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.
6.
mvp-aristotle-comment-973
1460b17
ἀδυναμίαν:
comp.
16, 1454621
δι᾽ ἀπορίαν.
δι ἀδυναμίαν is practically equivalent to
δι' ἀτεχνίαν, through lack of artistic power- art being with
Aristotle a kind of.
δύναμις or power (v.
Bon. Ind. 207.b 6
).
1460b18
6.
mvp-aristotle-comment-974
εἰ δὲ τῷ προελέσθαι κτέ.
I have not been able to follow
Vahlen in his general view of this passage, which in his edition reads thus :-
εἰ δὲ τὸ προελέσθαι μὴ ὀρθῶς ἀλλὰ τὸν ἵππον ⟨ἀμ᾿⟩ ἄμφω τὰ δεξιὰ προβεβληκότα ἢ τὸ καθ'᾽ ἑκάστην τέχνην ἁμάρτημα οἷον τὸ κατ᾿ ἰατρικὴν ἢ ἄλλην τέχνην [ἢ ἀδύνατα πεποίηται] ὁποιανοῦν, οὐ καθ᾽ ἑαυτήν. This reading requires us to take
μὴ ὀρθῶς as standing for
μὴ ὀρθῶς εἶχεν, and
ἀλλὰ τὸν ἵππον κτέ. as a short way of saying
ἀλλὰ προείλετο μιμήσασθαι οἷον τὸν ἵππον κτἑ. It is, however, much simpler to suppose that
μὴ ὀρθῶς =
μὴ ὀρθῶς μιμήσασθαι, and to take
ἀλλὰ τὸν ἵππον κτέ. (
scil.
μιμήσασθαι) as a concrete instance of the opposite of
ὀρθῶς μιμήσασθαι. The insertion also of
ἅμα before
ἄμφω τὰ δεξιὰ προβεβληκότα is unnecessary; these words (as the tense of the participle is enough to show) suggest a picture; and the fault in the picture consists in the horse in motion being depicted with both right legs thrown forward, instead of only one of them. As regards the clause
ἀδύνατα πεποίηται, which
Vahlen (after
Düntzer) excises as a dittographia of the
ἀδύνατα πεποίηται in
623
, it seems to me that the words are wanted for two reasons, (1) to enable us to supply
πεποίηται after
τὸ καθ ἑκάστην τέχνην ἁμάρτημα, and (2) to give the statement the requisite breadth. The error in the poet's picture or description (
comp.
πεποίηται) may be in matters which come under the cogni- zance of some special art or science (
τὸ καθ ἑκάστην τέχνην ἁμάρ- τημα), but it may also be in matters of a less distinctly technical nature.
Aristotle adds
ἢ ἀδύνατα πεποίηται ὁποῖ᾽ ἂν οὖν in order to include this latter kind of error. The instance of it in the context (
b 26
) is the absurdity (
comp.
24, 1460a 15
), or rather the offence against common sense, in the Pursuit of Hector in the
Iliad. That given in
b31
of the other form of error is a mistake in natural history, i. e. in a matter of technical knowledge. The distinction, therefore, between the two kinds of error is a very real one, at any rate in controversy (v. on
25, 1461 b 24
).
6.
mvp-aristotle-comment-975
τὸν ἵππον ἄμφω τὰ δεξιὰ προβεβληκότα,
scil.
μιμήσασθαι. In
Aristotle's view this is a mistake in natural history, and inconsistent with the general law of the diagonal movement of the legs of quadrupeds walking as laid down in the
De incessu an.14, 712 a 24
:
κινεῖται δὲ τὰ ὀπίσθια πρὸς τὰ ἔμπροσθεν κατὰ διάμετρον μετὰ γὰρ τὸ δεξιὸν τῶν ἔμπροσθεν τὸ ἀριστερὸν τῶν ὄπισθεν κινοῦσιν, εἶτα τὸ ἀριστερὸν τῶν ἔμπροσθεν, μετὰ δὲ τοῦτο τὸ δεξιὸν τῶν ὄπισθεν... εἰ δὲ τοῖς δεξιοῖς ἀμφοτέροις πρώτοις [scil. ἐποιοῦντο τὴν κίνησιν], ἔξω Generated at Tufts University through HathiTrust on 2026-85-18 19:55 GMT [ 328 COMMENTARY 1460 b 18
ἂν ἐγίγνοντο τῶν ἐρεισμάτων καὶ ἔπιπτον ἄν. He was apparently unaware of the fact that the legs of the horse are actually in the position assumed to be impossible in certain stages of the amble and the rack. A horse with legs in this position is to be seen in modern art in
Meissonier's 'Cavaliers en marche' (Exposition
Meissonier, No. 114-Paris 1893). Illustrations from the life will be found in
E. Muybridge's 'Animal Locomotion '-Philadelphia 1872-93.
6.
mvp-aristotle-comment-976
1460b21
ὁποῖ᾽ ἂν οὖν,
scil.
