πρόλογος. The term, which appears several times in Aristophanes, is used in the sense the present definition gives it in 5, 1449b 4, and in Rhet. 3. 14, 1415 a 8 τὰ τοῦ δικανικοῦ προοίμια δεῖ λαβεῖν ὅτι ταὐτὸ δύναται ὅπερ τῶν δραμάτων οἱ πρόλογοι καὶ τῶν ἐπῶν τὰ προοίμια .... (b18) καὶ οἱ τραγικοὶ δηλοῦσι περὶ (οὗ) τὸ δρᾶμα, κἂν μὴ εὐθὺς ὥσπερ Εὐριπίδης, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ προλόγῳ γέ που.

12.4 Le Prologue est toute cette partie de la Tragedie qui précede l'entrée du Chœur.] ¹

THE prologue of the ancient tragedy was a very different thing from that which goes under its name on the modern stage. It was, in fact, the opening of the piece. We have already mentioned how awkwardly this is often managed with us, and how inartificially by the Greeks [A]. Generally one of the characters, sometimes a god, and sometimes a ghost, as that of Polydore in Hecuba [B] relates to the audience (not to the fictitious dramatic audience, for the first entry of the chorus was usually with the parode, [c] but directly to the spectators) all the preceding circumstances necessary to let them into the story of the drama. [A] Note I, chapter VII. [B] This practice of the Greek tragedies is ridiculed with some humour, in a parody by Lloyd, on the opening of the Electra. I a gentleman did wed, › The lady I would never bed, • Great Agamemnon's royal daughter, • Who coming hither to draw water.' [c] Mr. Warton forgot this circumstance, when he blamed Milton for opening Comus by a foliloquy spoken in a forest. See Mr. Twining's note on the word parode. Difficult

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. Difficult as the task is to open a drama well, like other difficulties the greater glory attends its being overcome, as it has often been by our good dramatic writers. Milton has opened both his dramatic poems in the ancient manner, and among the subjects suited to the drama of which he has left short sketches, he proposes that the tragedy of Macbeth should be opened by Duncan's ghost. Milton did not prefer this mode from any deficiency, or, at least, any distrust in his powers, but from his ftrong partiality to the ancients. How he would have fucceeded, had he chosen the more natural, though difficult mode of the moderns it is impoffible to say; we can only observe, that the fame person has never yet excelled in the drama and the epopee, congenial as they appear to be [D]. It is certainly lucky for his poetical character that he did not enter the lifts with Shakespear in Macbeth, according to the method he has proposed. That Milton, great as his poetical merit is, could have ever fucceeded in competition with that prodigy of human genius in any thing except learning and correctness I can hardly believe; but I am fure the claffic ghost of Duncan would have started, like a guilty thing,' amid the gothic machinery of Shakespear. It is something curious to trace the progreffion of the fame attending this father of our drama. In his own time he appears to have been a univerfal favorite. Indeed he could not have been otherwise. His faults were all committed to comply with the taste of the age when he wrote, and his beauties are such as must delight every age, and every taste for whom the beauties of truth and nature, unadorned by meretricious ornament, have charms. Both his merits and his defects therefore were popular, though probably the last most. He did not however escape [D] See the concluding note of this work. Ee the

the envy of his rivals. Beaumont and Fletcher, whose excellencies are so far inferior, and whose farcical irregularities are so much more glaring, (for there is no incident in Shakespear so absurd as the arming [E] Demetrius. Poliorcetes with a pistol,) and whose indecencies are so disgusting, have more than once levelled a fatiric blow at his fame. And Jonson, the pedantic Jonson, has sometimes censured him obliquely, and sometimes praised him fuperciliously, not as a writer by any means equal to himself, or likely to become his rival in dramatic fame; but in the way a Cramer, or a Haydn, might be supposed to speak of a wonderful musical ruftic, who, without musical education, was able to bring some wild founds out of a violin. Something in the same manner he is spoken of by Milton. But there is a heavier charge against Him in regard to Shakespear. In his Eiconoclastes there is a passage • That fullies even his brightest lays, • And blasts the vernal bloom of half his bays.' Like all other cenfure of the fame kind it misses the intended mark, and recoils on the author; and we are not inclined to think the worse of the unfortunate and misguided Charles because, we are told that Mr. William Shakespear was the closet companion of his folitudes. As the age improved in false refinement, and the opinion of the French critics prevailed, Shakespear became more out of fashion with those who affected polite literature, and to be admirers of the ancients, till Rhymer, and the superficial and pedantic Shaftsbury, at last boldly stept forth and [B] In the humourous Lieutenant.. See note 1, chap. xxiv. condemned

