{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_29547/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_29547","id":"gutenberg_29547","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/29547","summary":null,"tags":["Aristotle, 384 BC-322 BC. Poetics","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Poetry"],"text":"Produced by Chris Curnow, Stephanie Eason, Joseph Cooper\nand the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at\nhttps://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY\n\n  A. DACIER\n  THE PREFACE TO ARISTOTLE'S\n  ART OF POETRY\n  (1705)\n\n  Publication Number 76\n\n  William Andrews Clark Memorial Library\n  University of California\n  Los Angeles\n  1959\n\n\n\n  GENERAL EDITORS\n  Richard C. Boys, _University of Michigan_\n  Ralph Cohen, _University of California, Los Angeles_\n  Vinton A. Dearing, _University of California, Los Angeles_\n  Lawrence Clark Powell, _Clark Memorial Library_\n\n  ASSISTANT EDITOR\n  W. Earl Britton, _University of Michigan_\n\n  ADVISORY EDITORS\n  Emmett L. Avery, _State College of Washington_\n  Benjamin Boyce, _Duke University_\n  Louis Bredvold, _University of Michigan_\n  John Butt, _King's College, University of Durham_\n  James L. Clifford, _Columbia University_\n  Arthur Friedman, _University of Chicago_\n  Louis A. Landa, _Princeton University_\n  Samuel H. Monk, _University of Minnesota_\n  Ernest C. Mossner, _University of Texas_\n  James Sutherland, _University College, London_\n  H. T. Swedenberg, Jr., _University of California, Los Angeles_\n\n  CORRESPONDING SECRETARY\n  Edna C. Davis, _Clark Memorial Library_\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\nAndre Dacier's _Poetique d'Aristote Traduite en Francois avec des\nRemarques_ was published in Paris in 1692. His translation of Horace\nwith critical remarks (1681-1689) had helped to establish his reputation\nin both France and England. Dryden, for example, borrowed from it\nextensively in his _Discourse Concerning the Original and Progress of\nSatire_ (1693). No doubt this earlier work assured a ready reception and\na quick response to the commentary on Aristotle: how ready and how quick\nis indicated by the fact that within a year of its publication in France\nCongreve could count on an audience's recognizing a reference to it. In\nthe _Double Dealer_ (II, ii) Brisk says to Lady Froth: \"I presume your\nladyship has read _Bossu_?\" The reply comes with the readiness of a\n_cliche_: \"O yes, and _Rapine_ and _Dacier_ upon _Aristotle_ and\n_Horace_.\" A quarter of a century later Dacier's reputation was still\ngreat enough to allow Charles Gildon to eke out the second part of his\n_Complete Art of Poetry_ (1718) by translating long excerpts from the\nPreface to the \"admirable\" Dacier's Aristotle.[1] Addison ridiculed the\npedantry of Sir Timothy Tittle (a strict Aristotelian critic) who\nrebuked his mistress for laughing at a play: \"But Madam,\" says he, \"you\nought not to have laughed; and I defie any one to show me a single rule\nthat you could laugh by.... There are such people in the world as\n_Rapin_, _Dacier_, and several others, that ought to have spoiled your\nmirth.\"[2] But the scorn is directed at the pupil, not the master, whom\nAddison considered a \"true critic.\"[3] A work so much esteemed was\ncertain to be translated, and so in 1705 an English version by an\nanonymous translator was published.\n\nIt cannot be claimed that Dacier's Aristotle introduced any new critical\ntheories into England. Actually it provides material for little more\nthan an extended footnote on the history of criticism in the Augustan\nperiod. Dacier survived as an influence only so long as did a respect\nfor the rules; and he is remembered today merely as one of the\nhistorically important interpreters--or misinterpreters--of the\n_Poetics_.[4] He was, however, the last Aristotelian formalist to affect\nEnglish critical theory, for the course of such speculation in the next\ncentury was largely determined by other influences. None the less, his\npreface and his commentary are worth knowing because they express\ncertain typically neo-classical ideas about poetry, especially dramatic\npoetry, which were acceptable to many men in England and France at the\nend of the seventeenth century. Dacier's immediate and rather special\ninfluence on English criticism may be observed in Thomas Rymer's\nproposal to introduce the chorus into English tragedy and in the\nadmiration which the moralistic critics at the turn of the century felt\nfor his theories.\n\nIn the very year of its publication Rymer read with obvious approbation\nDacier's _Poetique d'Aristote_. In the preface to _A Short View of\nTragedy_ (1692) he announced that \"we begin to understand the Epick Poem\nby means of _Bossu_; and Tragedy by Monsieur _Dacier_.\"[5] That Rymer\nadmired Dacier's strict formalism is plain, but he was especially moved\nby the French critic's argument that the chorus is _the_ essential part\nof true tragedy, since it is necessary both for _vraisemblance_ and for\nmoral instruction.[6] He therefore boldly proposed that English tragic\npoets should henceforth use the chorus in the manner of the ancients,\nsince it is \"the root and original, and ... certainly always the most\nnecessary part of Tragedy.\"[7] Moreover he praised (as had Dacier) the\nexample of Racine, who had introduced the chorus into the plays that he\nhad written for private performance, by the young ladies of St.\nCyr--_Esther_ (1689) and _Athalie_ (1691). As is well known, he even\nwent so far as to write the synopsis of what inevitably would have been\nan absurd Aeschylean tragedy on the defeat of the Armada.[8]\n\nRymer's proposal provoked a public debate, which was begun by John\nDennis, at that time an almost unknown young critic. Though _The\nImpartial Critick_ (1693) was directed against Rymer (who had given\ngrave offence to Dryden and others by his attack on Shakespeare in the\n_Short View_), Dennis knew Dacier's ideas intimately, and his discussion\nof the chorus in the first and the fourth dialogues, is more directly a\nrefutation of the French than of the English critic.[9] This lively\ntreatise established whatever intimacy existed between young Dennis and\nthe aging Dryden.