Aristotle Poetics 23.2

Thomas Twining (Translator)

View: By Part
widely differing, in its construction, from history, which necessarily treats, not of one action, but of one time 1 ; and of all the events that happened, to one person, or to many, during that time; events, the relation of which, to each other, is merely casual 2 .

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.) — 23 focus
Περὶ ποιητικῆς (OCR draft) Perseus (Aristotle, De arte poetica liber. Rudolf Kassel, editor. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965. Reference edition for passage alignment.) — 23 focus
Poetics, Greek text (Ingram Bywater, 1909) (OCR draft) Experimental (Ingram Bywater's Greek text of Aristotle's Poetics, published in 1909.) — 23 focus
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.) — 23 focus
Translations (13)
Poetics (W. H. Fyfe) (OCR draft) Perseus (William Hamilton Fyfe's English translation of Aristotle's Poetics, Loeb Classical Library, 1939 printing.) — 23 focus
Arabic Poetics (Badawī edition, 1953) (OCR draft) (The ancient Arabic translation of Aristotle's Poetics in ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Badawī's 1953 edition.) — 23 focus
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.) — 23 focus
Aristotle on the Art of Poetry (Ingram Bywater, 1909) (OCR draft) Experimental (Ingram Bywater's English translation of Aristotle's Poetics, published in 1909.) — 23 focus
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.) — 23.2 focus
and not follow the custom of history, where it is not necessary to confine the subject to one action but to one period of time; and where every thing may be introduced that happened in that time, whether relating to one or more persons, however casual their connexion may be (B). For as the sea-fight at Salamis
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.) — 23.2 focus
but of one time, viz. of such things as have happened in that time, respecting one or more persons, the relation of each of which things to the other is just as it may happen. 1 For as the sea-fight at Salamis,
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.) — 23 focus
La poëtique d'Aristote (André Dacier, 1692) (OCR draft) Experimental (André Dacier's French translation of Aristotle's Poetics, published in 1692.) — 23.2 focus
Pour cet effet elle doit s'éloigner des regles de l'Hiſtoire, où l'on eſt aſſujeti à raconter, non pas une ſeule action; mais tous les évenemens arrivez dans un certain temps, ou à une ſeule perſonne, ou à pluſieurs, & qui n'ont qu'une liaiſon telle quelle les uns avec les autres.
Poetica d'Aristotile (Bernardo Segni, 1549) (OCR draft) Experimental (Bernardo Segni's 1549 Florentine Italian translation, aligned to the Kassel reference passage sequence.) — 23 focus
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.) — 23 focus
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.) — 23 focus
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.) — 23 focus
Arabic Poetics (Abū Bishr Mattā; Tkatsch edition, unaligned) (OCR draft) Experimental (Tkatsch's edition of the medieval Arabic translation in its original, unaligned segmentation.) — 23 focus

Notes on the current edition

Poetics

1. i. e. Opposed, (as appears from what follows,) to that which history gives.
2. Unity of interest is essential to the pleasure we expect from the Epic Poem; and this cannot exist, at least, in the degree required, without unity of action. Compare, Part II. Sect. 5, 7, and 8.

Commentary

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

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-873

23 ἑνὸς χρόνου: comp. a 25 περὶ ἕνα χρόνον. Aristotle's conception of a history is that it is a sort of chronicle (see on 9, 1451 a 36 ) recording all the various occurrences within a certain period of time, however loose and separate they may have been in themselves. As an instance of such a disconnected event he cites Gelo's defeat of the Carthaginians in 480; it happened about the same time— Herodotus 7, 166 says on the same day—as the Battle of Salamis, but it obviously had no connexion with that battle, or with the issue of the Persian War. And the same would have to be said, if it had taken place just before or after Salamis ( ἐν τοῖς ἐφεξῆς χρόνοις a 27). In this way Aristotle reasserts the point on which he has insisted in the earlier chapters (8, 1451 a 27; 10, 1452 a 20) , that two events may come in succession without forming part of one single action.
25 ἐν Σαλαμίνι: Rhet. 2. 22, 1396 a 12
τὴν ἐν Σαλαμίνι ναυμαχίαν
. Comp. Thuc. 1. 57 , Isocr. 112 A , Aeschines in Ctes. 222 for this use of the preposition.
30

