Poetics. Aristotle. ed. Henry James Pye. London. 1792.
The Poetic of Aristotle (Henry James Pye, revised 1792) (OCR draft) (English) (Henry James Pye's revised 1792 English translation, corrected against the 1788 first edition, aligned to the Kassel reference edition, and supplied with a selective apparatus of substantive 1788 readings.)
Provisional text from uncorrected OCR; expect errors.
Poetics
1. mvp-aristotle-comment-157
1.
mvp-aristotle-comment-158
1449a32
ἡ δὲ κωμῳδία κτέ.
The progress of Tragedy having been sketched, the next point to be considered is the progress of Comedy (
a 37
—
b 8
). The statement is introduced by a definition (
a 32-37
) based on hints already given in preceding chapters as to the nature of Comedy. In
2, 1448 a 16
Comedy was said to deal with personages worse than the average man (
χείρους, =
φαυλότεροι in the present passage) ; and in
4, 1448 b 36
its subject was assumed to be
τὸ γελοῖον.
These two points Aristotle reconciles and combines in a rough provisional definition before proceeding to the question more immediately before him, that of the
μεταβάσεις of Comedy. It is not necessary, therefore, to suppose this defining clause to be out of place. If we try the experiment of transferring it to another place, it will be found that little or nothing is gained by this disturbance of the traditional order.
1.
mvp-aristotle-comment-159
1449a33
ὥσπερ εἴπομεν
: in
2, 1448 a 17
and
4, 1448 b 37
.
1.
mvp-aristotle-comment-160
πᾶσαν κακίαν
:
Plato Rep. 490 D
ὁρᾶν αὐτῶν τοὺς μὲν ἀχρήστους, τοὺς δὲ πολλοὺς κακοὺς πᾶσαν κακίαν. —
Demosthenes 18, 279
τὸ δὲ δὴ καὶ τοὺς πρὸς ἔμ᾿ αὐτὸν ἀγῶνας ἐάσαντα νῦν ἐπὶ τόνδ᾿ ἤκειν καὶ πᾶσαν ἔχει κακίαν.
1.
mvp-aristotle-comment-161
1449a34
ἀλλὰ τοῦ αἰσχροῦ ἐστι τὸ γελοῖον μόριον
a compressed statement, practically equivalent to
οὐχ ἁπλῶς ἀλλὰ καθ᾿ ἕν τι εἶδος κακίας· τοῦ γὰρ αἰσχροῦ ἐστι τὸ γελοῖον μόριον.
The personages in Comedy are worse than most men, but only in one particular respect, as presenting a certain harmless deformity or ugliness of character, which makes them ridiculous only—not objects for blame or aversion. It is, in Aristotle's view, the harmlessness of the evil in them that makes them fit objects of laughter.
τὸ γὰρ γελοῖον κτέ.
Two kinds of possible objects of laughter are implied in the text. (1) An act is
γελοῖον when it is of the nature of a harmless mistake or blunder (
ἁμάρτημα ἀνώδυνον) ; and (2) a person is
γελοῖος when he presents some moral or physical deformity of the same harmless kind (
αἶσχος ἀνώδυνον).
The negative element here is a very essential part of the definition. Plato also, who thinks that the spectacle of human ignorance is the true object of laughter in Comedy, explains that, to be laughable, the ignorance must be harmless (
ἀβλαβὴς τοῖς ἄλλοις).
As
γελοῖα are the basis of all Comedy, Aristotle must be assumed to have devoted a section of his theory of Comedy (in the lost Second Book) to the causes and conditions of laughter, in the same way as we find him analysing
τὸ φοβερὸν καὶ ἐλεεινόν in chaps. 13-14 of the existing Poetics. It is not impossible that several traces of his theory survive in Cicero's discussion of the 'Ridiculous' in
De Oratore 2, 58-59
, which seems to be on distinctly Aristotelian lines.
2.
mvp-aristotle-comment-162
ἁμάρτημα
: see on
13, 1453 a 16
.
2.
mvp-aristotle-comment-163
1449a35
αἶσχος
(like the adj.
αἰσχρός) includes moral as well as physical deformity.
Though the illustration in 36 relates to physical ugliness, Aristotle is really thinking of the ugliness of character in the personages of Comedy, who have been described as being
χείρους τῶν νῦν (
2, 1448 a 17
). Their visible ugliness is part of their
ὄψις (see on
6, 1449 b 33
), which lies outside the limits of the art of the poet himself.
2.
mvp-aristotle-comment-164
1449a36
τὸ γελοῖον πρόσωπον
For the masks in Comedy see
Pollux 4, 143
.
2.
mvp-aristotle-comment-165
αἰσχρόν τι καὶ διεστραμμένον
:
Plato Rep. 506 C
βούλει οὖν αἰσχρὰ θεάσασθαι, τυφλά τε καὶ σκολιά, ἐξὸν παρ᾿ ἄλλων ἀκούειν φανά τε καὶ καλά;.
2.
mvp-aristotle-comment-166
1449a37
ἀνώδυνον
: comp.
ἄνευ ὀδύνης
in 37.
ὀδύνη is a pain that one feels strongly.
Plato Crat. 419 C
ὀδύνη δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς ἐνδύσεως τῆς λύπης κεκλημένῃ ἔοικεν.
The Stoic definition (
Diog. Laert. 7. 112
) was
ὀδύνη λύπη ἐπίπονος, translated by Cicero (
Tusc. 4. 8
) by
aerumna aegritudo laboriosa.
2.
mvp-aristotle-comment-167
εὐθὺς
: 'to take the first instance that occurs'; in
10, 1452 a 36
it means
suapte natura (
Bon. Ind. 296 a 13
).
1449b1
3.
mvp-aristotle-comment-168
κωμῳδῶν
The word being intended to bear the sense of the comic actor, i. e. the actor-poet, since Aristotle is referring to the time when the actor was the poet himself. This sense of the word in the Greek of Aristotle's period has been contested by Mr. H. P. Richards; but I think he has carried his negation too far, more especially as we find the corresponding word
τραγῳδοί in the sense of the tragic actors in
22, 1458 b 32
.
The traditional doctrine of the grammarians was that
κωμῳδοί was used for the actors as well as for the members of the chorus in Comedy:
Ammonius π. διαφ. λέξ. p. 86 Valck.
Κωμῳδὸς καὶ Τραγῳδὸς λέγεται ὁ χορευτής καὶ ὑποκριτής. That
κωμῳδοί may refer to the actors even in strict Attic seems to be shown by
Plato Phaedr. 236 C
ἵνα μὴ τὸ τῶν κωμῳδῶν φορτικὸν πρᾶγμα ἀναγκαζώμεθα ποιεῖν.
For Aristotle's time, however, the use seems to be pretty clearly established by the language of his contemporary, Chares of Mytilene:
ὑπεκρίθησαν δὲ τραγῳδοὶ μὲν Θεσσαλὸς καὶ Ἀθηνόδωρος καὶ Ἀριστόκριτος, κωμῳδοὶ δὲ Λύκων καὶ Φορμίων καὶ Ἀρίστων. And half a century after Aristotle this was the normal sense of the term, as is proved by inscriptions of the period.
The history of the word, therefore, runs parallel with that of the comic chorus. Whatever its form may have been, it was no longer a very important part of a comedy. And if that was the fact, the gradual restriction of the term
κωμῳδός to the actor would be the natural result of the absence or diminished importance of the chorus in the Comedy of the period.
3.
mvp-aristotle-comment-169
1449b2
ὀψέ ποτε
Aristotle seems to have had a definite date in his mind. He conceives the history of Attic Comedy to begin with Chionides, who is said to have exhibited as early as B.C. 487; but the formal recognition of it by the state must have come later, probably about B.C. 465.
3.
mvp-aristotle-comment-170
ἐθελονταὶ ἦσαν
Intelligi potest de Choro, sed etiam de poetis... ἐκαλοῦντο δὲ καὶ ἐθελονταὶ διδάσκαλοι, δραμάτων δηλαδή, ὅτε τις μὴ λαβὼν χορὸν μηδὲ χορηγητὴν ἔχων ἑαυτῷ τὰ πάντα παρεῖχε. Hinc enim poetarum, nascente Comoedia, conditio difficilis maxime apparet, quod non modo Chorum docere sed etiam conducere, nutrire, vestibus alioque omni apparatu instruere necesse haberent (Tyrwhitt).
A somewhat similar use of the term seems to have survived at Thebes, where
ἐθελοντής is said to have been the name for the actor in a rude species of burlesque. The alternative to Tyrwhitt's interpretation is to suppose the reference to be either to volunteer
χορηγοί (
Demosth. 21. 13
ὑπεσχόμην ἐγὼ χορηγήσειν ἐθελοντής), or to volunteer actors and chorus-singers.
σχήματα
: comp.
4, 1448 b 36
and
Bon. Ind. 740 a 24
. It has been thought that the form of expression here may imply some slowness to grant the name
ποιητής to a comedian.
4.
mvp-aristotle-comment-171
1449b3
μνημονεύονται
As soon as Comedy became a state institution, an official record of the successful poets must have been kept in the public archives.
4.
mvp-aristotle-comment-172
ἀπέδωκεν
:
De sensu 2, 438 b 17
ἀποδιδόναι καὶ προσάπτειν ἕκαστον τῶν αἰσθητηρίων ἑνὶ τῶν στοιχείων. In
Plato Laws 2, 669 C
ἀποδοῦναι and
προσαρμόττειν are treated as synonyms.
4.
mvp-aristotle-comment-173
προλόγους
The term is defined in
12, 1452 b 19
. The introduction of a 'prologue' in Tragedy was sometimes said to have been due to Thespis:
Themist. Or. 26 p. 382 Dind.
Θέσπις δὲ πρόλογον καὶ ῥῆσιν ἐξεῦρεν.
It was obviously a significant moment in the history of the Drama when the play, instead of beginning with a choral song, opened with a statement spoken by an actor.
4.
mvp-aristotle-comment-174
1449b4
πλήθη
: comp. the use of
πλήθη in
4, 1449 a 28
and
21, 1458 a 13
. The plural is in keeping with that in
προλόγους and
μύθους in the context.
5.
mvp-aristotle-comment-175
μύθους
: see on
b 9
.
5.
mvp-aristotle-comment-176
1449b6
Ἐπίχαρμος καὶ Φόρμις
These words cannot be retained where they stand. No appropriate verb can be supplied with them; for though Aristotle might have said
μύθους ἀπέδωκε, he could hardly have meant to say
μύθους ποιεῖν ἀπέδωκε. And even if
ἀπέδωκε is to be understood, there is an awkward asyndeton in
τὸ μὲν ἐξ ἀρχῆς. which on this assumption should surely be
τὸ μὲν 〈οὖν〉 ἐξ ἀρχῆς, as is actually read in certain of the apographs. From the reminiscence of this passage (comp.
Welcker, Kl. Scr. I p. 330
) in
Themistius Or. 27 p. 406 Dind.
καὶ κωμῳδία τὸ παλαιὸν ἤρξατο μὲν ἐκ Σικελίας (ἐκεῖθεν γὰρ ἤστην Ἐπίχαρμός τε καὶ Φόρμος), κάλλιον δὲ Ἀθήναζε συνηυξήθη, it would seem that the words
Ἐπίχαρμος καὶ Φόρμις were originally part of a clause which came in after
ἐκ Σικελίας ἦλθεν, and that what Aristotle wrote was something like this:
τὸ δὲ μύθους ποιεῖν τὸ μὲν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐκ Σικελίας ἦλθεν (ἦσαν γὰρ Ἐπίχαρμος καὶ Φόρμις ἐκεῖθεν), τῶν δὲ Ἀθήνησιν Κράτης κτέ. (v.