[10]\n\nThough Dryden avoided any extended public argument with Rymer, he\nobviously knew both the _Short View_ and Dacier's Aristotle. In the\n_Parallel of Poetry and Painting_ (1695), he followed Rymer's lead in\nequating Dacier, the critic of tragedy (\"in his late excellent\nTranslation of Aristotle and his notes upon him\"[11]) with Le Bossu, the\nframer of \"exact rules for the Epic Poem....\" But he disagreed with\nDacier's opinions on the chorus and explained away Racine's use of it on\nthe sensible grounds that _Esther_ had not been written for public, but\nfor private performances which gave occasion to the young ladies of St.\nCyr \"of entertaining the king with vocal music, and of commending their\nvoices.\"[12] He also suggested the practical consideration that plays\nwith choruses would bankrupt any company of actors because it would be\nnecessary to provide a number of costumes for the additional players and\nto enlarge the stage (and consequently the theater) to make room for the\nchoral dances.\n\nDacier's insistence that the primary function of poetry is to instruct\nand that pleasure is merely an aid to that end could easily be distorted\ninto a crudely moralistic view of the art. Doubtless it was this that\nrecommended the treatise to minor critics and poets who were creating\nthe atmosphere out of which came Jeremy Collier's attack on contemporary\ndramatists in 1698.\n\nBlackmore's preface to _Prince Arthur_ (1695) is a long plea for the\nreformation of poetry, whose \"true and genuine End is, by universal\nConfession, the Instruction of our Minds and Regulation of our\nManners....\" One is not surprised, when toward the end he names his\nauthorities, that they turn out to be Rapin, Le Bossu, Dacier (as\ncommentators on Aristotle and Horace) and \"our own _excellent Critick,\nMr. Rymer_.\"[13] W.J. who translated Le Bossu in 1695, dedicated his\nwork to Blackmore. In his preface he linked Blackmore and Dacier as\nproponents of the thesis that poetry's \"true Use and End is to instruct\nand profit the world more than to delight and please it.\"[14] And Jeremy\nCollier himself quoted Dacier from time to time, and on one occasion\ninvoked his commentary on Horace, \"_The Theater condemned as\ninconsistent with Prudence and Religion_,\" as one of many answers to the\nunrepentant Congreve.[15]\n\nBut besides starting these minor controversies Dacier's preface states\nsome of the typical themes of neo-Aristotelian criticism: the idea that\nproper tragedy is based on a fable that imitates an \"Allegorical and\nUniversal Action\" intended \"to Form the Manners,\" a view that closely\nrelates tragic fable to epic fable as interpreted by Le Bossu;[16] that\nmodern tragedy, being concerned with individuals and their intrigues,\ncannot be universal and is therefore necessarily defective; that love is\nan improper subject for tragedy; that the Aristotelian _katharsis_\nproposes as its end not the expulsion of passions from the soul, but the\nmoderation of excessive passions and the inuring of the audience to the\ninevitable calamities of life, and so on. Finally, he is nowhere more\ntypical of French critics in his time than in his vigorous defense of\nthe rules, which he declares are valid because of the nature of poetry\nwhich, being an art, must have an end, and there must necessarily be\nsome way to arrive at it; because of the authority of Aristotle, whose\nknowledge of our passions equipped him to give rules for poetry; because\nof the illustrious works from which Aristotle deduced his rules; because\nof the quality of the poetry that they produce when followed; because,\nsince they are drawn from \"the common Sentiment of Mankind,\" they must\nbe reasonable; because nothing can please that is not conformable to the\nrules, \"for good Sense and right Reason, is of all Countries and\nplaces;\" and finally \"because they are the Laws of Nature who always\nacts uniformly, reviews them incessantly, and gives them a perpetual\nExistence.\" It is his simultaneous appeal to the authority of the\nancients, to the _consensus gentium_, to general nature, and to good\nsense that makes Dacier seem to us to represent the final phase of\nFrench neo-classical critical theory.\n\n  Samuel Holt Monk\n  University of Minnesota\n\n\n\nNotes to the Introduction\n\n[1] Willard H. Durham, ed., _Critical Essays of the Eighteenth Century_,\nNew Haven, 1915, pp. 62-72.\n\n[2] _Tatler_ 165.\n\n[3] _Spectator_ 592.\n\n[4] For Dacier in England see A.F.B. Clark, _Boileau and the French\nClassical Critics in England (1660-1830)_, Paris, 1925, pp. 286-288. As\nlate as 1895, S.H. Butcher, in _Aristotle's Theory of Poetry and Fine\nArt_, mentioned Dacier frequently, if only to disagree with him as often\nas he mentioned him.\n\n[5] Thomas Rymer, _Critical Works_ (ed. C.A. Zimansky), New Haven, 1956,\np. 83.\n\n[6] This view, announced in the Preface, was elaborately argued by\nDacier in Remarque 27, Ch. XIX.\n\n[7] Rymer, _op. cit._, p. 84. Zimansky, in his introduction and notes,\ndiscusses the influence of Dacier on Rymer and other English critics.\n\n[8] _Ibid._ p. 84 and pp. 80-93.\n\n[9] John Dennis, _Critical Works_ (ed. Edward N. Hooker), Baltimore\n(1939-43), I, 30-35. For a succinct account of the English controversy\nabout the chorus see _ibid._, I, 437-438. Though Dennis did not agree\nwith Dacier on this point, he admired him. As late as 1726, in the\npreface to _The Stage Defended_, he quoted Dacier's preface and spoke of\nhim as \"that most judicious Critick.\" _Ibid._, II, 309.\n\n[10] John Dryden, _Letters_ (ed. C.E. Ward), Duke University Press,\n1942, pp. 71-72. Hooker has noticed the similarity of two of Dennis's\nopinions to views expressed by Dryden in his then unpublished \"Heads of\nan Answer\" to Rymer's _Tragedies of the Last Age_, 1678.\n\n[11] W.P. Ker, _Essays of John Dryden_, Oxford, 1926, II, 136.\n\n[12] Ker, II, 144. Cf. Dennis's similar remark in _The Impartial\nCritick_, Hooker, I, 31. Racine, in his preface to _Esther_, said\nnothing doctrinaire about the use of the chorus. He merely mentioned\nthat it had occurred to him to introduce the chorus in order to imitate\nthe ancients and to sing the praises of the true God.\n\n[13] J.E. Spingarn, _Critical Essays of the Seventeenth Century_,\nOxford, 1908-09, III, 227 and 240.\n\n[14] _Treatise of the Epick Poem_, London, 1695, _sig._ [A 3] _verso_- A\n4, _recto_.