The Poetics by Aristotle (android based ebook reader txt) đ
- Author: Aristotle
- Performer: -
Book online «The Poetics by Aristotle (android based ebook reader txt) đ». Author Aristotle
the parts of which have a certain significance by themselves. It may
be observed that a Speech is not always made up of Noun and Verb; it
may be without a Verb, like the definition of man; but it will always
have some part with a certain significance by itself. In the Speech
âCleon walksâ, âCleonâ is an instance of such a part. A Speech is said
to be one in two ways, either as signifying one thing, or as a union
of several Speeches made into one by conjunction. Thus the Iliad is
one Speech by conjunction of several; and the definition of man is one
through its signifying one thing.
21Nouns are of two kinds, either (1) simple, i.e. made up of
nonsignificant parts, like the word ge, or (2) double; in the latter
case the word may be made up either of a significant and a
nonsignificant part (a distinction which disappears in the compound),
or of two significant parts. It is possible also to have triple,
quadruple or higher compounds, like most of our amplified names; e.g.â
Hermocaicoxanthusâ and the like.
Whatever its structure, a Noun must always be either (1) the ordinary
word for the thing, or (2) a strange word, or (3) a metaphor, or (4)
an ornamental word, or (5) a coined word, or (6) a word lengthened
out, or (7) curtailed, or (8) altered in form. By the ordinary word I
mean that in general use in a country; and by a strange word, one in
use elsewhere. So that the same word may obviously be at once strange
and ordinary, though not in reference to the same people; sigunos,
for instance, is an ordinary word in Cyprus, and a strange word with
us. Metaphor consists in giving the thing a name that belongs to
something else; the transference being either from genus to species,
or from species to genus, or from species to species, or on grounds of
analogy. That from genus to species i.e.emplified in âHere stands my
shipâ; for lying at anchor is the âstandingâ of a particular kind of
thing. That from species to genus in âTruly ten thousand good deeds
has Ulysses wroughtâ, where âten thousandâ, which is a particular
large number, is put in place of the generic âa large numberâ. That
from species to species in âDrawing the life with the bronzeâ, and in
âSevering with the enduring bronzeâ; where the poet uses âdrawâ in the
sense of âseverâ and âseverâ in that of âdrawâ, both words meaning to
âtake awayâ something. That from analogy is possible whenever there
are four terms so related that the second (B) is to the first (A), as
the fourth (D) to the third (C); for one may then metaphorically put B
in lieu of D, and D in lieu of B. Now and then, too, they qualify the
metaphor by adding on to it that to which the word it supplants is
relative. Thus a cup (B) is in relation to Dionysus (A) what a shield
(D) is to Ares (C). The cup accordingly will be metaphorically
described as the âshield of Dionysusâ (D + A), and the shield as the
âcup of Aresâ (B + C). Or to take another instance: As old age (D)
is to life (C), so i.e.ening (B) to day (A). One will accordingly
describe evening (B) as the âold age of the dayâ (D + A)âor by the
Empedoclean equivalent; and old age (D) as the âeveningâ or âsunset of
lifeâ (B + C). It may be that some of the terms thus related have no
special name of their own, but for all that they will be
metaphorically described in just the same way. Thus to cast forth
seed-corn is called âsowingâ; but to cast forth its flame, as said of
the sun, has no special name. This nameless act (B), however, stands
in just the same relation to its object, sunlight (A), as sowing (D)
to the seed-corn (C). Hence the expression in the poet, âsowing around
a god-created flameâ (D + A). There is also another form of
qualified metaphor. Having given the thing the alien name, one may by
a negative addition deny of it one of the attributes naturally
associated with its new name. An instance of this would be to call the
shield not the âcup of Ares,â as in the former case, but a âcup
that holds no wineâ. * A coined word is a name which, being
quite unknown among a people, is given by the poet himself; e.g. (for
there are some words that seem to be of this origin) hernyges for
horns, and areter for priest. A word is said to be lengthened out,
when it has a short vowel made long, or an extra syllable inserted; e.
g. polleos for poleos, Peleiadeo for Peleidon. It is said to
be curtailed, when it has lost a part; e.g. kri, do, and ops in
mia ginetai amphoteron ops. It is an altered word, when part is left
as it was and part is of the poetâs making; e.g. dexiteron for
dexion, in dexiteron kata maxon.
The Nouns themselves (to whatever class they may belong) are either
masculines, feminines, or intermediates (neuter). All ending in N, P,
S, or in the two compounds of this last, PS and X, are masculines. All
ending in the invariably long vowels, H and O, and in A among the
vowels that may be long, are feminines. So that there is an equal
number of masculine and feminine terminations, as PS and X are the
same as S, and need not be counted. There is no Noun, however, ending
in a mute or i.e.ther of the two short vowels, E and O. Only three
(_meli, kommi, peperi_) end in I, and five in T. The intermediates, or
neuters, end in the variable vowels or in N, P, X.
