of a meaning.
2
And thus, here, if we suppose the letters I have distinguished by capitals to have been destroyed, or rendered illegible, in the original MS.
"upo notias kai seton,"
3
they would leave exactly the letters we now have —
μεγαλ...ωτων.
If a commentator, harrassed by obscurity and perplexity, can now and then relieve his labour by treating a passage of desperate corruption as a riddle, and can amuse himself by guessing the meaning, when he cannot inform his readers by discovering it, who will envy him this harmless privilege? I have here hazarded my guess with others; but I give it for what it is. None of us, I believe, have yet deprived our successors of the same amusement. The riddle, probably, still remains, and will remain, till the arrival of those
"codices expectandi" of which the critics talk so much; those precious manuscripts, that are always to be waited for, and never to be expected.
179.
mvp-aristotle-comment-179
NOTE 179. P. 107.
21.5
BY COMMON WORDS, I MEAN &C. —
Κυριον. I have translated this,
common, not
proper, because this last term would convey a wrong idea; for
κυριον here is plainly opposed, not to
μεταφορα only, but to all the other species of words just enumerated: not to what is figurative only, as the Latin
proprium is, but to whatever is unusual. This appears indeed from the definition — "a word that every body uses." What we call proper words are only one fort of the
κυρια όνοματα of Aristotle. The expression must even include all those words, which, though originally metaphorical, are, as Mr. Harris says, "so naturalized" by common use, "that ceasing to be metaphors, they are become, (as it were,) the proper words."
4
That is, as an excellent writer has expressed it, "they have nothing of the effect of metaphor upon the hearer. On the contrary, like proper terms, they suggest directly to his mind, without the intervention of any image, the ideas which the speaker proposed to convey by them."
5
The same clear opposition of
κυριον to whatever is uncommon in speech appears throughout the next chapter, where
γλωττα, μεταφορα, &c. are all said to be
ΠΑΡΑ το κυριον, and included under one common term of
ξενικα. See also
Rhet. III. 2. p. 585, A.
180.
mvp-aristotle-comment-180
NOTE 180. P. 107.
21.6
SO THAT THE SAME WORD MAY BE BOTH COMMON AND FOREIGN, &C.If
κυριον here meant only native, in opposition to foreign, (
γλωττα) as some commentators have supposed, it would be arrant trifling to observe, that the same word might be, at the same time,
γλωττα and
κυριον, i. e. foreign and native, to different nations. For it could not possibly be otherwise; as
Robortelli observes, p. 246
, and calls the observation, which he explains as Aristotle's,
"magnoperè adnotandum, et PULCHRUM SCITU."
Dacier
follows him:
"Cela ne sçauroit être autrement, le même mot qui est etranger pour celui qui l'emprunte, ne peut qu'être propre pour celui qui le prête."
But, if it must be so, why does Aristotle say it
may be —
είναι δυνατον? — The truth is, that a foreign word is not necessarily a common word, in his sense of
κυριον, among the people to whom it is native; it may, or may not, be so; it cannot, indeed, be to them
γλωττα, but it may be a metaphorical word, or a word of any of the other species enumerated as
ΠΑΡΑ το κυριον. — Aristotle seems to have added this observation on purpose to prevent the very mistake which these expositors have made — to prevent
κύριον from being taken merely as the opposite to
γλωττα.
181.
mvp-aristotle-comment-181
NOTE 181. P. 108.
21.9
A THOUSAND IS A CERTAIN DEFINITE MANY. —
Το γαρ μύριον, πολυ ἐστι. — Here, I may venture, I believe, for once, to adopt the positive tone of emendatory criticism.
Legendum omnino,
πολυ ΤΙ. The sense, indeed, no one can mistake: but the text, as it stands, does not express that sense. It says only, "for a thousand is many, which he now uses instead of many." There can be no doubt, that Aristotle added
ΤΙ here, as in all the other instances,
ἐσταναι ΤΙ — ὠφελεων ΤΙ.
6
But, to put the matter beyond all doubt, he afterwards, speaking of the same fort of metaphor, says,
το γαρ Παντες άντι του Πόλλοι, κατα μεταφοραν, είρηται· το γαρ Παν, ΠΟΛΥ ΤΙ.
7
I am surprised that so very obvious an error should have escaped the notice of all the commentators I am acquainted with.
182.
mvp-aristotle-comment-182
NOTE 182. P. 108.
21.10
FOR HERE, THE POET USES ταμειν --- INSTEAD OF ἀρυσαι, &c.Here a commentator is not perplexed by a little glimmering of light, that promises to shew him something, and shews him nothing; but is relieved at once from all trouble by a total and comfortable obscurity. The quotations are so short, and, in all probability, so incorrect, that it seems impossible to apply to them Aristotle's definition of this metaphor, or to see how, where the Poet has used
ταμειν,
ἀρυσαι would have been the proper word, and
vice versa. Yet the commentators slide over this difficulty.
Victorius
, however, has noticed it, and, giving up the quotations as inexplicable and incorrigible, proposes a more intelligible example from the
Rhetoric, III. 2.
—
το φάναι, τον μεν πτωχευοντα, ευχεσθαι· τον δε ευχομενον, πτωχευειν· ὅτι ἀμφω αιτησεις.
Dacier
has entirely omitted the passage, and substituted another from the
Rhet. III. 11. p. 597, B.
— Not, however, that he did not understand the passage; it was an inviolable rule with him always to understand his author: but only, it seems, because the example could not conveniently be expressed in French —
"il ne peut être traduit en nôtre langue."
Castelvetro
gives a very pleasant illustration. He does not pretend to see how
ταμειν and
ἀρυσαι are put for each other in the Greek examples: but he says, that, to draw, and to cut off, might be thus metaphorically put for each other; if, for example, we should say, "Take this pruning hook, and draw some branches from the olive-tree: or, Take this pail, and cut off some water from the fountain."
8
— Undoubtedly any man may speak in this way, who choses it.
183.
mvp-aristotle-comment-183
NOTE 183. P. 108.
21.11
IN THE WAY OF ANALOGY, WHEN OF FOUR TERMS, &C.The difficulty here is, to distinguish clearly this, which Aristotle calls the analogical or proportional metaphor, from the metaphor which precedes it — that from species to species: for as to the two first sorts, that from genus to species, and
vice versa, they plainly belong, as has been observed, to the trope since denominated Synecdoche; the word
μεταφορα being clearly used by Aristotle in its most general sense, including all the tropes — all the ways in which a word is transferred to a meaning different from its proper meaning. See
Cic. Or. cap. xxvii.
Of the four species of
μεταφοραι here mentioned, only the two last seem to answer to our
METAPHOR — the metaphor founded on some resemblance between the thing from which, and that to which, the term is transferred.