\n\n[15] Jeremy Collier, \"A Defence of the Short View.... Being a Reply to\nMr. Congreve's Amendments,\" _A Short View of the Profaneness and\nImmorality of the English Stage_, etc., London, 1738, p. 251.\n\n[16] _Traite du Poeme Epique_, I, ch. vi and vii.\n\n\n\n\nARISTOTLE'S\n\nART\n\nOF\n\nPOETRY.\n\nTranslated from the Original _Greek_, according to Mr. _Theodore\nGoulston_'s Edition.\n\nTOGETHER,\n\nWith Mr. _D'ACIER_'s Notes Translated from the _French_.\n\n\n            ----_Vero nomine poena\n  Non Honor est._----\n\n              Ovid Metam. _lib._ 2.\n\n\n_LONDON_:\n\nPrinted for _Dan. Browne_ at the _Blalk Swan_ without _Temple Bar_, and\n_Will. Turner_ at the _Angel_ at _Lincolns-Inn_ Back Gate, 1705.\n\n\n\n\nTHE PREFACE\n\n\nIf I was to speak here of _Aristotle's_ Merit only, the excellence of\nhis Poetick Art, and the reasons I had to publish it, I need do no more\nthan refer the Reader to that Work, to shew the disorders into which the\nTheatre is long since fallen, and to let him see that as the Injustice\nof Men, gave occasion to the making of Laws; so the decay of Arts and\nthe Faults committed in them, oblig'd first to the making Rules, and the\nrenewing them. But in order to prevent the Objections of some, who scorn\nto be bound to any Rules, only that of their own fancy, I think it\nnecessary, to prove, not only that Poetry is an Art, but that 'tis known\nand its Rules so certainly those which _Aristotle_ gives us, that 'tis\nimpossible to succeed any other way. This being prov'd, I shall examine\nthe two Consequences which naturally flow from thence: First, that the\nRules, and what pleases, are never contrary to one another, and that you\ncan never obtain the latter without the former. Secondly, That Poesie\nbeing an Art can never be prejudicial to Mankind, and that 'twas\ninvented and improv'd for their advantage only.\n\nTo follow this Method, 'tis necessary to trace Poetry from its\nOriginal, to shew that 'twas the Daughter of Religion, that at length\n'twas vitiated, and debauch'd, and lastly, brought under the Rules of\nArt, which assisted, in Correcting the defaults of Nature.\n\nGod touch'd with Compassion for the Misery of Men, who were obliged to\ntoil and labour, ordain'd Feasts to give them some rest; the offering of\nSacrifices to himself, by way of Thanksgiving, for those Blessings they\nhad received by his Bounty. This is a Truth which the _Heathens_\nthemselves acknowledged; they not only imitated these Feasts, but spake\nof them as a Gift of the Gods, who having granted a time of Repose,\nrequir'd some tokens of their grateful remembrance.\n\nThe first Feasts of the Ancients were thus, They assembled at certain\ntimes, especially in Autumn, after the gathering in their Fruits, for to\nrejoyce, and to offer the choicest of them to God; and this 'tis, which\nfirst gave birth to Poetry: For Men, who are naturally inclined to the\nimitation of Musick, employ'd their Talents to sing the praises of the\nGod they worshipped, and to celebrate his most remarkable Actions.\n\nIf they had always kept to that Primitive Simplicity, all the Poesie we\nshould have had, would have been, only Thanksgivings, Hymns, and Songs,\nas amongst the _Jews_. But 'twas very difficult, or rather impossible,\nthat Wisdom and Purity, should reign long in the _Heathen_ Assemblies;\nthey soon mingl'd the Praises of Men, with those of their Gods, and came\nat last, to the Licentiousness of filling their Poems with biting\nSatyrs, which they sung to one another at their drunken Meetings; Thus\nPoetry was entirely Corrupted, and the present scarce retains any Mark\nof Religion.\n\nThe Poets which followed, and who were (properly speaking,) the\nPhilosophers and Divines of those Times, seeing the desire the People\nhad for those Feasts, and Shows, and impossibility of retrieving the\nfirst Simplicity; took another way to remedy this Disorder, and making\nan advantage of the Peoples Inclinations, gave them Instructions,\ndisguis'd under the Charmes of Pleasure, as Physicians gild and sweeten\nthe bitter Pills they administer to their Patients.\n\nI shall not recount all the different Changes, which have happen'd in\nPoetry, and by what degrees it has arrived to the Perfection, we now\nfind it; I have spoken of it already in my _Commentaries_ on _Horace's\nArt of Poetry_, and shall say more in explaining, what _Aristotle_\nwrites in this Treatise.\n\n_Homer_ was the first that invented, or finished, an Epick Poem, for he\nfound out the Unity of the Subject, the Manners, the Characters, and the\nFable. But this Poem could only affect Customes, and was not moving\nenough to Correct the Passions, there wanted a Poem, which by imitating\nour Actions, might work in our Spirits a more ready and sensible effect.\n'Twas this, which gave occasion for _Tragedy_, and banished all Satyrs,\nby this means Poetry was entirely purg'd from all the disorders its\nCorruption had brought it into.\n\nThis is no proper place to shew, that Men who are quickly weary of\nregulated Pleasures, took pains to plunge themselves again into their\nformer Licentiousness by the invention of _Comedy_. I shall keep my self\nto _Tragedy_, which is the most noble Imitation, and principal Subject\nof this Treatise, all the Parts of an Epick Poem are comprized in a\n_Tragedy_.\n\nHowever short this account may be, it suffices to let you see that\nPoesie is an Art, for since it has a certain End, there must necessarily\nbe some way to arrive there: No body doubts of this constant Truth, that\nin all concerns where you may be in the right, or the wrong, there is an\nArt and sure Rules to lead you to the one, and direct you, how to avoid\nthe other.\n\nThe question then is, whether the Rules of this Art are known, and\nwhether they are those which _Aristotle_ gives us here? This question is\nno less doubtful, than the former, I must also confess that this cannot\nbe determined, but by the unlearned; who because they are the greater\nnumber, I shall make my Examination in their favour. To do this with\nsome sort of Method, there are four Things to be consider'd, who gives\nthe Rules, the time when he gives them; the manner in which he gives\nthem, and the effects they have in divers times wrought on different\nPeople: For I believe from these four Circumstances, I can draw such\nConclusions, that the most obstinate shall not be able to gainsay.