David F. Bright Aristotle, Poetics, 1450a12–14

David F. Bright Aristotle, Poetics, 1450a12–14 // The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 92, No. 1 (Jan., 1971), pp. 76–80 

76

One of the more frustrating obscurities of the Poetics occurs in the sixth chapter following the celebrated definition of tragedy (1449b24–28). Aristotle enumerates the six μέρη which contribute to tragedy, and then goes on (50a7–14):¹

Ἀνάγκη οὖν πάσης τῆς τραγῳδίας μέρη εἶναι ἕξ, καθ᾽ ὃ ποιά τις ἐστὶν ἡ τραγῳδία· ταῦτα δ᾽ ἐστὶ μῦθος καὶ ἤθη καὶ λέξις καὶ διάνοια καὶ ὄψις καὶ μελοποιία. Οἷς μὲν γὰρ μιμοῦνται, δύο μέρη ἐστίν, ὡς δὲ μιμοῦνται, ἕν, ἃ δὲ μιμοῦνται, τρία, καὶ παρὰ ταῦτα οὐδέν. Τούτοις μὲν οὖν οὐκ ὀλίγοι αὐτῶν ὡς εἰπεῖν κέχρηνται τοῖς εἴδεσιν· καὶ γὰρ ὄψις ἔχει πᾶν καὶ ἦθος καὶ μῦθον καὶ λέξιν καὶ μέλος καὶ διάνοιαν ὡσαύτως.

The problem arising from this apparently garbled statement with its two obelized phrases are numerous and notorious. D. W. Lucas ² summarizes the chief complaints :

The apparent meaning is unsatisfactory; after saying that every tragedy must have all six parts, why add that ’ not a few’ poets use them all ? . . . Further, the separation of τούτοις and ειδεσιν is needlessly emphasic, and ώς ειπείν, though not restricted by A. to use with such expressions as ’ all’ or ’ none/ has no application here, πάν sc. δράμα is an odd expression.

Gr. F. Else ³ regards ονκ ολίγοι αυτών ώς ειπείν as an interpolation, and believes the subject of κίχρηνται is not the poets but the dramatic characters performing the action, οι πράττονες (cf. 49b31). Further, δψις means "the ’ look ’ or visible manifestation of the characters "-costuming and masks, in fact. He has, as usual, put his finger on the most difficult aspect, but the

¹Ι have used the text given by R. Kassel in his OCT (1965), which is also reproduced in Lucas (below, n. 2).

² Aristotle, Poetics, ed. D. W. Lucas (Oxford, 1968), ad loc.

³ Aristotle’s Poetics: The Argument (Cambridge [Mass.], 1957), pp. 233–51. The whole sentence he thus reads as tovtols μεν ονν [ουκ ολίγοι αυτών ώς ειπεϊν] κέχρηνται tols εϊδεσιν και yap όψεις ίχει ττάν, καϊ •ηθος κτλ., and he translates " These then are the constituent elements they [not a few of them, generally speaking] use; and in fact the whole (of tragedy) comports visual appearances," etc. (p. 238). On όψεις and its use here, cf. below, n. 9.

77

solution he proposes seems equally hard, particularly his interpretation of οψις.

There is another explanation for the first crux, and arising from this a solution to the second. Another glance at the context may help. Aristotle has been building from his definition of tragedy, deriving each aspect from what has gone before until the list is complete. He then asserts first, that all these are necessarily found in tragedy to make it what it is; and second (after listing them again and distributing them among media, manner, and objects), that these are all the parts: παρά ταύτα ουδεν. This brings us to the corrupted sentence, in which Aristotle ties together the points which he has seen fit to make three times already in one page: these are the aspects of a tragedy, and poets writing tragedy use them.⁴ It seems incredible that at this point he should retreat and say that a good many poets use them; what is needed is a reaffirmation of the point that they are all indispensable.