J. of Phil. 5 p. 118
)
1449b7
6.
mvp-aristotle-comment-177
Κράτης
: his 'floruit' may be put about B. C. 450. For the fragments of his comedies see
Kock, CAF. 1 p. 130
;
Meineke, FCG. 1 p. 58
.
6.
mvp-aristotle-comment-178
1449b8
ἀφέμενος τῆς ἰαμβικῆς ἰδέας
Ac mihi quidem hoc Aristoteles significare voluisse videtur, cum Cratinus ceterique antiquiores comici certos quosdam homines in fabulis suis exagitassent populoque ridendos propinassent, Cratetem primum apud Athenienses extitisse qui Epicharmi exemplo comicae poesios materiam a singulorum hominum irrisione ad generales morum notationes rerumque descriptiones traduceret. Quod autem lacessendi consuetudinem omisisse Crates ab Aristotele dicitur, id plane fragmenta fabularum confirmant, in quibus nihil prorsus reperias ex quo certos quosdam homines eum carpsisse intellegatur
Meineke l. c. p. 59
.
The 'iambic form' of Comedy is the Old Comedy, which, from the personal nature of its satire, was only one remove from the 'invective' of Archilochus and the Iambographers (
4, 1449 a 4
). It is thus characterized in
Horace Sat. 1. 4. 1
Eupolis atque Cratinus Aristophanesque poetae Alque alii, quorum comoedia prisca virorum est, Si quis erat dignus describi, quod malus aut fur, Quod moechus forel aut sicarius aut alioqui Famosus, multa cum libertate notabant.
6.
mvp-aristotle-comment-179
καθόλου ποιεῖν λόγους
is the opposite of
περὶ τὸν καθ᾿ ἕκαστον ποιεῖν (see
9, 1451 b 14
). The implied antithesis is between a story about some particular person, e. g. Alcibiades, and one about (for instance) 'a man', or 'a man of such and such a type' (
ὁ τοιόσδε,
Rhet. 1. 2, 1355 b 30
), i. e. as we should say, 'a character', the representative of a possible class.
A 'character' is a coherent group of qualities disengaged from the various accidents which coexist with it in the concrete individual; it is therefore in the nature of things something general and attributable to several, whereas the individual as such is unique. Aristotle's view is that the personages in Crates, as in all the higher forms of poetry, are 'characters', i. e. more or less idealized personages, not real men as in History, the
ψόγος, and the Old Comedy. How these abstracts of human personality come to get proper names attached to them in the Drama is a point which Aristotle considers at some length in
9, 1451 b 13-22
(comp.
17, 1455 b 12
).
6.
mvp-aristotle-comment-180
1449b9
μύθους
: i.e. his stories were as imaginary as his personages.
μῦθος according to
Plato Rep. 377 A
is a
λόγος ψευδής (either taken from legend or invented by the poet himself), though there may be some element of truth in it.
7.
mvp-aristotle-comment-181
ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐποποιία κτέ.
At this point, the evolution of the Drama having been sketched, Aristotle inserts a provisional note on the points of agreement and difference between Tragedy and epic poetry, which anticipates to a certain extent the longer statement in
chaps. 23-24
. The two points of agreement had been already intimated, the first in
4, 1448 b 34
, and the second in
5, 1449 a 20
.
7.
mvp-aristotle-comment-182
1449b10
μέχρι μὲν τοῦ ... εἶναι
:
7, 1451 a 10
μέχρι τοῦ σύνδηλος εἶναι. —
Top. 8. 1, 155 b 7
μέχρι μὲν οὖν τοῦ εὑρεῖν τὸν τόπον ὁμοίως τοῦ φιλοσόφου καὶ τοῦ διαλεκτικοῦ ἡ σκέψις. The construction
συνακολουθεῖν μέχρι occurs in
Phys. 1. 5, 188 b 26
μέχρι μὲν οὖν τούτου σχεδὸν συνηκολουθήκασι καὶ τῶν ἄλλων οἱ πλεῖστοι—where also
συνακολουθεῖν, just like
ἀκολουθεῖν here, is the opposite of
διαφέρειν (
188 b 30
: comp.
Bon. Ind. 26 a 23
). In these and similar instances the preposition
μέχρι is to be understood as inclusive of that which is mentioned as the limit (comp.
Eucken, Sprachgebr. p. 17
).
A difficulty has been found in
ἠκολούθησεν (by Thurot and Spengel), on the ground that it would be more natural to speak of Tragedy following the Epic than of the Epic following Tragedy. This view assumes that
ἀκολουθεῖν must mean to 'follow after' in order of time, whereas the word may very well mean 'go with' (comp.
Rhet. 1. 6, 1362 b 29
), i. e. 'agree with'. The aorist seems to imply that the fact has been already recognized.
With the traditional reading
μόνου (retained by Vahlen) the infinitive
εἶναι which follows is out of construction.
7.
mvp-aristotle-comment-183
1449b10
διὰ μέτρου μεγάλου
For the preposition comp.
1, 1447 a 27
διὰ τῶν σχηματιζομένων ῥυθμῶν. —
4, 1449 a 11
διὰ τριμέτρων. —
4, 1449 a 16
διὰ τῶν μέτρων. —
6, 1449 b 30
διὰ μέτρων. As here used,
μέτρον μέγα seems to mean a large kind of verse, one fitted for a large subject (comp.
4, 1449 a 6
μείζονα σχήματα).
The hexameter is a metre of this description (
24, 1460 a 3
); and Aristotle may be presumed, I think, to have taken the same view of the tragic iambic as corresponding to the
μέγεθος of the tragic stories, and the gravity of the tragic diction (comp.
4, 1449 a 19
).
Vahlen, retaining the manuscript reading
μέχρι μόνου μέτρου μεγάλου, takes
μέτρον μέγα to mean
spatium magnum sive fines ampli ; this, however, is hardly probable with
τὸ μέτρον in the sense of 'metre' in the very next line (comp.
Gomperz, Zu Aristoteles' Poetik 1 p. 25
).
The following are some of the attempts at emending this passage:
μέχρι μόνου μέτρου μετὰ λόγου (the Aldine, and corr. Parisinus 2038);
μέχρι μὲν τοῦ μέτρῳ [μετὰ λόγου] (Tyrwhitt);
μέχρι μόνου τοῦ διὰ λόγου ἐμμέτρου μεγάλου (Ueberweg);
μέχρι μὲν τοῦ [μέτρου μεγάλου] (Christ).
7.
mvp-aristotle-comment-184
μίμησις . . . σπουδαίων
: as was said in
4, 1448 b 34.
σπουδαίων is presumably neuter (comp.
4, 1448 b 34
, and the note on
3, 1448 a 19
).
7.
mvp-aristotle-comment-185
1449b11
τῷ δὲ τὸ μέτρον ἁπλοῦν ἔχειν
scil.
τὴν ἐποποιίαν.
ἁπλοῦν is the opposite of
ποικίλον (comp.
Bon. Ind. 76 b 12
) ; the contrast is between the one metre of the Epic (v.
24, 1459 b 32
) and the variety of metres in Tragedy.
7.
mvp-aristotle-comment-186
ταύτῃ
In illustration of the construction Vahlen quotes
23, 1459 a 30
ταύτῃ θεσπέσιος ἂν φανείη τῷ μηδὲ τὸν πόλεμον ἐπιχειρῆσαι ποιεῖν ὅλον. —
Pol. 7. 15, 1334 a 41
οὐ ταύτῃ διαφέρουσι τῶν ἄλλων, τῷ μὴ νομίζειν. —
Plato Rep. 605 C
τῷ πρὸς ἕτερον τοιοῦτον ὁμιλεῖν ταύτῃ ὡμοίωται.
1449b12
8.
mvp-aristotle-comment-187
ἔτι δὲ τῷ μήκει
scil.
διαφέρει ἡ ἐποποιία. Having laid this down, however, Aristotle remembers that the difference did not always exist; he accordingly repeats his original proposition by a resumptive
καὶ τούτῳ διαφέρει (comp.
Kühner, Gr. Gr. 2. 1 p. 660
), in order to introduce a qualifying clause,
καίτοι τὸ πρῶτον κτέ.. The clause marked as a parenthesis is equivalent to
ἡ μὲ γὰρ κτέ. (actually found in some apographs), and is similar in form to that in
4, 1449 a 19
(v. ad loc.).
Aristotle is thinking of a very obvious fact, viz. that an epic (the Iliad or Odyssey, for instance) runs to several thousand lines, whereas a tragedy rarely exceeds some 1,600. This difference he never loses sight of; he notes it in
17, 1455 b 16
, and (in a context just like the present) in
24, 1459 b 17
διαφέρει δὲ κατά τε τῆς συστάσεως τὸ μήκος ἡ ἐποποιία καὶ τὸ μέτρον; and he returns to it in his concluding chapter (
26, 1462 a 18
) where the comparative merits of the two forms of poetry are under discussion.
These parallels, as Teichmüller has seen, are enough to show that
μῆκος must denote here not the
ambitus actionis, the imaginary duration of the action of the poem, as is often supposed, but rather the real length of the work itself, a length to be measured by the number of lines the work would take up in a book, or the hours it would need for recitation. It has the same sense in
7, 1451 a 6
and in
24, 1459 b 18
.
A reason for this difference of length, one quite sufficient for Aristotle's purpose, is given in the parenthesis,
ἡ μὲν ὅτι μάλιστα κτέ.. He regards it as the natural consequence of another kind of difference, viz. the fact that the action in a Greek tragedy is as a rule kept within a limit of some 24 hours, whereas that in an epic may extend over weeks, or even years. There being this difference, therefore, in the extent of the action, the quantum of matter to be included in the story, it is only natural that there should be a corresponding difference in the length of the literary statement in the two instances, and that an epic poem accordingly should be of greater length than a tragedy.
A certain correspondence between the length and the quantum of matter in a poem is recognized in
26, 1462 b 2
. Assuming this correspondence, Aristotle explains the great length of an epic, as compared with a tragedy, as due to the great length of time over which the epic action extends. In other words, he passes from the idea of the actual length, the actual time required for the recitation, to that of the imaginary time covered by the action of the poem; and he does this on the tacit assumption that the two things are so closely connected that the one may serve to explain the other (comp.
Ueberweg, Aristoteles über Dichtkunst p. 57
).
Teichmüller's theory, that Aristotle is referring in the parenthesis to the time of the actual recitation or performance, and thinking of the series of dramas (a trilogy or tetralogy) presented on the stage in a single day, may be set aside at once, not only on archaeological grounds, but also because it assumes an impossible sense for
ὑπὸ μίαν περίοδον ἡλίου.
8.
mvp-aristotle-comment-188
1449b13
πειρᾶται
means much the same thing as
βούλεται in
2, 1448 a 18
. The same anxiety to avoid overstatement is to be seen in
ὅτι μάλιστα and
ἢ μικρὸν ἐξαλλάττειν in the context.
8.
mvp-aristotle-comment-189
μίαν περίοδον ἡλίου
cannot be, as Teichmüller imagines, a way of describing the natural day of 12 hours or so ; the periphrasis is deliberately chosen in order to make it clear that the solar day of 24 hours is meant. A
περίοδος of the sun is not its half-circuit, but its circuit, i. e. the time it takes to come round again to an assumed starting-point. For other Aristotelian instances of this sense of the word see
Bon. Ind. 582 b 29
.