The difference between these two sorts of metaphors, as far as I am able to comprehend it, appears to me to be only this. Each of them is founded on some resemblance; but in the first, the resemblance perceived is between the two things themselves; in the other, between the relations which they, respectively, bear to two other things. Those are metaphors
ἀπ᾿ ἐιδους ἐπι ειδους, where the likeness is perceived, as Aristotle elsewhere expresses it, "by the genus;" that is, where the common quality, which constitutes the likeness, immediately occurs, and it is, therefore, sufficient simply to substitute the one word for the other. Those are metaphors
κατ᾿ ἀναλογιαν, where the resemblance is not thus perceived by the common quality, but by the common relation, of the two things;
9
where, therefore, that relation must be pointed out, more or less expressly. Thus, to take Aristotle's own examples, when old age, or rather, an old man, is called "stubble," the resemblance is sufficiently perceived, by a comparison of the things themselves; in Aristotle's language, we perceive it "by the genus:" —
όταν γαρ ἐιπῃ [Όμηρος] το γήρας ΚΑΛΑΜΗΝ, ἐποιησε μαθησιν και γνῶσιν δια του γένους· ΑΜΦΩ γαρ ΑΠΗΝΘΗΚΟΤΑ.
10
But when old age is called "evening," what strikes us is the resemblance with respect to two other things, life, and day; a resemblance of relation.
In this idea of the analogical metaphor I have the concurrence of
Piccolomini
.
"La metafora di proportione è quella, che sopra la somiglianza dei rispetti che hanno l'une cose con l'altre, sarà fondata;" &c. See his annotations, p. 305, and his clear and useful, though prolix,
Parafrase della Retor. d'Arift. tom. iii. p. 52, &c.
In the rest of his explanation he does not satisfy me.
184.
mvp-aristotle-comment-184
NOTE 184. P. 108.
21.12
AND, SOMETIMES, THE PROPER TERM IS ALSO INTRODUCED, BESIDES ITS RELATIVE TERM. —
Και ἐνιοτε προστιθεασιν ἀνθ᾿ ὁυ λεγει προς ὁ ἐστι. — No words can well be more obscure and perplexing. Taking them as they are, they seem to admit, fairly, of only one sense — that which
Victorius
gives them.
"Et quandoque apponunt, pro quo dicit ad quod est." That is, as he explains this literal and obscure version, they add, "ad quod refertur illud nomen quod omittunt, et pro quo aliud vocabulum usurpant."
Προστιθεασι, προς ὁ ἐστι [sc. τουτο] ἀνθ᾿ ὁυ λεγει: i. e. they add, to the substituted word (
cup), the word to which the proper word (
shield) relates; i. e. Mars. They not only name
cup, instead of
shield, but call it the
cup of Mars.
My objection to this sense of the passage is, that it seems to confound the analogical metaphor with that from species to species, in which one word is simply put in the room of the other, as
καλαμη is used in the passage of Homer, referred to by Aristotle as an example of that fort of metaphor:
11
Αλλ' ἐμπης καλαμην γε σ' οἴομαι ἐισοροωντα / Γινώσκειν.
Od. ξ. 214.
For if, "sometimes,"
ἐνιοτε, this addition is made, it is implied, that not only sometimes, but generally, and for the most part, the analogical metaphor is used in the same manner as that
ἀπ' ἐιδους &c. and cup is merely called shield, and old age, evening. But, if I understand the matter rightly, it is essential to this kind of metaphor to express two terms, at least, of the four which constitute the analogy; i. e. to express with the metaphorical word, either the thing to which the proper word belongs, (as,
evening of life,) or, as Aristotle presently after says, a negative epithet. See NOTE 189.
And the philosopher himself seems to have said this, (for I confess the passage is not perfectly clear,) in the following words:
ΑΙΕΙ γαρ ΕΚ ΔΥΟΙΝ λεγονται [sc. ἐικονες, comparisons], ΩΣΠΕΡ Ἡ ΑΝΑΛΟΓΟΝ ΜΕΤΑΦΟΡΑ· διον, ἡ ἀσπις, φαμεν, ἐστι ΦΙΑΛΗ ΑΡΕΟΣ, και, τοξον, ΦΟΡΜΙΓΞ ΑΧΟΡΔΟΣ· ουτω μεν ουν λεγουσιν, ΟΥΧ ΑΠΛΟΥΝ το δ᾿ ἐιπειν το τοξον “φορμιγγα” ἢ την άσπιδα “φιάλην,” ῾ΑΠΛΟΥΝ.
12
Thus
"capitis nives"
13
for gray hairs;
evening of life;
morning of the year;
eye of day; and, among many instances in the Rhetoric,
δημε ροπαλον — λημη του Πειραιεως — ὁδου των λόγων, &c.
14
The fact, indeed, seems to be, that this analogical metaphor is only a way of stating metaphors founded on resemblance, when that resemblance, depending wholly, or chiefly, on relation, would not be obvious, and the metaphor, consequently, would be harsh and obscure, unless the relation were, by some means or other, pointed out.
15
— Victorius himself allows, that, in Aristotle's own examples, the mere substitution of
cup for
shield, and of
evening for
old age, would be
"nimis durum."
I think, then, that Aristotle meant to say, and, in some way or other, had said, "And sometimes," (
ἐνιοτε,) now and then, for the sake of clearness, "they add the proper word, (the word,
ἀνθ᾿ ὁυ for which, the metaphorical word is put,) to, or besides, the
προς ὁ ἐστι — i. e. that to which the proper word relates." They not only call the shield, the cup of Mars, but they mention shield also, and say, the shield is the cup of Mars: or, taking the other instance, old age is the evening of life. Thus all will follow naturally:
ΚΑΙ ἐνιοτε — And, sometimes, they add the proper term, &c.
Ένιοις δε, ουκ ἐστιν όνομα — ἀναλογον. — But, in some analogical metaphors, there is no proper term; in that case, therefore, the meta- phor cannot be used: yet it may be used in the first, and most common way, as well as if such proper term subsisted; it is still an analogical metaphor, and may be used as such: —
ουδεν ήττον, ὁμοιως [i. e.
ἀναλογως, as Castelvetro rightly explains it,]
λεχθησεται. Thus, in the metaphor exemplified, of sowing, applied to the sun, we may say the sun
sows his rays, though we cannot assign any proper term, for which
sows is put — any word appropriated to the dispersion of light from the sun, as, to
sow, is appropriated to the dispersion of seed. Such appears to me to be the connection of this passage.
It will, undoubtedly, be objected, that the sense I would give the words
προστιθεασι &c. cannot be fairly obtained from them as they now stand: and I confess it cannot; unless we might be allowed to render the words thus, taking
προς as a repetition of the preposition in
προστιθεασιν: "they add the word, for which they use, or say, the metaphorical word, (
ἀνθ᾿ ὁυ λΕΓΕΙ,)
το ὁ ΕΣΤΙ To what it is — to the word which is used: they add the word that should be to the word that is." But this appears to me so harsh and improbable a construction, that I would rather suppose the passage to be defective. Perhaps it might originally be thus: —
Και ἐνιοτε προστιθ. ἀνθ᾿ ὁυ λέγει, ΠΑΡΑ [το] προς ὁ ἐστι — i. e. besides adding the thing to which the proper term relates.
