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.
Poetics
4.
mvp-aristotle-comment-209
διὰ μέτρων
is opposed to
διὰ μέλους: comp.
Probl. 19. 31, 920 b 12
διὰ τὸ πολλαπλάσια εἶναι τότε τὰ μέλη ἐν ταῖς τραγῳδίαις τῶν μέτρων. —
Plato Symp. 187 D
μέλεσί τε καὶ μέτροις. —
Lysis 205 A
οὗ τι τῶν μέτρων δέομαι ἀκοῦσαι οὐδὲ μέλος. —
Isocrates 191 B
ταῖς ᾠδαῖς καὶ τοῖς μέτροις.
1449b31
10.
mvp-aristotle-comment-150
6.4
10.
Et j'ajoûte, mais differemment dans toutes ſes parties, because que le vers regne ſeul dans les unes, & le nombre & l'harmonie dans les autres.]
1
46.
mvp-aristotle-comment-46
NOTE 46. P. 75.
6.4
IN SOME PARTS METRE ALONE IS EMPLOYED, IN OTHERS MELODY.
A passage of very tantalizing brevity. By
δια μετρων ΜΟΝΟΝ, are we to understand, according to the obvious and literal meaning of the expression, that in some parts of Tragedy the verse was merely recited, spoken, as in modern Tragedy? —This contradicts what, by many writers, has been considered as a fact thoroughly established, that the Greek Tragedy was accompanied by musical instruments, and was therefore strictly musical, throughout: —for as to the dreams of the
Abbé Du Bos,
Rousseau, and others, about a noted declamation, a declamation accompanied by Music, yet not sung—this is too manifest an absurdity to stand in need of confutation. If, as
Rousseau says, it is
"impossible to understand what the ancients have said about their theatrical declamation, without supposing this," would it not be better to say, at once, that we do not understand it, than to explain it into impossibilities?
As for the systematic
Abbé Du Bos, he was set upon proving his point; and he proves it like a man resolved to prove it, by wresting all sorts of authors to his purpose, and translating them as he pleased.
1
All we know clearly, is, that the ancient drama was accompanied, (in part, at least,) by musical instruments. I conclude, confidently, that since the instruments could not speak, the actors must sing—that their declamation must certainly have been, strictly speaking, musical, however simple; the chanting of the simplest plain chant, being as truly Music, i. e. as essentially distinct from speech, as the most refined melody of a modern opera.
If, then, the Greek Tragedy had a musical accompaniment throughout, it must have been sung throughout. But here, Aristotle says, as plainly as words can say it, that in some parts of Tragedy, "metre only" was employed: —
δια ΜΕΤΡΩΝ ἐνια ΜΟΝΟΝ: that is, as it is necessarily implied, without the two other
ήδυσματα, or seasonings, of Tragic language, just mentioned, melody and rhythm.
2
Some commentators, I know, endeavour to evade the force of this expression, by saying, that Aristotle means, by
δια μετρων μονον, only the noted declamation, which, being a sort of recitative, was not regarded as strictly musical, nor denominated
μελος. And in support of this, it is alleged, that the word
λέξις, Speech, is applied by him afterwards in a similar manner;
3
as
λεγεσθαι is also by
Plutarch, who talks of "some of the Iambics being spoken with an accompaniment, and others, sung:
4
as we sometimes say of a singer, that he speaks recitative well. But all this, I confess, does not satisfy me. It is one thing, to apply occasionally the word
λεξις or
λεγεσθαι, in this comparative way, to such kind of singing as most resembles speech, and another, to say roundly, that some parts of Tragedy made use of metre, or verse, only; and that too, immediately after having fixed the exclusive sense of
μονον, by enumerating the three
ήδυσματα of Tragic diction, which he asserts to be separately used in different parts, i. e.
ῥυθμου, άρμονια, μετρον, — RHYTHM, MELODY, and METRE.
5
They who dispute this meaning, must at least, I think, allow that if it had been the meaning, Aristotle could not well have expressed it with more precision. How can
μετρων here be taken in the loose and comparative sense contended for, when, in the very words immediately preceding, it is carefully limited to its strict and proper sense, by being expressly discriminated from melody, as well as from rhythm?
But after all, the fact, that the Greek Tragedy was sung throughout, though often asserted, has not yet been proved; nor do I think that it can be proved; at least, by any passage of ancient authors, that I have seen adduced to prove it. The
Abbé Vatry, in a dissertation,
Sur la recitation des Tragedies anciennes, undertook to prove, in form, that the Greek Tragedies were sung,
"bout à l'autre," like our operas. But how does he prove this?—by proving, what indeed is easily proved,
6
that a part of the Iambics, or the dialogue, was sung, and then by taking it for granted, that the ancients could not possibly have endured so barbarous a custom, as the mixture of speech and singing in the same piece.
"Il ne paroit pas qu'on puisse douter que ces cantiques ne se chantassent; mais de cela même je crois pouvoir conclurre, que tout le reste se chantoit, quoique differemment: car le bon sens, et ce que les anciens nous disent, nous conduit à penser que leur recitation etoit partout de même nature, et qu'elle ne se bigarroit point, tantôt d'une simple declamation, et tantôt d'un chant musical." By the same presumptive mode of arguing, the Abbé might also have proved,
à priori, that the Greeks could not possibly have been guilty of the modern barbarous
bigarrure of serious and ludicrous, in their Tragic drama. But the first Greek Tragedy he had opened would probably have overturned his reasoning.