\n\nHe who gives these Rules, is one of the greatest Philosophers that ever\nwas, his Genius was large, and of vast extent, the great Discoveries he\nmade in all Sciences, and particularly in the Knowledge of Man, are\ncertain Signs, that he had a sufficient insight into our Passions, to\ndiscover the Rules of the Art of Poetry, which is founded on them. But I\nshall suspend my Judgment, and pass on to the time in which he gave\nthese Rules.\n\nI find that he was born in the Age in which _Tragedy_ first appear'd,\nfor he lived with the Disciples of _AEschylus_, who brought it out of\nConfusion; and he had the same Masters with _Sophocles_, and _Euripides_,\nwho carried it to its utmost Perfection: Besides he was witness of the\nOpinion the most nice and knowing People of the World had of this Poem.\n'Tis therefore impossible that _Aristotle_ should be ignorant of the\nOrigine, Progress, Design and Effects of this Art; and consequently even\nbefore I examine these Rules, I am well assur'd upon his account who\ngives them, that they have all the Certainty, and Authority, that Rules\ncan possibly have.\n\nBut when I come to examine the Manner in which _Aristotle_ delivers\nthem, I find them so evident and conformable to Nature, that I cannot\nbut be sensible they are true; for what does _Aristotle_? He gives not\nhis Rules as _Legisltors_ do their Laws, without any other reason than\ntheir Wills only; he advances nothing but what is accompanied with\nReason, drawn from the common Sentiment of Mankind, insomuch that the\nMen themselves become the Rule and Measure of what he prescribes. Thus\nwithout considering that the Rules are of almost equal Date with the Art\nthey Teach, or any prejudice, in favour of _Aristotle's_ Name, (for 'tis\nthe Work which ought to make the Name valued, and not the Name the Work)\nI am forced to submit to all his Decisions, the Truth of which I am\nconvinc'd of in my self, and whose Certainty I discover by Reason and\nExperience, which never yet deceiv'd any body.\n\nTo this I shall add, the Effects which these Rules have produc'd in all\nAges, on different sort of People, and I see, that as they made the\nBeauty of _Homer's Sophocles_, and _Euripides_ Poems in _Greece_,\nfrom which they were drawn; so four or five Hundred Years after, they\nadorn'd the Poems of _Virgil_ and other famous Latin Poets, and that now\nafter Two Thousand Years they make the best _Tragedies_ we have, in\nwhich all that pleases, only does so, as 'tis conformable to these\nRules, (and that too without our being aware of it,) and what is\ndispleasing, is such, because it is contrary to them, for good Sense,\nand right Reason, is of all Countries and Places, the same Subjects\nwhich caus'd so many Tears to be shed in the _Roman_ Theatre, produce\nthe same Effects in ours, and those Things which gave distaste then, do\nthe same now, from whence I am convinced, that never any Laws had either\nso much Force, Authority, or Might. Humane Laws expire or Change very\noften after the Deaths of their Authors, because Circumstances Change,\nand the Interests of Men, whom they are made to serve, are different;\nbut these still take new vigor, because they are the Laws of Nature, who\nalways acts uniformly, renews them incessantly, and gives them a\nperpetual Existence.\n\nI won't pretend nevertheless that the Rules of this Art, are so firmly\nestablished, that 'tis impossible to add any thing to them, for tho'\n_Tragedy_ has all its proper Parts, 'tis probable one of those may yet\narrive to greater Perfection. I am perswaded, that tho' we have been\nable to add nothing to the Subject, or Means, yet we have added\nsomething to the Manner, as you'l find in the Remarks, and all the new\nDiscoveries are so far from destroying this Establishment, that they do\nnothing more than confirm it; for Nature is never contrary to herself,\nand one may apply to the Art of Poetry, what _Hippocrates_ says of\nPhysick,[17] _Physick is of long standing, hath sure Principles, and a\ncertain way by which in the Course of many Ages, an Infinity of Things\nhave been discovered, of which, Experience confirms the Goodness; All\nthat is wanting, for the perfection of this Art, will without doubt be\nfound out, by those Ingenious Men, who will search for it, according to\nthe Instructions and Rules of the Ancients, and endeavour to arrive at\nwhat is unknown, by what is already plain: For whoever shall boast that\nhe has obtained this Art by rejecting the ways of the Ancients, and\ntaking a quite different one, deceives others, and is himself deceived;\nbecause that's absolutely impossible._ This Truth extends it self to all\nArts and Sciences, 'tis no difficult matter to find a proper Example in\nour Subject, there is no want of _Tragedies_, where the management is\naltogether opposite to that of the Ancients. According to the Rules of\n_Aristotle_, a _Tragedy_ is the Imitation of an Allegorical and Universal\nAction, which by the means of Terror, and Compassion, moderates and\ncorrects our Inclinations. But according to these new _Tragedies_ 'tis\nan imitation of some particular Action, which affects no body, and is\nonly invented to amuse the Spectators, by the Plot, and unravelling a\nvain Intrigue, which tends only to excite and satisfie their Curiosity,\nand stir up their Passions, instead of rend'ring them calm and quiet.\nThis is not only not the same Art, but can be none at all, since it\ntends to no good, and 'tis a pure Lye without any mixture of Truth; what\nadvantage can be drawn from this Falshood? In a word, 'tis not a Fable,\nand by consequence, is in no wise a_ Tragedy_, for a _Tragedy_ cannot\nsubsist without a Fable,[18] as you will see elsewhere.\n\nWe come now to the first Consequence, which we draw, from what we have\nEstablish'd, and shall endeavour to prove, that our Laws, and what\npleases, can never be opposite, since the Rules were made only for what\npleases, and tend only to show the way you must walk in, to do so. By\nthis we shall destroy the false Maxim, That, _all that pleases is good_,\nand assert that we ought on the contrary to say, That, _all that is good\npleases, or ought to please_. For the goodness of any Work whatsoever,\ndoes not proceed from this, that it gives us pleasure, but the pleasure\nthat we have proceeds from its goodness, unless our deluded Eyes and\ncorrupt Imaginations mislead us, for that which causes our mistakes, is\nnot, where is, but what is not.