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. condemned him and his works to oblivion. Still, however, this doctrine was too refined for the people, it was caviar to the million, and Shakespear was yet popular. The theatre, to please both the learned and the unlearned, got the plays of Shakespear cut down as much as poffible to the Grecian, or rather the modern fashion, and the stage was glutted with alterations of the plays of Shakespear. At length English criticism grew too strong for French support, and ventured to walk alone. From that moment Shakespear has boasted an encreasing fame; and at this time, when the classics are more universally studied and really understood here, than in any other age or nation, when they are criticised without prejudice, and admired without pedantry, his works are as much idolized by his countrymen, as the poems of Homer were in the time of Aristotle. At present, however, the dramas of Shakespear are more known in the closet than on the theatre. (F) Our dramatic taste seems to have [F] Perhaps this may be accounted for, in great measure, from our want of capital actors, I mean in tragedy; we have many excellent comedians. The power of representing the characters of Shakespear fell with Garrick. From the same source we may derive the prevalence of the musical drama; we have fingers though we have not actors. But that we are not insensible to the excellence of acting when we meet with it, is obvious from the reception of Mrs. Siddons. Strong as the tafte for the musical drama is at present, no finger that ever yet came from Italy could support herself on the stage, through successive seasons, as that unrivalled tragic actress has done, even with better afsistance than those who have acted with her. She alone acted, for several winters, against the opera, and what is still more, against the fashionable hours of the metropolis, and always to crouded houses. 'The degree in which she singly interested the public in the tragic scene, is a circumstance creditable to the English taste. But the dramas of Shakespear cannot be supported by an actress however excellent. Women's characters written for boys to act, can never afford fufficient exercise for the foul-subduing powers of Mrs. Siddons. Ee 2 funk

funk with Garrick. The musical drama has ufurped the province both of Thalia and Melpomene; and we have lately seen one of his most entertaining plays exhibited on the stage as an opera. What would the haughty Jonson have thought of the prophet who had told him that in an age of learning, the works of Shakespear would be in universal estimation, while his own were hardly talked of, and never read. I cannot think even that Milton could eafily have imagined that among a people well versed in polite and classic literature, the [G] stuff of Mr. William Shakespear would be preferred to Comus and the Sampfon Agonistes. The genius of Garrick seems to have been particularly calculated to introduce Shakespear on the stage. He knew how to alter him so as to fit him for the audience of the present day without divesting him of any of his excellencies, and the few additions he has ventured are in the spirit of the original. These plays so altered are likely to keep poffeffion of the theatre, while every other attempt at change and improvement are forgotten, except Cibber's Richard III. and Tate's Lear, which, with fome correction of Mr. Garrick, are still acted, though the alteration of the last is directly in oppofition to the precepts of the Stagirite and Mr. Addison [H]. Cibber, though versed in the province of the drama, (which is, perhaps essential to make a good dramatic writer, fince the knowledge of stage effect is of great confequence,) poffefssed a genius not above [G] 'Other stuff of this fort may be read throughout the tragedy.' (Richard the Third.) [H] See note VII, chap. XIII. EICONOCLASTES. medi-

POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. mediocrity; and Tate was a very indifferent poet. Yet there is a line in Cibber's Richard, written by himself so characteristic of the manner of his archetype that I have often heard it cited as one of Shakespear's beauties. I mean the exclamation of Richard on Buckingham' sbeing taken, • Off with his head! So much for Buckingham.' And I heard Lord Chatham (then Mr. Pitt) quote the following verse of Tate in the House of Commons; undoubtedly taking it for Shakespear's, • Where the gor'd battle bleeds in every vein.' To return from this long digression to the immediate object of the note. The modern prologue seems to derive its origin immediately from the Roman Comedy. The prologues of Terence are very much like those of the present day, alluding to such temporary subjects as relate to the drama, and containing a kind of apology for the new piece. We are not certain whether this practice of the Romans was copied from the comic theatre of Athens, as we have only fragments of their middle and new comedy, but from the known resemblance of Terence to Menander we have reason to suppose it was.