The statement in the text was often quoted in former times as evidence for the assertion that the so-called 'Unity of Time' was one of Aristotle's rules for the Drama. 'The stage', says Sydney in his
Apology for Poetry (p. 63 Arber), 'should always represent but one place; and the uttermost time presupposed in it should be, both by Aristotle's precept and common sense, but one day'. What Aristotle actually says is not a precept, but only an incidental recognition of a fact in the practice of the theatre in his age. The same is true also of the 'Unity of Place', which was believed to be implied as a rule in
24, 1459 b 25
. The 'Unity of Action', however, is very emphatically asserted in chaps. 8–11 and elsewhere.
8.
mvp-aristotle-comment-190
μικρὸν ἐξαλλάττειν
= 'to vary, or depart, from that only a little', i. e. 'to exceed that limit only a little'. The reference is not to variation within the limit, but to variation beyond it.
1449b15
9.
mvp-aristotle-comment-191
τὸ πρῶτον
In the earliest drama, says Aristotle, the Unity of Time was not observed with strictness, any more than it is in epic poetry. This passage has been discussed by M. Maurice Croiset (
Rev. des Études grecques p. 373; comp.
Heimsoeth, De tragoediae graecae trilogiis p. iv
), who suggests that Aristotle may be referring to the period anterior to the institution of the trilogy, when a long tragic story, instead of being dealt with in three tragedies, may be supposed to have been told in one.
It is clear that the action in such a play would be very like that of an epic, and cover a longer time than 24 hours. One may ask how in the absence of some device like the modern curtain the lapse of time between act and act could be sufficiently indicated; and one may also ask whether there was the same chorus throughout the performance. These are difficulties which we have now no means of answering.
9.
mvp-aristotle-comment-192
ἐν ταῖς τραγῳδίαις
The preposition shows that Aristotle is thinking not of the time of the performance, but of something within the play, the imaginary time of the action in it (
Ribbeck, Rh. Mus. 24, 135
); comp.
13, 1453 a 25
τοῦτο δρᾷ ἐν ταῖς τραγῳδίαις.
1449b16
10.
mvp-aristotle-comment-193
μέρη
: i.e. the constituents enumerated and distinguished in
6, 1449 b 31 sqq.
. The parts peculiar to Tragedy are melody and 'spectacle' (
24, 1459 b 10
).
1449b17
11.
mvp-aristotle-comment-194
διόπερ κτέ.
Similarly in chaps. 23–24, before explaining the differences between epic poetry and Tragedy, Aristotle is at some pains to show that a good epic will have much the same structure as a good tragedy, and that in most respects the same canons of construction are applicable to it (
23, 1459 a 17
—
24, 1459 b 17
). The corollary ends at
ἐπῶν; what follows (
μὲν γὰρ κτέ.) is a reason in support of the main statement (b 16).
1.
mvp-aristotle-comment-117
5.1
La Comedie eſt, comme je l'ay deja dit, une imitation des plus méchans hommes. Quand je dis méchans, ce n'eſt pas dans toutes ſortes de vices, mais ſeulement dans le ridicule.]
1
2.
mvp-aristotle-comment-118
5.2
2. Car le ridicule eſt proprement un défaut, une difformité ſans douleur, & qui ne va point à la deſtruction du ſujet où il ſe trouve.]
2
3.
mvp-aristotle-comment-119
4.
mvp-aristotle-comment-120
5.3
4. Mais la Comedie a été inconnuë, parce qu'elle ne fut pas cultivée dès le commencement, comme la Tragedie.]
4
5.
mvp-aristotle-comment-121
6.
mvp-aristotle-comment-122
7.
mvp-aristotle-comment-123
5.4
7. Mais depuis que la Comedie eut commencé à prendre quelque forme, on ſçait les Poëtes qui y ont travaillé.]
7
8.
mvp-aristotle-comment-124
5.4
8. On ignore ceux qui ont employé les premiers les maſques, fait des prologues, & augmenté le nombre des Acteurs.]
8
9.
mvp-aristotle-comment-125
10.
mvp-aristotle-comment-126
11.
mvp-aristotle-comment-127
12.
mvp-aristotle-comment-128
5.6
12. Crates fut le premier des Atheniens qui le ſuivit, en renonçant aux railleries groſſieres qui regnoient auparavant.]
12
13.
mvp-aristotle-comment-129
14.
mvp-aristotle-comment-130
15.
mvp-aristotle-comment-131
16.
mvp-aristotle-comment-132
17.
mvp-aristotle-comment-133
18.
mvp-aristotle-comment-134
19.
mvp-aristotle-comment-135
20.
mvp-aristotle-comment-136
21.
mvp-aristotle-comment-137
5.8
21. Car la Tragedie tâche autant qu'il eſt poſſible de ſe renfermer dans le tour d'un Soleil, ou de changer peu ce temps.]
21
22.
mvp-aristotle-comment-138
23.
mvp-aristotle-comment-139
5.9
23. Mais il faut dire qu'il n'y en avoit pas non plus pour la Tragedie dans ſes commencemens.]
23
24.
mvp-aristotle-comment-140
5.11
24. Celuy qui jugera bien d'une Tragedie, & qui connoîtra bien ſeurement ſi elle eſt bonne ou mauvaiſe, pourra auſſi juger d'une Epopée.]
24
38.
mvp-aristotle-comment-38
NOTE 38.
5.1
P. 73. THE RIDICULOUS-A SPECIES OF TURPITUDE OR DEFORMITY; SINCE IT MAY BE DEFINED, &C.
It has been asserted by some writers of eminence, that Aristotle here speaks, not of what is laughable or ludicrous, in general, but only of the ridiculous, in that particular sense of the word, in which it is distinguished from the merely risible, and implies laughter mixed with disapprobation or contempt. This, however, is certainly not what Aristotle has said; for the word
γελοιον, which he uses, is as general as possible, and answers exactly to our word laughable. And it is in this general sense, justified, I think, by common usage, that I have used the word ridiculous in my version. For though in a philosophical speculation the distinction above-mentioned may be necessary for clearness, and is undoubtedly well founded, yet, in common language, the word ridiculous is never used with this nice appropriation, but applied, like its Latin original, to whatever excites laughter.
But it is objected, that, if Aristotle means the laughable in general, his account of the matter is false; because "men laugh at that, in which there is neither fault nor turpitude of any kind."
1
I answer, that this is true in English, but not true in Greek. Our word, turpitude, is confined, I think, to a moral sense, and I suppose is here so used by Dr. Beattie; and it is certainly true, that we laugh at many things that have in them no turpitude of that kind-nothing morally wrong. But the Greek word,
ΑΙΣΧΡΟΝ, was a word of wide extent, and seems manifestly used here by Aristotle in its utmost latitude; comprehending every thing that is, in any degree, ugly or deformed, from atrocious villainy, the highest moral ugliness, to a ridiculous cast of features in an ugly face. It is the opposite to
ΚΑΛΟΝ, which was used in a correspondent latitude of application. - The objections, which have been made to this passage, have chiefly, I think, been owing to this, that the objectors have not been sufficiently aware of the extensive signification in which the Greeks used the words,
καλον, αισχρον, –ἀρετη, κακια σπεδαιον, φαυλον-άμαρτημα, &c. We trans- late the words of antient authors by words to which we annex different ideas, and then raise objections and difficulties from our own mistakes. The consequence of taking
αισχρον here in the restrained sense of moral turpitude, has been, that those writers, who have so taken it, have been obliged to deny, that
γελοιον means laughable, because the laughable in general could not truly be defined, "a species of moral turpitude."
It plainly was not Aristotle's design here to enter into an accurate inquiry about the nature of laughter, and the distinction of risible and ridiculous objects. This he had perhaps done, in that part of this mutilated treatise, which related to Comedy, and to which he himself refers in his Rhetoric.
2
His purpose, here, seems to have been, merely to support and explain his account of Comedy; i. e. that it was
μιμησις φαυλοτερων, "an imitation of bad characters;" that is, as he immediately limits the sense of the general term
φαυλον, of ridiculous, or laughable, characters. Such, he continues, are properly denominated
φαυλοι, κακοι, bad, &c. because the laughable (
γελοιον) is one species of the
αισχρον, taken in its most general sense. "But to what species, or class," it was obvious to ask, "does it belong?"-To that class, it is answered, of things
αισχρα, which are neither destructive nor painful: for these, exciting terror or pity, are the property of Tragedy. And he asserts, I think, plainly, that the laughable in general,
το γελοιον, i. e. every thing that excites laughter, is
ἁμαρτημα ΤΙ και αισχα ἀνωδυνον και φθαρτικον-is, in some respect or other, faulty, wrong, deformed, but neither painful nor pernicious. What follows, about a ridiculous face, is, I think, clearly, not an illustration merely, as Dr. Campbell understands it to be, but an instance.
3
This seems evident from Aristotle's using the very word
αισχρον; (
προσωπον αισχρον) which he would hardly have done, had he just before used the words
αισχρον and
αισχ, as Dr. Campbell and Dr. Beattie contend that he bas used them, in a moral sense only.
But it is objected "We can never suppose that Aristotle would have called distorted features 'a certain fault or slip.'" To call them a slip, would indeed found strangely; because that expression conveys the idea of something morally wrong. But when we say, that a very long nose, or a wide mouth, is a fault in a face, we use a very common expression; the word fault having, I think, the same latitude of application as the Greek word
ἀμαρτημα.
It must be observed, however, that all Aristotle says is, that these two characters, deformity of some sort, and the absence of pain, or hurt, are to be found in every object of laughter: he neither says, nor implies, the converse that every thing so qualified is laughable. With respect to one of these characters the absence of pain or harm-there can be no doubt. It is only saying that we cannot laugh at that which shocks us. As to the other general character, deformity, ugliness, something wrong, &c. (
ἁμαρτημα ΤΙ και αισχα) it seems to me, that these expressions, taken in that large sense, in which Aristotle plainly means to use them, amount to much the same as those used by modern philosophers to characterize the risible in general; such as, "incongruity, incongruous association, striking unsuitableness," "disproportion, inconsistence and dissonance of circumstances in the same object"
4
. With respect to works both of nature, and of art," says the ingenious and philosophical author of the Elements of Criticism, "none of them are risible but what are out of rule, some remarkable defect or excess; a very long visage, for example, or a very short one. Hence nothing just, proper, decent, beautiful, proportioned, or grand, is risible."
5
This appears to me to be exactly the meaning, and to approach very near to the language, of Aristotle. For, of whatever may be thus characterized it surely may be said, that it has some species of fault, deformity, or distortion: in Aristotle's words,
ἁμαρτημα Τι και -αισχρον ΤΙ και ΔΙΕΣΤΡΑΜΜΕΝΟΝ.
Aristotle's account, then, of the
γελοíον, appears to be right, as far as it goes. It might, indeed, be objected to, as too general, had he given it as the result of an exact and particular analysis of the subject. But this, as I have already observed, was not his purpose in this place.
It is farther objected by Dr. Campbell, that to speak of laughter in general, "would have been foreign to Aristotle's purpose:" because, "laughter is not his theme, but Comedy; and laughter only so far as Comedy is concerned with it. Now the concern of Comedy reaches no farther than that kind of ridicule which relates to manners."
6
—Undoubtedly it was this kind of ridicule that Aristotle had principally in view. But I apprehend, that the Comedy here in question was concerned with the ridiculous or laughable in general. For Aristotle's notion of Comedy, as an excellent writer has observed, "was taken from the state and practice of the Athenian stage that is, from the old or middle Comedy, which answers to his description. The great revolution which the introduction of the new Comedy made in the drama, did not happen till afterwards."