\n\nIf the Rules, and what pleased, were things opposite, you would never\narrive at the giving pleasure, but by meer chance, which is absurd:\nThere must for that reason be a certain way, which leads thither, and\nthat way is the Rule which we ought to learn; but what is that Rule?\n'Tis a Precept, which being drawn from the _Pleasant_ and _Profitable_,\nleads us to their source. Now what is the _Pleasant_ and _Profitable_?\n'Tis that which pleases naturally, in all Arts 'tis this we consult,\n'tis the most sure and perfect Model we can Imitate; in it we find\nperfect Unity and Order, for it self is Order, or to speak more\nproperly, the effect of Order, and the Rule which conducts us thither;\nthere is but one way to find Order, but a great many to fall into\nConfusion.\n\nThere would be nothing bad in the World, if all that pleas'd were good;\nfor there is nothing so ridiculous, but what will have its Admirers. You\nmay say indeed, 'tis no truer, that what is good pleases, because we see\nev'ry day Disputes about the Good and Pleasant, that the same Thing\npleases some, and displeases others; nay, it pleases and displeases the\nvery same Persons at different times: from whence then proceeds this\ndifference? It comes either from an absolute Ignorance of the Rule, or\nthat the Passions alter it. Rightly to clear this Truth, I believe I may\nlay down this Maxim, that all sensible Objects are of two sorts; some\nmay be judged of, by Sense independantly from Reason. I can Sense that\nImpression which the animal Spirits make on the Soul, others can't be\njudged of but by Reason exercised in Science, Things simply agreeable,\nor disagreeable, are of the first Sort, all the World may judge alike of\nthese, for example the most Ignorant in Musick, perceives very well,\nwhen a Player on the Lute strikes one String for another, because he\njudges by his Sense, and that Sense is the Rule; in such occasions, we\nmay therefore very well say, that all that pleases is good, because that\nwhich is Good doth please, or that which is Evil never fails to\ndisplease; for neither the Passions, nor Ignorance dull the Senses, on\nthe contrary they sharpen them. 'Tis not so in Things which spring from\nReason; Passion and Ignorance act very strongly on it, and oftentimes\nchoak it, this is the Reason, why we ordinarily judge so ill, and\ndifferently concerning those Things, of which, that is the Rule and the\nCause. Why, what is Bad often pleases, and that which is Good doth not\nalways so, 'tis not the fault of the Object, 'tis the fault of him who\njudges; but what is Good will infallibly please those who can judge,\nand that's sufficient. By this we may see, that a Play, that shall bring\nthose Things which are to be judg'd of by Reason, within the Rules, as\nalso what is to be judg'd of by the Sense, shall never fail to please,\nfor it will please both the Learned, and Ignorant: Now this Conformity\nof suffrages is the most sure,[19] or according to _Aristotle_ the only\nMark of the Good, and Pleasant, as he proves in the following part of\nhis Discourse. Now these Suffrages are not obtained, but by the\nobservation of the Rules, and consequently, these Rules are the only\nCause of the Good, and Pleasant, whether they are follow'd Methodically\nand with Design, or by Hazard only; for 'tis certain, there are many\nPersons who are entirely Ignorant of these Rules, and yet don't fail to\nsucceed in several Affairs: This is far from destroying the Rules, and\nserves to shew their Beauty, and proves how far they are conformable to\nNature, since those often follow them, who know nothing of 'em. In the\nRemarks you shall find many Examples of the vast difference, the\nobservance or neglect of the Rules make in the same Subject, and by that\nbe throughly convinc'd that they are the two only Causes of Good, or Bad\nWorks, and that there can never be any occasion, where the perfect\nHarmony which is between the Rules, and what pleases, shou'd be broken.\n\n'Tis true to come to the last Consequence, that Poetry is an Art,\ninvented for the Instruction of Mankind, and consequently must be\nprofitable: 'Tis a general Truth that ev'ry Art is a good Thing, because\nthere is none whose End is not Good: But, as it is not less true, that\nMen ordinarily abuse the best Things, that which was design'd for an\nwholsome Remedy, may in time become a very dangerous Poison. I declare\nthen that I don't speak of corrupted _Tragedy_, for 'tis not in vitious\nand depraved Works, that we must look for Reason, and the intent of\nNature, but in those which are sound and perfect; I speak of Ancient\n_Tragedy_, that which is conform to _Aristotle's_ Rules, and I dare say,\n'tis the most profitable, and necessary of all Diversions.\n\nIf 'twas possible to oblige Men to follow the Precepts of the Gospel,\nnothing could be more happy, they would find there true Peace, solid\nPleasure, and a Remedy for all their Infirmities, and would look on\n_Tragedy_ as useless and below them. How could they do otherwise than\nhave this opinion? since those _Pagans_ who apply'd themselves to the\nStudy of Wisdome, consider'd it with the same Genius. They themselves\nown, that could the People be always brought up in the solid Truths of\nPhilosophy, the Philosophers need have no recourse to Fables, to give\ntheir Instructions: But as so much Corruption was inconsistent with such\nWisdom, they were forc'd to seek for a Remedy to the Disorders of their\nPleasures; they then invented _Tragedy_, and inspir'd them with it, not\nas the best Employment Men could take up, but as a means, which was able\nto correct the excess, into which they plung'd themselves at their\nFeasts, and to render those amusements profitable, which Custom and\ntheir Infirmities had made necessary, and their Corruption very\ndangerous.\n\nMen are the same now, they were then, they have the same Passions, and\nrun with the same Eagerness after Pleasures. To endeavour to reclaim\nthem from that State, by the severity of Precepts, is attempting to put\na Bridle on an unruly Horse in the middle of his carrier, in the\nmean while, there is no Medium, they run into the most criminal excess,\nunless you afford them regular and sober Pleasures. 