I believe that the root of the problem lies in the fact that editors and commentators have been hypnotized by the attractive coupling of the nominative ολίγοι and the verb κίχρψται, and consequently they assume that ολίγοι refers to the poets. By the same token, αυτών is taken to refer to the poets;⁵ yet μιμούνται appeared three times in the previous sentence with no subject expressed or needed. Why would not ονκ ολίγοι (sc. τραγωδο-ποιοί) suffice here ? In short, every attempt to mend the passage around a presumably sound ολίγοι has been unsuccessful. But if we take the word as referring to the μέρη,⁶ a slight correction and change in punctuation will yield good sense: τούτοι* μεν

⁴ Else (p. 249) views this process of derivation from a slightly different perspective: " Aristotle’s deduction of the ’ parts’ of tragedy, which is being summarized here, is based on what the characters necessarily do, not on what the poets may or may not do."

⁵ Vahlen’s ingenious reconstruction τούτοις μεν οΰν ουκ o\iyoi ζκαθ’ έκαστον> αυτών (sc. μερών) ώς elirelv κέχρηνται ως εϊδεσιν (Beitrdge zu A.’s Poetik², 1914 [repr. 1965], pp. 21–3) takes αυτών as referring to μέρη, but he is still wide of the mark by allowing Aristotle to say that " not a few" poets use these μέρη as et δη: by Aristotle’s own terms such poets would not be writing tragedy.

⁶ The switch from μέρη to et δη may be " gratuitous " (Lucas) but there is no insurmountable objection to taking the two terms as synonymous here: cf. 56a33.

78

ουν ονδ ολίγοις αυτών-. . . κεχρηνται κτλ. " These then are the

aspects which they employ (and they use all of them, not just a few)." ⁷ Aristotle is stressing exactly the point on which the present reading seems to have him relenting. With the sentence construed thus, the separation of τοντοις . . . εΐδεσιν is still emphatic, but not needlessly so. The delay allows the inserted phrase to carry its full weight.

What then of ώς ειπείν? Does ovo’ ολίγοις αυτών ώς cwreiv make the necessary sense (or any sense at all) ? At this point it is useful to note the reading presumed to have been found in S, the lost exemplar of the Syriac translator. There ονκ ολίγοι αυτών was omitted and the text read τούτοις μεν ούν πάντως ώς είπείν κεχρψται …. The πάντως matches well enough the suspicion of editors that ονκ ολίγοι means in fact πάντες (so Butcher,⁸ among others, substituted πάντες for ονκ ολίγοι αυτών).

All these considerations can be reconciled by assuming that the Original reading τούτοις μεν ovv-ovo* ολίγοις αυτών-κεχρηνται τοϊς εΐδεσιν was glossed by an early copyist (in a common ancestor

of 2 and A) by the words πάντως, ως ειπείν Over ovo^y ολίγοις αυτών.

The gloss may then have been received into the text in various ways; 2 kept the gloss intact and rejected the true reading, while AB and their ancestors kept the now corrupt ονκ ολίγοι αυτών and ώς ειπείν. (Perhaps a slip of the eye produced ολίγοι on the theory that it belonged with the verb; ονκ followed, and faced with the uncertain sense resulting from this, scribes found comfort in ώς είπεϊν).

Butcher cites in his apparatus two passages which may work to support this view. In Rhet., I, 1, 1354al2, the MSS read ολίγον, and A^mars has οΰδεν ώς είπεϊν. Butcher sees the marginal note as the true reading, but it is possible that the gloss simply expresses the absolute force implicit in ολίγον. In a similar vein, in Demosthenes, Or., XXXVIII, 6 (Against Nausimachus), the

MSS have πάντων των πλείστων ώς είπεϊν. Butcher agrees With

Dobree in rejecting τών πλείστων, but again a less than absolute

⁷ I have not come across an exact parallel to the parenthetical ovde phrase interrupting immediately after μεν ovv, but a similar pattern of qualifying the thought by an adversative phrase may be seen in Goph., 0. T., 1434 irpos σον yap-ουδ’ έμον-φράσω.

⁸ S. Η. Butcher, Aristotle’s Theory of Poetry and Fine Art* (London, 1911).

79

expression may be used with absolute force, and a glossator has

duly noted that των πλείστων means πάντων, ως ειπείν.

In short, the obelus was needed in our passage, but not for the reasons editors had supposed. The real source of confusion was ως άπαν, which gives the clue to the genuine reading.