16
But there seems to be still another fault in the passage. I cannot reconcile the plural
προστιθεασιν, with the singular,
λέγει. Goulston renders
"apponit;" and I am surprised that no MS. should exhibit
προστίθησιν. That
λέγει is right, is highly probable, from the singular verb
ἐρει, repeatedly used here, and the
ἐποι, afterwards:
ἐι την ἀσπίδα ΕΙΠΟΙ κ. τ. αλλ.
185.
mvp-aristotle-comment-185
NOTE 185. P. 108.
21.12
THE SHIELD, THE CUP OF MARS, &C.
Φιαλην Αρεως. The
φιαλη seems to have been a large, expanded, (
ἐκπεταλον,) kind of vessel, like a ewer. See
Il. 4. 270
, and the notes.
Hesych. v. Αμφιθετο
. — It had also, sometimes, an
ὀμφαλος, or
umbo. See
Athen. p. 501
. It had probably, therefore, some resemblance to a shield, which makes the metaphor appear less strange; as
Piccolomini has remarked, p. 306
: who also observes, very well, that this kind of metaphor is then most clear and perfect, when the resemblance of relation is aided by some degree of resemblance between the things themselves and that here, for example, if lance were used instead of shield, the metaphor would be spoiled, though the common relation would still subsist.
This seems to have been a favourite instance of this sort of metaphor; for it occurs several times in the Rhetoric. See
III. 4, p. 588
, and
11, p. 596, E
. In the former of these passages Aristotle says, that an analogical metaphor ought to admit of inversion: thus, says he, if we may call the cup the shield of Bacchus, we may, with equal propriety, call the shield the cup of Mars. But
Demetrius
observes, alluding to that passage of the Rhetoric, that this is not the case of every such metaphor:
ἐπει την ὑπωρειαν μεν της ἴδης, ποδα ἐξην ἐιπειν τον ποιητην, τον δε του ἀνθρωπου ποδα, ἐκετι ὑπωρειαν ἐιπειν.
Sect. 79.
186.
mvp-aristotle-comment-186
NOTE 186. P. 108.
21.13
OR AS EMPEDOCLES HAS EXPRESSED IT, LIFE'S SETTING SUN.
Δυσμας βιου. —
Victorius
has pointed out this expression in
Plato's sixth book De Legibus
, where the Athenian says,
ἡμεις δ᾽ ἐν δυσμαις του βιου, οι δε, ὡς προς ἡμας, νεοι: probably alluding, in Plato's usual manner, to the very passage of
Empedocles
.
17
See also
Ælian, Var. Hist. II. 34
.
ἐπι δυσμαις ἐσμεν: where, as the metaphor was sufficiently explained by the subject of the conversation, the word
βιου is not added.
Victorius remarks, also, the
βιου ΔΥΝΤΟΣ αυγαις of
Æschylus, Agamem. v. 1123
. The rest of that passage is very obscure;
18
but this expression seems, clearly enough, to describe the dying eye, that opens, for the last time, upon the light: —Βλεψαι προς ΑΥΓΑΣ βουλεται τας ήλιου, / Ως οὐποτ᾿ ἀυθις, άλλα νυν πανυστατον, / Ακτινα, κυκλονθ᾿, ήλιου προσοψεται.
Eurip. Alcest. 203.
or, in the finest picture of the kind, I think, that Poetry affords, —
oculisque errantibus, alto / Quæsivit cælo lucem, ingemuitque reperta.
Æn. IV. 691.
— The poetical reader, I believe, will pardon me, if I wander so much farther from my subject, as to take occasion, from these beautiful passages, to point out three lines of
Petrarch
, which shew, that his powers were not confined to the expression of amorous tenderness, but were capable of rising, on occasion, to the true sublime. In the sonnet,
"Se lamentar augelli," &c. written after the death of
Laura
, he imagines himself to hear her voice, in his solitude, consoling him for his loss, in these lines: —Di me non pianger tu; ch' i miei di fersi / Morendo eterni; e, NEL ETERNO LUME, / Quando mostrai di chiuder gli occhi, APERSI! —
Ed. di Gesualdo, p. 288.
187.
mvp-aristotle-comment-187
NOTE 187. P. 108.
21.14
THERE IS NO PROPER ANALOGOUS TERM, &C.
Όνομα κειμενον. —
Κειμενον, here, is equivalent to
κυριον; a word established by common usage.
Ετι, ἐι ΜΗ ΚΕΙΜΕΝΟΙΣ όνομασι χρηται, διον Πλατων, ὀφρυοσκιον, τον ὀφθαλμον· παν γαρ ἀσαφες το ΜΗ ΕΙΩΘΟΣ. —
Topic. VI. 2. p. 242.
See also,
Categ. c. vii. p. 23, C.
188.
mvp-aristotle-comment-188
NOTE 188. P. 109.
21.14
SOWING ABROAD HIS HEAVEN-CREATED FLAME.
Σπειρων θεοκτισταν φλογα. — Part of an Iambic verse, and probably from some Tragic Poet. The commentators quote
Virgil's
"Spargebat lumine terras." This, however, is not exactly applicable, because
spargere does not, I think, appear to have been the proper, specific word, for sowing, as
σπειρειν was. The passage of
Lucretius
is more apposite: —Sol etiam summo de vertice dissupat omnes / Ardorem in partes, et lumine CONSERIT arva.
p. 211.
Every reader will recollect
Milton's
beautiful application of this metaphor to the stars: —
And sow'd with stars the heav'n, thick as a field. —
P. L. VII. 358.
— and to the dew-drops, metaphorized into pearls,
V. 1.
But the idea of pouring, applied to the great fountain of light, seems both a more just, and a more elevated, metaphor. It is happily touched by
Virgil
in this line: —
Jam sole infuso, jam rebus luce retectis.
Æn. IX. 461.
— a sketch which
Thomson
has finely filled up, and finished: —
young day pours in apace, / And opens all the lawny prospect wide: / The dripping rock, the mountain's misty top, / Swell on the sight, and brighten with the dawn; / Blue, thro' the dusk, the smoaking currents shine.
Summer, 52.
In his hymn, he has taken up the metaphor in a sublimer tone: —
Great source of day! best image here below / Of thy Creator, ever POURING wide, / From world to world, the vital ocean round!
l. 66.
— To which I cannot restrain myself from adding a fine passage of the same kind in the hymn of
Dionysius
to the sun: —
᾿Ακτινα πολυστρεφον ἀμπλεκων, / ᾿Αιγλας πολυδερκεα ΠΑΓΑΝ / Περι γαιαν άπασαν ἑλισσων. / ΠΟΤΑΜΟΙ δε σεθεν ΠΥΡΟΣ ΑΜΒΡΟΤΟΥ / Τικτουσιν ἐπηρατον άμεραν.