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

4. mvp-aristotle-comment-535

23.2 4. Pour cet effet elle doit s'éloigner des regles de l'Histoire, où l'on est aſſujetti à raconter, non pas une seule action, mais tous les évenemens arrivez dans un certain temps.] 1

5. mvp-aristotle-comment-536

23.2 5. Et qui n'ont qu'une liaiſon telle quelle, les uns avec les autres.] 2

6. mvp-aristotle-comment-537

23.3 6. Car fi le combat naval de Salamine, & la bataille des Carthaginois en Sicile, quoyqu'arrivez environ dans le méme temps, ne se raportent pas tous deux à la mème fin, à plus forte raison voit-on tres fouvent, que les chofes qui font faites en differens temps, & les unes après les autres, ne vont pas toutes au mème but.] 3

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

23.2. mvp-aristotle-comment-97 23.2

AND NOT FOLLOW THE CUSTOM OF HISTORY, WHERE IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO CONFINE THE SUBJECT TO ONE ACTION, BUT TO ONE PERIOD OF TIME, AND WHERE EVERY THING MAY BE INTRODUCED THAT HAPPENED IN THAT TΙΜΕ.

THIS conduct of history is exactly exemplified in the work of that most entertaining of all writers Herodotus. Like Ariosto he hurries his reader from event to event, and from scene to scene, as his own lively fancy suggests, without giving him time to recollect himself, and fafcinates him at the same time so agreeably with beauty of style, and variety of matter, that he has no wish to awaken from his delirium. [H] Later historians however have found unity, of subject at least, necessary to make their works agreeable; and this circumstance is the striking distinction between the historian and the annalist. History generally confines itself to the affairs of one country, and cotemporary events of other countries are never interwoven into the thread of the story, except such as may be connected with the principal subject. Writers of general history have a great difficulty to arrange their matter so as to produce any unity of design. The only method by which this is at all attainable is breaking their history into parts, each concluding with some memorable era or striking revolution, which all the preceding events may be conceived, in some degree, as instrumental in producing. A history of Greece, from the number of independent states, is subject to [H] See Note 1. Chap. VIII. 3 L the
the fame disadvantage. In producing unity here, Col. Mitford has fucceeded wonderfully, as I augur he will when he comes to the increasing difficulties attending the divided interests of the successors of Alexander, where he will have no points of union like the superior states of Athens and Sparta to afsist him. The Roman historian from Romulus to Conftantine, has the double advantage of unity of story and concluding eras, arifing, if I may use the poetical expreffion, both from action and manners. But the task Mr. Gibbon has executed is the most difficult one that ever employed the pen of an historian, and nothing but the voice of hypercriticism can cenfure him for not giving a unity to events of which they were utterly incapable. The history of Greece, however diversified in its course, has a great and striking catastrophe in becoming a Roman province; and the preceding events have a strong bond of union in treating of a people, however divided, still resembling each other in origin, in country, and in manners. But from the time of Constantine, the Roman history diverges from its common channel. The Grecian name appears again, mixes with, and almost overpowers it, till mingling with a thoufand various and unconnected streams, it gradually loses itself in the vaft ocean of modern history, in which that event, (the taking of Conftantinople,) which is generally confidered as the final period of the Roman empire, fo far from being a decisive boundary, is a mere point that hardly attracts our obfervation. Dr. Robertson saw the neceffity of this historical unity so strongly, that he did not chuse to interweave the affairs of America with his History of Charles the Fifth, but reserved them for a feparate work; a work, for the completion of which the public impatience is strongly excited, as the obstacle mentioned is entirely removed; and the history of British
POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. British America may conclude with one of the greatest and most compleat political revolutions to be found in the annals of mankind.

