8/11/2019 Remarks on Aristotle Poetics.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remarks-on-aristotle-poeticspdf 1/5

Remarks on Aristotle 'Poetics', cc. 19-22Author(s): C. M. MulvanySource: The Classical Review, Vol. 7, No. 9 (Nov., 1893), pp. 396-399Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/693321 .

Accessed: 13/04/2014 17:44

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

 .JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of 

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

 .

Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access to The Classical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 200.16.5.202 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 17:44:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

8/11/2019 Remarks on Aristotle Poetics.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remarks-on-aristotle-poeticspdf 2/5

396

THE CLASSICAL

REVIEW.

phrase i1rip

ri-

KEibaX

~

Kp

acrOaL,

aiOpdv)

in

Lysias

preserves

in most cases

(occurring

in

all

146

times)

a causal

or

quasi-causal

meaning-like

that of

IVEKa

or

i•r

c. dat.

or

lrEpl

c.

gen.

irzd

c.

gen.

is in Attic

prose

almost

con-

fined

to

denoting

the

personal

agent

after

passive

(or

quasi-passive)

verbs.

In

Lysias

I

have

noted

eighteen

cases

(out

of a total

of

263)

in which the

governed

noun is

im-

personal

or

abstract,

and

of these

no less

than

eight

occur

in the

spurious

err.

ii.

and

vi;

and

in

these

cases it is

to be

noticed

that

the

prep.

is

joined

to verbs

such as

ivayKc-

Eco-0aL,

generally,

or to nouns

like

T70

vo/Lov

or

Ms

do-ov,

where

it

may

retain

some

of

its

old

local

signif.

'under.'

The

original

local

sense seems entirely restricted in Attic prose

to

a few

such

fixed formulae as

rb~dXrl~

(Lysiasfrg.

54-' das

einzige

lokale

Beispiel

fiir

?rd

c.

g.

bei den

attischen

Rednern'

Lutz,

p. 178)

and

srb

y7•.

Hence

the

re-

marks

in

L. and S.

on

this

point

are

rather

misleading.

6ed

c.

dat.

Only

occurs

four

times

in

Lysias--once

in the strict

local

sense

(xiv.

25) (of

which there

are

only

about

a dozen

instances

in

the

Orr.),

and

thrice

in

the

usual

metaph.

sense,

'under the

power

of,'

with such verbs as

7roL•o-OaL

nd

ylyvEo-OaL

(xxvi.

22;

xxxiii.

3;

xxiv.

6:

also

pseudo-

Lysias

ii.

44).

Of

rr

d c.

acc.

(which,

according

to

Lutz,

occurs

only

twenty-six

times

in

all the

Orr.,

and

most often

in

the

local

sense)

the

single

instance

in

Lysias

is

temporal--nrd

?bv

aVOrbV

Xpd'vov

viii. 5

(cp.

pseudo-Lysias

ii.

46).

&

c.

acc.

is,

as T.

Mommsen

(Beitriige

zu

d. Lehre

von

den

gr.

Prap.

1886,

p. 53)

has

shown,

peculiar

to

prose

and

comedy.

It is always used with a subst. of person,

and

after

verbs

expressing

or

implying

motion

:

thus,

7

bV voUlLaxov

early

=

rraph

7vby

A.,

or E

rV)v

(ohKlav

70T

A.,

as

we should

say

'to

Lysimachus's.'

It

occurs

about

twenty

times

in

Lysias.

R.

G.

BURY.

REMARKS

ON

ARISTOTLE

POETICS,

cc.

19-22.

AMONG

the sections of the Poetics these

chapters

take

a low

rank,

for

it

would

be

hard to

select

from them

a

half-dozen

of

sentences

of much

intrinsic

value.

Their

interest

in fact is derived

from

what

they

do

not

contain,

for few

passages

are

so

deeply

impressed

with

marks of

their date.

They

represent

for

us the

grammatical

teaching

of

the

age

before

the

great

grammarians.

We

find the

3vopxa

nd

Aij3Ia

of

Plato,

only

more

clearly

defined,

-v'ao-~o•o

known

to Isocrates

and

Jappov

mentioned

by

'Anaximenes'

;

but we do not find the proper distinguished

from

the

common

noun-~dvota7LtKdv)(rrpooT,-

yopLKodV-nor

the

preposition

from

the

con-

junction,

nor the

participle

from

noun

and

verb,

nor

is there-a

fact

of

more

conse-

quence--any

term

to denote

the

single

word,

the

i

Epos

tAdXtoTrov

a70

KaR

O'-vTa$LV

Xdoyov

or

XEg'$

of

Dionysius

Thrax.

