Poetics. Aristotle. Theodore Alois Buckley (Translator). London. 1857.
The Poetic of Aristotle (Theodore Alois Buckley) (OCR draft) (English) (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.)
Provisional text from uncorrected OCR; expect errors.
1. mvp-aristotle-comment-521
1.
mvp-aristotle-comment-522
1454a17
χρηστά.
χρηστός, which, as
Aristotle tells us in the context (20), may be applied to anything good of its kind, is replaced in
b 13
by
ἐπιεικής ; it is equivalent to
σπουδαῖος as used in
2, 1448 a 2
, the common opposite of both being
φαῦλος οι
πονηρός.
1.
mvp-aristotle-comment-361
15.1
LA premiere & la plus importante, qu'elles soient bon-nes. Il y a des mœurs dans un discours, ou dans une action, comme je l'ay déja dit, lorsque l'un & l'autre, font connoître l'inclination, ou la réſolution telle qu'elle est; mau-vaiſe fi elle est mauvaiſe, & bonne, fi elle est bonne.]
1
15.1.
mvp-aristotle-comment-50
15.1
IN FORMING THE MANNERS FOUR THINGS ARE TO BE AT- TENDED TO. THE FIRST AND MOST ESSENTIAL IS, THAT THEY SHOULD BE GOOD.
BEFORE I enter on the particular passage which is the more immediate fubject of this note, I cannot avoid remarking the fuperiority of the dramatic writer, from which we may draw our examples, to any that the author of the Poetic could have recourse to. In regard to fable, as Shakespear was feldom an original inventor, so he was not scrupulously nice in his choice; and as to his arrangement of those subjects which he took for the ground-work of his dramas so as to produce the best tragic. effect, his most sanguine admirers must allow that he has feldom studied it much in the general conduct of the fable, though he has frequently done it in particular parts; and wherever he has done it, he is, as in every other respect, inimitable. But in painting manners, he stands alone and unrivaled: to use the words of the author of the essay on the dramatic character of Sir John Falstaff, • The reader must be sensible of fomething in the compofition • of Shakespear's characters, which renders them essentially different Rr2 from.
، ، ، ، from those drawn by other writers. The characters of every drama must indeed be grouped; but in the groups of other poets, the parts ' which are not seen do not in fact exist. But there is a certain round- • ness and integrity in the forms of Shakespear, which give them an independence as well as a relation, infomuch that we often meet with passages which, though perfectly felt, cannot be sufficiently explained in words, without unfolding the whole character of the speaker.' See NOTE ON THE ESSAY, page 58, of which I have only quoted a small part, the whole note is well worth the perusal of every admirer of Shakespear, as placing his superiority in the delineation of manners in the clearest light. Indeed, to recommend that original and convincing piece of criticism partially is doing it injustice, since every part of it is replete with elegance of taste and accurate and impartial judgement. In regard to the [A] Analysis of the character of Falstaff; though I first took the book up on the recommendation of a friend, it was with the strongest prejudice against what I thought an indefenfible paradox; yet every word led to conviction; and I laid it down with the firmest assurance, that the author was perfectly in the right. I have fince recommended the perusal of it to several of my friends, who have all opened it with the fame prejudice, and shut it with the fame conviction. That the perusal of the book will not be equally convincing to all I can eafily believe. For, to use the words of the author (page 108), 'How many - forts of men are there whom no evidence can perfuade! How many, • who ignorant of Shakespear, or forgetful of the text, may as well read • heathen Greek or the laws of the land as this unfortunate commentary! • How many who, proud and pedantic, hate all novelty and damn it [A] See Note 1. Chap. VII. • without
POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. without mercy under one compendious word [B] paradox! How many more who, not deriving their opinions from the sovereignty of reason, hold at the will of some superior lord, to whom accident or • inclination has attached them, and who, true to their vassalage, are re- • folute not to furrender, without express permission, their base and illgotten poffeffions.' We have another writer also, Henry Fielding, who in his comic epopees, is a most accurate delineator of manners. Howeyer there is one distinction between him and Shakespear, which, though perhaps it gives his pictures a more striking effect, renders them not equal in real merit to those of our great dramatic poet. Shakespear paints for all ages and all countries; while the portraits of Fielding are generally drawn from local and national circumstances [c]. [B] The author of the Dramatic Miscellany seems to have been a critic of this description. He says