Poetics. Aristotle. Thomas Twining (Translator). London, UK. 1789.
Sponsored by Perseus Project, Tufts University.
Poetics (Thomas Twining, 1789) (OCR draft) (English) (Thomas Twining's English translation of Aristotle's Poetics, published in 1789 and aligned to the Kassel reference passage sequence.)
Provisional text from uncorrected OCR; expect errors.
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
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.]
1
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."
1
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."
2
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.
3
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.
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.