19
189.
mvp-aristotle-comment-189
NOTE 189. P. 109.
21.16
THE WINELESS CUP. —
Φιαλην ἀοινον. This emendation of
Victorius
, (instead of
ἀλλα οινου, the reading of all the editions and MSS.) seems confirmed, beyond all doubt, by
Rhet. III. 6, p. 590, A.
and
11, p. 597, A.
Metaphors, from their nature, are in danger of being obscure, or forced, though it is essential to their beauty and effect, that they should be clear and apposite. For this purpose, a metaphor may be guarded in various ways.
20
If the simple substitution of the improper, for the proper, term, would be obscure, or harsh, the metaphor may be converted into an image, or comparison; it may be used analogically, and we may say,
φιαλη ΑΡΕΩΣ, or
φιαλη ΑΟΙΝΟΣ; or, if that be not sufficient for perspicuity — that is, if the meaning be not sufficiently pointed out by the manner, or circumstances, in which the expression is introduced, we may join these, (
φιαλη Αρεως ἀοινος,) or even add to either of them the proper word itself.
21
There is a fine instance of this negative mode of explaining a metaphor, in
Isaiah, li. 21
.
"Thou drunken, but not with wine."
22
The same end is often answered by an epithet, affirming of the thing expressed some quality belonging to the thing signified; thus, ships are "floating bulwarks," and the lyre a "chorded shell,"
23
where
Dryden
has made the same use of the affirmative epithet,
chorded, that
Theognis
did of the negative,
ἀχορδον, in his metaphorical expression for a bow —
φορμιγξ άχορδος.
24
Sometimes the explanatory epithet is itself a metaphor; as in the
πτερωτοις άρμασι of
Euripides
; "winged chariots." Here we have a double metaphor,
chariot for
ship, and
wing for
sail.
It should be remembered, that these negative epithets are very common in the Greek Poets.
Victorius
points out many instances:
κωμον ἀναυλοτατον,
Eurip. Phoeniss. 818
.
θιασον ἀβακχευτον,
Orest. 319
.
μηνυτηρα ἀφθεγκτον,
Æfch. Eumen. 245
.
ἀπτεροις πωτημασιν,
ibid. 250
, &c.
190.
mvp-aristotle-comment-190
NOTE 190. P. 109.
21.17
AN INVENTED WORD, &C.Between this and the preceding definition Aristotle must have placed that of
Κοσμος the ornament, or ornamental word. That it was purposely passed over by him is hardly credible. This is, most probably, one of the lamentable
διαβρωματα that
Strabo
talks of.
25
The commentators differ widely as to the meaning of
κοσμος.
Castelvetro
says, the word admits, here, of five different senses, which he sets up, like nine-pins, for the pleasure of knocking them all down. — The only reasonable account of the matter seems to be that given by
Dacier
from
Victorius
. It seems clear enough, that what Aristotle here calls
κοσμος, is included, at least, under what he calls
ὀικειον in the Rhetoric. For he says, at the end of the next chapter (cap. xxii.) speaking of those species of words that are used in prose, that they are these three,
το κύριον, και
μεταφορα, και
ΚΟΣΜΟΣ: and in the Rhetoric, after referring to the very enumeration of words in this chapter, and setting aside such as he calls poetical, (i. e.
γλωτται, διπλα ὀνοματα, &c.) he says,
το δε κυριον, και το ΟΙΚΕΙΟΝ, και μεταφοραι, μοναι χρησιμοι προς την των ψίλων λόγων λεξιν· παντες γαρ μεταφοραις διαλεγονται, και τοις ΟΙΚΕΙΟΙΣ, και τοις κυρίοις.
26
And these
ὀικεια ὀνοματα, again, seem plainly synonymous with
ἐπιθετα, mentioned presently after: —
δει δε και τα ἐπιθετα και τας μεταφ. κ. τ. λ. — By
ὀικεια and
ἐπιθετα, Aristotle seems to have expressed the genus, of which,
κοσμος, the ornamental or embellishing epithet, was a species. But as he has not, by any means, explained himself fully, nor given any definition either of
ὀικειον or
ἐπιθετον, the mist which he has left upon this subject must remain. I shall only remark, that the word
κοσμος is once, (and I think but once,) used by him in his Rhetoric, apparently in the same sense as in this chapter. For, speaking of the propriety of diction, and its correspondence to the subject, he observes, that "an ornament should not be applied to a mean word; for this," says he, "has the appearance of burlesque; which is the case with
Cleophon
, who has used expressions of this sort as ridiculous, as it would be to talk of an "AUGUST fig-tree."
27
The word
κοσμος here, and the example by which he explains it, seem to prove, that
κοσμος, in the treatise on Poetry, means such an epithet as embellishes or elevates the thing to which it is applied. For I do not imagine that the term includes what the Grammarians call perpetual epithets, such as
"humida vina,"
γαλα λευκον, &c. because Aristotle expressly says, that the
κοσμος is used in common speech: now these redundant epithets are banished, both by him, and by
Quintilian
, even from oratory; much more from ordinary discourse.
28
It may be objected, as it has been objected by
Piccolomini (p. 337)
, that, as an epithet may, at the same time, be a foreign word, a metaphorical, an extended, or of any of the other sorts, it could not be enumerated by Aristotle as a distinct species of words among the rest. But the truth is, that he is not there enumerating so many distinct species of words, which exclude each other, but only a number of distinct properties of words, several of which may subsist together in the same word. Thus, an extended word may, manifestly, be, at the same time, a metaphorical, or a foreign word, or both: a metaphorical word may be, also, an invented, extended, altered word, &c. But none of these words can be, at the same time,
κυρια, common words; and the only exclusive distinction that Aristotle intended, is between the common word, and the others; all of which are words, on some account or other, uncommon.
191.
mvp-aristotle-comment-191
NOTE 191. P. 110.
21.21
NOUNS ARE DIVIDED, &C.In passages where great corruption and little importance meet, a commentator may be reasonably indulged in silence, or brevity. What all this has to do in the midst of an analysis of poetical language, as distinguished from that of
prose, I confess myself totally unable to see.
The defects of the passage have been fully pointed out by almost all the annotators. See
Mr. Winstanley's note, p. 300, ed. Ox. 1780
. — But we have lately been told, that all the commentators have entirely mistaken the sense of the passage, and supposed it, without reason, to be imperfect, merely because they did not see, that Aristotle here speaks, not as a Grammarian, but as a Philosopher, and is considering, not the conventional gender of verbal inflection, but the real gender of the things signified. Thus, it is admitted, indeed, that all words ending in
ν and
ρ, are not masculine; yet, if we examine the nature of the things denoted by words of those terminations, we shall find, it seems, that they are masculine, though the words themselves are regarded as feminine.
29
Let us try, then.
Μητηρ, for example, ends in
ρ. Did Aristotle's philosophy lead him to consider a mother as of the masculine gender?