ᾗ πεποιημένα ᾖ For the omission of the verb
comp.
Soph. el. 17, 175b27
ὁποτέρῳ γὰρ ἂν οὐδὲν διαφέρει. -
Eth. N. 3. 10. 1115b 19
ὡς ἂν ὁ λόγος. -
Pol. 6. 3, 1318b22
τι ἂν οἱ ὀλίγοι (also
Riddell,
Digest of Idioms § 255
). We should expect simply
ὁποιαοῦν, the formula ordinarily used by
Aristotle in passages like the present.
6.
mvp-aristotle-comment-977
οὐ καθ᾽ ἑαυτήν
(
scil.
ἡ ἁμαρτία τῆς ποιητικῆς) is the apodosis, and the opposite of that in the preceding clause (
b17
),
αὐτῆς ἡ ἁμαρτία. The general sense of the passage (with the reading
τῷ προελέσθαι) is briefly this: If it was through a mistake in his original concep- tion of the thing that either the technical error, or impossibilities of whatever kind they may be, have got into his description, the error in that case does not belong to the art of the poet
per se, but only
per accidens.
7.
mvp-aristotle-comment-602
25.6
7. Et quand elle choisit des ſujets qui ne font pas au deſſus de ses forces, mais qui font vicieux, voilà celuy que j'appelle par accident, elle represente, par exemple, un cheval qui remue en même temps les deux pieds droits.]
1
8.
mvp-aristotle-comment-603
25.6
8. Elle peut pecher de mème contre les regles de tous les autres arts, comme contre la Medecine.]
2
9.
mvp-aristotle-comment-604
232.
mvp-aristotle-comment-232
NOTE 232.
25.6
P. 123. IF THE POET HAS UNDERTAKEN TO IMITATE WITHOUT TALENTS FOR IMITATION--.
Εἰ μὲν γὰρ προείλετο μιμήσασθαι ἀδυναμίαν. —So, the MSS. But
ἀδυναμία never, I believe, means
impossibility, but
want of power, incapacity. This was, long ago, sufficiently proved by Victorius. If the word be right, some preposition must be wanting. Heinsius supplies—
ΚΑΤ’ ἀδυναμίαν. The credit of the conjecture is due to Castelvetro. Still the phrase,
μιμήσασθαι κατ’ ἀδυναμίαν, for
imitating without ability, or talents, for imitation, is harsh, and, as far as I know, unsupported by any other example. It seems not improbable, that Aristotle might have written it—
ΠΑΡΑ ΔΥΝΑΜΙΝ. Supposing the three first letters of the preposition to have been destroyed, the passage would stand thus—
μιμήσασθαι * * ΑΔΥΝΑΜΙΝ: which it was obvious enough for the transcriber to miscorrect into
ἀδυναμίαν. The phrase,
προείλετο μιμήσασθαι παρὰ δύναμιν, would be clear and unexceptionable. So,
cap. ix.
—
παρὰ τὴν δύναμιν παρατείναντες μῦθον.
Victorius remarks, and, I think, justly, that Horace probably had his eye upon this passage, in the lines—
Sumite materiam vestris, qui scribitis, æquam Viribus; et versate diu, quid ferre recusent, Quid valeant, humeri. ... Cui lecta potenter erit res, &c. —
Epist. ad Pis. v. 38, &c.
—where Aristotle's
προαιρεῖσθαι, he thinks, is expressed by
"sumite materiam," and,
"lecta res:" and
κατ’ ἀδυναμίαν glanced at in the other expressions, but, particularly, in the adverb—
"potenter."
1
25.2.
mvp-aristotle-comment-110
25.6
LIKE SOPHOCLES WHO SAID HE DREW HIS CHARACTERS AS THEY OUGHT TO BE, AND EURIPIDES AS THEY REALLY WERE.