'Tis a great\nHappiness that their remaining Reason inclines them to love Diversions,\nwhere there is Order, and Shows, where Truth is to be found, and I am\nperswaded, that Charity obliges us, to take advantage of this, and not\nto allow too much time for Debauches, which would extinguish that Spark\nof Reason, which yet shines in them. Those People are distemper'd, and\n_Tragedy_ is all the Remedy they are capable of receiving any advantage\nfrom; for it is the only Recreation in which they can find the agreeable\nand Profitable.\n\n_Tragedy_ does not only represent the Punishments, which voluntary Crimes\nalways draw on their Authors, these are too common, and well known\nTruths, and leave too much liberty to our Passions; this is the meanest\nsort of _Tragedy_: But it sets forth the misfortunes which even in\nvoluntary Crimes, and those committed by Imprudence, draw on such as we\nare, and this is perfect _Tragedy_. It instructs us to stand on our\nguard, to refine and moderate our Passions, which alone occasion'd the\nloss of those unfortunate ones. Thus the aspiring may learn to give\nbounds to his Ambition; the Prophane to fear God; the Malicious to\nforget his Wrongs; the Passionate to restrain his Anger; the Tyrant to\nforsake his Violence and Injustice, _&c._ Those idle and infirm Men, who\nare not able to bear the Yoak of Religion, and have need of a grosser\nsort of Instruction, which falls under the Senses, can never have more\nprofitable amusements; 'twere to be wish'd, that they would renounce all\nother Pleasures, and love this only. If any shall now condemn _Tragedy_,\nhe must also condemn the use of Fables, which the most Holy Men have\nemploy'd, and God himself has vouchsaf't to make use of: For _Tragedy_\nis only a Fable, and was invented as a Fable, to form the Manners, by\nInstructions, disguis'd under the Allegory of an Action. He must also\ncondemn History; for History is much less Grave and Moral than Fable,\ninsomuch as 'tis particular, when a Fable is more general, and\nuniversal, and by consequence more profitable.\n\nWe may say too, that the only Aim of true Politicks, is to procure to\nthe People Virtue, Peace and Pleasure, this Design cannot be contrary to\nReligion, because we chuse none of those Pleasures which destroy Virtue,\nor Peace. _Tragedy_ is far from it, and endeavours only their\npreservation; for 'tis the only Pleasure, which disposes Men to endure\ntheir Passions, to a perfect Mediocrity, which contributes more to the\nmaintaining of Peace, and acquisition of Virtue, than any thing else; I\nalso believe that from this Truth, we might draw a sure Rule to judge of\nthose Pleasures which might be permitted, and those which ought to be\nforbidden.\n\nYou may say, _Tragedy_ is dangerous, by reason of the abuses which\ncreep into it. Every Thing is dangerous, and may be condemn'd at this\nrate, for there is nothing so excellent where Abuses may not be\ncommitted, and of which a bad, or good use may not be made. We must\nremember this Truth, that all Arts and Sciences, by the Ignorance and\nCorruption of Men, ordinarily produce false Arts, and false Sciences;\nbut these false Arts and false Sciences, are more opposite to what they\nCounterfeit than any thing besides; for there is nothing more opposite\nto what is good, than what is bad in the same Kind. If that which is\nfalse, engages us to condemn what is true, it has gain'd its point,\nthat's what it would have, and having thus Triumph'd over Truth, soon\nputs its self into its place, than which nothing can be more\nPernicious.\n\nSince _Tragedy_ has no defect, but what is external, it follows from\nthence, that 'tis good in its self, and consequently profitable; this\ncannot be contested, and those who condemn it, condemn, not only the\nmost noble Diversion, but the most capable to raise the Courage, and\nform the Genius, and the only one, which can refine the Passions, and\ntouch the most vicious and obdurate Souls. I could give many examples;\nbut shall content my self with relating the Story of _Alexander_ of[20]\n_Pherea_: This barbarous Man, having order'd the _Hecuba_ of _Euripides_\nto be Acted before him, found himself so affected, that he went out\nbefore the end of the first Act, saying, _That he was asham'd to be seen\nto weep, at the Misfortunes of_ Hecuba _and_ Polyxena, _when he daily\nimbrud his Hands in the Blood of his Citizens_; he was affraid that his\nHeart should be truly mollify'd, that the Spirit of Tyranny would now\nleave the possession of his Breast, and that he should come a private\nperson out of that Theatre into which he enter'd Master. The Actor who\nso sensibly touch'd him, difficultly escaped with his Life, but was\nsecur'd by some remains of that pity, which was the cause of his Crime.\n\nA very grave Historian, makes reflection much to this purpose, and\nwhich seems to me no indifferent one in Politicks; in speaking of the\nPeople of _Arcadia_, he says, _That their Humanity, sweetness of Temper,\nrespect for Religion, in a word, the Purity of their Manners, and all\ntheir Virtues proceeded chiefly from the Love they had to Musick, which\nby its Melody, corrected those ill Impressions, a thick and unwholesome\nAir, joyn'd to a hard, and laborious way of living, made on their Bodies\nand Minds._ He says on the contrary, _That the_ Cynethians _fell into\nall sorts of Crimes and Impieties, because they despised the wise\nInstitutions of their Ancestors; and neglected this Art, which was so\nmuch the more necessary for them, as they liv'd in the coldest and worst\nplace of_ Arcadia: _There was scarcely any City in_ Greece, _where\nwickedness was so great and frequent as here_. If _Polybius_ speaks thus\nof Musick, and accuses _Ephorus_, for having spoken a thing unworthy of\nhimself, when he said, _That 'twas invented to deceive Mankind_: what\nought we then to say of _Tragedy_, of which Musick is only a small part;\nand which is as much above it, as a Word is above an inarticulate Sound,\nwhich signifies nothing.\n\nThis is what, according to my Opinion, may be truly said of _Tragedy_,\nand the Mean we ought to keep. But to the end this may be justly said,\nthe Parts must conform themselves entirely to the Rules of Ancient\n_Tragedy_, that is to say, which endeavours rather to Instruct than\nPlease, and regard the Agreeable, as a means only to make the Profitable\nmore taking; they must paint the Disorders of the Passions, and the\ninevitable Mischiefs which arise from thence. 