21.1.
mvp-aristotle-comment-86
21.2
DITHYRAMBIC POETS.
Μεγαλιώῶν. For my reason for rendering this inexplicable word as I have, the reader is referred to the note on the translation. Another conjectural emendation suggested by a learned friend, is to read Μεγαλε- σιῶν. The Megalesian Games at Rome were confecrated to Cybele, and first introduced there during the second Punic war; they are mentioned by Livy, Tully, Ovid and Juvenal. None of the Grecian festivals mentioned by Potter are of this name, but it is obviously of Greek derivation. Livy derives it from μεγάλης μηρός, ‘The great mother.' My friend, with great probability, supposes it compounded of μεγάλα. great,' and σεῖω ' to shake,' an etymology perfectly confonant with the noisy rites by which the mother of the gods was celebrated, and with which the works of the Dithyrambic poets, and their high founding expressions would be perfectly congenial [A]. The word in question, Hermocaicoxanthus, is evidently composed of the names of three rivers of Afia minor, the Hermus, the Caicus, and the Xanthus. [Α] Κορυβαντίασειν μοὶ δοκῶ περιβομβέμενος ὑφ᾽ ὧν καλεσκέδασάς μου᾿ ονομάτων. LEXIPHANES.. NOTE
21.2.
mvp-aristotle-comment-87
21.4
NOUNS ARE EITHER PROPER OR FOREIGN, OR METAPHORICAL, OR ORNAMENTAL, OR INVENTED FOR THE PURPOSE, OR LENGTHENED, OR SHORTENED, OR CHANGED.
BY PROPER, Aristotle means words used in their common acceptation, as in plain conversation, in contradistinction to all the other modes he has mentioned, and not to the γλῶττα or foreign word only; though in his first example he opposes these to each other for the obvious reason he gives, of the saine word partaking of both qualities, though with respect to different persons. This fort of foreign words introduced into poetry, did not resemble the ridiculous practice of those travelled coxcombs who are continually larding their conversation with French and Italian phrafes; but, as is observed in the note on the tranflation, related only to the different dialects of Greece. We have nothing that resembles this so much as the introduction of such Scottish words as BOURN, EYNE, &c. which, to an English ear, has a very agreeable effect, and gives a kind of Doric fimplicity to the lower kind of paftoral poetry. But this to a Scotchman has the fame effect as our own provincial language would have to an Englishman. This however will in no case suit the higher walks of the drama and epopee. Had Scotland continued a separate kingdom the two dialects might have been distinct and of equal dignity, and have given our poets this source of variety. See BEATTIE ON LUDICROUS COMPOSITION, Chap. 11. near the end. The
POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. The use of Metaphors is so frequent in common conversation as hardly to require explanation; such expreffions as a cool reasoner,' ' a warm debater,' are examples. Sometimes even a word is more common in its metaphorical than its proper sense, as for instance, to RUMINATE. By a fingular chance this word, though of no dignity in its figurative sense, acquires dignity in its proper sense, and is a perfect instance of the use of foreign words in elevating the style of poetry; as in Milton,
• Others fill'd with pasture gazing fat • Or bedward RUMINATING.' The example taken from Homer, of a ship to illustrate the transfer of a word from genus to species is sufficiently plain. We say commonly a ship lies at anchor from the quiet situation she is in when at anchor, which may be termed a species of lying still compared to the agitation of a voyage. The example of the change from species to genus (fee the tranflation) is equally clear and still in common use, though we usually employ the modefter term of a thousand; the Romans still more moderate, contented themselves with fix hundred. On the same principle the abfent lover counts his hours by centuries. As for the transfer from species to species, however comfortably obscure the Greek examples are, I think the sense of the precept is sufficiently clear; it means, I conceive, the transfer of a figurative expression usually connected with one word, to another word to which it is not usually applied, though the meaning of it is the fame. I esteem Castlevetro's example perfectly just; and agree with Mr. Twining in thinking any man who chuses MAY speak so, though I do not think it would be often advisable for him to avail himself of this liberty. I do not quote the Italian critic as our own learned countryman Martinus Scriblerius
Scriblerius has furnished us with examples in his account of the figure Catachrefis, a master of which he tells us will say, Mow the beard, Shave the field, Pin the plank, Nail my fleeve. In ludicrous composition this figure is of great use. The humour of low comedy and farce frequently depends on it. The failor applies his fea-terms to all the objects of common life, the gardener talks of the first row of a regiment, and the foldier of a front rank of French-beans. But this figure is not entirely banished from more serious compofition. The pensive poet wanders O'er the dry smooth-SHAVEN green,' and the hero of romance Mows down squadrons with his enchanted sword. This figure is sometimes used in common speech, as when we fay a warrior is PRODIGAL OF LIFE, or a spendthrift BLEEDS FREELY. It must be allowed this mode of arranging figures comes so near the next, and the examples seem so applicable to both, that I am not able well to diftinguish them. The particular inftance given by Aristotle of the transfer of metaphor by analogy is very clear. Calling Beauty the arms of Venus, and Arms the ornament of Mars, exhibits a more familiar example. In regard to calling a shield the cup of Mars, I must differ TOTO COELO from Piccolomini, who thinks the resemblance of the two things as to form,
POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. form, can have any possible connection with the metaphor, and that it would be spoiled if lance were substituted for shield [B], because the form of the Greek φιάλη, or cup, bore some resemblance to a shield. This might have been the cafe with a poet who composed, as the Laputan philosopher proposed to converse, by things instead of words. But surely to one who uses the arbitrary symbols of things to express his thoughts instead of things themselves, resemblance of effect rather than resemblance of shape is the source of metaphor, and on this principle I should think the cup of Bacchus bore more analogy to an offenfive than a defenfive weapon. I never heard the metaphor in the second ode of Anacreon, where he makes female beauty serve both as a fword and a shield, blamed on this principle; but I never could fancy any resemblance, as to form, between a handsome woman and either of those instruments [c]. Calling a shield' the wineless cup of Mars' is termed by Harles [D], ' a most daring metaphor.' Perhaps it will hardly seem so, if we take a more common instance, and call love the bloodless war of Venus.. Of the ornamented word mentioned by Aristotle he takes no further notice. Metastasio supposes it explained in that paragraph of the Epistle. to the Pisos which begins, • Non ego inornata et dominantia verba folum,' &c. [B] See Twining, Note 185. [c] In some cases however too great a natural dissimilitude between the objects has a bad effect. See Note VII. Chap. xxi. [D] See Note on the translation.. 3 Η΄ But
But whoever reads that whole passage must be convinced, that if inornata there is opposed to κόσμος here, κόσμος must comprehend every other species of ornament of which language is capable; all of which he has here claffed with it, as being different modifications of exception to (κύρια), words in their proper and common form. Aristotle also at the end of the next chapter, again distinguishes κόσμος in this manner. He says such words are most calculated for Iambic verse as are most fit for common discourse of which it is an imitation, viz. the proper, the metaphorical, and the ornamented. Though from this we do not see what the critic meant by κόσμος, we fee clearly that he did not mean by it either an assemblage of all the other ornaments of language, or any elevation or change of style much over-topping the modesty of common difcourse. Invented words can never be supposed to fignify any arbitrary name that the poet may chuse to impose, but a name whose signification must, from derivation or fome other cause, be sufficiently expressive of the fense it is intended to convey. Such, for instance, as courser for horse. Of lengthened names the Italian has many; but [E] Metastasio observes they cannot be introduced into serious works: in English poetry they are not uncommon; we use ' devoid' for 'void,' ' distain' for ' stain;' and Milton puts ' eremite' for ' hermit,' adding one fyllable and lengthening a vowel. We also shorten words in verse, as 'morn,' ' eve,' ' mead.' Indeed all ellisions of vowels properly fall under this description. There are other figures of speech not mentioned by the critic here, but which modern critics are full of, and which seem indeed, in fact, to [B] Estrutto della Poetica, page 333be,
POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. be, what Mr. [F] Spence calls, peccadillos against grammar; but which the blind admirers of the ancients first give Greek names to, and then call figures of rhetoric. On this principle all the errors against grammatical precision [G] which are pointed out even in our best writers, may be converted into beauties. Quintilian was however of a different opinion. (H) ‘Every form will • become a fault if it is not produced by choice but by accident, though it is often defended by authority, by time, and by custom.' [F] See Essay on the Odyssey, p. 117. [G] Masclef in his Hebrew Grammar, Chap. XXII. points out 102 instances of words of an anomalous form in the Hebrew Bible. Of these, from Dr. Kennicott's collation of Mss. 78 appear to be errors of the tranfcribers or printers. [H] Effet enim omne schema vitium fi non peteretur sed acciderit; verum auctoritate, ve tuftate, confuetudine, plerumque defenditur. 3 H 2 CHAP.