The cumbrous

definition

of

5vo/ca

and

jSta,

the

very

appearance

as

jdpy

ii

E$EWE

of

the letter

and

syllable,

i.e.

the whole

scheme

of

this

classification,

are

due

to

this

want

of

a

technical

term

to

distinguish

the

single

word

which was obscured by accentuation in the

sentence

and

by

a

continuous

script.

As

the

passage

diverges

from

Alexandrian,

so

it

does

not coincide

with Stoic

teaching.

Chrysippus

recognized,

not

eight parts

of

Xl$t•,

but

five

parts of

Xo'yo

(7rpoo-lyopia he 'common

noun

being one),

and

the

definitions

of

the

common

items

were

dissimilar.

Stoics

defined

ApOpov

or

example

as

c0-roLXeov

dyov

rrTOTLKoV

8Opt

OV

a

~

YV

7

TV

OVOLCL7aTV

Kat

TOVU

apW8ov'o,

Diog.

Laert.

vii.

39.

How

difficult

it

would

be for

a

late

writer

to

avoid

anachronisms

and,

like

this

passage,

recog-

nize

the

pre-Aristotelian

and

ignore

the

post-

Aristotelian distinctions,

we

may

learn

both

from

Boethius

and

from

Dionysius

of

Halicarnassus.

Boethius, quoting

the

list

of

/Ldpy,

gives the order as nomina, casus,

verba,

the order

that

was

natural

when

'case'

was confined

to nouns.

Dionysius

(Comp.

Verb.

c.

II.

ad

in.)

tells

us

that

some

called

the

'parts

'

of

Xdo'yo

o'roixda

7r~

XE$g~w,

and

that

Aristotle,

Theodectes,

and

the

philosophers

of

those

times

recog-

nized

three

of

these,

ov4tLa'a

Kal pat7aa

KaL

cvvEwLdoove

O

J7pTGa

iEpr/l

'T

XEEQ

7roLOGvrEs,

while

their

successors

added

the

ap4pov.

This

passage,

over

and

above

the

un-Aristo-

telian

equation

of

parts

of

Xo'yo

and

elements

of

Xi$te-a

phrase

that

would

have

suggested merely the letters to Aristotle-

shows

ignorance

of

the

mention

of

apepa

in

the

Rhetoric

ad

Alexandrum,

and

perhaps

is due

merely

to

the

mention

of

these

three

only

in

the

Rhetoric

of

Aristotle.

This content downloaded from 200.16.5.202 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 17:44:11 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

8/11/2019 Remarks on Aristotle Poetics.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remarks-on-aristotle-poeticspdf 3/5

8/11/2019 Remarks on Aristotle Poetics.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remarks-on-aristotle-poeticspdf 4/5

398 THE

OLASSICAL

REVIEW.

pcrqos,

8&opOLocrLs,

yVLoXoylaL,

crfyclqoeLs

and

their effect on the

8&cvoca

may

be

learnt

from

RdrKpLo-s,

i.e. from

the

bodily

rr-rot

which

accompany

them

KarT

rv

T

Vrro-

KpLOEOS

KaLpdV.

He

continues

with

the

statement that he has

accurately

treated the

1rroOEosEL

nd KE

dXaLa

useful

in

imitation

and narration iv

7

rEp

O

r7o•r7TLKq

and

presently

passing

to

AlE's

he

begins

with

the

letters.

Further,

in

Aristotle's own

time

the

tautS&s

explained

as

well as

recited,

Ion

530,

and

/aaq

&Kr

was a

part

of VTOKpLTLKcq

ib. 536

A,

cf.

1462

a

6.

Again

rh

rTOKpLTLkd

include

interrogation,

command

&c.

(which

would

be

accompanied

by

changes

of

the

voice,

especially important

in

Greek

which

modulated

8&?

rvrrE,

D.H. de

Comp.

Verb.

xi. p. 10), and also such features of a com-

position

as are due to

its

being designed

for

recitation,

Or-vS~ra

&c.

(1413

b

18).