22The perfection of Diction is for it to be at once clear and not mean.
The clearest indeed is that made up of the ordinary words for things,
but it is mean, as is shown by the poetry of Cleophon and Sthenelus.
On the other hand the Diction becomes distinguished and non-prosaic by
the use of unfamiliar terms, i.e. strange words, metaphors,
lengthened forms, and everything that deviates from the ordinary modes
of speech.âBut a whole statement in such terms will be either a
riddle or a barbarism, a riddle, if made up of metaphors, a barbarism,
if made up of strange words. The very nature indeed of a riddle is
this, to describe a fact in an impossible combination of words (which
cannot be done with the real names for things, but can be with their
metaphorical substitutes); e.g. âI saw a man glue brass on another
with fireâ, and the like. The corresponding use of strange words
results in a barbarism.âA certain admixture, accordingly, of
unfamiliar terms is necessary. These, the strange word, the metaphor,
the ornamental equivalent, etc.. will save the language from seeming
mean and prosaic, while the ordinary words in it will secure the
requisite clearness. What helps most, however, to render the Diction
at once clear and non-prosaic is the use of the lengthened, curtailed,
and altered forms of words. Their deviation from the ordinary words
will, by making the language unlike that in general use.g.ve it a
non-prosaic appearance; and their having much in common with the words
in general use will give it the quality of clearness. It is not right,
then, to condemn these modes of speech, and ridicule the poet for
using them, as some have done; e.g. the elder Euclid, who said it was
easy to make poetry if one were to be allowed to lengthen the words in
the statement itself as much as one likesâa procedure he caricatured
by reading âEpixarhon eidon Marathonade Badiâgonta, and _ouk han gâ
eramenos ton ekeinou helle boron_ as verses. A too apparent use of
these licences has certainly a ludicrous effect, but they are not
alone in that; the rule of moderation applies to all the constituents
of the poetic vocabulary; even with metaphors, strange words, and the
rest, the effect will be the same, if one uses them improperly and
with a view to provoking laughter. The proper use of them is a very
different thing. To realize the difference one should take an epic
verse and see how it reads when the normal words are introduced. The
same should be done too with the strange word, the metaphor, and the
rest; for one has only to put the ordinary words in their place to see
the truth of what we are saying. The same iambic, for instance, is
found in Aeschylus and Euripides, and as it stands in the former it is
a poor line; whereas Euripides, by the change of a single word, the
substitution of a strange for what is by usage the ordinary word, has
made it seem a fine one. Aeschylus having said in his Philoctetes:
phagedaina he mon sarkas hesthiei podos
Euripides has merely altered the hesthiei here into thoinatai. Or
suppose
nun de mâ heon holigos te kai outidanos kai haeikos
to be altered by the substitution of the ordinary words into
nun de mâ heon mikros te kai hasthenikos kai haeidos
Or the line
diphron haeikelion katatheis olingen te trapexan
into
diphron moxtheron katatheis mikran te trapexan
Or heiones boosin into heiones kraxousin. Add to this that Ariphrades
used to ridicule the tragedians for introducing expressions unknown in
the language of common life, doeaton hapo (for apo domaton),
sethen, hego de nin, Achilleos peri (for peri Achilleos), and
the like. The mere fact of their not being in ordinary speech gives
the Diction a non-prosaic character; but Ariphrades was unaware of
that. It is a great thing, indeed, to make a proper use of these
poetical forms, as also of compounds and strange words. But the
greatest thing by far is to be a master of metaphor. It is the one
thing that cannot be learnt from others; and it is also a sign of
genius, since a good metaphor implies an intuitive perception of the
similarity in dissimilars.
Of the kinds of words we have enumerated it may be observed that
compounds are most in place in the dithyramb, strange words in heroic,
and metaphors in iambic poetry. Heroic poetry, indeed, may avail
itself of them all. But in iambic verse, which models itself as far as
possible on the spoken language, only those kinds of words are in
place which are allowable also in an oration, i.e. the ordinary word,
the metaphor, and the ornamental equivalent.
Let this, then, suffice as an account of Tragedy, the art imitating by
means of action on the stage.
23As for the poetry which merely narrates, or imitates by means of
versified language (without action), it i.e.ident that it has several
points in common with Tragedy.
I. The construction of its stories should clearly be like that in a
drama; they should be based on a single action, one that is a complete
whole in itself, with a beginning, middle, and end, so as to enable
the work to produce its own proper pleasure with all the organic unity
of a living creature. Nor should one suppose that there is anything
like them in our usual histories. A history has to deal not with one
action, but with one period and all that happened in that to one or
more persons, however disconnected the several events may
Comments (0)