1.
mvp-aristotle-comment-147
Ritter, cap. 21 § 1
Variae nominum species enumerantur, definiuntur, exemplis illustrantur. sub finem capitis nonnulla de genere nominum ab aliena manu adiecta leguntur. Quae hoc capite usque ad §. 12. disputantur, ea et ob suam virtutem et ob Rhetoricorum locos III, 1 et 2., ubi Aristoteles quater ad haec lectorem ablegavit, denique ob Poeticae caput 22. quo haec unice respiciuntur, ab ipso Aristotele scripta esse satis certum videtur. sed quoniam statui nequit post finitum illud c. 19. (vicesimum non esse Aristotelis vidimus) Aristotelem continuo, exponere perrexisse, quae capite 21. exposita legimus,
Ὀνόματος δὲ εἴδη τὸ μὲν ἁπλοῦν cet., vel inde satis liquet haec quae legimus fragmenta esse sive epitomam uberioris de dictione disputationis. idem adprobabitur consideranti locum in Rhetoricis III, 1 extr.
ὥστε φανερὸν ὅτι οὐχ ἅπαντα ὅσα περὶ λέξεως ἔστιν εἰπεῖν ἀκριβολογητέον ἡμῖν,
ἀλλ᾽ ὅσα περὶ τοιαύτης οἵας λέγομεν (de dictione oratoria).
περὶ δ' ἐκείνης (de dictione poetarum)
εἴρηται ἐν τοῖς περὶ ποιητικῆς. nimirum quae illic de oratoria dictione docentur (c. 2-12), ambitu minimum sexies haec pauca quae de poetica exponuntur superant, cum tamen de hac aeque multa vel plura etiam quam de illa dicenda essent. nihil, ut unum exempli gratia afferam, de imagine (
εἴκονι) explicatum legimus, cum in Rhetoricis (III, 4) doceatur, et quid sit imago et quo differat a metaphora. locus ipse, cui haec de dictione disputatio intexitur, male electus videtur.IN POETICAEЕ CAP. 21. §. 1-2. scilicet haec sub finem totius de poesis generibus commentationis ponenda erant, cum ad omnia eius genera aeque pertineant.
ὁ μὴ ἐκ σημαινόντων σύγκειται,
οἷον γῆ: per
μὴ ἐκ σημαινόντων scriptor complectitur
μήτ' ἐκ σημαινόντων μήτ' ἐκ σημαίνοντος καὶ ἀσήμου. nomen
διπλοῦν est quod duobus vocabulis compositum est. horum autem aut utrumque aut alterutrum significativum est, utraque pars nominis duplicis significativa est in
Θεόδωρος,
μητροκτόνος, una in
ἄπτερος,
ὑπερβολή.
καὶ τριπλοῦν καὶ τετραπλοῦν καὶ πολλαπλοῦν: nomina composita cuiusvis generis
συμπεπλεγμένα appellat de Interpr. c. 2.
πολλά τῶν μεγαλιωτῶν: vulgo scribunt
Μεγαλιωτῶν, et in boc nomine vitium admissum putant. mihi
πολλὰ τῶν μεγαλιωτῶν vocis admodum longae et ab Aristotele factae frustula videntur esse. fortasse scripsit
πολλαπλομεγάλωπος.
2.
mvp-aristotle-comment-148
Ritter, cap. 21 § 2
ἢ κόσμος: omnium nominis generum quae hoc loco memorantur, definitiones continuo subsequuntur :
κόσμος autem quid sit non definitur. bis eadem vox recurrit c. 22, 3 et 10., et bis quidem inepte, ut mox declarabimus. quid igitur est
κόσμος ? interpretantur Latine ornatus et cogitant de epithetis ornantibus, sed haec ab Aristotele
κόσμον appellata esse unde probabitur? moneo ne quis abuti velit iis quae Aristoteles Rhetor. III, 7 init. scribit:
τὸ δὲ ἀνάλογόν ἐστιν,
ἐὰν μήτε περὶ εὐόγκων αὐτοκαβδάλως λέγηται μήτε περὶ εὐτελῶν σεμνῶς,
μήδ᾽ ἐπὶ τῷ εὐτελεῖ ὀνόματι ἐπῇ κόσμος. nam hic universe locutus est, cum ornari nomen magnifico epitheto recte dicere posset: alioqui nomine
ἐπιθέτων utitur, ut ibidem pag. 1408 b 11.
τὰ δὲ ὀνόματα τὰ διπλᾶ καὶ τὰ ἐπίθετα πλείω ἁρμόττει τῷ παθητικῶς λέγοντι. conf. III, 2. p. 1405 a 10. ipse
κόσμος, si ponamus esse idem quod
ἐπίθετον, et
γλῶττα et
μεταφορά, denique quodcumque praeter
κύριον esse potest. testis est ipse Aristoteles Rhetor. III, 2 sub initium :
τῶν δ᾽ ὀνομάτων καὶ ῥημάτων σαφή (
τὴν λέξιν)
μὲν ποιεῖ τὰ κύρια,
μὴ ταπεινὴν δὲ ἀλλὰ κεκοσμέ νην τἆλλα ὀνόματα ὅσα εἴρηται ἐν τοῖς περὶ ποιητικῆς. ita- ...que
κόσμος vel ob hanc causam adiungi hic non potest. quapropter eam vocem et hic et duobus aliis locis ex nota marginali natam existimo. scilicet
κόσμον explicationis gratia aliquis in margine posuit, ut sex illa nominum genera quae praeter
κύριον memorantur ad orationis ornatum conferre moneret.