BISHOP HURD, in a note on verse 317 of Horace's Epistle to the Pifos, has given a sense to this passage different from its usual acceptation, and which I had inferted in the first edition of my tranflation. But I think Mr. Twining has clearly confuted this opinion as to the particular [c] application of it here. But of this I shall leave the reader to judge for himself, by laying the reasoning of both before him. The bishop of Worcester, after citing this sentence of Ariftotle proceeds. ، ، ، The meaning of this is, Sophocles from his more extended commerce with mankind had enlarged and widened the narrow partial conception arifing from the contemplation of particular characters, into a complete comprehenfion of the kind. Whereas the philofophic Euripides, having been mostly conversant in the academy, when he came to look into life, keeping his eye too intent on single really exifting perfonages, funk the kind in the individual, and so painted his [c] For the particular purpose of the bishop's note, which is to discriminate between general and particular characters, as objects of the drama, and especially of comedy, nothing can be more accurate and conclufive than the reasoning. characters,
، characters, naturally indeed and truly with regard to the objects in ⚫ view, but fometimes without that general and universally striking like- * ness which is demanded to the full exhibition of poetical truth. 66. • According to this interpretation, To this Mr. Twining answers. • which I am taking the liberty to examine, Sophocles is made to an- • swer the charge [D] by denying its truth: for the answer as here stated agreeable to truth" because they are • will be this. You say my representations are not true, and those of Euripides are true. I deny this. You use the term improperly. My • representations are " If you would have men " from wide observation, from human nature at large;" those of Euripides are not agreeable to truth because they are representations not of • the kind but of individuals. The answer, as I understand Ariftotle, • is very different. The charge is not denied, or explained away, but • admitted and justified. Sophocles says, “ " "collected represented as they are, διοι ἔισι, you must go to Euripides. I have not drawn them so. I never intended to draw them fo; I have done " better. I have delineated mankind not fuch as they really are, but " such as they ought to be." Euripides does not appear to have been charged by those objectors with what may be termed, individual impropriety of imitation, but with too close and portrait-like delineation • of general nature. In short, the difference which I understand to be here intended between the two poets cannot be better expressed than by the ingenious commentator himself in the beginning of the note to which I refer, where it is observed, (page 253) that “ truth may followed too closely in works of imitation, as is evident in two ، ، ، " ... it is respects. For, 1. the artist, when he would give a copy of nature, [D] For not defcribing things according to truth.. " may
POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. may confine himself too fcrupulously to the exhibition of particulars, " and so fail of representing the idea of the kind. Or, 2. in applying " himself to give the general idea, he may collect it from an enlarged "view of real life, whereas it were still better taken from the nobler " conception of it as subsisting only in the mind." Now if we apply • the latter of these differences to the two poets in question, if we fay " In applying himself to give the general idea, Euripides collected it " from an enlarged view of real life, whereas Sophocles took it from " the nobler conception of it as subsisting only in the mind;" this • will express exactly what I take to be the sense of Aristotle. To the support which the common interpretation of this passage receives from • Aristotle himself, may be added that which it receives, and I believe • is generally acknowledged to receive, from the tragedies themselves, • which are extant of the two poets in question. That Euripides is in ، general liable to the censure of particular imitation of “ sinking the "kind in the individual," I cannot say I have observed. But who can • read this poet without observing the examples with which he every • where abounds of that very general and universally striking like- " ness which is demanded to the full exhibition of poetical truth." In Sophocles we find more elevation, more dignity, more of that improved likeness and ideal perfection which the philosopher expresses by his ὁία δεῖ πρὸς τὸ βέλτιον. In Euripides we find more of the ἀληθὲς, the ὅμοιον. We are oftener reminded of the common nature and common life, which we fee all around us. And if this with other ⚫ causes be sometimes found to lower the imitations of this poet beneath • the proper level of tragic dignity, and to produce something of the κωμωδία τίς ἠθολογεμένη, which Longinus attributes to the Odyssey, the * fault is amply redeemed, perhaps in those very parts by the pleasure * which results from the closeness and obviousness of the imitation. 3 T certainly
، certainly in many others by those precious touches of nature which • must at once strike every individual of every audience; such as if I ⚫ mistake not are much more rarely to be found in Sophocles, and ' such perhaps, after all we have heard about the BEAU IDEAL and ، improved nature, can only be produced by an exact transcript of nature as it is, of what the poet has actually felt himself, and actually seen in others.' This reasoning appears to me unanswerable. That for the purposes of the drama at least, if not for every species of poetry which professes to imitate human actions; a comprehenfive view of real character is much superior to this image of perfection in the mind, is to me evident beyond a doubt, and seems founded on the superiority of truth, to unnatural fiction, exemplified in such characters as Tom Jones and Amelia, when contrasted with Grandison and Clarifsa. It must be remembered also, though it does not seem to have occurred to the bishop, that Aristotle is not drawing a parallel between the two tragic poets here, neither does he here or elsewhere give any shew of preferring Sophocles to Euripides, but rather the contrary; for he has in another place allowed Euripides the merit of attaining the end of tragedy more effectually than [E] any other poet. A compliment of no common magnitude, as it is on the same principle that in the next chapter he finally determines the superiority of tragedy over the epopee. Besides in this chapter, Aristotle is not pointing out beauties, but thewing how faults may be palliated. [E] Chap. XIII. Τραγικώτατος τῶν ποιητῶν. It
POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. It is impossible for the English reader to go through Mr. Twining's note without seeing how applicable the parallel between the two Greek tragic poets is to the father of the British drama and our other best tragic writers, as also the French dramatic poets. Substitute Shakespear for Euripides, and Thomson or Voltaire for Sophocles, and the criticifm will be equally just.