ἔστι δὲ πρόλογος μὲν μέρος ὅλοντρα - γῳδίας τὸ πρὸ χοροῦ παρόδου: iam incipit ulna sua uti et sic disputare, ut missa interna tragicae poesis natura curet, ne forte quo nomine singulae tragoediarum particulae vocandae sint lectores nesciant. prologus est igitur tota tragoediae pars quae posita est ante chori carmen parodicum. nomen πάροδον h. 1. non de chori in orchestram ingressu sed de tragoediae parte quadam intelligendum esse definitio παρόδου quae statim sequitur ostendit. Aristophanes tragoediae initium, h. e. primam orationem eius qui primum inducitur, πρόλογον appellavit in Ranis v. 1119., ubi Euripidem Aeschyli tragoedias exagitantem haec dicere fecit: καὶ μὴν ἐπ᾿ αὐτοὺς τοὺς προλόγους σοι τρέψομαι, ὅπως τὸ πρῶτον τῆς τραγῳδίας μέρος πρώτιστον αὐτοῦ βασανιῶ τοῦ δεξιοῦ. ibidem cum Aeschylo imperatum esset ut πρόλογον ἐκ τῆς Ὀρεστείας recitaret, ille dicto audiens tres versus qui primi sunt in Choephoris ac deinde quartum et quinti dimidiam partem ex oratione Orestis protulit. verus Aristoteles in Rhetoricis III, 14 init. cuiusvis carminis exordium πρόλογον vocat: τὸ μὲν οὖν προοίμιόν ἐστιν ἀρχὴ λόγου, ὅπερ ἐν ποιήσει πρόλογος καὶ ἐν αὐλήσει προαύλιον· πάντα γὰρ ἀρχαὶ ταῦτ᾽ εἰσί, καὶ οἷον ὁδοποίησις τῷ ἐπιόντι. haec significatio nomini plane convenit: πρόλογος enim ea est oratio quae ceteris prius admittitur. sed si ὁ λόγος opponitur τῷ μέλει, prologus ea complectitur quae ante chori adventum in scena peraguntur, h. e. quae prius dicuntur quam cantus inchoatur. hoc intellectu πρόλογον dictum accepit scriptor anonymus apud Küsterum ante comoedias Aristophanis p. XIV (apud Bekkerum p. XII): πρόλογος τὸ μέχρι τῆς εἰσόδου τοῦ χοροῦ μέρος. conf. Tzetzae Versus de tragica poesi editi a Dübnero in Museo Rhen. philolog. vol. IV. p. 403. πρόλογος μέν ἐστι τὸ μέχρι χοροῦ τῆς εἰσόδου. nec vero haec significatio multum immutatur, si quando chorus ante adest quam histriones' in scenam ingressi sunt, quod factum videmus in Aeschyli Persis et Supplicibus atque in Rheso Euripidis: tum enim πρόλογος continet illa quae ante a coryphaco recitantur quam totius chori canticum incipit, quae unius choreutae recitatio et λόγος et λέξις appellari potest. itaque in Persis prologus continetur v. 1-64., in Supplicibus v. 1-40., in Rheso v. 1-22. longius autem in prologo definiendo a significatione vocis πρόλογος recessit technicus hic noster, dum quae primam λέξιν totius chori praecedunt eo nomine complectitur. secundum hanc sententiam dimidia paene Oedipi Colonei pars (v. 1-667) ingenti prologo occupatur, sed ea culpa non est praestantissimi poetae: immo in culpa sunt technici notiones suas ex vagis notis componentes. cur ὅλον μέρος, non μέρος simpliciter, scripserit et hic et paulo post ubi episodium et exodus definitur, id in tali scriptore non curiose quaerendum existimo. fortasse significari voluit prologi ambitum plerumque satis magnum esse, item episodii exodique. ἐπεισόδιον δὲ μέρος ὅλον τραγῳδίας τὸ μεταξὺ ὅλων χορικῶν μελῶν: quae ab histrionibus inter