The second crux is more difficult if only because there are more seemingly easy ways out. οψις έχει παν points irresistibly to 6ψιν or όψεις⁹ (so some apographi and most editors), leaving πάν unchallenged as the subject of έχει, presumably meaning πάν (δράμα) έχει 6ψιν και ήθος κτλ., " every drama has spectacle, moral delineation, etc."

Now there are three puzzling points about και yap 6ψιν έχει πάν. . . . First, what does the emphatic connection και yap mean here if this is merely a fourth repetition of the same basic point; second, why is 6ψιν advanced to a prominent and slightly awkward position in the clause rather than appearing with the other objects of the verb (καϊ yap πάν έχει όψιν καί ήθος) ; and third, πάν (sc. δράμα)¹⁰ is not only an odd-not to say grotesque-expression, it is also inappropriate. Aristotle is speaking here not of all drama, but only of tragedy.¹¹

To take these difficulties in order: καί yap implies that the clause which it introduces will not only present some thought which goes beyond what has been said, but also will follow logically from the previous sentence. It must therefore mean " for in fact." ¹² As for the awkward separation of όψιν from its fellow objects, the one obvious but extreme solution is to accept the witness of the MSS and read 6ψις, making it the subject of έχει. This would dethrone πάν as the subject and

⁹ But-as is frequently asked-why the plural for this one aspect? Else (p. 234), working from the interpretation of ό της ΰψβως κόσμος (49b33) as "the adornment of their appearance" (i.e. of the characters ), says: " Incidentally this explains the plural ttyeis, which Aristotle uses (50al3, b20) as well as the singular (here: 50al0, t>16; 14. 53blff.); for the appearance (s) of the characters can be considered either collectively {δψις) or distributively (fleets)."

¹⁰ But cf. A. Rostagni, Aristotele Poetica² (Torino, 1945), p. 37: " Intendo -πάν brachilogicamente nel senso di -πάν τό τής ουσία* ο rrjs φνσεωε."

¹¹ Hence the tempting conjecture πάσα.

¹² Cf. J. D. Denniston, The Greek Particles² (Oxford, 1959), pp. 108–10.

80

make the difficult παν (sc. δράμα) unnecessary; it would also account for the separation of οι/α? from the other μέρη. But what would this mean ?

Let us revert for a moment to the first part of the chapter,

49b31 : επει he πράττοντες ποιούνται την μίμησιν, πρώτον μεν ef ανάγκης αν είη τι μόριον τραγωδίας 6 της όψεως κόσμος. Aristotle

begins with the fact of presenting the play on stage, and so with the need for δψις (which must mean here the whole visual side to presentation-" staging " is perhaps the closest English word in this context). From this first step he can progress to the other aspects by a process of necessary derivation: 6ψις must have its media, λεξις and μελοποιία but since the imitation is of an action, and action is performed by agents, there must be ήθος and διάνοια for the dramatis personae; and these characters must perform specific actions, which are worked together into a μνθος. Thus 6ψις, lowliest of the aspects though it may be from an artistic viewpoint (50bl6–20), leads to all the other aspects of tragedy, and they are realized by virtue of staging or presentation.¹³ If this is true, then πάν should surely be πάντα (sc. μέρη or εΓδ), and the whole sentence may be saying, in Aristotle’s

Curious Way, τούτοις μεν ονν-ovo³ ολίγοις αντων-κεχρηνται τοις ειδεσιν* και γαρ οψις έχει πάντα, και ήθος και μνθον και λεξιν και μέλος

και διάνοιαν ωσαύτως.¹⁴ ζί These then are the aspects which the poets employ, and they do not use only some of them; for in fact, the staging leads to the realization of all the aspects- character, plot, diction, song, and thought alike." ¹⁵

David F. Bright. University of Illinois.

¹³ This meaning would perhaps account for the use of ήθος in the singular here (as it was in the list where the aspects were explained, 49b38) rather than in the plural (as in 50a9, a39) : Aristotle is speaking of these qualities not as applied to a particular character, but as qualities per se.

¹⁴ For this use of e%et in the sense of " lead to," " produce," cf. 53a3: το μεν yap φιλάνθρωπο? ’έχοι civ η τοιαύτη σύστασις, άλλ’ οντε e\eov οντ€ φόβον.

¹⁵1 should like to thank Professors C. Fuqua and J. E. Stambaugh for their helpful criticisms of an earlier draft of this paper.