3.
mvp-aristotle-comment-149
Ritter, cap. 21 § 3
,
λέγω δὲ κύριον μὲν ᾧ χρῶνται ἕκαστοι:
τὸ κύριον nomen est quo omnes gentis cuiusdam nationes utuntur. -
γλῶτταν δὲ ᾧ ἕτεροι: glossam id voco quo alii atque omnes utuntur. glossarum origo et ratio duplex: nam eae aut etiamnum apud alios vigent apud alios ignorantur (Provinzialismen), aut aliquando in usu fuere et iam ignorantur (voces obsoletae). —
τὸ γὰρ σίγυνον κτλ. glossa haec modo
σίγῦνος sive
σίγῦνον, modo
σιγύνη sive
σιγύννη scribitur. Herodotus V, 9.,
σιγύννας δ᾽ ὧν καλέουσι Λίγυες οἱ ἄνω ὑπὲρ Μασσαλίης οἰκέοντες τοὺς καπήλους,
Κύπριοι δὲ τὰ δόρατα. Hesych.
σίγυνοι,
τὰ ξυστὰ δόρατα ἢ τοὺς ὁλοσιδήρους ἄκοντας. conf. Etym. Magn. et Suid. s. v.
4.
mvp-aristotle-comment-150
Ritter, cap. 21 § 4
μεταφορὰ δ' ἐστίν: Aristoteles metaphoram latiore sensu intelligit quam nos solemus, qui nonnisi tertiam et quartam speciem ab illo commemoratam pro metaphora accipimus. noster dicendi usus etiam Ciceronis aetate obtinuit. vid. eius de Orat. lib. III. c. 38 sqq.
ἀπ᾿
5.
mvp-aristotle-comment-151
Ritter, cap. 21 § 5
οἷον “
νηῦς δέμοι ἥδ᾽ ἕστηκε”: versus est Homeri Odyss.
Α. 185.
νηῦς δε μοι ἥδ᾽ ἕστηκεν ἐπ᾿ ἀγροῦ νόσφι πόληος. idem versus recurrit 2. 307. in portu esse (
ὁρμεῖν) est standi (
τοῦ στάναι) species: ipsum stare genus est. genus igitur positum sive illatum pro specie.
εἴδους δὲ ἐπὶ γένος: qui in exemplum affertur est versus Homeri Il.
Β. 272.
ὦ πόποι,
ἢ δὴ μυρί᾽ Ὀδυσσεὺς ἐσθλὰ ἔοργεν. genus est multa (
πολλά), species sexcenta (
μυρία). species posita vel illata est pro genere.
ᾧ νῦν ἀντὶ τοῦ πολλοῦ κέχρηται. intelligendus est qui scripsit, h. e. Homerus. haec dicendi brevitas ad epitomatorem auctorem referenda videatur.
ἀπ᾿ εἴδους δὲ ἐπὶ εἶδος: hoc fit, si verbum speciem significans pro alio item speciem denotante ita admittitur, ut utrumque simul pro genere ponatur. hoc enim apparet ex adiectis illis
ἄμφω γὰρ ἀφελεῖν τι ἐστίν. pro exemplis duo afferuntur hemistichia
χαλκῷ ἀπὸ ψυχὴν ἀρύσας atque
τεμὼν ἀτειρέϊ χαλκῷ, quae unde sumpta sint non constat. nonnulli haec ex antiqua Homericorum carminum recensione transcripta existimant, sed ea coniectura unde probari possit non video. in priore
χαλκῷ ἀπὸ ψυχὴν ἀρύσας illud
ἀρύσας pro
τεμών positum esse edocemur, ut sit aere animam hauriens pro aere animam intercidens (
τεμών) vel rapiens (
ἀφελῶν). simile sed non idem est quod Tacitus Histor. I, 41. iugulum haurire dixit. conf. Claudius Quadrigarius apud Gellium IX, 13. eo pacto ei sub Gallicum gladium successit atque Hispanico pectus hausit. difficilius ad explicandum est alterum hemistichium
τεμὼν ἀτειρέϊ χαλκῷ, ubi
τεμών pro
ἀρύσας positum esse audimus. equidem coniicio hoc dictum fuisse de spuma aquae vel iusculi bullientis, sumptumque ex quodam parodiarum scriptore, qui spumam demere s. haurire ridicule appellaret
τεμὼν ἀτειρέϊ χαλκῷ. iam habemus duo exempla, in quibus verbum speciem denotans pro altero item speciem denotante positum est ita ut utrumque etiam pro genere admissum sit.
6.
mvp-aristotle-comment-152
Ritter, cap. 21 § 6
καὶ ἐνίοτε προστιθέασιν ἀνθ' οὗ λέγει,
πρὸς ὅ ἐστιν: post finitam quartae speciei explicationem non continuo exempla sequuntur, idque fieri posset, si etiam eius quae sequitur admonitionis exemplum aliquod additum legeretur, quod factum non esse cernimus. ipsa verba consideres velim; et interdum addunt (qui scribunt) pro quo dicat (qui scribit), ad quid spectet (nomen translatum). nonne vides miram confusionem et explicationis obscuritatem summae infantiae signum? hoc mihi liquet,
πρὸς ὅ ἐστιν nihil esse nisi
ἐπεξήγησιν commatis antecedentis
ἀνθ' οὗ λέγει. interpolator huiusmodi exempla fortasse respexit,
τὸ γῆρας ἑσπέρα βίου μοι πάρεστιν pro eo quod quis nude dicat
ἑσπέρα βίου μοι πάρεστιν. haud dubie hoc ita obscure dictum est, ut prae ceteris exemplo illustrandum esset, quod cum nonsit factum, et exempli defectus et loquendi obscuritas et locus non aptus conspirant, ut multis modis personati auctoris vultum agnoscamus.
ἐρεῖ τοίνυν, h. e. is qui scribit. metaphora hic commemorata usus est Timotheus dithyramborum scriptor, quem ridet Antiphanes comicus. v. Athen. X. p. 433 C.
οὐκ ἂν ἁμάρτοι δέ τις καὶ τὸ ποτήριον αὐτοῦ λέγων φιάλην Αρεως κατὰ τὸν ᾿Αντιφάνους Καινέα,
ἐν ᾧ λέγεται οὕτως·
ἦτει 1)
δ' ἥρως φιάλην ῎Αρεως,
κατὰ Τιμόθεον,
ξυστόν τε βέλος. eiusdem metaphorae mentionem facit Aristoteles Rhetor. III, 4 extr. et 11. pag 1412 b 35.
