Aristotle Poetics 25.24

Thomas Twining (Translator)

View: By Part
We may also say, with Glauco, that some critics, first take things for granted without foundation, and then argue from these previous decisions of their own; and, having once pronounced their judgment, condemn, as an inconsistence, whatever is contrary to their preconceived opinion.

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.) — 25 focus
Περὶ ποιητικῆς (OCR draft) Perseus (Aristotle, De arte poetica liber. Rudolf Kassel, editor. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965. Reference edition for passage alignment.) — 25 focus
Poetics, Greek text (Ingram Bywater, 1909) (OCR draft) Experimental (Ingram Bywater's Greek text of Aristotle's Poetics, published in 1909.) — 25 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.) — 25 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.) — 25 focus
Arabic Poetics (Badawī edition, 1953) (OCR draft) (The ancient Arabic translation of Aristotle's Poetics in ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Badawī's 1953 edition.) — 25 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.) — 25 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.) — 25 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.) — 25.24 focus
as in the character of Menelaus, in his Orestes. The objections of criticism may then be reduced to these five species: the impossible, the absurd, the hurtful, the contradictory and the errors against the rules of the art. The answers to these objections may be collected from what we have said and they are twelve (y) in number. before. Aristotle speaks of excusing contradictions and says the circumstances of the speaker and the things spoken of, &c. should be considered.
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.) — 25.24 focus
And also [we may refer the impossible] to that which is better24: for it is necessary that the pattern should transcend those things which are said to be irrational.
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.) — 25 focus
La poëtique d'Aristote (André Dacier, 1692) (OCR draft) Experimental (André Dacier's French translation of Aristotle's Poetics, published in 1692.) — 25.24 focus
Il arrive tres ſouvent comme Glaucon l'a fort bien dit, que les Critiques ſe preocupent, & s'entêtent ſans raiſon de certaines choſes avant que de lire les Poëtes, & perſuadez que leur ſentiment eſt le ſeul raiſonnable, ils condamnent ſans autre examen tout ce qui ſe trouve contraire à leur opinion.
Poetica d'Aristotile (Bernardo Segni, 1549) (OCR draft) Experimental (Bernardo Segni's 1549 Florentine Italian translation, aligned to the Kassel reference passage sequence.) — 25 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.) — 25 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.) — 25 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.) — 25 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.) — 25 focus

Commentary

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

24. mvp-aristotle-comment-1038

1461a31 Γλαύκων. Aristotle is probably referring to the Glaucon mentioned as an authority in Homeric matters in Plato's Ion 530 D , where the rhapsodist says of himself:
καὶ οἶμαι κάλλιστ᾽ ἀνθρώπων λέγειν περὶ Ὁμήρου, ὡς οὔτε Μητρόδωρος ὁ Λαμψακηνὸς οὔτε Στησίμβροτος ὁ Θάσιος οὔτε Γλαύκων οὔτε ἄλλος οὐδεὶς τῶν πώποτε γενομένων ἔσχεν εἰπεῖν οὕτω πολλὰς καὶ καλὰς διανοίας περὶ Ὁμήρου ὅσας ἐγώ.
The absence of a local appellative here seems to imply that the Glaucon in question was an Athenian. If this inference is right, we cannot identify him with the Γλαύκων ὁ Τήιος of Rhet. 3. 1, 1403 b 26 or with Glaucus of Rhegium ( comp. Hiller, Rh. Mus. 41 p. 398 ); he may perhaps be the same as the Glaucus or Glaucon ( v. Düntzer, Rettung der aristot. Poetik p. 227 ) mentioned by Porphyry on Il. 11. 636 (p. 168 Schr.) along with other early interpreters of Homer.
1461b2