7
Now the old and middle Comedy, as I have before observed, were no other than what we should call Farce. To raise a laugh was so eminently their object, that the ridiculous (
το γελοιον) is frequently used by Plato, as synonymous to Comedy, and substituted for it; as pity is also for Tragedy.
8
Nor was it even very "foreign to Aristotle's purpose" to instance in a ridiculous face; for that this also was an established source of fun in the Greek theatre, is well known from the curious account of the comic masks in Jul. Pollux; who says, particularly of those of the old Comedy, that they were ridiculous caricaturas of the persons represented:—
ἐπι το γελοιοτερον ἐσχηματισο.
9
The Athenians were certainly not more delicate than Cicero, who thought, we know, that bodily deformities were "satis bella materies ad jocandum."
10
He, also, agrees perfectly with Aristotle, or rather follows him, in his account of the ridiculous: "Locus autem et regio quasi ridiculi TURPITUDINE ET DEFORMITATE QUADAM continetur."
39.
mvp-aristotle-comment-39
NOTE 39.
5.4
P. 73. ITS POETS HAVE BEEN RECORDED.
The original is,
δι ΛΕΓΟΜΕΝΟΙ αυτης ποιηται μνημονευονται : the only fair translation of which, I think, is,
"they who are called its Poets." But as it seems not easy to find any reasonable meaning for this, I have not translated the word at all. The text is probably corrupt.
Castelvetro
conjectured, very ingeniously,
ΟΛΙΓΟΙ ΜΕΝ ΟΙ ΑΥΤΗΣ ποιηται .—But this Greek,
όλιγοι οι ποιηται, is, I fear, what the critics call,
πονηρκ κομματα. I will venture to mention another conjecture that has occurred to me. The learned reader will dispose of it as he pleases. It seems not improbable that Aristotle wrote,
Ηδη δε σχηματα τινα αυτης ἐχεσης ΟΙΑ ΛΕΓΟΜΕΝ, ΟΙ αυτης, &c. i. e.
"When it had acquired a certain form, such as we say," alluding to what he had said of Homer's suggesting, by his
Margites, the true form, or idea, of Comedy, in which the ridiculous was substituted for the mere invective of the old Iambic, or Satyric form.
Τα της κωμωδίας ΣΧΗΜΑΤΑ πρωτο ὑπεδειξεν, ἐ ψογον, άλλα ΤΟ ΓΕΛΟΙΟΝ δραματοποιησας,
[cap. iv.]
See, also, what he says immediately after, of the forms (
σχηματα) of Tragedy and Comedy being
ἐντιμοτερα, in higher credit and esteem, than those of the old satirical and encomiastic poems which preceded them: for this seems to accord with what he here says, that Comedy was neglected till it attained something of this its proper form, and aimed at its proper object, the ridiculous. The reader will see the connection :
Ἡ δε κωμῳδια, δια το ΜΗ ΣΠΟΥΔΑΖΕΣΘΑΙ ἐξ ἀρχης, ἐλαθεν. ——ΗΔΗ ΔΕ ΣΧΗΜΑΤΑ τίνα αυτης ἐχεσης ὉΙΑ ΛΕΓΟΜΕΝ, ΟΙ αυτης ποιηται μνημονευονται .—This differs from the present reading only by the insertion of a single letter,
Δ, which might easily have been omitted, from its resemblance to the
Α that follows.
40.
mvp-aristotle-comment-40
NOTE 40.
5.4
P. 73. PROLOGUES.
We are not, I think, to look for a sense of the word
Προλογο, as here applied to Comedy, different from that, in which it is applied,
ch. xii.
[Transl. Part II. Sect. 10.] to Tragedy. In both, it was that introductory part of the drama, the business of which was, to give the spectator, either directly, in its very outlet, or, more obliquely, in the course of it, so much information relative to the subject of the piece, as would enable him to follow the action without confusion.
11
This we learn clearly from the following passage in that part of Aristotle's
Rhetoric
, where he explains and illustrates the oratorical exordium, by a comparison of it with that of the Epic Poem, and with the prologue of a drama. After giving, as examples, the openings of the
Iliad and
Odyssey, he goes on:—
και οι Τραγικοι δηλεσι περι το δραμα, καν μη ευθυς, ώσπερ Ευριπίδης, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ΤΩΙ ΠΡΟΛΟΓΩ γε ΠΟΥ δηλοι, ώσπερ και Σοφοκλης ---ΚΑΙ Ἡ ΚΩΜΩΔΙΑ ΩΣΑΥΤΩΣ
[Rhet. iii. 14.]
.
12
—This clearly excludes the separate prologue, such as that of the Roman Comedy; and it is, also, irreconcilable with
Dacier's
idea, that by the prologue, in the passage we are considering, Aristotle meant what was afterwards called the
Parabasis ; for this was merely an address from the Poet to the audience, through the mouth of the Chorus, occurring indifferently in any part of the play, and even, sometimes, at the end of it.
13
It seems to differ from the prologue of the Roman Comedy, and of the modern drama, only in its being delivered by the Chorus, and in the body of the piece.
Tragedy, according to the usual account of it, seems to have consisted, at first, only of two parts, the
Χορικον, and
Επεισοδίον, and to have begun and ended with those choral songs, which were then esteemed the essential part of Tragedy. But, afterwards, these scanty fables,
μικροι μυθοι, as Aristotle calls them, were drawn out to their proper size , not only by introducing a greater variety of episodic incidents , but by prefixing to the first choral song, (or to the first speech of the entire chorus, according to Aristotle's account of the Parode, cap. xii.) the introductory part called
Προλογού, and adding, after the last, the concluding part called
Έξοδος. The case was probably the same with Comedy. The Phallic songs, from which it received its birth, were, I suppose, regarded originally as the essential part of the Comic drama, in the same manner as the Bacchic hymns were of the Tragic. Aristotle plainly speaks of Comedy, as having gradually received similar additions and improvements to those of Tragedy ; and, among these, that of the
Προλογά. That such an introductory part, or act, which should be, as Aristotle expresses it,
δειγμα λογε, and
ὁδοποιησις τῳ ἐπιοντι , was indeed still more necessary to Comedy than to Tragedy, is obvious from the very nature of the former drama.
The nature and office of the Greek prologue, and its two different manners, are, I observe, very exactly expressed by
Terence
in the conclusion of his separate prologue to the
Adelphi ; as they are also very well exemplified in the two first scenes.
Dehinc, ne expectetis argumenta fabulæ. Senes qui primi venient, hi, partem aperient, In agendo partem oftendent.
That is, as I understand it, part of the plot they will open to you in the way of direct narration, like the prologues of Euripides, (as, in the soliloquy of Mitio,) and part they will discover in a more oblique and dramatic way, in the scene of action and dialogue that follows:
"In agendo partem oftendent."
I ventured, in a former note, to say, that the Greek Tragedy appeared to me to have retained, with all its improvements, some traces of its origin. Something of this may be perceived, I think, in the very opening of many of the Greek dramas: but especially in those of
Euripides
, whose inartificial prologues of explanatory narration, addressed directly to the spectators, remind us of the state of Tragedy previous to the introduction of the dialogue ; when it consisted only of a story told between the acts, (if I may so speak,) of the Dithyrambic Chorus, which was then the main body and substance of the entertainment. When I read the opening of the
Hecuba:
ΗΚΩ, νεκρων κευθμωνα και σκοτε πύλας Διπων, ἐν᾿ Αδης χωρις ᾠκισται θεων, ΠΟΛΥΔΩΡΟΣ, Εκαβης παις γεγως της Κίσσέως Πριαμέτε πατρα κ. τ. αλ.
Hec. v. 1.
14
—that of the
Perfe of
Æschylus
:—
ΤΑΔΕ μεν Περσων των διχομενων Ελλαδ᾽ ἐις άναν πιστα καλείται.
Pers. v. 1.
—or, even the—
ΑΥΤΟΣ ὧδ᾽ ἐληλυθα Ο ΠΑΣΙ ΚΛΕΙΝΟΣ ΟΙΔΙΠΟΥΣ ΚΑΛΟΥΜΕΝΟΣ
Oed. Tyr. v. 7.
—of
Sophocles
, I cannot help thinking of the single actor of
Thespis
, announcing his own name and family, and telling the simple tale of his achievements or misfortunes.
This sort of direct explanation was afterwards, with much more propriety, taken from the persons of the drama, and consigned to the actors in a detached prologue, such as those of
Plautus
and
Terence
: a practice, which, if we did not know the attachment of
Ben Jonson
to every thing antient, we might suspect he meant to ridicule, by the pleasant use he has made of it in the prologue to his puppet-shew of Hero and Leander, in the
Bartholomew Fair.
"Gentles, that no longer your expectations may wander, Behold our chief actor, amorous Leander, With a great deal of cloth lapp'd about him like a scarf, For he yet serves his father, a dyer at Puddle-wharf," &c.
The next, and the last step, in the history of Prologues, was again to leave the argument, as it had been left by Sophocles, to the oblique information and gradual development of the action itself, and to make the separate prologue subservient to other purposes, unconnected with the subject of the drama. The worst of these purposes, and the greatest possible abuse of the term, is to be found in what is called the Prologue of the
French Opera
; which is wholly composed of two ingredients, almost equally disgusting to a just poetical, or moral taste—allegory and adulation.
41.
mvp-aristotle-comment-41
NOTE 41.
5.5
P. 73. EPICHARMUS AND PHORMIS FIRST INVENTED COMIC FABLES.
Dacier
, here, raises unnecessary difficulties. His positive assertion, that, in the old and middle Comedy,
"Il n'y avoit rien de feint," is surprising. The slightest inspection of
Aristophanes
will confute it. Was it, then, a fact, that
Socrates
used to be suspended in a basket for the benefit of aerial meditation? and that Æschylus and Euripides weighed their verses in a pair of scales, to decide, by that means, a contest or superiority, after they were dead? &c..
15
Μυθες ποιειν, is clearly to invent plots or subjects; and whatever is invented, or feigned, is, in Aristotle's language,
καθολε, or general, as opposed to a strictly historical plot, which is
καθ ἐκαστον, particular.
16
The expression, therefore, which Aristotle presently after uses, in speaking of
Crates
,
ἀφεμενα της ιαμβικης ίδεας, καθολα ποιειν λογες μυθες, I understand to be no more than the development of the shorter expression which preceded,
μυθες ποιειν. He does not say, that Crates was the first Poet, but only the first Athenian Poet, who invented such comic subjects. The distinction seems clearly marked:
το μεν ἐν ἐξ ἀρχης ἐκ ΣΙΚΕΛΙΑΣ ἦλθε : ΤΩΝ ΔΕ ΑΘΗΝΗΣΙ, Κρατης πρωτο κ. τ. αλλ..
42.
mvp-aristotle-comment-42
NOTE 42.
5.7
P. 74. EPIC POETRY AGREES SO FAR WITH TRAGIC, &C.
Of the corruption of this passage I have no doubt. It has been proposed to eject the words,
μετα λογε. My suspicion rather falls upon the word
μετρε; which, as it adds nothing but embarrassment to the sense, (
λογο, speech, or words, being a general term, and including metre, as in
ch. i.
) I have omitted. It appears to me, likewise, that the only meaning, which can reasonably be given to the expression,
μεχρι ΜΟΝΟΥ μετρα, is—as far as metre alone; i. e.
"without considering the other means of imitation, melody and rhythm." And, accordingly, some commentators, by
μετρον ῾ΑΠΛΟΥΝ, understand verse alone, without music. But had this been Aristotle's meaning, he would probably have used the appropriated and clear word,
$\psi u\lambda ov$. The proper and obvious sense of
μετρον άπλεν, is, a simple, or single, kind of metre.