'Twas for this the _Greek\nTragedians_ were so much Honour'd in their own Age, and esteemed in\nthose which follow'd. Their Theatre was a School, where Virtue was\ngenerally better Taught, than in the Schools of their Philosophers, and\nat this very Day, the reading their Pieces will Inspire an Hatred to\nVice, and a Love to Virtue. To Imitate them profitably, we should\nre-establish the _Chorus_, which establishing the _veri-Similitude_ of\nthe _Tragedy_, gives an Opportunity to set forth to the People, those\nparticular Sentiments, you would inspire them with, and to let them\nknow, what is Vicious or Laudable, in the Characters which are\nIntroduc'd. _Mr. Racine_ saw the necessity of this, and cannot be\nsufficiently praised, for having brought it, into his two last Pieces,\nwhich have happily reconcil'd _Tragedy_ to its greatest Enemies. Those\nwho have seen the effects of these _Chorus's_, cannot but be sensible of\ntheir Advantage, and by Consequence, must Consent to what I say in my\nRemarks. After Examples, and Authorities of this Nature, I have no\nReason to fear my Arguments. But enough of this Matter, tis time to come\nto what respects my self, and to give some Account of this Work.\n\nI have endeavour'd to make the Translation as literal as possible,\nbeing perswaded, that I could not do better, than to stick close to the\nWords of a Man, who wrote with wonderful Exactness, and puts in nothing,\nbut what is to the purpose. I have nevertheless taken the Liberty\nsometimes, to enlarge his Thoughts, for what was understood in his time,\nby half a Word, would hardly be Intelligible now, unless some Pains was\ntaken to explain it.\n\nA simple Translation of _Aristotle_, would be clear enough, and there\nwould be no need of Commentaries, if we were well Instructed in those\nPoets, from whom he takes his Rules, but as almost all the World is\nIgnorant of them, and 'tis necessary to explain by Example, what is\nObscure in the Rule. This is what I have endeavour'd to do in my\nRemarks, which will seem short, if you consider the many large Volumes\nwhich have been wrote on this little Treatise.\n\nOf all the _Latin_ Commentators, _Victorius_ seems to me the most Wise,\nKnowing, and Exact, but his Assistance is not sufficient, to give us an\nUnderstanding of Poesie. The _Italian Castelvetro_, has a great deal of\nWit, and Knowledge, if we may call that Wit, which is only Fancy, and\nbestow on much Reading the name of Knowledge. If we recollect all the\nQualities of a good Interpreter, we shall have an Idea just contrary to\nthat of _Castelvetro_. He knew neither the Theatre, the Passions, nor the\nCharacters; he understood neither _Aristotle's_ Reasons, nor his Method,\nand strove rather to contradict, than explain him. On the other hand, he\nis so Infatuated with the Author's of his own Country, that he forgot\nhow to Criticise well; he talks without Measure, like _Homer's\nThersites_, and declares War to all that is fine. Indeed he has some\ngood things, but 'tis not worth while to spend our time in looking after\nthem. The _French_ Art of Poetry by _Mesnardiere_, may pass for a\nCommentary on some Chapters of _Aristotle_, but that Work is of little\nvalue; for besides that Author's being no good Critick, and perpetually\ndeceiv'd, he did not penetrate into the Meaning of the Philosopher. The\nPractice of the Theatre by the Abbot _D'Aubignac_, is infinitely better,\nbut is rather a Sequel and Supplement, than an Explication of\n_Aristotle_; on which, a perfect Instruction in the Ancient Rules, will\nenable you to pass a Judgment. The Treatise of Epick Poem by Father\n_Bossu_, is above all the Moderns have done in that Kind, and is the best\nCommentary Extant, on what _Aristotle_ has wrote concerning that sort of\nPoem; none ever penetrated deeper into the bottom of that Art, and set\nin a better Light (according to _Aristotle's_ Rules) _Homer's_, and\n_Virgil's_ Beauties, or the Solidity, and Beauty of _Aristotle's_ Rules,\nby the marvellous Conduct of those two great Poets. If he had Treated\nof _Tragedy_, as throughly, as he has done of the _Epopoeia_, he had\nleft almost nothing for me to have done after him; but unfortunately, he\nomitted the most difficult, which he could have Explain'd much better\nthan my self, had he had spare time. His Work however has done me great\nService. I have profited by the good, which others have Wrote, and must\nconfess, that their Faults have been useful to me. But after all, the\nmost excellent Commentators on the Poetick Art, are the Ancient Poems,\nand as they gave the hint to make Rules, 'tis by them, that these ought\nto be Explain'd. I hope, I have not followed such good Guides in vain.\nIf I have wander'd, by following them, without a true Understanding, I\nshould be very well pleased to be put in the right way, by any, who\nwould advise me of my Faults, or make them publickly known.\n\nPerhaps some may Reproach me, as Mr. _Corneille_ did all the precedent\nCommentators. _They have Explain'd_ Aristotle (says that great Man)\n_as Grammarians, or Philosophers, and not as Poets; because they had more\nof the Study, and Speculation, than Experience of the Theatre. The\nReading them may make us more Learned, but can give us no further\nInsight, how we may succeed._ This Reproach is founded on this general\nMaxim, _That every one ought to be believ'd in his own Art._ It seems\nthen, that those should not pretend to explain the Rules of Poesie, who\nnever yet made Poems. The Principle is true, but the Consequence is not\nso, for before that is drawn, we must see to whom the Art of Poetry, and\nwhat it produc'd, does property belong. 'Tis not Poesie it self which is\nproduced, for then it would have been, before it was. 'Tis Philosophy\nthat brought it first into play, and consequently, it belongs to\nPhilosophy, to give, and explain its Rules. This is so true, that\n_Aristotle_ made not these Rules as a Poet, but as a Philosopher: And if\nhe made them as such, why may they not be explain'd that way too? And as\nit was not necessary to make _Dramatick_ Poems, to give Rules to that\nArt, so 'tis no more necessary that they should be made, to Explain\nthose Rules.