It is

conceivable

therefore

that

the architectonio

art of

acting, having

to do with

theory

rather

than

practice

(Kat

yp

PXLTEKTOV

e

ras ovr

arTs ipyaTLKdO, hX

EpyaT&vapX(v

Politicus

259

E,

cf.

Eth. vi.

8,

Pol.

iii.

6),

might

consider,

or

even,

in

that

age

before

grammars,

did

consider,

the

nature of those

several

'shapings'

of

language

to which

'Acting'

had

to

provide

appropriate

comple-

ments of

gesture

and

modulation.

Never-

theless

the

statement of

the text is

startling,

and

really

does

not

receive much

support

from

the similar

passage

of

Aristides

which

hardly

attributes

more

to

{rr-KpOtLS

than

power

to show

by

the

accompanying

gestures

the

effects

of the

o-x'lWaTa

on the

mind.

The

one

great

argument

for

keeping

'

rr

o-'

is

the

difficulty

of

such a

corruption,

though

it

might

be due

to

rT

arTOKpLTLKd

in c.

20,

10.

56 b

36. The

Oriental text is for

the

ordinary

emendation,

but

does

not the

defini-

tion

support

AC?

If a vowel were

a

necessary ingredient in a 'combination' we

ought

to have

4WeE'vr/ros.

Our idea

of a

syllable

is

due to

the different definition

of

the

Alexandrians

(o'vXXrjqsv4VWCv

K.T.X.

Dion.

Th.).

57

a

1-10.

(1)

cVYOlErT

ppears

in both defi-

nitions

according

to the Oriental version.

As

Jp~pov

in

the

time

of

Aristotle

[Anaximenes]

Rhet.

ad

Alex.

1435 b 10-a rule

perhaps

derived from

Isocrates like the

similar

rule

relating

to

aivS•Eo-/os-included

pronouns

(apparently)

as

o

T

o

s

5v

pwro,

To

T

o

7

bv

vOpwrov f.

Classen

p.

59-a

doctrine

retained

by

the

Stoics,

v. Priscian

p.

910

apud

C1.

p.

76,

the

ApOpa

of

one

letter

5

I

are

neglected

by comparison

with

the

majority.

So with

the

conjunction.

Its

insertion

is therefore

justifiable.

(2)

The

clause

)

orTE KO•vEL...is

probably,

as

Vahlen

though,

a definition of

such

parti-

cles as

those that were later

on

called

rraparrXlpwolartLKot.

We must not

suppose

there is

any

lacuna

but

change

rrE4vKvUav

o

the

nominative,

retaining

orvv-,

or the term

conjunction

when

applied

to these

particles

marks

precisely

the

power

to combine

with

the

significant

words

of

the sentence:

the

accusative is

due to assimilation.

The

examples

are

appropriate

if

read

piv,

7ro1,

8j.

But the

other class

of

particles,

con-

junctions

in

the

primary

sense,

has

the

better

right

to

precede,

and we

should

accept

the Arabian version so

far as

it

goes,

reading

oVv~EcoLos 8&'

EoL

cr

/

owv

oVVErT

acJroos oLov

iJV,

r~7ot, 8E

K

rrXELdVoWV...

Mvv

then should follow

) c/wv@

OVVET7)

crr oos

rq

oVTE KOXEL K.T.X.

Omitted from

its

proper

place,

this

clause had been inserted

after

the definition

of the article

(which

should

end

with

ra

dXXa)

n

the text

from

which

the Arabian

is

derived.

In

other

texts

it

entered

before its

proper place

under

ovv-

&E~OoS,

involving

the

interpolation

)

~. J.

after

v,

E•rot,

&:

AC

shows contamination.

(3)

Tb

4E

irb

T

ripi

AC

(Vahlen)

vel

propter

vel

d&XX

(Arabian version).

/ovj

,la

art/lav•TLK

was the

gloss

of some

critic

who

thought

JpOpa

significant.

There seems

no

warrant for

combining prepositions

with

the

JpOpa,

as

they

went

with

conjunctions,

cf.

Dion. Hal.

p.

23 c.

22 when

they

were not

given

an

independent

place.

Was the

original

example

TOv

A\a

and was

this

am-

biguous

word

the

origin

of

rrEpt

and

propter,

or is

rEpt

a remnant

of

rrrpt

?

As to

)roL

Dionysius

Thrax classes

it as a

ovtrrX•aK

•LKts

along

with

p',

8&,

and

also as

8tacEVKTLKdOS

ith

4.

