Aristotle Poetics 25.7

Thomas Twining (Translator)

Table of Contents

Search the Perseus Catalog for:

View: By Part
← Previous Next →
To the foregoing considerations, then, we must have recourse, in order to obviate the doubts and objections of the critics.

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.) — 25.7 focus
for errors should be entirely avoided, if possible. We ought particularly to examine if the error is essential to the poetic art or only accidental. For it is certainly a less essential fault to be ignorant that a hind has no horns, than to make a bad imitation of one [c]. If a poet is further blamed for not describing things according to truth, he may say he describes them as they ought to be. Like Sophocles, who said he drew the characters of men as they ought to be and Euripides as they really were. Such is the proper answer to this objection. 1 2 3
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.) — 25.7 focus
For we have before shown what the end is, viz. if the poet thus renders what he fabricates, or any other part of the poem, more capable of producing a more striking effect5. An example of this is the pursuit of Hector.
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.) — 25.7 focus
Il faut donc tirer de ces lieux là les réponſes qu'on doit oppoſer aux reproches qu'on fait aux Poëtes.
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

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-962

1460b8 ἐπεὶ γάρ ἐστι κτέ. Aristotle prepares us for the various kinds of λύσεις by laying down a series of postulates, which may supply the defence with arguments to meet the attacks of the critics. In the first place, he tells us, as the poet is an imitator in much the same way as a painter is that, one must remember that his imitation or picture of things may be either of things as they are (or were), or 324 COMMENTARY 14608 of things as they should be, or of things as they are said or supposed to be. Secondly, as an imitator in language, the poet has by custom more liberty in the use of words than is allowed to a prose writer. Thirdly, if the technical correctness of his description of a thing is questioned, it is to be remembered that poetry, as a distinct art, has a correctness of its own, and that the right in poetry is not the same thing as the right in other arts or sciences, in politics for instance. At the same time, as the matter of poetry brings it into relation with other arts and sciences, their standard of correctness cannot be ignored in poetry. An offence, however, against their rule of correctness may often be condoned; and in certain cases it even admits of justification ( b24), if it is seen to conduce to the poetical effect.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-963

1460b9 ζωγράφος ἤ τις ἄλλος εἰκονοποιός: see on 2, I448/8 5. The term εἰκονοποιός comprises the sculptor as well as the painter of portraits.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-964

1460b10 οἷα ἦν ἢ ἔστιν. In chap. 2 Aristotle was speaking of persons only. In the present passage he uses the neuter in order to include the poetic descriptions of things and acts. The order of the words ἦν ἢ ἔστιν is intentional, stories of the past being regarded as the normal subjects of both epic poetry and Tragedy (see on 2, I448°I8 ). It may be observed that in 1461 2 Aristotle avails himself of the distinction implied in οἷα ἦν ἢ ἔστιν, and suggests that a certain incident, which had been criticized in Homer, may have been probable enough in Homeric times.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-965

1460b11 οἷά φασιν καὶ δοκεῖ, scil. εἶναι (which covers the ground of both ἦν and ἔστιν). The difference between the two things ( οἷά φασιν, οἷα δοκεῖ), so far as there is one, is like that between τὰ λεγόμενα and τὰ δοκοῦντα-'what people usually say', and 'what people usually think, or suppose'.

2. mvp-aristotle-comment-966

1460b11_2 οἷα εἶναι δεῖ: comp. b 34.
1460b11_3

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

3. mvp-aristotle-comment-598

25.2 3. Car il represente un ſujet tel qu'il étoit, ou tel qu'il est; tel qu'on le dit, ou qu'il paroît; ou tel qu'il doit être.] 1