A thorough discussion of all the passages of ancient authors, that throw any light upon this question, relative to the dramatic representations of the Greeks, would draw me much too far beyond my bounds. I must content myself with pointing out (for I think it has not been observed,) the stubborn difficulty which this passage of Aristotle appears to me to throw in the way of the common opinion upon this subject; and with hazarding a merely hypothetical conjecture, that, if, as Aristotle seems plainly to say, some part of the Greek Tragedy was spoken, like our Tragic declamation, without any musical accompaniment, it was, most probably, that part of the dialogue, which, as I have before observed, in
NOTE 33
, is, in every Tragedy, easily distinguished from the rest, by its being carried on in a sort of quick repartee of verse to verse. As, in this part of the dialogue, we almost constantly find the Tragic tone lowered to a more colloquial pitch, and even approaching frequently to the jocular and burlesque, it seems reasonable to think, that here, if anywhere, the musical accompaniment, and the elevation of lengthened and chanting tones, were withdrawn, and common conversation left to common speech.
But what, again, are we to understand by—
και παλιν ἐτερα δια μελους?—Are we to repeat
μονον, and understand Melody alone, without the two other
ήδυσματα, Rhythm and Metre? This cannot be. For though we may strip the Tragic language of melody and of rhythm, or, in other words, of Music, we cannot strip it of metre. The ancients most certainly did not admit prose into their Tragedies; and as little can we conceive them to have set prose to Music.
Dacier, and some other commentators, understand by
μελους here, Music, including rhythm. This sense of the word is certainly warrantable; but it can hardly be the sense here: for, surely, an instance, in which all the three
ήδυσματα were used, (as they must be, if metre be indispensable, and
μελος imply rhythm and melody,) would be but a strange illustration of the
ΧΩΡΙΣ ἐκαστου των ειδων κ. τ. αλ.
I do not see what remains, but, that we take
μελος here in its most restrained sense, as distinct from rhythm, or time, and synonymous to
άρμονια; that sense, in which Aristotle had used it before, in his first chapter.
7
8
And if we do this, we must necessarily, I think, understand, that some parts of the dialogue were sung without rhythm: I mean, without musical rhythm, or time, though certainly not without that poetical or profodic rhythm, by which in reciting verse, and, indeed, even in the most familiar conversation, the syllabic quantity must have been relatively, at least, observed, though not, I presume, with the inflexibility of musical measure, nor with such a rigorous equality of long to long, and short to short, as is essential to the execution of what is properly called Music, and as I suppose to have been observed in the choral odes.
9
Thus the dialogue of the Greek Tragedy will appear to have been not improperly compared to our recitative; differing from the chorus, as our recitative differs from the airs, both in the absence of strict time, and in the kind of melody, which was also, as mere melody, less musical than the choral melody, and more imitative of speech, as well as of action.
10
Whether the monologues, or long speeches—the
μακραι ῥησεις, as
Plato calls them—were performed in the same way, as the rest of the dialogue, or, as it has been imagined, were distinguished by being more measured and musical, is a point not easily cleared up.
11
The passages commonly appealed to for this purpose, from the grammarians
Diomedes and
Donatus, about the
Cantica of the Roman Comedy, I look upon as a very frail foundation of any conclusion with respect to the Greek Tragedy.
12
The passage of
Plutarch above quoted, note, furnishes the strongest support I know of for such a distinction. For, if by "spoken or recited to an instrumental accompaniment," (
τα μεν [sc. των ἰαμβειων] ΛΕΓΕΣΘΑΙ παρα την κρουσιν)
Plutarch meant, as I think he must mean, sung in recitative, not literally spoken, (for how could that admit of a musical accompaniment?) then,
ᾳδεσθαι, which is opposed to it, must of course imply, not mere singing as opposed to speech, but a more musical and measured melody.
3.
mvp-aristotle-comment-38
Ritter, cap. 6 § 3
λέγω δὲ ἡδυσμένον μὲν λόγον τὸν ἔχον τα ῥυθμὸν καὶ ἁρμονίαν καὶ μέλος:
λόγος ὁ ἔχων ῥυθμὸν est
λόγος ἔμμετρος : numero enim condiri sive suavem reddi sermonem liquet ; numerumque metri patrem esse veteres dicere solebant. conf. ad c. 4, 6. quod c. 1, 10.
ῥυθ μός pro saltatione ponitur, id nihil impedit quo minus hunc
ῥυθμὸν pro numero sermonis accipiamus: numerus enim non magis sermoni quam saltationi competit. saltationem vero h. 1. intelligere non possumus, quoniam haec tragoediae quidem, sed non sermonis, est condimentum.
ἁρμονίαν καὶ μέλος est
ἁρμονικὸν μέλος, cantum harmoniae legibus aс- commodatum, quemadmodum
λόγοι καὶ μιμήσεις sunt
λόγοι μιμητικοὶ in fragmento operis
περὶ Ποιητῶν, quod transcripsimus pag. 84. quod Victorius
μέτρον pro
μέλος ex coniectura sua scripsit, id loci ratione non satis perspecta fecit.
διὰ μέτρων ἔνια μόνον περαίνεσθαι –
διὰ μέλους: nonnulla metrica tantum oratione (
διὰ μέτρων) alia cantu absolvuntur sive peraguntur. saltationem non memoravit, quia saltatio non sine canticis, cantica autem multa sine saltatione peraguntur. de significatione
μέτρων diximus ad c. 1,6.