With

8opto-p/dv

cf.

de-

scription

of the literal

dpOpov

972

b 25

Jde

8vov Epos,

b.

is of the nature of

&ealpEo-s,and 8tdcopdv

rrwos

orlv.

58 a 19.

With the omission

of

7?

in MS.

cf.

Soph.

El. 14.

2

rap&

TO

'

TrdOE

-•r

om.

C.

Bk.

ib.

o0a

Totav7a

e.g.

the

adverb of

Top.

ii.

9.

2

8KaitoS

K.T.X.

a

passage

that

explains

Eth.

v. 1.

5

at

da/7T0

TW

VW

LTOKEL/EpVWV

[yvwp(tovrat],

with which

compare

o-v'o-roLXa

Ta

r

&

8tKata

Kat

8

KGcaLO

7TY

8&Kao(OTV

....

O/LOlos

W

A

KrT

7

OrroLr7TLKa

KVXaKTLKa

tOrTOL

XL

EKELVOV

OV

EfTL W.

7.

OLOV

Ta

V7LELVR

vyLEcaS

Ka

7T

E

EKTLKr

EVE$aS:

so (ib.

3)

if

one

member

of

a

crvorotlXa

s shown

to be

good

all the rest are

thereby proved good.

The

reasoning

is

just

the same

in the Ethics:

a

EELKTO~K•

are

called

VrroK•Ett/va

from

their

position

in

the list

under the abstract

quality

which

heads

it,

of. ?

2

r-a ara

TTv

airm1v

This content downloaded from 200.16.5.202 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 17:44:11 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

8/11/2019 Remarks on Aristotle Poetics.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remarks-on-aristotle-poeticspdf 5/5

THE CLASSICAL

REVIEW.

399

covrosXalaVo~reawva

tov

BLKaLoTjvr,

8K•caLoS,

&lKcLOV,

&0KatlL.

57

a

28. The

Oriental text has 'sicut

vocabulum

KXEwvos

n

eo

quod

dicimus

KXE'ovo,ngreditur.' leg.

iv

Te

'fdSt•

'

Es

KX'wvos'-a

Xdyos

that

has neither

Evopa

nor

p•a

in

the strict

sense,

for

which

cf.

de

Int.

2.

3. The Arabian

version and

AC

show

similar

glosses,

viz. 6

KXE'ov

nd

KXEwvos.

b

20. The

present

order of

words is too

harsh.

We

might

(1)

transpose

and read

-rphs

8

•a-•v

dvO'

of

•~yEL,

r

(2)

keeping

the

present

order read

rpooatlWes

dAvO'

t,

X~yE~

58 a

3. Glosses here

are

ro'XEos

nd

IIjXE'os

<sras>o'>,

of.

Miiller's

Handbuch

i.

p.

131

paraphrase

of

beginning

of

Iliad

lI•[XjL•dEwE]

v&]

wat&

70'o[llH]XCesAXLXXEIW

70

'AXtX-

XE'O~.

58 a

8-17

acr&v

marks

the

change

from

ovo/Lcara

=

crIThyaVTLKcL

cf.

de

Int.

3. 4 id

(?para

dvdLcard

OTL

K.T.X.) o the strict

use.

Like

this

passage, Soph.

El.

14.

3 declares

the masc.

and

fem. terminations

to be

quite

distinct,

thereby

excluding

from the

feminine

endings

all the consonants in the

list of

Dionysius

Thrax

(a

/

w

v

$

o-

j).

Further

in the

case of two

of these conso-

nants,

v

and

s,

their

peculiarly

masculine

character seems

to

have been

taught by

Protagoras,

v.

Soph.

El.

14.

1.

KacOriEp 8

II.

EEyev

El

6

/OVLS

KLa'L

7

•rq$

cL

pEV

EoTlv

and

cf.

Nubes 658

(not

4

KapsoroS,

'

•LEK7•pVUV).

Apparently

the

gender

of

the

majority

of

nouns with the

same

termination was

re-

garded

as

the

only

gender

proper

to those

nouns,

a

principle

that excludes

p

from the

neuters.

The denial of the

existence

of

nouns

in

-o

is

peculiar

but

supported by

the

omission

of

-o

from neuter

terminations

by

Dion.