24. mvp-aristotle-comment-1039

1461b αὐτοὶ καταψηφισάμενοι resumes the idea of ἔνια ἀλόγως προυπολαμβάνουσιν, and anticipates that in τῇ αὐτῶν οἰήσει. The common rendering, 'postquam ipsi condemnationis sententiam tulerint' ( Tyrwhitt), gives καταψηφισάμενοι a sense too near to that of the ἐπιτιμῶσιν in the following line. The probability is, as Vahlen has seen ( comp. Bon. Ind. 376 a 56 ), that it means in the present instance 'to decide', or to 'affirm' or 'accept' something. As a term of politics καταψηφίζεσθαι is the opposite of ἀποψηφίζεσθαι (to reject a proposal): Pol. 4. 14, 1298 a 36
ἀποψηφιζόμενον μὲν γὰρ κύριον δεῖ ποιεῖν τὸ πλῆθος, καταψηφιζόμενον δὲ μὴ κύριον, ἀλλ' ἐπαναγέσθω πάλιν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἄρχοντας· ἐν γὰρ ταῖς πολιτείαις ἀντεστραμμένως ποιοῦσιν· οἱ γὰρ ὀλίγοι ἀποψηφισάμενοι μὲν κύριοι, καταψηφισάμενοι δὲ οὐ κύριοι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπανάγεται εἰς τοὺς πλείστους αἰεί.

24. mvp-aristotle-comment-1040

εἰρηκότος, scil. τοῦ ποιητοῦ (see on 6, 1449 b 26 ).

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

41. mvp-aristotle-comment-637

25.24 41. Il arrive auſſi tres ſouvent, comme Glaucon l'a fort bien dit, que les Critiques se préoccupent & s'entètent ſans raiſon de certaines chofes avant que de lire les Poëtes, & perfuadez que leur fentiment est le ſeul raisonnable, ils condamnent fans autre examen tout ce qui se trouve contraire à leur opinion.] 1

42. mvp-aristotle-comment-638

25.24 42. Glaxcon.] 2

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

252. mvp-aristotle-comment-252

NOTE 252.

25.24 P. 129. ARGUE FROM THESE PREVIOUS DECISIONS OF THEIR OWN.
Αὐτοὶ ΚΑΤΑΨΗΦΙΣΑΜΕΝΟΙ.
— I cannot think this word so free from all difficulty as Mr. Winstanley does. He says,
"Egregie dictum καταψηφισάμενοι, ut sensus sit: hi perinde ac judices quidam decernentes ratiocinantur,"
&c. But the question is, whether the word will admit that sense, or any other, than that of condemning, passing sentence against, &c. which is not to Aristotle's purpose in this place. The fair sense of
καταψηφισάμενοι συλλογίζονται
, is, if I mistake not,
"they argue, or form their conclusion, after, or, in consequence of, having condemned"
what? — We must necessarily understand them to have condemned, either the passage in question, or, the opinion of others about the sense of it. But Aristotle, in what follows, says plainly, that they condemned the passage, or the opinions of others relative to it, in consequence of their own preconceived and erroneous notions; and the idea of condemnation, or censure, here, would be only an awkward, tautological anticipation of the
ἘΠΙΤΙΜΩΣΙΝ, ἂν ὑπεναντίον ᾖ τῇ αὑτῶν οἰήσει
, which follows. I think, therefore, that the proposed correction of Heinsius
καταΣΟφισάμενοι
, must be allowed the praise, both of ingenuity and probability. In my version, however, I have contented myself with making the best I could of that reading which has the authority of all the manuscripts, and all the commentators, except Heinsius, on its side. — Victorius thinks the word will bear the sense of
"cum sententiam tulerint;"
but he adds —
"quamvis in præpositione, quæ verbo adjuncta est, vis insit contra alios id faciendi."

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

25.17. mvp-aristotle-comment-125 25.24

THE ANSWERS TO THESE OBJECTIONS MAY BE COLLECTED FROM WHAT WE HAVE SAID, AND THEY ARE TWELVE IN NUMBER.

THOUGH in the note on the translation I have given what appeared to me the most probable arrangement of these solutions; yet I must avow my indecision on a subject which has occafioned so many various opinions among the different commentators. CHAP.