4.
mvp-aristotle-comment-187
Ritter, cap. 25 § 4
εἰ μὲν γὰρ - οὐ καθ' ἑαυτήν: mira et falsadisputatio: si quis imitandum suscipit quod fieri nequit, leges artis poeticae egreditur, sin imitatur quae sunt peccata in alia arte quae admisit
ἀδύνατα, hoc vitium ad poeticam non pertinet. sed si quis alius artis
ἀδύνατα admittentis peccata imitatur, nonne et ipse imitatur quae fieri non possunt? cetera considera.
ἀδυναμία et ceteris Graecis scriptoribus et vero Aristoteli est virium defectus 4): sed hic nove eam posuit pro
αδύνατόν τι, ut apparet ex §. 5., ubi hanc divisionem respiciens scribit
πρῶτον μὲν,
ἂν τὰ πρὸς αὐτὴν τὴν τέχνην ἀδύνατα πεποίηται,
ἡμάρτηται. corruptum csse nomen
ἀδυναμίαν unde probari possit ego non video.
εἰ δὲ - προβεβληκότα: ex his verbis sanam sententiam et Graecam structuram nondum elicere quisquam potuit: multi editores ad coniecturas confugerunt, sed quae dedere non sufficiunt, sive sententiam respicis sive Graeci sermonis leges et naturam. ego dedi eum loci habitum quem Bekkerus ex codicum auctoritate restituit, sed ne sic quidem tolerabilis sententia neque iusta structura verborum oritur, nisi verba uncis a me circumdata tollentur. sed haec ipsa quo casu nata sunt? hoce: adversus haec verba
εἰ δὲ (intellige
προείλετο μιμήσασθαι)
τὸν ἵππον ἄμφω τὰ δεξιὰ προβεβληκύτα in margine antiqui cuiusdam libri aliquis adnotavit
τὸ προελέσθαι μὴ ὀρθῶς, ut lector inde disceret quid sit illud quode in proximis disputaretur. quae verba cum per errorem contextui illata essent, corrector quidam addita voce
ἀλλὰ loci hiatum sarcire se posse putavit.
εἰ δὲ τὸ προελέσθαι μὴ ὀρθῶς certe dici non potest pro
εἰ δὲ τὸ προελέσθαι μὴ ὀρθῶς ἔχει, ac praeterea sic accusativus qui sequitur (
τὸν ἵππον) unde pendeat non habet: utraque difficultas ratione a nobis inita vanescit. disputatio autem quae iam prodit hoc homine satis digna est: si poetica quod fieri nequit imitandum sive describendum suscipit, ipsa peccat, sin Vide Metaphysicorum 4. 12. p. 1019 b 15. conf.
Θ. 2. p. 1040 a 29. 1. 10. p. 1058 b 27... quoddam artis statuariae peccatum (equum illum utroque pede dextro proiecto) vel aliarum artium peccata, ipsa non peccavit. per
τὸν ἵππον ἄμφω τὰ δεξιὰ προβεβληκότα designari coniicio nobile cuiusdam statuarii opus insigni vitio in pedibus effingendis commisso illustratum, quemadmodum in horto Schwezingensi prope Mannhemium Apollo visitur qui lyram dextra manu tenet. inde patet primum cur
ΤΟΝ ἵππον scripserit, deinde cur post
τὸν ἵππον προβεβληκότα continuo adiecerit
ἢ τὸ καθ' ἑκάστην τέχνην ἁμάρἢ ἀδύνατα πέποιηται: quae impossibilia
τημα. admisit sive quae impossibilia excidere sibi passa est. quamquam forma media sic quodammodo potest excusari 5), tamen aut locus non sanus, aut interpolator in culpa esse videatur quod
πεποίηται posuit pro
πεποίηκε, praesertim cum statim
πεποίηται passivo intellectu subsequatur. qui
εἰ ἀδύνατα πεποίηται ὁποιαοῦν dederunt, eos sequi nolui, propterea quod a codicibus longius desciscunt.