Th.

who

says

of it

only

that 'some' add it:

probably taXo &c. were considered unworthy

of

distinct

recognition,

being only

derived

forms from

AXeo0

&c. The omission of

-4,

if

-v

and

-s

are

admitted,

as

neuter,

is

more

difficult,

for

nouns

like

wrpiya

are

so

very

obvious and are as

distinct

from feminines

in that letter as are

neuters

in

-v

or

-s

from

the masculines. But it

might

be better

to

cut

out

-s

and read

TL

8E

/LErac

Els

0

KacL

,

cf.

Soph.

El.

14.

4

o-0a

yhp

Els

rT

O KaL T

V

rTEETcK, Ta.a tIuova rKEVOVs

dXEL

KXo•fTLV

T

nd

T

G.

hPPEVOF

mi

sundO,

6v

EVrtandn

ofp

o

O.

0-KEV;T).

The misunderstanding of o

and

its removal after the remark

that no noun

ends in a

short vowel would

be

very

easy.

In

17

perhaps

we

should

read

i$( ')

for

7rv7TE()

SO

as

to

include

plOv.

Over and above the omission of

any

ex-

planation

of

Kd~TloS(

r

OiKELOV

TO

•7r•ETOV,

cf.

59 a

5

with 1404

b

32,

1405 a

10,

b

20)

this

chapter

xxi. has lost a

discussion

of

a-vvwvv~lact

nd

bovv•uptat

f

Simplicius

is to be

trusted. But

he

probably

misunderstood

the

passage

in the

Rhet.

1405 a

3 where

rTovTCV

t first

sight

includes

these,

but that

passage

continues

orov•opo

8'

iv

Xopy

BE

akXXov

LXo~rovEda-OaL

E~p

airfv

o.

y...where

abr~v

plainly

includes

only

what

is

useful to

the

orator,

and therefore neither

b~pwvvrlaL

dear to the sophist, nor

a-vvwvvcla

useful to

the

poet.

?

7

is in

fact

a

sort

of

note and

does

not

enter

into the

line

of

argument.

58 a

27

cf.

b

16. The

meaning

of

rvoea

can be

gathered

from the

context

cf.

57

b

1

where

only

the

context

shows that

rvoea

embraces verbs as

well as nouns.

a 29. With'

K•aL

h

LcaVTOaT•

V

yXwo&OWv

pflappflapcwytd'

f.

Villoison's Anec.

Gr.

ii.

176=p.

194 of

Valckenaer's

Ammonius,

cLacEpEL

pappap/3c-pLcJ

hcoTOKXO

s

7L

Tt

q

/JEV

toXoLKlc

T'V

7TCLLV

XLrTEL

Oy

X&yov,

8

pappapLGlOpT

W7

r1J

XE$

AdEWF.

58

b

9.

leg.

iv

TWLTy)

TV

XE$EL,

f.

1448 a 16

for a similar

corruption:

iv is instrumental.

The

first

line is a

hexameter,

the

second a

pentameter.

ELnXp'qv ELSov MapaO&v0E

palfa4ovua'

(so

Christ)

KOl

'OVK cVTEpcl/JVOs

G7

ETpOV

EXXE-

Pdpov.'

The

Arabic

points

to

rl

XdpLv=

'ErLXdprv

Marg.).

It

may

be

a

son

of

this

man that is

ridiculed

by

Alexis

Phaedrus

Fr.

2.

E~rLXapSrls

b

pltKp)

i

wV

Tr

'

•l/ EpacLS

acaspayv

EroL'co-v

T

v

aVrprac

p

lav

.

7r~~vovcrtav.

The

fem.

Epicharis

Tac. Ann.

xv.

57.

cLVEpL/JEVos

=

jealous

of his madness.

With

the use of

ia~pt.

cf.

Rhet. 1418 b 29

iv

rT

i• tp

sc.

a

lampoon

in

trochaic tetra-

meters and

the

pentameter

apud Thompson's

Pkaedrus

p.

113 called iambic

by

Hermeias.

16.

leg.

T

8'

cporTTrdvrToc.

xp00crOa•

c.ppdT70ov70s

A'.

The

adverb is not elsewhere

found

so

early

but cf.

59

a 5

TO

EKcL0T

7TOv

prlWC.

M. MULANY.

XP .

Cj. d. ~MULVANY.

This content downloaded from 200.16.5.202 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 17:44:11 PM

All bj S O d C di i