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-184

Ritter, cap. 25 § 1

Quae in poetarum operibus sive iure sive iniuria reprehenduntur, ea pluribus modis variisque artificiis diluere vel excusare licet. Noli, lector, gravari vel mihi indignari te rursus in uncos illos fatales incurrere: non enim libido mea eos posuit, sed ipsa veritas expostulavit ut illi carnificis officio fungerentur. itaque animum attende et rem cognosce. de problematis loquimur eorumque solutionibus. προβλήματα verus Aristoteles dixit quaestiones et breves disputationes de rebus quibusdam nondum satis exploratis proponendas, quarum ipse ingentem numerum conscripsit et solvere operam dedit in libris illis Προβλημάτων etiamnum conservatis. sed quae hoc capite percensentur προβλήματα, sunt difficultates ad vituperandos poetas epicos et in his prae ceteris Homerum argute excogitatae, quae non tam ad seriam sobriamque doctrinam expromendam quam ad ostentandam vanam scientiam sedulo et turbate propinantur: λύσεις autem quae dicuntur artificia sunt, quibus illae difficultates ( απορίαι, ἀπορήματα, προβλήματα, ζητήματα, ἐνστάσεις, ἐπιτιμήσεις ς. ἐπιτιμήματα) speciosius plerumque quam verius dissolvuntur. hoc genus captiosarum quaestionum a parvis initiis increscere coepit,posteaquam Zoilus Amphipolitanus non multo ante Aristotelis aetatem editis novem in Homerum libris, in quibus ingenii subtilitatis partim exercendae partim iactandae ac venditandae gratia permulta venerandi vatis vitia coarguere conatus erat, alios ad eandem laudis viam ingrediendam excitavit, alios ad vindicandum ab iniquis reprehensionibus optimum poetam impulit ¹). in his relatos legimus ipsum Aristotelem de quo statim videbimus, tum eius discipulum Heraclidem Ponticum, denique Sosibium et Zenonem Stoicae sectae conditorem et Athenodorum Arati poetae fratrem 2). mire vero illis quaestionibus et concipiendis et solvendis delectabantur Musei Alexandrini alumni et praeceptores, ut narrat Porphyrius in scholiis ad Iliadem I. 688. p. 272 a 4 ed. Bekk. ἐν τῷ μουσείῳ τῷ κατ' ᾿Αλεξάνδρειαν νόμος ἦν προβάλλεσθαι ζήτημα καὶ τὰς γινομένας λύσεις ἀναγράφεσθαι. conf. eadem scholia ad K. 372. Ad Aristotelem revertimur. is igitur et ipse eiusmodi quaestiones et solutiones pertractasse traditur opere ἀπορημάτων sive προβλημάτων Ὁμηρικῶν sex vel septem libris evulgato. eorum qui mentionem fecit primus est Phrynichus (saeculo post Christum altero) s. v. βασίλισσα p. 225 ed. Lob. βασίλισσαν ᾿Αλκαῖόν φασι τὸν κωμῳδοποιὼν καὶ ᾿Αριστοτέλην ἐν τοῖς Ὁμήρου ἀπορήμασιν εἰρηκέναι. Diogenes (V, 12, 26) in catalogo librorum Aristoteliorum ponit ἀπορημάτων Ὁμηρικῶν α΄ β' γ' δ' ε' ς', vitae Aristoteliae auctor incertus apud Menagium απορημάτων Ὁμηρικῶν ζ'. conf. Pseudo-Ammonius in vita Aristotelis: ὁ μὲν οὖν ᾿Αριστοτέλης ἔτι νέος ὢν τὴν τῶν ἐλευθέρων παιδείαν ἐπαιδεύετο, ὡ δηλοῖ τὰ γεγραμμένα αὐτῷ περὶ ποιητικῶν καὶ πρὸς ποιητάς, ἔτι μέντοι τὰ Ὁμήρου προβλήματα. sed quid testimonia curiose anquirimus, cum fragmenta satis prolixa ex illo opere a Por- 1) Lege Fr. A. Wolfii Prolegomena ad Homerum c. XLII, post quem hunc litterarum Graecarum historiae locum egregie illustravit K. Lehrs Regimontanus de Aristarchi studiis Homericis р. 200-229 2) Conf. Lehrsius 1. 1. pag. 227.phyrio in Homericas quaestiones recepta in scholiis ad Iliadem etiamnum legamus? sed ea ipsa fragmenta ita omni ingenii vigore et doctrinae commendatione carent, ut nihil cogitari possit ieiunius, ut Aristotelem in Aristoteliis reperire nullo modo possis. lege quae referuntur ad B. 73. 169. 183. 305. 649. Г. 276. 277. 441. 4.88.277. E. 576. 741. 778. Z. 234. H. 93. 228. I. 17. Κ. 153. 198. 252 (pag. Suo 285 b 6). П. 233. Т. 108. Ψ. 269. Ω. 15. 