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

16. mvp-aristotle-comment-199

Ritter, cap. 25 § 16

ποσαχῶς ἐνδέχεται: hoc negligenter scribenti concedendum erit. rectius sane ποσαχῶς δὲ ἐνδ. vel τὸ δὲ ποσαχῶς ἐνδ. dedisset, sed hoc quamquam apud Aldum legimus, libris non addicentibus non audeo recipere. - κατά τὴν καταντικρὺ ἤ ὡς Γλαύκων λέγει: dicere voluitsi quis a praeconceptis opinionibus sibi caveat. sed hanc vulgarem sententiam sic ille voluit effari: si quis contra faciat ac Glauco dicit. nimirum is homines temere existimantes et iudicantes reprehenderat. itaque in re manifesta sibi temperare non potuit quo minus provocando ad auctorem lectionis copiam ostentaret. nam hic noster ex eorum numero est qui tum demum aliquid persuasum sibi habent, si alium dicentem id auctorem producere possunt. sed quis ille est? in Rhetoricis III, 1. p. 1403 b 26. Γλαύκων ὁ Τήϊος de recitatione scripsisse dicitur, quem hunc nostrum fuisse nihil est unde pateat: immo quaerendus videtur is qui de Homero scripserit, et talis est Glauco Tarsensis, qui in eo opere quo glossas Homericas persecutus est et de variis vocum significationibus disputavit, aptissime hanc admonitionem proferre potuit. vid. Schol. in Hom. Il. A. 1. μῆνιν: οἱ δὲ περὶ Γλαύκωνα (h. e. Glauco ipse) τὸν Ταρσέα ἠξίουν ὀξύνειν τὸ ὄνομα. Athen. XI. p. 480 F. Γλαύκων δ᾽ ἐν ταῖς γλώσσαις Κυπρίους φησὶ τὴν κοτύλην κύλικα καλεῖν. videtur igitur imprudenter laudare grammaticum qui saltem multo post Aristotelem vixit, quamquam certi quidquam de eius aetate definiri nequit. καὶ αὐτοὶ καταψηφισάμενοι συλλογίζονται: ipsi ratiocinari demum incipiunt, cum secum iam damnarunt ea quae examinare volunt. “ ὅτι δοκεῖ est formula quae a iudicibus aut a concione pronuntiari solet, id quod fugit interpretes. eos Glauco reprehendit qui in expiscandis contrariis tam certi sibi videntur et tam secure agunt, quam illi qui in iudicio vel in concione sententiam suam praeconceptam secum afferunt, non ex rerum expositione hauriunt. - τοῦτο δὲ πέπονθε τὰ περὶ Ἰκάριον - εἶναι Ἰκάδιον ἀλλ' οὐκ Ἰκάριον: illi ad quaestiones solvendas prompti quaerebant, cur Telemachus ad patrem investigandum Lacedaemona profectus ab Homero in quarta Odysseae rhapsodia ad Menelaum, non ad avum Icarium Penelopae matris suae patrem, deducatur. hanc difficultatem hic noster sic solvit: Icarius non fuit Lacedaemonius sed in Cephalenensibus natus, id quod ipsa Cephalenensium fama probatur. aliam huius quaestionis solutionem et certe prudentiorem apud Strabonem (X. p. 708 vel 461 ed. Casaub.) legimus; aliam attulit scholiasta ad Odyss. A. 285. ed. Buttm. p. 37. πῶς εἰς Σπάρτην ἐλθὼν οὐ συντυγχάνει Ἰκαρίῳ; ἢ ἐκείνου καθ' Ὅμηρον ἐν Ἰθάκῃ ὄντος, ἢ ἀπέχθονται αὐτῷ αὐτός τε καὶ ἡ μήτηρ ἀναγκάζοντε αὐτὴν γαμηθῆναι, ὡς αὐτή φησι, “ μάλα δ᾽ ὀτρύνουσι τοκῆες γήμασθαι” ( Τ. 158).