7.
mvp-aristotle-comment-153
Ritter, cap. 21 § 7
ἐνίοις δ' οὐκ ἔστιν ὄνομα κείμενον τό ἀνάλογον: per
ὄνομα et nomen et verbum hoc loco complectitur vulgarem dicendi usum secutus, idemque bis factum ante, §. 2 et 4.
τὸ δὲ τὴν φλόγα ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου ἀνώνυμον: h. e. solis radios demittere per unum verbum Graece enuntiari nequit.
καὶ τὸ σπείρειν πρὸς τὸν καρπόν: ut analogia constet,
καρπός intelligendus est moles frumenti, unde particulae proiiciuntur in agrum. iam radios demittere se habet ad solem sicut serere (frumenti particulas demittere) ad saccum frumenti plenum. unde
σπείρων θεοκτίσταν φλόγα sumptum sit, nobis haud compertum. Latinos poetas eadem uti metaphora monent interpretes afferentes Virgil. Aen. II, 584. Lucret. II, 211.
8.
mvp-aristotle-comment-154
Ritter, cap. 21 § 8
ἀλλ᾽ ἄοινον: qui scutum appellat pateram vini expertem, is dum scutum alieno nomine (
φιάλην) designat (
προσαγορεύσας τὸ ἀλλότριον), adiecto
ἄo
ινo
ν aliquid denegat (
τῶν οἰκείων τι ἀπύφησι) quod est paterae proprium: eo autem lector admonetur non proprie accipienda esse quae de patera dicuntur. peracuta sane observatio est et philosopho digna. 1)
ᾔτει δ' ἥρως Tyrwhittus in annot. ad h. 1. scite dedit; Athenaei codices
εἰ τῇ δῆλος.
9.
mvp-aristotle-comment-155
Ritter, cap. 21 § 9
πεποιημένον - ἀρητῆρα:
πεποιημένον est factum fictumque a poeta. eiusmodi verba novata appellat Cicero de Orat. III, 38, 154. novantur autem verba quae ab eo qui dicit ipso gignuntur ac fiunt. pro exemplis ibidem affert expectorare, versutiloquus, incurviscere. -
δοκεῖ γὰρ ἔνια εἶναι τοιαῦτα: dubitat, et recte quidem, utrum eiusmodi voces scriptoris ingenio an usui antiquo et obsoleto tribuat.
οἷον τὰ κέρατα ἔρνυγας.
κτλ. quemadmodum cornua ramulos et sacerdotem precatorem. recte ab Hermanno observatum est
ἔρνυξ eiusdem esse significationis atque
ἔρνος, sed formatum ut
ἄντυξ. Bekkerus cum antiquis editoribus
ἐρνύγας dedit, nominativum
ἐρνύγη accipiens, non
ἔρνυξ. Hesychius et Favorinus :
ἐρνύ)
τας (sic),
ἔρνη,
βλαστήματα,
κλάδους. hoc vocabulum ex cyclico quodam carmine sumptum videtur.
ἀρητὴρ Homeri est Il. A. 94. Е. 78.
10.
mvp-aristotle-comment-156
Ritter, cap. 21 § 10
ἀφηρημένον δὲ οἷον τὸ κρῖ καὶ τὸ δῶ: stirpes illae nominum
δῶμα et
κριθή saepius apud Homerum ceterosque poetas epicos reperiuntur. nomina sunt imperfecta potius quam mutilata, quatenus terminos non tam amiserunt quam omnino non receperunt. conf. Strabo VIII. p. 364 (p. 560):
παραδείγμασι δὲ χρῶνται τοῦ μὲν ποιητοῦ τῷ κρῖ καὶ δῶ καὶ μάψ,
καὶ ἔτι (Il.
Τ. 392) “
ἵππους δ᾽ Αὐτομέδων ·
τε καὶ Αλκιμος᾽ ἀντὶ τοῦ ᾿Αλκιμέδων,
Ἡσιόδου δέ,
ὅτι τὸ ῥᾴδιον ῥᾶ,
Ἐπίχαρμος δὲ τὸ λίαν λί,
Συρακὼ δὲ τὰς Συρακούσας.
παρ' Ἐμπεδοκλεῖ δὲ “
μία γίνεται ἀμφοτέρων ὄψ”
ἡ ὄψις.
καὶ παρ' ᾿Αντιμάχῳ “
Δήμητρός τοι Ἐλευσινίης ἱερὴ ὄψ,”
καὶ τὸ ἄλφιτον ἄλφι. paulo post Empedoclis hemistichium (Empedoclis esse Strabo nos docet) totum ab Aristotele transcriptum est, ut lectores vocem
ὄψ pro decurtata
ὄψις, non pro foramine, acciperent.
11.
mvp-aristotle-comment-157
Ritter, cap. 21 § 11
οἷον τὸ “
δεξιτερὸν κατὰ μαζόν᾽ ἀντὶ τοῦ δεξιόν: secundum hanc opinionem poeta
δεξι reliquit,
τερος ipse fecit.
τὸ ὀνομαζόμενον est quod vulgo dicitur, h. e. nomen usitatum.
12.
mvp-aristotle-comment-158
Ritter, cap. 21 § 12
αὐτῶν δὲ τῶν ὀνομάτων - καὶ Ν καὶ Σ:quae hinc usque ad finem capitis leguntur, ab Aristotele scribi potuisse nego: ille enim non canones grammaticos voluit perscribere sed ex rebus grammaticis nonnisi eligere quae ad illustrandam dictionem poeticam pertinerent. sed haec de genere nominum disputatio et ab illo consilio utique aliena est et absurdo ludi magistro digna. ipsa quae docentur gravibus vitiis laborant. nimirum nomina in Net Pet ∑ desinentia mascula esse audimus, quamquam permulta et neutrius et feminini generis esse constat, ut
ὀστέον,
φρέαρ πέρας,
νῆσος et sexcenta alia. paulo post sibi ipse non constat scribens
τὰ δὲ μεταξὺ (neutrius generis nomina)
εἰς ταῦτα καὶ Σ. vulgaris et ineptus grammaticus agnoscitur etiam in illis
ὥστε ἴσα συμβαίνει 'πλήθει εἰς ὅσα τὰ ἄρρενα καὶ τὰ θήλεα.
εἰς δὲ τὸ Ιτρία μόνον,
μέλι κόμμι πέπερι: doctius Athenaeus II. p. 66 F:
τοῦτο δὲ ἡμᾶς τηρῆσαι δεῖ,
ὅτι οὐδέτερον ὄνομα οὐδέν ἐστι παρὰ τοῖς Ἕλλησιν εἰς Ι λῆγον,
εἰ μὴ μόνον τὸ μέλι.
τὸ γὰρ πέπερι καὶ κόμμι καὶ κοῖφι ξενικά.