he cannot think the author serious in his hypothefis. One of the proofs (and he says it is unquestionable) is Falstaff giving an additional wound to Percy. I confess I think with, the author of the Essay, it is rather indecent than cowardly. [c] Dr. Johnson says, 'There is all the difference in the world between the characters of • Fielding and those of Richardson. Characters of manners are very entertaining; but they are to < be understood, by a more superficial observer, than characters of nature, where a man must dive ⚫ into the recesses of the human heart.' BOSWELL'S LIFE OF JOHNSON, Vol. 1. p. 299. This I think would be a very just distinction between the manners of Fielding and Shakespear, but I cannot allow it between Fielding and Richardson. His characters can never be drawn naturally which are drawn contrary to his own intention. Richardson certainly meant Clariffa for a perfect character. And yet Dr. Johnson says of her in another place, that there always appears something in her conduct that she prefers to truth; and he adds, 'that Fielding's • Amelia is the most perfect heroine of a novel.' MRS. PIOZZI'S LETTERS. IN BOSWELL'S LIFE, Vol. 1. p. 342, Johnson says he read Amelia through without stopping. To
L To return to the particular object of the note. The meaning of the. word GOOD, as the first essential of tragic manners, has been a cause of much difference of opinion among the tranflators and commentators of the Poetic. If we consider χρησà here in its usual and obvious sense of morally good, the passage is neither reconcilable with Aristotle's definition of the proper tragic character in chap. XIII, nor with the practice of all the ferious epic and dramatic writers, ancient and modern. To still greater impropriety shall we be driven, if we take up the opinion, originally I believe started by Boffsu, and fince followed by Dacier, Harris, and Metastasio; that Aristotle by χρησὰ meant manners well marked. So strongly expressed, as to shew clearly what the character is, whether good or bad. For such a quality, so far from being diftinguished from the other three requifites, is essential to them all.. Since, whether a character is to be drawn good, or proper, or like, or uniform, it certainly ought to be well drawn, and strongly marked. In short, this is removing the epithet from the character of the manners represented, to that of the mode of representing them, and is nearly equivalent with a person who in laying down rules for composing a good poem, should begin with faying, that the first and most essential rule was, that the poem should. be good. But I think Ariftotle has sufficiently explained his meaning in several parts of this treatise, and especially in the beginning of the second. chapter [D], where he points out the difference as to manners of the objects of tragic and comic imitation; the first of which only he is now treating of particularly. The same idea is, I conceive, kept up with regard to tragic action; viz. that it should be important, in the fixth [D] See Note 1. Chap. II. chapter,
POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. chapter [E], and in the thirteenth as to character again, when we are told that illustrious men, like Edipus and Thyestes, or even [F] better characters in preference to worse are the proper objects of tragedy. Accordingly we find this rule universally adhered to in all serious fables whatever. Macbeth and Richard the Third, though they are objects of our detestation, never excite our contempt [G]; they have a dignity, a superiority of character which commands our respect, while their crimes are objects of our abhorrence. In this respect Milton is beyond all praise in his character of Satan [H]. Though I by no means put him in general on a footing with Shakespear as a painter of manners, yet in this single instance he certainly goes beyond him, fince he had a difficulty to encounter, which must have been pronounced infurmountable if he had not furmounted it. He was to represent a being not the creature of his own imagination, but marked by the most sacred authority as the abstract of wickedness and impiety, in such colors as to be a proper, and yet principal epic character; and this he has done in so masterly a manner, that the character of Satan alone is to me a fufficient illustration of the meaning of Ariftotle in this place, and the proper distinction between poetic [Ε] πράξεως σπεδαίας. [F] ἢ Βελλίονος μᾶλλον ἢ χείρονος. [G] In Chap. v. Aristotle in his account of comedy explains what he means by 'worse perfons,” (φαυλοτέρων) not such, he says, as are perfectly depraved, but only those who possess that species of turpitude that will excite ridicule. Is it not natural, when he is speaking of that tragic goodness which he has already opposed to this comic turpitude, for him to mean not abfolute goodness, but that species of it only which is proper to excite respect.