duo chori cantica aut inter semet ipsos aut inter ipsos et choreutas peraguntur, ἐπεισόδιον efficiunt. nomen inde factum est, quod actorum colloquia nascentis artis tragicae aetate canticis choricis tamquam quoddam alienum vel secundarium interserebantur. ὅλα μέλη chori quae circumdant ἐπεισόδιον, aut parodus et stasimum aut duo stasima esse possunt. conf. anonymus apud Küsterum 1. c. ἐπεισόδιον τὸ μεταξύ δύο χορικῶν μελῶν. Tzetzes 1. c. ἐπεισόδιος δέ ἐστιν... λόγος μεταξὺ πλὴν μελῶν χορῶν (lege χοροῦ) δύο. ἔξοδος δὲ μέρος ὅλον τραγωδίας μεθ' ὃ οὐκ ἔστι χοροῦ μέλος: accuratius scripsisset ὅλου χοροῦ μέλος. in ipsa enim exodo singuli choreutae in κόμμοις interdum respondent canticis ab histrionibus ex scena fusis, et minora singulorum choreutarum carmina decantari et anapaesti coryphaei recitari possunt. ceterum vel sic definitio accommodari nequit ad omnes tragoedias, si quidem Aeschyli Supplices totius chori cantico concluduntur, et Eumenides in fine novi chori carmine instructae sunt. scriptor anonymus (apud Küsterum p. XIV) comoediae exodum a nostro tehnico discedens sic definivit: ἔξοδος τὸ ἐπὶ τέλει λεγόμενον τοῦ χοροῦ. huic consentit scholiasta Aristophanis ad Vespas v. 270., Pollux IV, 108., Hesychius s. v. ἐξόδιοι νόμοι. imperite Tzetzes 1. c. vers. 24. ἡ δ' ἔξοδός τις τυγχάνει χοροῦ λόγος, μεθ' ὃν χοροῖς οὐκ ἔστι τι λέγειν μέλος. πάροδος μὲν ἡ πρώτη λέξις ὅλου χοροῦ: si nomen παρόδου (Einzug) premis, quae chorus canit vel coryphaeus recitat, dum choreutae in orchestram sive a dextra sive a sinistra parte per apsides ingrediuntur, ea voce consignantur. id fere fecerunt grammatici, ut scholiasta Euripidis ad Phoeniss. v. 210 (202): πάροδος δὲ ἐστιν ᾠδὴ· χοροῦ βαδίζοντος ἀδομένη ἅμα τῇ εἰσόδῳ. item scholiasta Aristophanis ad Vespas v. 270., qui coryphaei exhortationem inter chori in orchestram adventum (230-247) enuntiatam πάροδον appellavit. alios grammaticorum de parodo locos collectos attulit G. C. W. Schneiderus de Re scenica Atheniensium pag. 205 sq., quibus iam addendus est I. Tzetzae definitio in Versibus de tragica poesi v. 35-42. a Dübnero evulgatis in Museo Rhen. philologico t. IV. p. 403. eiusmodi vero parodus multis tragoediis omnino deest, Sophocliis quidem omnibus, excepta Aiace, deest. hoc cum alios tum Pseudo - Aristotelem videtur impulisse, ut aliam definitionem parodi excogitarent. nam hic noster nonnisi totius chori primum carmen ( πρώτην λέξιν iste dixit) nomine parodi intelligi voluit, eodemque intellectu eandem vocem a Plutarcho acceptam fuisse patet ex illius quaestione an seni sit gerenda res publica c. 3. p. 785 A (IV. I. p. 152. apud Wyttenb.): Σοφοκλῆς δὲ λέγεται μὲν ὑπὸ τῶν υἱῶν παρανοίας δίκην φεύγων ἀναγνῶναὶ τὴν ἐν Οἰδίποδι τῷ ἐπὶ Κολωνοῦ πάροδον, ᾗ ἐστιν ἀρχὴ εὐίππου ( ν. 668), ξένε, τᾶσδε χώρας.” quae sint huiusce definitionis τῆς παρόδου incommoda, neuter eorum videtur vidisse vel curavisse. iam enim, ut ante notavimus, dimidia fere Oedipi Colonei pars prologus est. porro idem huius fabulae carmen (v. 668 sqq.) non minus pro stasimo quam pro parodo haberi potest. nam quia omnes chori personae hic demum canere incipiunt, parodus est. sed idem canticum stasimum est, quia neque anapaestorum neque trochaeorum systemata admixta sunt. idem dici potest de primo carmine chorico Oedipi Regis v. 151 - 215. aliisque pluribus. his expositis, dicendum restat cur λέξιν ὅλου χορού h. 1. legamus, ubi μέλος exspectamus. hoc ego technico nostro parum caute scribenti excidisse puto, quemadmodum apud Photium et Suidam legimus μονῳδία λέ γεται, ὅταν εἶς μόνος λέγῃ τὴν ᾠδήν. conf. Argumentum Persarum Aeschyli τῶν δὲ χορῶν τὰ μὲν ἐστι παροδικά, ὡς ὅτε λέγει δι' ἣν αἰτίαν πάρεστιν, ὡς τὸ “ Τύριον οἶδμα λιποῦσα,” h. e. primum carmen choricum Phoenissarum Euripidis v. 202 sqq. Tzetzes 1. c. ὅλου χοροῦ λέξις τε πρώτη τυγχάνει· ᾠδὴν ὁ Εὐκλείδης δέ, λέξιν οὐ λέγει. accuratius igitur Euclides locutus est de parodo quam ceteri technici solebant. de iis qui parodum λέξιν et qui αδὴν nominabant, Tzetzes v. 42. monet, et recte monet, ut mihi videtur, ταυτὸν τάχα λέγοντες ἐν πολλοῖς λόγοις. Hermannus et Müllererus, ille in Commentariis ad h. 1. pag. 142., hic in Museo Rhenano philolog. t. V. p. 362., existimant λέξιν, non ᾠδήν, consulto ab Aristotele positam esse, ne systemata anapaestica 2), quae ab uno coryphaeo recitata esse, non a toto choro cantata, certum est, a parodo excluderentur. sed ita 2) Nobile exemplum anapaestorum ab uno coryphaeo recitatorum et strophis intersertorum praebet parodus Antigonae Sophocliae v. 100 - 161.auctor personatus sibi ipse non constabit, cum parodum totius chori λέξιν esse dicit et nihilo minus unius coryphaei anapaestos recipere voluit, aut ille hoc ignoravit, anapaestos non cani a choro sed recitari a coryphaeo. accedit quod ὅλου χοροῦ λέξις nihil nisi carmen esse potest: totus enim chorus nunquam loquitur, sed semper canit. hoc recte monuit Tyrwhittus. diligenter et docte, ut solet, Odofr. Müllerus nuper de parodo disputavit in Museo Rhenano philolog. t. V. p. 360 sqq., sed virum aequissimum sententiam suam aliqua ex parte immutaturum esse, ubi haec legerit, confido. στάσιμον δὲ μέλος χοροῦ τὸ ἄνευ ἀναπαίστου καὶ τροχαίου: τὸ ἄνευ ἀναπαίστου καὶ τροχαίου τo consilio addita esse puto, ut, si quando stasimo coniuncta essent systemata anapaestica vel trochaica, haec ad ipsum stasimum non pertinere moneretur. sic in Sophoclis Aiace post prologum (v. 1-133), dum chorus in orchestram ingreditur, primum sex systemata anapaestica a coryphaeo recitantur (v. 134-171), iisque parodus absolvitur, tum sequitur carmen a choro stante ( στάσιμον) decantatum (v. 172 - 200). dum anapaesti illi recitantur, chorus non stat sed in orchestrae mediam partem ingreditur. aliud exemplum ex Aeschyli Agamemnone petere licet. chorus ingredi orchestram incipit a versu 40., et hinc usque ad v. 103. novem systemata anapaestica a coryphaco recitantur, et haec τὴν πάροδον efficiunt; continuo sequitur stantis chori carmen ( στάσιμον) a versu 104. usque ad 257. in