17
This sense seems also supported by what he says of the metrical difference of the Epic and Tragic Poems, cap. xxiv. where melody and rhythm are not taken into the comparison, but the different kinds of metre only, and their being one, or many:—
ἐι γαρ τις ἐν ἀλλῳ τινι μετρῳ διηγηματικην μιμησιν ποιοιτο, ἐν ΠΟΛΛΟΙΣ, ἀπρεπες ἂν φαινοιτο. And farther, that Aristotle did not mean to express by
μετρον άπλεν, the exclusion of melody and rhythm, appears the more probable, because he sufficiently expresses this presently afterwards, when he says, that some of the parts of Tragedy were peculiar to it. Now these parts are no other than the decoration, (
oψις), and the
Melopæia, which included melody and rhythm.
On the whole, it seems not improbable, that the passage originally stood in some such way as this:
Ἡ μεν ἐν Εποποϊία τη Τραγω δια μέχρι μονα ΤΟΥ μετα λογε μιμησιΝ ἐἶναι σπεδαιων ἠκολεθησεν.
43.
mvp-aristotle-comment-43
NOTE 43.
5.9
P. 74. THIS, AT FIRST, WAS EQUALLY THE CASE WITH TRAGEDY ITSELF.
It seems to have been taken for granted, without any foundation, by
Dacier
, and other commentators, that the modern rule, (for an antient rule it certainly is not,) of what is called the
unity of time, was strictly adhered to in every period of the Greek drama: and this has led them, in this passage, to confound the length of the action, or fable, with that of the representation ; for these, where a strict unity of time is observed, are indeed the same. But Aristotle here says plainly, that in the earliest state of Tragedy, no rule at all, with respect to the time of the action, was observed ; that it was not only allowed to exceed
"a single revolution of the sun," but was
"indefinite (
like that of the Epic Poem. This evidently cannot be applied, without absurdity, to the time of representation. Yet so it is applied by Dacier in his note on this passage, p. 70. ἀορις)"
But it appears farther, I think, from what is said, and plainly said, in this chapter, that, after all we have heard so often about this famous unity of time, the rule receives not the least support from Aristotle's authority. Every one, who knows how much stress has been laid by modern critics on the three dramatic unities, and happens not to be well acquainted with Aristotle's treatise on Poetry, would, I suppose, naturally take it for granted, that they are all explicitly laid down, and enforced by him, as essential and indispensable laws, in that famous code of dramatic criticism. But the fact is, that, of these three rules, the only one that can be called important—that of the
unity of action—is, indeed, clearly laid down and explained, and, with great reason, considered by him as indispensable.
Of the two other unities, that of
place is not once mentioned, or even hinted, in the whole book ; and all that is said, respecting the time of the action, is said in this chapter, and in these words:
"Tragedy endeavours, as far as possible, to confine its action within the limits of a single revolution of the sun, or nearly so."
18
Almost all the commentators seem agreed in understanding the expression,
μια περιοδου ήλιε, to mean only an artificial day. But I own I could never yet perceive any good reason, why we should not permit Aristotle to mean what he seems, in plain terms, to say. If he meant only twelve hours, why did he prefer an expression so ambiguous, to say the least of it, as
μιαν περιοδον ήλιε, to the clear and obvious expression of
μιαν ΗΜΕΡΑΝ? —But, to wave this question, the utmost, which the most strenuous advocates for the unity of time can make of this passage, is this—that the Poet should endeavour, as far as possible, to confine the supposed time of the action to that of a single day, or nearly so. Now it seems allowed, that none of the Greek Tragedies extant could have taken up, in the representation, more than three or four hours. What Aristotle, therefore, here says, is so far from being a rule for the unity of time, that, on the contrary, it is saying as plainly as possible, that, in his view, it was no duty incumbent on the dramatic Poet even to aim at the observance of such a rule: for, had he thought otherwise, his mode of expression would, surely, have been very different. He would have proposed the strict unity of time—the exact coincidence of the actual time of representation with the supposed time of the action—as the point of perfection, at which the Poet was to aim: he would have said,
"Tragedy endeavours, as far as possible, to confine its action within the time of representation, or nearly so."
It is certain, indeed, that the nature of the drama, strictly and rigorously considered, would require, I will not say, to the perfection, but to the closeness, of its imitation, the exact coincidence here mentioned ; and it is on this foundation only, that any rule at all relative to time could be necessary, and that the dramatic Poet could, with any reason, be denied the privilege of the Epic. All I contend for is, that Aristotle has no where required such a coincidence ; that he has not even mentioned it; much less has he, either here, or in any other part of his work, enjoined it as a rule. His rule is, as generally understood,
"confine your action, as nearly as you can, to a single day;" —or, as I think, in conformity to his plain words, it should be understood—
"to a single revolution of the sun, or twenty-four hours."
19
It may, perhaps, be objected, that Aristotle has not delivered this in the form of a rule ; that he only refers to fact, and to the usual practice of the dramatic Poets of his time.
"Tragedy endeavours," &c. But, surely, to mention the general practice of Poets with seeming approbation, or, at least, without a word to the contrary, is, in fact, to erect that practice, (as he has done on many other occasions throughout his treatise,) into a rule. It is sufficient for my purpose, that, at least, he has given no other rule. Moreover, what he here says of the practice of the Greek dramatists, seems somewhat adverse to the language of those modern critics, who so often appeal, if I mistake not, to that very practice, for the support of their rigorous unity of time. For, if his expression does not prove, that he thought the rule of a single revolution of the sun the only rule which the Poets ought to observe, it surely proves, because it actually says, that he thought it the only rule, which, in general, they did observe.
But what says
Dacier
?
"Une Tragedie, pour être parfaite, ne doit occuper ni plus, ni moins de tems, pour l'action, que pour la representation; car elle est alors dans toute la vraisemblance. Les Tragiques Grecs L'ONT TOUJOURS PRATIQUE." What he adds, it seems not very easy to comprehend:
"Et ils s'en font fait une loi si indispensable, que pour ne la pas violer, ils ont quelquefois violentè leurs incidens, d'une maniere que je ne conseillerois pas de suivre:" i. e. in plain English, (for I can make nothing else of it,)
"they have so scrupulously adhered to the rule, that, sometimes, for the sake of observing it, they have been obliged to break it." p. 118.
I believe, every reader, who, in perusing the Greek Tragedians, has taken the pains to examine this matter, must be sensible, that what Dacier so confidently asserts, of their constant adherence to this rule, is palpably false. I shall only mention one remarkable instance of the utter neglect of it, and that in
SOPHOCLES
; who, in this, as in other respects, is usually regarded, I think, as the most correct and regular of the three Greek Poets whose Tragedies are in our hands. In his
Trachiniae, v. 632, Lichas sets out to carry the poisoned garment to Hercules, whom he finds upon the Cenaean promontory, which is said to be about sixty Italian miles from the scene of the action. At v. 734, Hyllus, who was present when his father received the garment, arrives with the terrible relation of its effects. Thus, during the performance of about a hundred lines, a journey of about one hundred and twenty Italian miles is supposed to have been taken. For this, and other instances of the same kind, I must content myself with referring the reader to the sensible and well written
Estratto della Poetica d'Aristotile
, published among the posthumous works of
Metastasio
, and which did not fall into my hands till all my notes were written. It contains many ingenious and sagacious observations. The subject of the dramatic unities, in particular, is discussed at large, and, I think, in a very masterly and satisfactory way. And, with respect to the strict unities of time and place, he seems perfectly to have succeeded in shewing, that no such rules were imposed on the Greek Poets by the critics, or by themselves;—nor are imposed on any Poet, either by the nature, or the end, of the dramatic imitation itself.
20
It would be inexcusable to quit this subject without reminding the reader, that the unities of time and place, were long ago powerfully, and, in my opinion, unanswerably combated, as far as their principles are concerned, by
Dr. Johnson, in his preface to Shakspeare, p. 20, &c.
5.1.
mvp-aristotle-comment-11
5.1
RIDICULE IS PRODUCED BY ERRORS UNATTENDED BY DAN- GEROUS AND FATAL CONSEQUENCES; THUS DEFORMITY OF BODY IS RIDICULOUS, PROVIDED IT IS NOT OCCASIONED BY PAIN.
MISTAKES even in language, as blunders, and provincial and foreign dialects, are among the errors of this species, and are frequently used as a fource of the ridiculous in modern farce, and even comedy; ، So though I cannot agree with Lord Kaimes, as to the cause of this. ' quick-fighted' (he says) ' is pride in blemishes, and so willing to be ، ، gratified, that it takes up with the very flighteft improprieties; such as a blunder by a foreigner in speaking our language, especially if the blun- • der can bear a sense that reflects on the speaker.' ELEMENTS OF CRITICISM, Vol. 1. Ch. XII. As for deformity of body being an object of ridicule, it must be observed that Aristotle is here speaking of the old, or middle comedy, equivalent with our farce. Such as many of Foote's pieces were, who, like Ariftophanes, brought personal characters on the stage and marked them for public ridicule, not only by their habitual manners, but by bodily deformities, infirmities, and misfortunes; violating, without remorse, the latter part of the precept of the Stagirite. This liberty, or rather licentiousness of imitation, is justly reprobated by Churchill.
• Mimics
• Mimics draw humour out of nature's fault, • With perfonal defects their mirth adorn, • And hang misfortunes out to public fcorn.' This humane qualification, as to the objects of personal ridicule, is strictly observed by Shakespear. A very ingenious critic observes, • He has given him (Falstaff) every infirmity of body that is not likely to • awaken our compaffion, and which is most proper to render both his • better qualities and his vices ridiculous.' ESSAY ON THE DRAMA- TIC CHARACTER OF FALSTAFF, Page 149 [A]. The rule of not sporting with serious misfortunes should be equally observed in comic narration. Indeed it is pointed out by nature; for he must have a heart little sensible of the feelings of humanity, who can find any thing ludicrous in the real distresses and fufferings of others, with whatever ridiculous circumstances they may be related. It is wonderful, that a people who boast so much of their refinement as the French, and whose delicacy cannot bear the exhibition of spectacles of suffering on the tragic scene for the purpose of exciting pity and terror, should approve the narration of such facts, when introduced to occafion mirth. And yet not only Scarron and Rabelais, the last of whom has defcribed very minutely, a monk kicked to death by a vicious horse, as a laughable accident; but even the works of Le Sage, abound with instances of this kind. Savage as we have often been called by our politer neighbours, our comic writers are seldom guilty of this impropriety. We have, however, one flagrant instance of it in the works of an author of [A] See alfo Beattie on Laughter and Ludicrous Composition, Ch. iii. p. 431. R2 undoubted
undoubted comic excellence. I mean Arbuthnot's Journal of the fix days preceding the death of the Bishop of Salisbury.
5.2.
mvp-aristotle-comment-12
5.6
AMONG THE ATHENIANS, CRATES WAS THE FIRST WHO FORSOOK PERSONAL SATIRE, AND INTRODUCED A GENERAL SUBJECT OR FABLE.