[H] See Beattie's Illustrations on Sublimity, page 613; and Efssay on Poetry and Music, page 78. and
and moral goodness; not because the character is well marked, for that might have been as well done had he been made contemptible, and the manners of Belial and Mammon are as capable of this excellence as those of Satan; but because he never loses our respect, nor ever appears to us • less than archangel ruined.. [1] Perhaps this subject cannot be better illustrated than by a comparison between the scene in the Fatal Curiosity of Lillo, when the wife is exciting her husband to the murder of the supposed stranger; and the scene between Macbeth and his wife. According to Mr. Harris, the manners in both are equally good poetically though not morally; 'Be- • cause it is natural such a wife should perfuade, and fuch a husband be perfuaded; and here we have all we require, because (here he blends, ، or rather confounds two of Aristotle's requisites) all we require is a suit- • able consistence.' To this we may add, that the intent in Macbeth is infinitely more atrocious. Wilmot, urged by extreme necessity, aggra-- vated by the remembrance of former affluence. For, • The needy man who has known better days, • One whom distress has spited at the world, * Is he, whom tempting fiends would pitch upon • To do such deeds, as make the profperous man • Lift up his hands and wonder who could do them.' DOUGLAS. Wilmot, I fay, resolves to reinstate his fortunes, by taking the life of a man he conceives a perfect stranger, with whom he is no otherwise connected, than by the common bands of nature and hospitality. But Macbeth, loaded with large poffeffions and newly acquired honors, is goaded [1] See Note III. Chap. XIII. by
POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. by an inordinate ambition to sacrifice his kinfman, his benefactor, and his king. One who under his roof was ، - In double trust, First as he was his kinsman and his subject, Both ftrong against the deed; then as his host, • Who should against the murderer shut the door, • Not bear the knife himself.' Surely in the distinction of these two scenes the poetical GOODNESS OF CHARACTER is sufficiently marked and makes the chief difference between them: but it obviously does not arise from moral goodness, or striking delineation of character; or if it does excel in the latter, it must be from fuperior merit as to one of the three last requifites, propriety, likeness, or uniformity. In the old and middle comedy, the manners, like those in modern farce when it keeps its true character, and in the burlesque epopee, fuch as Hudibras, are represented as devoid of this poetic goodness. [K] But in what we call genteel comedy, and the comic epopee, the manners of the principal characters at least, though drawn in general conformity to those of the age, partake of this goodness in fome degree. Though Tom Jones. is not drawn different from other men as Achilles is, though he is not drawn as a perfect character, and therefore as a monster, like Grandifon and Clariffa, every reader will fee he has no foibles that disgrace him, one only excepted, his venal amour with Lady Bellaston. And there Fielding has committed an error, and every reader feels it, against this rule which Aristole has given, or rather transcribed from the volume of [K] See Note 1. Chap. 11. Sf nature.
nature. I have mentioned this as relative only to the principal characters. The fubordinate ones may be purely burlesque even in comedy and the comic epopee. A character can never be respectable without possessing a sense of honor and of courage. The defect of these qualities is evident in Gil Blas, who, throughout the agreeable novel of Le Sage, for so it is in fpite of this defect, can never interest us; for who can be much concerned for the welfare of a despicable character, who is both a cheat and a coward; and such a character Gil Blas certainly is [L]. ners. The Orphan is a striking instance of a want of this goodness of man- Castalio and Polydore are certainly two unprincipled scoundrels, and Chamont is, as Caftalio calls him, ' a noify boisterous ruffian.' The Chaplain I do not mention as he is intended for a character in low comedy. But if the reader wishes to fee an instance of flagrant violation, not only of goodness but every requifite of manners, he may find it in a speech of Monimia, who when Polydore, in language too gross for quotation and which would degrade him at once from the character of gentleman, had it been addressed to a common prostitute, accuses her and her sex of every vice, the last and most confpicuous of which is unbridled lust, acquiesces in the justice of the charge, and coolly replies, • Indeed, my lord, • I own my sex's follies, I have 'em all; And to avoid its fault must fly from you. [L] See Beattie on Fable and Romance, p. 570 and 572, where, speaking of Fielding's Joseph Andrews, he wonders' what could induce the author to add to the other faults of his hero's father, Wilson, the infamy of lying and cowardice.' The
POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. The French poets so far from neglecting this rule of Aristotle, have pushed it to a most ridiculous excess, in which they have been but too much followed by many of our tragic writers. Instead of giving that natural dignity of character, which prevents even vice from becoming despicable, they have substituted an inflated and artificial character, the supposed consequence of high rank. The kings and heroes of Racine and Corneille, put us in mind of Alexander and Cæfar dressed in the hoops of the Italian opera. This false taste is well ridiculed by [M] Lessing, in a criticism on the Earl of Effex, by Banks. After quoting several passages in which Elizabeth speaks like a woman rather than a queen [N], he proceeds, Yes, indeed! these things are intolerable, the refined critics, and perhaps some of my readers will say, for unluckily there are Germans yet more frenchified than the French themselves. It is for their diversion • that I have selected these low passages, according to their notion. I • know their mode of criticising. These little negligences which are so terribly offensive to their delicate ears, and which are so difficult for the poet to find, and who has carefully scattered them here and there, to • render the dialogue more natural and give the discourse an appearance • of being the real inspiration of the moment; these they tack cleverly [M] DRAMATURGIE, Part I. page 96. [N] Telephus aut Peleus cum pauper et exul uterque • Projecit ampullas et sesquipedalia verba • Si curat cor spectantis tetigisse querela.' HOR. < Peleus and Telephus poor banish'd! each • Drop their big fix-foot words and founding speech; • Or else what bosom in their grief takes part.' COLMAN. Sf2 to-
، ، together, and then almost kill themselves with laughing at them; and shrugging their shoulders from mere pity, they gravely pronounce ' that the poor man knows nothing of the great world; that he has not conversed with many queens; that Racine knew much better, but * then Racine had lived at court. ، ، All this is very well, but it does not alter my opinion. If queens either do not, or dare not speak in this manner, so much the worse for ⚫ them. It is not to-day I have learned, that a court is not exactly the place where a poet should study nature. But if pomp and etiquette ⚫ transform men into machines, it is the duty of the poet to change ، • these machines again into men. Let real queens speak as affectedly and politely as they please, those of the poet should speak naturally. Let • him liften attentively to the Hecuba of Euripides, and confole himself ⚫ for having never conversed with other queens [o].' From the principle above-mentioned arose all the abfurd cenfures of the French critics on the fimplicity of Homer, and all the mifrepresentations of the French translators. It is to be lamented that Pope, who in his notes has often treated Mad. Dacier with great afperity, chose to follow her example as to this in his version. The manners of the Iliad are altered too much; but those of the Odyssey are entirely and radically changed [P]. [o] See alfo Beattie on Imagination, Chap. Iv. page 183; and Brumoy's Reflections on: Iphigenia. [P] See this more enlarged on in Note 1, on Chap. xxiv.. NOTE
1.
mvp-aristotle-comment-101
Ritter, cap. 15 § 1
Quae in exprimendis moribus personarum agentium tragico poetae observanda sint, quae fugienda docetur. Mores hominum in tragoedia agentium proximo post fabulam loco cum supra (c. 6, 14) collocati essent, nemo quidem mirabitur post absolutam fabulae explicationem auctorem adgredi ad morum pertractationem, sed id mirum videbitur unicuique attento animo totum librum perlegenti, ab hoc loco nimium languescere argumenti propositi expositionem, adeo ut modo nonnisi disiecta membra summi philosophi et prudentissimi hominis agnoscere videamur, modo virum ineptum et sola doctrina superbientem intueamur. prius illud cadit in disputationem quae c. 15. continetur. de moribus enim tragoediae pauca quaedam et ieiuna digitis enumerantur adiectis quibusdam non contemnendis observationibus. sed tam arida et tenuis est haec expositio, ut qui eam antecedenticomparaverit, vix Aristotele dignam iudicare possit. num, igitur pro suppositicia habenda est? non puto: nam quae interpolator ille a nobis saepe per hunc librum deprehensus inseruit, ea tot indiciis coarguuntur, ut haec de moribus dicta isti tribuere non possim. itaque sic statuo, Ari! stotelis de moribus disputationem ab isto interpolatore in epitomam redactam et nonnullis in locis mutatam ad nos per venisse. :
ὅπως χρηστά ᾖ: hoc praeceptum consequitur ex illis quae с. 13, 1-4. exposita leguntur. conf. c. 2 extr ceterum is cuius probi mores sunt minoribus nihilo minus vін! tiis obnoxius esse et magnis erroribus constrictus teneri potr est. –
ὥσπερ ἐλέχθη: epitomator idemque interpolator ad sua ipsius (c. 6, 17) bona ante exprompta provocat.
χρηστὸν δ' ἐὰν χρηστήν: quod ante
χρηστὸν plerique codices
ἢ vel
ἢ addunt, id ex proximo versu (
χρηστὰ ᾖ) huc delatum est. in editionibus praeterea legimus
φαῦλον μὲν ἐὰν φαύλην, sed hoc additamentum abest ab AcBcNa et. M omnibus et LPQ, neque adesse oportet, cum dicenti nihil propositum sit, nisi ut quos intelligat bonos mores indicet. me: lius adeo et facilius sequentia sic succedunt. nam cum scribit
ἔστι δὲ ἐν ἑκάστῳ γένει, ad
ἔστι intelligendum est
χρηστὸν ἦθος, idque fieri commode potest, si sola illa
χρηστὸν δ᾽ ἐὰν χρηστήν praecesserunt.
καίτοι γε ἴσως-φαῦλόν ἐστιν: genus muliebre virili comparatum sequius est et deterius, et servorum genus. cum liberis et ingenuis collatum omnino vile est, sed in suo genere unusquisque bene moratus esse ac studere rebus honestis potest. mira haec nobis videri solent, sed Aristotelis non minus severum de feminis iudicium legimus in eius Hi storia animalium IX, 1. p. 608 b 8-15.