23.3. mvp-aristotle-comment-98 23.3

FOR AS THE SEA FIGHT AT SALAMIS, AND THE BATTLE WITH THE CARTHAGENIANS IN SICILY, THOUGH THEY HAPPENED AT THE SAME TIME, BY NO MEANS CONDUCED TO THE SAME END; SO ALSO EVEN IN PROGRESSIVE TIME, EVENTS MAY

" “ " SOMETIMES BE CONNECTED WITH EACH OTHER, AND YET NO PARTICULAR COMMON CONSEQUENCES MAY ARISE FROM " THEM." THIS passage is passed over by all the tranflators and commentators that I have had an opportunity of consulting, as if it were not attended with any difficulty, but it appears to me totally irreconcileable both with itself and with the preceding sentence without allowing some latitude of conjecture. Aristotle observes that history differs from poetry in confidering unity of time only without at all regarding unity of action: and that if two events happen at the same period of time, however unconnected they or the objects to which they relate may be, they have sufficient unity for the purpose of the historian: and this is well illustrated by the battles of Salamis and Sicily, both which, according to Herodotus, happened on the fame day, and are mentioned by that historian in the fame book, though they had not the most distant relation to each other. Here all would be perfectly clear, if the part between the inverted commas in the quotation that is at the head of this note, and which in the original commences with ὕτω και, and concludes with τέλος, were omitted, as Mr. Winstanley says it is in a Ms. in the Medician 3 L2
Medicean library. But admitting this part as genuine, (which I think we ought from the authority of fo many Mss. and editions, against this single one,) the example so exactly in point with the observation seems introduced merely for the purpose of bringing in a sentence which is diametrically in opposition to it, and which it appears to me can be only reconciled with the context by supposing something prior to the quotation intervening in the original between ἄλληλα and ὥσπερ, perhaps to this effect. That even successive and connected events may not always be sufficient for the purpose of the poet. And then all that follows is perfectly natural and explains the reason, which is afterwards compleatly illustrated by the examples from the lesser Iliad at the conclusion of the chapter, which though happening in successive time and connected with each other, had not yet that degree of unity which was requisite for an epic poem. Mr. Twining has not translated this passage with his usual accuracy. • So also in successive events we fometimes fee one thing follow another * without being CONNECTED TO IT BY SUCH RELATION.' However we may differ in opinion as to the reading of θάτερον μεθὰ θαζέρα, whether we conceive the preposition μεθὰ as governing the genitive or [1] the accufative, still ἐξ ὧν ἓν ἐδὲν γίνεθαι τέλος can never fignify any relation between the successive events, but must mean some common consequence to arife from both. The sentence seems to imply, that if the events should be even so connected as to be proper for the beginning and middle of a poetic fable, they may yet be incapable of producing a proper end, a catastrophe conducive to the [K] purpose of epic or tragic imitation. [1] See note on the tranflation. [K] See Chapter VII. It is observable that Aristotle, at the beginning of this chapter, uses τέλος exactly in the same sense he does τελευτή in that. NOTE