FROM this passage it is obvious that every kind of comedy, in the time of Aristotle, was not like those of Ariftophanes, generally founded on personal ridicule; (B) and not only from this but from his obfervation in the eleventh chapter, that comic poets first form the fable, and - then add names correfpondent with the manners of the characters; and still more particularly from his assertion, that a double catastrophe, like the Odyssey, where virtue is rewarded and vice punished, is better calculated for [c] comedy than tragedy. From these remarks, and especially the laft, one would be induced to think, that comedy had affumed a higher character in the days of Aristotle than is usually ascribed to the old and middle comedy. The same idea has occurred to M. Leffing, who makes the following observation on it. • The Stagirite had feen the origin of • the new comedy, and he mentions it expreffly in his treatise on ethics, • addressed to Nicomachus, where he speaks of what is decent and what indecent in humourous converfation, "which (he says) may be illuf- " lustrated by the example of the old, and new comedy, of which the [B] Though many of the comedies of Ariftophanes are not entirely perfonal; as the Plutus, the Lyfiftrata, and the Ecclefiazuze. Yet they can hardly be faid to have a general fable. [c] See Note VIII. on Chap. XII. " humour
" humour of one confifts in gross expressions, but that of the other arifes " rather from ambiguous language [D]." It might indeed be objected, ⚫ that the middle comedy is here defigned under the name of the new comedy [E]; for before the new comedy arose the middle comedy ⚫ would neceffarily have that appellation. It might farther be added, ⚫ that Aristotle died in the fame olympiad in which Menander produced ' his first piece, and even in the year before. (Eufebius in Chronico ad • Olymp. C. XIV. 4.) But we are wrong in dating the new comedy ' from Menander only; he was the first poet of that age of comedy as ' to poetical excellence, but not as to time. Philemon, who belonged ' to it, wrote some time before, and the tranfition from the middle to the new comedy, was so imperceptible, that it is impoffible Ariftotle could * have wanted models.' DRAMATURGIE, VOL. II, PAGE 173 NOTE. Mr. Cumberland in his account of the Greek comic theatre, for which the republic of letters is much indebted to him, obferves of Philemon, * that he was fome, years elder than Menander, and no unworthy rival of 'that poet.' (Observer, No. 138.) From the fragments of the middle comedy, frequently quoted in the fame work, it appears, that fo far from being devoted to indecency and buffoonry, that species of the drama abounded in passages inculcating the noblest precepts of morality. But the deduction of Mr. Cumberland from this (F), that Aristotle has not given a just character of comedy as it stood in his time, by saying it is ، [D] Ἰδοι δ᾽ ἂν τις κὰι ἐκ τῶν κωμωδιῶν τῶν παλαιών και τῶν καινῶν. Τοῖς μὲν γὰρ ἐν γελοῖον ἡ ἀισχρολογία, τοις δὲ μᾶλλον ἡ ὑπόνοια. ΕTHIC. L. IV. CAP. XIV. [E] The name appears of little consequence as the difference is so strongly marked in the quotation. [F] OBSERVER, No. 72. • a picture
، a picture of human nature worse and more deformed than the original, feems to arife from a mistake as to the idea intended to be conveyed by the word WORSE, confidered in a poetical light. As Aristotle does not require the persons of tragedy to be better in a moral view, but only in the sense explained in note 1. on chap. 11. so the characters in comedy, on which its poetical diftinction depends, are not, according to the obfervation at the beginning of this chapter, to be worse than those of the prefent time, as to depravity in general, but only to be more uniformly charged with those qualities calculated to excite laughter than is usually, or indeed ever met with in real life. That Achilles never faid an abfurd thing, or Thersites never acted wifely, or feriously, is out of common probability; but the poet who introduces these persons, or characters refembling them, on the tragic, or comic scene, would fruftrate his own purpose if he shewed an instance of ridiculous absurdity in Achilles, or serious reafoning in Thersites; and in this sense, one is drawn better, and the other worse than human nature in general (G). I believe this rule is observed by every tolerable dramatic poet, without any notion of acting according to the precepts of the Stagirite. But though this is the general diftinction of the two provinces of the drama, it does not follow but there may be some characters in comedy not deftitute of tragic dignity, as there were evidently parts of the Greek tragedy which had not only a comic but even a burlesque cast. Shakespear has not only blended tragédy and comedy in the fame piece, but he often introduces a stroke of humour in a grave, though never I believe in a pathetic scene; and a trait of dignity in a ridiculous scene. But he always preserves the propriety of character. In the field at Shrewsbury, when Worcester and Vernon come to the king's camp just before the battle, he introduces a ridiculous farcafm on Worcester's excusing his rebellion as involuntary, but he puts [G] See Note 1, Chap. xv. it
it in the mouth of Falstaff [H]. And in the tavern at Eastcheap the Prince of Wales recollects the impropriety of his conduct, at so critical a period, and [1] blames himself with great spirit and dignity; but no such reflection is uttered by any other of the party. Yet though Shakespear has avoided this confufion of character, it would be the abfurdest partiality to deny, that the mixing the ferious and the comic, in one piece, tends to destroy the efficacy of both, and is therefore a fault. That the neceffity of committing this fault was imposed on him by the taste of the public, is apparent, from the practice of all the cotemporary writers, and if he has contrived to do it with less impropriety than others, it furely is no small degree of merit. However faulty the practice of the age of Shakespear may have been in this respect, it was referved for the next, though proud of their encreasing refinement, to produce that monster of the drama, the regular tragi-comedy; where two distinct fables, the one distressful, the other ridiculous, were carried on together; not only violating the unity of action, but making so abfurd a mixture of forrow and mirth, that as Addison observes, a poet might as well think of weaving the adventures [H] Rebellion lay in his way and he found it.' Ist Part HEN. IV. Act v. Sc. r. See Note VII, Ch. xi. [1] By heaven, Poins, I feel me much to blame, • So idly to profane the precious time, • When tempeft of commotion like the North, Borne with black vapour, doth begin to melt And drop upon our bare unarmed heads. • Give me my sword and cloak.'.
Ild Part HEN. IV. Act II. SC. IV. of
of Æneas and [K] Hudibras into one poem. This comic under-plot, was not confined to the plays of Dryden which end happily, as the Spanish Friar, Love Triumphant, and Marriage Alamode; but it also mixed with the deep pathos of the Fatal Marriage, Venice Preferved, and Oroonoko. The error of Shakespear is like that of Homer, in introducing Thersites in a serious poem, but the tragi-comedy resembles the Iliad and Margites, mixed together. The following observation of Lord Kaims, in his Sketches of the Hiftory [L] of man, having fome relation to this subject, I shall cite it with a short remark. Nothing is more evident than the fuperiority of Terence • above Plautus in the art of writing; and confidering that Terence is a • later writer, nothing would appear more natural, if they did not copy • the fame originals. It may be owing to genius that Terence excelled • in purity of language, and propriety of dialogue; but how account for • his fuperiority over Plautus in the construction and conduct of a play? • It will not certainly be thought that Plautus would imitate the worst ، • constructed plays, leaving the best to those who should come after ⚫ him. This difficulty has not occurred to any of the commentators, fo ' far as I can recollect. Had the works of Menander and his cotemporaries been preserved, they probably would have explained the mystery; ' which for want of that light will probably remain a mystery for ever." I own I can perceive no mystery at all in this. It did not depend on the taste of Plautus, or Terence, but on the taste of the Roman people when they wrote. Plautus compofed for the public at large, who were best [K] Imoinda and the Widow Lackit, Jaffier and Antonio, are more discordant characters, both in manners and action, than Æneas and Hudibras.. [L] Book 1. Sketch v. Sect. 2. pleased کو
pleased with the broader humour of the earlier Greek comedy. Terence wrote at a later period and under the patronage of Scipio, and the [M] mild Lælius, whose more refined taste preferred the infipid elegance of Menander. Shakespear was guilty of the fame error in judgement, if it was one. It appears from the account of those claffic writers which were tranflated in his time, that the Menæchmi of Plautus, and the Andrian of Terence, were both before him, and we know which he chose for a model. As for the superiority of Terence over Plautus in any refpect except beauty of language, it remains to be proved, and perhaps is no more capable of proof, than the superior excellence of the modern fentimental comedy to those less regular dramas, Twelfth Night and As You Like It. Were the plays of the two Roman comic poets to be clothed in an English dress, and performed before an English audience, near the close of the eighteenth century, by no means surely an age or a country of barbarifm, I have little doubt of the judgement being in favor of the elder poet. To return more particularly to the difficulty suggested by Lord Kaims. It must be remembered that the poems of Homer were equally open to Ennius and Lucretius, as to Virgil; and yet the last is the first Roman poet who imitated, I had almost said translated, the works of the father of poetry. Of the comedies of Menander we can only judge through the medium of Terence, whose dramas, to me, have neither humour nor intereft, nor indeed any other merit than their style, which,' (to use words applied, perhaps with rather too much severity to Virgil, by a very ingenious though eccentric writer) ' is pure and exquisite, and is the pickle that has preserved his mummy from corruption [N].' [M] Mitis fapientia Lælî." [N] HERON'S LETTERS OF LITERATURE. HOR. S NOTE
5.3.
mvp-aristotle-comment-13
5.8
TRAGEDY ENDEAVOURS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO CONFINE ITSELF TO ONE REVOLUTION OF THE SUN, OR ONLY TO EXCEED IT A LITTLE.
FROM this plain direction, the critics of the French school, and especially Dacier, have deduced that the action should not exceed the exact time of reprefentation, and have found out that one [o] period or revolution of the fun comprises twelve hours, which would be, at least, four times that length. That people urged by superstition, or worfe motives, should wish to give the most absurd and contradictory sense to plain and obvious passages in writings of sacred authority, to support their own systems, when we consider the force of enthusiafm and ambition, is more to be lamented than wondered at. But such a strange perverfion of common sense, to justify a dramatic prejudice, is at once an object of furprize and ridicule. If the practice of the Greek tragedy had been always in strict conformity with this rule of the French critics, there would have been some shadow of reason for their trying to accommodate. this precept of Aristotle to the custom of the ancient stage; but on the contrary, the [P] Greek tragedians often afsume a greater latitude than [ο] Μίαν περίοδον ἠλίς.. See note II, chap. vii. for some further observations on Ariftotle's definition of the unity of time.. [P] For examples of the violation of the unities of time and place, (Ariftotle says nothing of the laft) by the Greek dramatic poets, the curious reader is referred to METASTASIO'S ES- TRATTO DELLA POETICA D'ARISTOTLE. See also ELEMENTS OF CRITICISM, Chap. xxiii.. paffim. the
POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. ! the rule laid down by Aristotle, or even the nature of the thing itself will justify.