569. iure igitur recteque Lehrsius 3) existimavit subditicio libro usum esse Porphyrium. plane enim abhorret a gravitate viri sana mente et acri iudicio praediti sex septemve libris, vel animi iocique causa, eiusmodi consectari nugas et ineptias, quales ex illo Aristotelis opere transcripsit Porphyrius. itaque hoc statuemus, obscurum quendam grammaticum aetatis Alexandrinae, cum quaestiones Homericas in corpus collectas redegisset, falso auctore inscripto fucum fecisse hominibus credulis et divini philosophi nomen venerantibus. iam vero, et huc in mea causa potissimum attendi volo, duae ἀπορίαι et duae λύσεις a Porphyrio ex illo Aristotelis opere transcriptae (ad Iliad. K. 152. p. 279 b 42 et ad K. 252. p. 285 b 6) omnino consentiunt cum duabus isdem difficultatibus et solutionibus quae in huius capitis paragraphis 7 et 13. afferun- 3) De Aristarchi stud. Hom. p. 227: "Saepissime Aristotelis Ὁμηρικὰ ζητήματα a Porphyrio in commentariis Homericis afferuntur ut, si quidem ea genuina sunt, haud contemnenda ex hoc libro hodie exstent fragmenta. sed equidem nondum potui mihi persuadere, non subdititio libro usum esse Porphyrium. tam omnia ei commemorata ieiuna sunt atque ab Aristotelis ingenio et doctrina aliena. denique cur a commentatoribus Homericis reliquisque Homericas quaestiones tractantibus, ut Plutarcho, hic liber nunquam ad partes vocatus, a solo Porphyrio adscitus?" haec Lehrsius. ego monendum praeterea existimo ne Phrynichum quidem suis oculis vidisse librum istum obscurum et falso nomine venditatum: quippe scribit : βασίλισσάν φάσι ᾿Αριστοτέλην ἐν τοῖς Ὁμήρου ἀπορήμασιν εἰρη κέναι. ....tur, unde coniectura nascatur omnes ἀπορίας et λύσεις hoc capite memoratas ex illo ampliore opere subditicio sumptas et in brevius contractas esse, verum de hac re quae liquido demonstrari certe nequit unusquisque iudicaverit et existimaverit suo arbitratu; ultro concedamus adeo Aristotelem exercitationis aut animi causa in difficultatibus Homericis conquirendis et solvendis elaborasse aliquando, illae tamen nihil faciunt ad artis poeticae et generum poesis naturam accuratius declarandam, ut hoc caput importune absurdeque intrusum esse liqueat. porro ea scribere quae in huius capitis initio et fine proponuntur, isdem bis terve inculcatis, non est hominis sano iudicio instructi, controversias autem conquirere, ut factum videmus §. 9-14., non est iocantis, sed hominis inepti est et otio operaque abutentis. quid igitur de toto hoc loco sentiemus? quid causae fuit cur ille intersereretur? scilicet qui Aristotelis artem poeticam suorum aequalium usui accommodare ausus est, is cum bene versatus esset in istis quaestionibus et solutionibus, haud licere putavit, ut huic operi deesset argumenti tam gravis et tam acriter illa aetate agitati explicatio. quod igitur abesse sine summo libri detrimento non posse videbatur, id pro virili parte supplere ipse adgressus est. luculentas huius sententiae rationes statim ad singulos locos proferemus. περὶ δὲ προβλημάτων- γένοιτ' ἂν φανερόν: sinistre inducitur de re nova disputatio, quae nullo vinculo cum cetero libri argumento cohaeret. non minus bene verbi causa potuit inferre περὶ δὲ τῶν ἁρμονιῶν-ὧδ᾽ ἂν θεωροῦσι γένοιτ᾽ ἂν φανερόν. notanda est etiam ista sive improba modestia sive animi trepidatio in his ἐκ πόσων τε καὶ ποίων ΑΝ εἰδῶν εἴη, ὧδ᾽ ΑΝ θεωροῦσι γένοιτ' ΑΝ φανερόν. utrumque prodit hominem sua alienis inserentem. ἢ γὰρ οἷα ἦν ἢ ἔστιν, ἢ οἷα φασὶ καὶ δοκεῖ: poetam imitari οἷα ἦν ἢ ἐστιν, non verum est, sed haec conscribere proprium est rerum scriptoris et annalium confectoris. veri Aristotelis de hac re sententia longe diversa proposita est c. 9. porro οἷα φασὶ καὶ δοκεῖ enarrat mythographus et ὁ λογοποιός. poeta traditas fabulas non quidem solvit, sed multa pro consilio suo mutat et nove disponit. vid. с. 14, 5. с. 15, 8. с. 17, 3. او