eiusdem Supplicibus statim ab initio chorus ingreditur, quod dum fit, coryphaeus decem systemata anapaestica (v. 1-40) recitat, quo facto stantis chori carmen inchoatur. eiusmodi igitur systemata a carmine chorico excludi technicus voluit. sed idem cur etiam ἄνευ τροχαίου addidit ? scilicet τροχερός est numerus trochaicus et ad saltandum aptus, non ad standum, ideoque cantica ex trochaeis continuis composita ex stasimis eximenda putavit. fortasse cogitavit eiusmodi carmina quae apud Aeschylum in Eumenid. v. 997-1002. leguntur: χαίρετ' ἀστικὸς λεώς, ἴκταρ ἥμενοι Διός, παρθένου φίλας φίλοι σωφρονοῦντες ἐν χρόνῳ. Παλλάδος δ' ὑπὸ πτεροῖς ὄντας ἅζεται πατήρ. baec et similia a saltante choro cantata esse dubitari nequit. conf. eiusdem fabulae v. 1014 - 1020. Prometh. v. 415-417. 420-422. Hermannus olim (in Comment. ad h. 1.) stasima inde dicta putabat, quod carmina essent perpetua sive systematis anapaesticis trochaicisve non interrupta, sed hanc sententiam ab ipso iam improbari credo. nam perpetuus Graece dicitur non στάσιμος sed συνεχής. stasima recte tradunt grammatici Graeci dicta esse propterea quod canerentur a stantibus choreutis, quamquam modicos ac decoros motus ne ab his quidem carminibus remotos fuisse verisimile videtur. locos grammaticorum de στασίμοις exponentium collectos posuit Schneiderus in Re scenica Atheniensium p. 207. conf. Odofr. Müllerus ad Aeschyli Eumenides p. 95. illis locis iam accedit Tzetzes 1. c. vers. 51 sqq. ἄλλοι δὲ τὸ στάσιμον χοροῦ φασὶν μέρος (1. μέλος) ἄνευ ἀναπαίστου καὶ τροχαίου τῶν μέτρων· πάλιν ὁ Εὐκλείδης δέ φησιν σιν ὧδέ πως · ὅταν χορὸς στάς τι κατάρχεται λέγειν. in versu postremo λέγειν negligenter dictum esse pro άδειν memineris. Tzetzes illam priorem definitionem et alteram Euclidis non re sed verbis differre pronuntiat ( καὶ ταῦτα πολλοῖς ἓν τελοῦσι τοῖς λόγοις), et recte pronuntiat, quoniam, dum illa systemata anapaestica recitantur, choreutae in mediam orchestrae partem procedunt, itemque non stantes sed saltantes trochaica systemata decantare solent. itaque μέλος χοροῦ ἄνευ ἀναπαίστου καὶ τροχαίου idem est atque μέλος ὃ χορευταὶ στάντες ἄδουσιν. κόμμος δὲ θρήνος κοινὸς χοροῦ καὶ ἀπὸ σκηνῆς: nomen κόμμοι inde factum est, quod plerumque unus vel alter canentium sese plangebat doloris ostentandi causa.mira est huius technici etiam h. 1. sive dicendi brevitas sive negligentia. debuit saltem κόμμος δὲ θρήνος κοινὸς τοῦ χοροῦ καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ σκηνῆς, sed articulum saepius hoc capite omisit, ubi verus Aristoteles haud dubie illum positurus erat. de commo absurda quidem Tzetzes attulit, sed quae contemnere nobis non licet, propterea quod ex eius verbis patet, huius technici definitionem ignotam ei non fuisse: scribit igitur 1. c. vers. 64 sqq. οὗτος δ᾽ ὁ κόμμος τοῦ χοροῦ τελῶν μέρος ὑποκριταῖς ἦν ὡς πολὺ συνηγμένος, κόμμος δὲ θρήνου πενθικώτερος πλέον. ὁ θρῆνός ἐστιν ἠρεμέστερον μέλος. κόμμον πάλιν ἄλλος δέ τις θρῆνον λέγει, κοινὸν χοροῦ σκηνῆς τε τυγχάνει λέγων.