The words of Dacier, on the supposed invariable adherence of the ancients to this strict unity of time, are these. They have made it fo • indispensible a law, that to avoid violating it they have fometimes done violence to the incidents.' Which Mr. Twining observes is in fact saying, that they have so scrupulously adhered to the rule, that ' sometimes, for the fake of observing it, they have been obliged to • break it.' But they have done much more, there is a unity of time marked by nature, the breach of which destroys the probability of every fictitious tale whatever, either narrative or dramatic. I may conceive days, and months, and years, to have passed during an interval in a representation, which I know to be a representation, and not a reality; but every shadow of probability vanishes, and we are instantly disgusted, either, when without any interruption of the action during a dialogue of fix minutes, fix hours are supposed to have elapsed, or, (which is nearly the fame thing,) when the space of time occupied by the drama is exactly defined, and then incidents are crouded into it which could not poflibly have happened in that space [Q]. [Q] This absurdity is well described by M. Lessing. < Do not you admire the conduct of • the piece? it is in general fo complicated that it would be a miracle if so many things had • happened in so short a time. The ruin or preservation of an empire, the marriage of a prin- * cess, the deftruction of a prince, all this is executed in the twinkling of an eye. The affair ⚫ is opened in the first act, it is connected and strengthened in the second, every measure is ▲ taken, every obstacle removed, and the conspirators arranged in the third, then follows a re- ⚫ volt, a fight, perhaps a pitched battle, and this you call conduct, intereft, fire, and probability.' DRAMATURGIE, Vol. i. p. 139. S2 In
In the ancient drama, where the action was never interrupted, and the stage continually occupied by the chorus, I must think that probability is really in fome measure violated when the supposed time of action is at all extended beyond the actual time of representation. Of this the suppliants of Euripides afford us a striking instance. Theseus marches from Athens to Thebes, gains a complete victory, and a messenger returns to give an account of the battle, during a short lyric dialogue between his mother Æthra and the Chorus. I appeal to any unprejudiced judge if the conduct of Shakespear, who most likely would have transported us to Thebes, and made us spectators of the battle, has any thing so really contrary to probability as this, or if any thing can be more unreasonable than the rules of those critics, who, because Aristotle allowed the period of twenty-four hours, or a little longer, to a drama without intervals, would, on that very authority, confine a drama with intervals to three hours [s]. [s] Le Pere Brumoy, though a staunch advocate for the doctrine of the French school as to the rigid observance of the unity of time, has this mitigating sentence, ' As the resemblance be-- • tween the drama and nature cannot be always so exact as not to admit fome difference in favor of the beauties of art, even art, to avail itself of these beauties, may deceive the spectator, ⚫ and reprefent an action whose duration comprehends eight or ten hours, although the drama • employs only two or three.' Now though the Pere Brumoy mentions particular periods of time in which the dramatic fable, on certain great occafions, may exceed the dramatic representation, as we cannot suppose he mentions eight or ten hours in contradistinction to nine and eleven, his meaning must be, that this rule may be broken when the observation of it ceases to be necessary, and that truth and general probability are the only proper judges of this law, fince, as Horace allows, • Utor permiffo, caudæque pilos ut equinæ • Paulatim vello, et demo unum, demo etiam unum. But
POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. But though the modern drama, from the breaks in the representation, by the division of acts and change of scene, has not its duration marked out by the nature of its composition, yet if the period of time is defined by any circumstance whatever, and events are supposed to happen in that period, which it is either physically or morally impoffible could have happened, the error is against truth and nature, and not only against the arbitrary or the reasonable laws of the drama; and, it must be confefsed, we sometimes find our own inimitable dramatic Bard erring in this respect. The tragedy of King Lear will furnish an inftance of this kind of error. In the second act, Lear comes in, with all his train, to Regan at Glocester's castle, having been recently affronted by Goneril. From the circumstance of the storm continuing, it is obvious that the interval between the second and third act, does not comprehend a period of time, much exceeding that which really passes, and the eyes of Glocefter are put out on the fame night, just as he had relieved the old king on the heath; yet in this time we hear, there is part of a power already footed ، ، to revenge the injuries the king now bears;' and Cornwall says, 'the army of France is now landed.' This rule of natural unity is equally essential to the drama, the epopee, the fable, and the tale; it has nothing to do with the most striking flights of improbability. If a writer puts his hero on a magic courser that can Put a girdle round about the earth • In forty minutes,' it is no offence against this rule; but it would be a great one to make an army march from London to Edinburgh in one night. I have fomewhere met with an observation, that the time of the representation and the fable, in the tragedy of Cato, might have been made exactly
exactly equal, and the strictest rule of dramatic unity observed, had not Addison chofen, wantonly, to violate it by opening the play with a description of the morning; and making Juba say of Cæfar's army, in the last act, • The setting fun Plays on their shining arms and burnish'd helmets.' Addison certainly was not obliged to mark the time in this manner; but whether he had or not, it must have been impoffible to conceive the business of the play could have been transacted in a shorter time, than between sun-rife and fun-set, in the longest day, at Utica. Of the unity of place, it has already been observed, Aristotle says nothing. However, it is strongly connected with the unity of time, and depends on it: 'I mean the natural unities; not that artificial rule of never altering the supposed spot of representation [T), because the Greek theatre never changed its scenes, which is about as reasonable as it would be not to wear shirts because the ancients had no linen. During the continuance of the action, or when the exact time is otherwise defined, no greater change of place can be supposed, than what might probably happen in fuch a period [u]. But it may possibly be asked, though the Muse of Shakespear has ventured to pass the bounds of time and space,' and therefore a change of scene is neceffary for the reprefentation of his dramas; yet as no [T] See note r, chap. xvii. [U] For a further illustration of this, see the application of the unities to the epopee, note 11, chap. xxiv. See also Philological Enquiries, page 218. modern
POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. modern poet ventures to extend his length of time beyond the period prescribed by Ariftotle, why may not the strict unity of place be observed on the English stage, as well as on the French stage? Perhaps it might be a fufficient anfwer to this, to say, the [v] taste of the English demands this change of scenes, but I will not rest my defence of the practice of our stage on this, or on the fuperiority of the theatrical decoration from a variety of well painted [w] scenes, but from the fuperior probability of the play, and the removal of one great and unfurmountable, or, at least, as yet unfurmounted difficulty attending the strict observance of the unity of place, the bringing in and sending out the characters with propriety. And I chuse to do this, in the words of a writer, who cannot be influenced by national prejudices, in favour of either the French or English theatre [x]. • To confefs the truth, the English, [v] Of the taste of the English in this refpect, the following anecdote is a ftriking proof. • In the play of Phædra and Hippolytus, the author has observed the unity of place so well, ⚫ that all the scenes are exhibited in one spot, in an outer court of the palace. Mr. Garrick • faw this; he had a good scene prepared, and it stood the whole time of the play. The ma- ، nager was right; critics will say, the author was right, but the audience were disgufted." HILL'S Actor, page 255. However much the manager might think himself in the right, he found it prudent, on a subsequent occafion, to change his conduct. Mr. Whitehead, in his SCHOOL FOR LOVERS, observed the strict unity of place, and the whole action passes in a garden; but Mr. Garrick introduced a change of fcene in the representation, and he concludes his prologue to the comedy, after some humorous obfervations on the taste of the audience and the perfeverance of the poet, with these lines: • Still he persists-and let him-ENTRE NOUS • I know your tastes, and will indulge them too. • Change you shall have; so set your hearts at ease; WRITE AS HE will, we'll ACT it as you please.. [w] See note v, chap. vi. [x] Schlegel, a German dramatic poet, cited by M. Lessing in his Dramaturgie, vol. i. p. 215. who
• who do not pride themselves in observing the unity of place, obferve • it for the most part better than the French, who boast so much of • their strict adherence to the rules of Aristotle. It little imports, that • the decoration of the scene does not change, but it is of confequence ⚫ that the reason should be obvious why the perfons who enter should • find themselves exactly in that given spot, instead of remaining where they were. When a character behaves as the inhabitant and master • of an apartment, where, just before, another has been affuming the • fame appearance of authority, and talking with the greatest confiden- • tial freedom to his friend, without its being brought about by any ، probable means; in short, when the characters come into the room, or the garden, merely to appear on the stage, the author of the tragedy would do better, instead of writing, "the scene is in the chamber " of Climene," to say, "the scene is in the theatre." Or, to ، speak serioufly, it certainly would be more reasonable, if the author, according to the English custom, had changed the scene from one • house to another, and conducted the spectator to the hero, instead of obliging the hero to appear in a place where he has nothing at all to • do, for the purpose of amufing the spectator.' The false reasoning of the French critics, and their followers in this country, has arifen from the mistaken notion that dramatic imitation ever was, or ever could be a real deception. We are affected by the general probability of the incidents arranged by the poet, in such a manner as to render the impression of those he intends should work on the paffions, most forcible, by foftening, or fuppreffing, every circumstance which might at all interfere with the passions he wishes to excite; and this, when accompanied by the recitation and action of a good player, must have the strongest effect on the spectator; but as to real deception,
POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. deception, in the most empassioned scene of Lear, acted by Garrick, it never for an instant existed. The means of imitation were always apparent, or, to speak in the language of a late commentator, • It is false ' that any representation is mistaken for reality; that any dramatic fable, ⚫ in its materiality, was ever credible, or, for a fingle moment, was ever ' credited [B].' [B] Dr. Johnson's preface to Shakespear. T CHAP.
1.
mvp-aristotle-comment-32
Ritter, cap. 5 § 1
De fine comoediae proposito. initia comoediae in obscuro versantur. epopoeia tragoediam ita secuta est ut graves imitari pergeret, differt ab eadem eo quod narratio est, etiam metro et temporis spatio. partes aliae eaedem, aliae tragoediae peculiares. Tragoediae initiis et incrementis breviter expositis, accedit ad comoediam, non eo consilio ut ipsius naturam accurate definiat (id alii huius operis loco exsequendum reservavit), sed ut proposita comicae poesis a tragoedia diversitate atque explicata tragoediae et epopoeiae partim similitudine partim differentia dilucidetur, quomodo poesis in varias species diffusa sit, quasque immutationes earum quaeque subierit.
ἡ δὲ κωμῳδία-τὸ γελοῖον μόριον: tragoediam imitari quam vulgo reperiantur meliores, comoediam autem peiores, id dictum erat cap. 2, 4. iam accuratius definitur quatenus peiores comoedia imitetur. comoedia enim non pingit homines omni pravitatis genere corruptos, sed qui ea dedecoris specie qua continetur ridiculum turpes compareant, paulo licentius post
οὐ μέντοι κατὰ πᾶσαν κακίαν posuit quod contrarium
ἀλλὰ τοῦ αἰσχροῦ ἐστὶ τὸ γελοῖον μόριον. scilicet haec scripsit ita, ut ridiculum (
τὸ γελοῖον) a comicis poetis exprimi notum certumque esse legentibus acciperet praesumeretque. plenius ac planius dixisset
ἀλλὰ τῶν γε λοίων οἱ κοινωνοῦσι τοῦ αἰσχροῦ. ceterum haec scripsisse Aristotelem respicientem potissimum antiquam Graecorum comoediam, cui
τὸ αἰσχρὸν raro deerat, verbo monuisse sufficiat. conf. Ethic. Nicom. IV, 14 med.
τὸ γὰρ γελοῖόν ἐστιν ἁμάρτημά τι κα καὶ αἶσχος ἀνώδυνον καὶ οὐ φθαρτικόν : qui aliquid negotii agunt, ii risum excitant ubi ratione perperam inita a fine proposito aberrant (
ἁμαρτάνουσιν). quod initae rationi non respondet eventus, ridiculum est, si ex ea aberratione neque dolor neque pernicies sed nonnisi turpe quoddam nascitur. exemplum quod subsequitur, sumptum a comica persona, co non totam suam
τοῦ γελοίου definitionem voluit illustrare, sed id unum declarare quo intellectu posuerit
ἀνώδυνον καὶ οὐ φθαρτικόν. comoediae ingenio externus agentium habitus et figura convenire debet. Quod de natura
τοῦ γελοίου accuratius in Poetica se dixisse eiusque genera pertractasse profitetur in Rhetoricis I, 11. p. 1372 a 1. et III, 18. p. 1419 b5., id haud dubie fecit in operis parte nobis perdita, ubi separatim de comoedia exposuit. conf. Praefatio.
2.
mvp-aristotle-comment-33
Ritter, cap. 5 § 2
χορόν κωμῳδῶν ὀψέ ποτε ὁ ἄρχων ἔδωκεν: primo non magni aestimatam esse comoediam inde docet, quod archon ad chorum comicum et conducendum et omni apparatu ornandum poetis comoedias in certamen commissuris sero demum choragum impensas praebentem ex civibus ditissimis 1) assignaverit. hoc est
χορὸν διδόναι, poeta ipse
χορὸν λαβεῖν dicitur, si fabula eius archonti probata in certamen admittitur, atque chorus ad eam docendam decernitur. vid. Aristophanes Ran. 94. Hesychius (correctus a Bergkio in Commentat. de reliquiis comoediae Atticae p. 30.)