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-169

Ritter, cap. 23 § 1

Quae sit unitas epici carminis et qua in re ab historia differre illud debeat significatur. unitatem epopoeiae ab uno Homero rite servatam esse. , Quod in principio huius capitis dicitur manifestum ( δῆλον) esse fabulas epicae poesi subiectas aeque ac tragicas pangendas esse activas ( δραματικάς), ac circa unam actionem totam et absolutam, id sane nondum ostensum est. nam c. 4, 9. nonnisi obscure significatum est ab Homero imitationes nonsolum bene sed etiam δραματικάς exhiberi. sed hoc ipsum, tam fabulas epicas quam tragicas δραματικάς conformandas esse, falso pronuntiari videtur aut temere, nisi si ante dictum est quid sit τοὺς μύθους δραματικούς συνιστάναι, ubi hoc de epico carmine dicitur. agendi scilicet rationem non eandem obtinere in epopoeia quam in tragoedia, id et sponte patet et ab Aristotele obscure sub initium huius libri (c. 3, 1) indicatum est, unde igitur clarum illud est, quod huius operis lectoribus, si non aliunde didicerunt, etiamnum obscurum esse debet? sed ad hanc dubitationem respondere in Praefatione operam dedimus. περί δὲ τῆς διηγηματικῆς καὶ ἐν μέτρῳ μιμητικῆς: cum narrativa poesi non solum epopoeia quae vulgo dicitur sed mimi etiam prosa oratione conscripti et dialogi Socratici contineantur, id quod c. 1, 7. propositum est, vocibus ἐν μέτρῳ μιμητικῆς adiectis aperire voluit se iam disputaturum esse de poesi narrativa quam vulgo intelligant, sufficiebat autem generalis nota ἐν μέτρῳ, neque opus erat ἐν ἑξαμέτρῳ, ut nonnulli crediderunt, propterea quod imitatio narrativa versibus adstricta nonnisi metro heroo usque ad aevum Aristotelis inclusa ferebatur. conf. c. 1, 6. et Comment. pag. 82 seq. καὶ καὶ περὶ μίαν πρᾶξιν ὅλην καὶ τελείαν: quantum attinet ad fabulam sive argumentum tragoediae, hoc explanatum est c. 7 et praecipue c. 8, 4. quod c. 8, 3. etiam Homeri mentio facta est, id quomodo cohaereat in Commentario ad

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-170

Ritter, cap. 23 § 2

illius capitis exposui. quapropter de hoc argumento epicae poesis ratione habita nihil adhuc explicatum est. ὥσπερ ζῷον ἓν ὅλον: hoc exsecutus est c. 7,5-7., sed tragoediam respiciens, non epopoeiam. - καὶ μὴ ὁμοίας ἱστορίας τὰς συνήθεις εἶναι; variandae orationis gratia subiectum mutatur. in vulgari rerum gestarum enarratione non ea unitas inest, quae dominari debet in epico carmine, sed eodem tempore saepe accidunt quae nullo vinculo continentur; quae si ab annalium scriptore narrantur, unitatis legem turbari necesse est. ὡς ἔτυχεν est ut casus* 245 tulit, ita ut alia arto aut laxo vinculo cohaereant, alia nulla cognatione se contingant. haec in sequentibus exemplo ex historia petito declarantur. §. 2. ὥσπερ γάρ - Καρχηδονίων μάχη: isdem temporibus esse κατὰ τοὺς αὐτοὺς χρόνους apparet ex oppositis οὕτω καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἐφεξῆς χρόνοις: nimirum inter se componuntur tempora eadem quibus in diversis spatiis varia gesta sunt et tempora sibi succedentia quibus una res continuo post alteram ( θάτερον μετά θατέρου) accidit. fama hoc vulgatum esse Herodotus VII, 155. scribit, devicisse Gelonem eodem die ingentem Hamilcaris Carthaginiensis exercitum, quo classis Persarum ad Salaminem a Graecis fugata est aut submersa : πρὸς δὲ καὶ τάδε λέγουσι, ὡς συνέβη τῆς αὐτῆς ἡμέρης ἔν τε τῇ Σικελίῃ Γέλωνα καὶ Θήρωνα νικᾶν ᾿Αμίλκαν τὸν Καρχηδόνιον καὶ ἐν Σαλαμῖνι τοὺς Ἕλληνας τὸν Πέρσην. quid Aristoteles de huius famae veritate aut mendacio senserit quaerere nihil attinet. ut inde exemplum peteret ad illustrandum id de quo loquitur, satis erat quod illud fama ferebatur. θάτερον μετά θατέρου: unum cum altero, h. e. alterum continuo post alterum accidit, neque tamen unum quoddam inde consequitur. quae poeta narrat, ea ad unum finem contendunt.