πῦρ πυρὶ ἔγχει·
Κρατῖνος ἀπὸ διθυράμβου ἐν Βουκόλοις ἀρξάμενος,
ἐπειδὴ χορὸν οὐκ ἔλαβε παρὰ τοῦ ἄρχοντος,
παρ' οὗ ᾐτήκει. qui fabulam docendam archonti offert
αἰτεῖν χορὸν dicitur. lege Cratini fragmentum ex
Βουκόλοις servatum ab Athenaeo XIV. p. 638 F.
ὃς οὐκ ἔδωκ᾽ αὐτοῦντι Σοφοκλέει χορόν,
κτλ. Aristophan. Equit. 513.
ἀλλ' ἐθελονταὶ ἦσαν: comoediarum scriptores aut ipsi aut eorum amici sumptus ad chorum docendum et instruendum diu fecerunt: publice sero tandem choragis datis adiuti sunt. Cra- 1) De choragia choragique officiis diligenter et accurate expositum est a Boeckhio in Oeconomia Atheniensium t. I. p. 487 sqq. conf. Schoemanni Antiquitates iuris publici Graecorum p. 324.tinus primus videtur fuisse qui fere chorum ab archonte acciperet, quamquam etiam huic interdum denegatum esse comperimus ex Hesychii verbis modo allatis. illa ipsa
Βουκόλων comoedia cum daretur,
κωμῳδοὺς ἐθελοντὰς fuisse iudico dissentiens hac in re a Bergkio 1. 1., qui Cratinum putat proximis Dionysiis, cum non multo ante repulsam tulisset, chorum impetravisse et hac opportunitate usum esse, ut omne irae virus in priorem istum archontem evomeret. ceterum nomen
ἐθελονταi hoc loco propter praegressum
χορὸν κωμῳδῶν non de ipsis poetis sed de
κωμῳδοῖς sive
χορευταῖς dictum intelligi debet, quamquam et ipsi poetae qui suis impensis chorum exornabant eo nomine designabantur. conf. Aelius Dionysius apud Eustathium p. 800, 30 (locum Tyrwhittus attulit) :
ἐθελοντής ὁ αὐθαιρέτως τι ποιῶν.
ἐκαλοῦντο δὲ καὶ ἐθελονταὶ διδάσκαλοι δραμάτων δηλαδή,
ὅτε τις μὴ λαβών χορὸν μηδὲ χορηγητὴν ἔχων ἑαυτῷ τὰ πάντα παρεῖχε.
οἱ λεγόμενοι αὐτῆς ποιηταί, h. e. qui a comoedia nomen invenerunt sive o
ἱ κωμῳδοποιοί. pro rudibus prisci temporis comoedis iam comoediarum poetae exstiterunt. ipsum nomen
κωμῳδοποιός ς.
κωμωδιοποιός artem indicat.
3.
mvp-aristotle-comment-34
Ritter, cap. 5 § 3
τίς δὲ πρόσωπα ἀπέδωκεν ἢ λόγους ἢ πλήθη ὑποκριτῶν: personarum inventio magni sane momenti erat, propterea quod et ridiculum (
τὸ γελοῖον) per eas facilius provocabatur et eorum qui notabantur vultus exprimi quodammodo poterant. porro quod codices offerunt
προλόγους, id haud dubie corruptum est. una enim eius nominis explicatio, quae quidem cum aliqua probabilitatis specie proferri potest et prolata est (ex cap. 12, 2), –
μέρος ὅλον τραγῳδίας τὸ πρὸ χοροῦ παρόδου -, ea, ut alia quae contra moneri possunt omittam 2), omni auctoritate destituta 2) Cordatissimus quisque quaerere necessario cogitur, cur prologorum potius inventionem quam exodorum vel episodiorum posuerit.est, cum ista tragici prologi definitio ab interpolatore profecta sit. cuius igitur nominis notio toto opere non explicatur neque commemoratur, id quomodo sine obscuritatis vitio tam nude poni h. 1. potuit? accedit quod et
πρόσωπα et
πλήθη ὑποκριτῶν ad externum comoediae habitum pertinent,
πρόλογος autem ipsam partem comoediae efficit: cur is igitur medius intercedit? quae cum ita sint, ego non dubitavi
λόγους ab Hermanno gratus accipere, sed idem ego in explicando eo nomine a viro ingenioso in alia discedo. ipse
λόγους argumenta intelligit, sed contra hanc interpretationem potest moneri quod modo ad
προλόγους exturbandos protulimus, inter notas externas medium interponi quod ad internam artem comicam pertineat. ego igitur
λόγους intelligo sermones, puta illa quae unus actor coram choro de scena aut narrando aut cum choreutis colloquendo itemque ea quae non multo post plures actores inter sese loquentes exsecuti sunt, ut
λόγοι ὑποκριτῶν opponantur
ᾄσμασι κωμῳδῶν sive
χορευτῶν. iam omnes res quae commemorantur externae sunt, personae et colloquia et numeri histrionum; deinde hic locus in comoedia respondet iis quae c. 4, 13. de tragoedia narrantur.
πλήθη ὑποκριτῶν est numerus duorum et numerus trium histrionum; denique
πλήθη ὑποκριτῶν apte post
λόγους succedunt: actores enim
λόγους exsequuntur.
τὸ δὲ μύθους ποιεῖν Ἐπίχαρμος καὶ Φόρμις: ex praegresso
ἀπέδωκεν verbum ad
μύθους ποιεῖν aptum cogitatione supplendum est, quod quo facilius fiat, semicolon pro puncto posui post
ἠγνόηται. Itali interpolatores mancum esse sermonem opinantes post
Φόρμις addiderunt
ἦρξαν, idque a nullo codice oblatum in Aldinum exemplar receptum et inde late propagatum est; quo cum soloeca facta esset oratio, Reizius interpolatam scripturam iterum interpolando dedit
τοῦ δὲ μύθους - Φόρμις ἦρξαν.
μύθους ποιεῖν est fabulas ex historia mythica petitas comoediis subiicere, quod persaepe ab Epicharmo factum esse et multa comoediarum eius nomina et ipsa fragmenta ostendunt. in nomine
μύθους, a vulgari loquendi usu hic quidem discessisse Aristotelem,tantum abest ut quidquam indicet, ut certum subsequatur indicium, id illum non fecisse, dico quae de Cratete Epicharmi imitatore subsequuntur,
τῶν δὲ ᾿Αθήνησιν Κράτης ήρξε και θόλου ποιεῖν λόγους καὶ μύθους, de quibus mox disputabimus. novo significatu nomen
μύθος positum est c. 6, 6., ubi tragoediae partes definiuntur, sed auctor ipse significavit a vulgari dicendi usu ibi sese recedere:
λέγω γὰρ μύθον τοῦτον τὴν σύνθεσιν τῶν πραγμάτων. a vero igitur aberrat Grysarius (de Doriensium comoedia quaest. p. 75), cum illo altero Aristotelis loco (c. 6, 6) fretus pronuntiat in hoc nostro (5,3)
μύθους ποιεῖν esse fabulam argumento serere, i. e. iustam comoediam facere. haec explicatio si vera esset, ex Aristotelis iudicio Cratini nobilissimi comici fabulis argumenta sive
συστάσεις πραγμάτων defuissent: nam ex Atheniensibus Crates primus Epicharmi consuetudinem secutus est. de Epicharmo et Phormide diligenter disseruit Grysarius in libro quem inscripsit de Doriensium comoedia quaestiones. -
τῶν δὲ ᾿Αθήνησιν Κράτης- λόγους καὶ μύθους. Cratetem Cratino natu minorem sed Aristophane paulo maiorem fuisse veterum scriptorum testimoniis constat docuitque Meinekius in Quaestionum scen. specim. I. p. 25 sqq. Crates a singulorum hominum irrisione abstinuit (
ἀφέμενος τῆς ἰαμβικῆς ἰδέας) et generales morum notationes rerumque descriptiones proposuit, quarum alias ex mythorum cyclo (
μύθους, Fabeln), alias ex vita communi vel ex libris
τῶν λογοποιῶν (
λόγους, Erzählungen) petivit. hanc explicationem praeivit Meinekiuş in libro laudato p. 26., nisi quod
λόγους ille paulo aliter accipere videtur, et ex aliqua parte Victorius in Commentariis p. 51.
4.
mvp-aristotle-comment-35
Ritter, cap. 5 § 4
ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐποποιία τῇ τραγῳδίᾳ μίμη - σις εἶναι σπουδαίων ἠκολούθησεν: epopoeia iuxta tragoediam ita incessit aequo gradu (
ἠκολούθησεν) ut hominum gravium imitatio esse permaneret. utrumque poesis genus temporis intervallo plures mutationes (
μεταβολάς) subiit, sed ita alteri alterum simile esse accidit, ut utrumque graves imitaretur. quibus rebus discrepet epopoeia a tragoediacontinuo explicatur. sed quid fiet de illis
μέχρι μόνου μέτρου μεγάλου ? scilicet differre a tragoedia epopociam nonnisi versibus longis 3) edocemur. falsissimum esse et pugnare cum ceteris Aristotelis verbis primo adspectu in oculos incurrit: ipse enim non unum quoddam sed tria continuo affert, quibus epopoeia diversa sit a tragoedia. ineptissimum sane emblema non usque ad hunc diem tolerassent editores, nisi pro omnium codicum scriptura
μεγάλου novi interpolatores (aut Aldus ipse aut qui eius codicem correxerant) substituissent
μετὰ λόγου, quod idem valere ac
καὶ λόγου 4) videntur credidisse. sed et repugnat usus Graeci sermonis neque, si addiceret, vel sic sana sententia prodiret: sermone enim differre utrumque genus tam universe ac simpliciter pronuntiari nequit. sed sic ut
μετὰ λόγου post
μέρχι μόνου μέτρου additum legitur, id vix aliud potest esse nisi cum ratione, quod alienissimum est. inepto hoc additamento inepto auctori restituto, facilis est loci explanandi ratio. nam primum affertur qua in re tragoedia et epopoeia consentiant, deinde epopoeiam et metro differre et enarrandi ratione et temporis ambitu recte monetur. a narrando poesis
τῷ μήκει, h. e.
μέτρον ἁπλοῦν est quam compositionem
κατὰ στίχον grammatici appellant. -
καὶ ἀπαγγελίαν εἶναι : duae
ἀπαγγελίας species c. 3, 1. definiuntur, una quae simpliciter narrat, altera quae inducit narrantes. epica
διηγηματική vocatur c. 23, 1. teraporis spatio quo res gestae a poeta sive epico sive tragico propositae comprehenduntur.
μάλιστα πειρᾶται: hoc dicit, quoniam plures tragicorum poetarum hanc legem egressos esse non ignorabat. -
ἡ δὲ ἐποποιία ἀόρι- 3) Quaesitum est num voci
μέχρι insit vis excludendi. non inest praepositioni potestas excludendi, sed inest nomini negativo
μόνου. 4) Hermannus cum
καὶ λόγου scriberet pro
μετὰ λόγου, Graecitati sermonis opem tulit, sed non cogitavit se interpolare scripturam iam interpolatam.
στος τῷ χρόνῳ: dicit temporis ambitum epopoeiae convenientem definiri certo dierum vel annorum numero non posse. noli credere hoc Aristotelem docere, poetae epico licere vel longissimi temporis res gestas enarrare: veriora enim ipse docuit c. 8 et praecipue c. 23.