\n\nI don't know indeed, whether he who has made Pieces for the Theatre, is\nso proper to explain the Rules of this Art, as he that never did, for\n'twould be a Miracle if one was not biass'd by self-Love, when the other\nis a dis-interested Judge, who has no other Aim, than discovering the\nTruth, and making it known. Mr. _Corneille_ himself may be an Example of\nthis. All that he would Establish in his new Discourse of _Dramatick\nPoetry_, is less founded on Nature, than his own proper Interest. It\nappears by his own Words, that the design he had of defending what he\nhad ventured on the Stage, obliged him to forsake _Aristotle's_ Rules,\nand to Establish new ones, which should be more favourable to himself;\nwe shall see in the Remarks, whether they can bear the Test. 'Tis\ntherefore no ways necessary to have made Poems, to prescribe Rules for\nPoesie, and yet much less to explain them. If it was so, I would say\nthere were none, for of all those which have given any, I knew but one\nthat was a Poet; _Horace_ himself never made an Epick Poem or a Tragedy,\nbut to prescribe Rules for Poesie, as also to explain them; it is\nsufficient to know the Origine, and Scope of the Art Treated of; to have\nexamin'd those Poems, which are the Basis and Foundation, to have made\nReflections on what is agreeable, and disagreeable, and rightly to\ndiscover the Causes; this is the only necessary Knowledge I have\nendeavour'd to acquire, and Philosophy alone can lead me thither.\n\nI shall add once more, that if we make a Man more Learned, by\nexplaining the Rules as a Philosopher, 'tis Impossible, but he must\nattain a surer Knowledge, to succeed in this Art. 'Tis true, we can't\ngive a _Genius_, that's not done by Art, but we can shew the Path a\n_Genius_ ought to Tread in, and that is the only Design of all Rules.\n\nI have not made the Apology of Commentators, to praise my self, for\nalthough I am no Poet, it does not follow that I cannot be a good\nPhilosopher; I leave it to the Publick, and time, to Judge of my Work,\nfor I will neither Court, nor slight their Favours.\n\nI have spoken very freely, in what I have pass'd my Judgment on, and in\nso doing, Imitated the ancient Criticks, who spared neither\n_Demosthenes_, nor _Thucidides_, nor _Plato_, nor any that was Great, or\nVenerable in Antiquity. A flattering Criticism would be a pleasant sort\nof one, when we should seek to Applaud, and the Respect due to the Name,\nshould check the Censure due to the Fault. I am not so scrupulous, and\nif any one be offended, I shall Answer him as _Dionysius Halicarnassaeus_\nanswered _Pompey_ the Great, who wrote to him, to complain, that he had\ntax'd _Plato_ with some Faults. _The Veneration you have for_ Plato _is\nJust_, (says that excellent Critick,) _but the Blame you lay on me, is\nnot so. When any one writes on a Subject, to shew what is Good or Bad in\nit, he ought to discover, and mark very exactly all its Virtues, and\nVices, for that is a sure way to find out the Truth, which is more\nvaluable than all things else whatever. If I had written against_ Plato\n_with a Design to Decry his Works, I should be as Impious as_[21]\nZoilus, _but on the contrary, I would praise him, and if in doing so I\nhave Improved any of his Defects, I have done nothing worthy of\nComplaint, and which was not necessary for my Design._ Notwithstanding\nthis, I have put some Bounds to this Liberty, and if I have discovered\nsome Faults, I have conceal'd some others, that seem'd to me not so\nconsiderable. I had respect in them, to the Approbation of many Persons\nof Merit, for I would not run Counter to an almost Universal Consent,\nwhich always is of great Weight, and ought at least to oblige us to be\ncautious. But that I might give to those Persons, an Opportunity of\nrecollecting themselves, I have endeavoured to explain the Rule, in such\na manner, that they may perceive those very Faults, if they will Read\nthe Remarks with attention. As for the rest, I had no design to offend\nany Body; if there are some things which make them uneasie, 'tis\nimpossible to write any Work of this nature, without disgusting some.\n'Tis also the Mark of good Criticism, as well as good Philosophy. From\nhence it proceeded, that _Plato_ was blamed for having taught his\nPhilosophy a long time, without displeasing any one Person; and they\npretended by that, to say that either his Doctrine was not good, or his\nMethod defective, since none had by Hearing him been made sensible of\nthat Uneasiness, which People naturally have, when they perceive\nthemselves to be Vitious.\n\nIt would be unjust to finish this Preface, without saying something of\n_Aristotle's_ Life, that those who read his Work, may know something of\nhim. He was the Son of _Nicomachus_, Physician of[22] _Amyntas_, and\ndescended from _Esculapius_. His Mother was the Daughter of one of the\nDescendants of those, who Transplanted a Colony, from _Chalcis_ to\n_Stagira_, in _Macedonia_; that is to say, she was of Noble Extraction,\non both sides. He was born at _Stagira_, about four Hundred Years,\nbefore our Saviour. At Eighteen Years of Age, he went to _Athens_, and\nabode with _Plato_, he pass'd twenty Years in his School, and when his\nMaster was dead, he went to _Hermeas_ the Tyrant of _Atarna_, a City of\n_Mysia_; he went from thence to _Mytelene_, from whence he was call'd by\n_Philip_, to be his Son _Alexander's_ Tutor; he was eight Years, with\nthat Young Prince, and after _Philip's_ Death, returned to _Athens_,\nwhere he Taught, in the _Lyceum_ twelve Years, till the Death of\n_Alexander_. For _Antipater_ having carried the War into _Greece,\nAristotle_, who fancied, the _Athenians_ suspected him, by reason of the\nstrict Friendship, which was between him, and the Viceroy of _Macedonia_,\nretir'd to _Calchis_, where he died soon after, by a Fit of Sickness in\nthe sixty third Year of his Age. He left one Son, and one Daughter, both\nYoung, and made _Antipater_ Executor of his Will, and Administrator of\nall his Goods, which were very considerable, if we may judge of them by\n_Alexander's_ Liberality, who gave him eight Hundred Talents, for his\nHistory of Animals, that is according to the lesser Talent, one hundred\nand forty Thousand Pounds Sterling, or according to the greater, one\nHundred eighty six Thousand, six Hundred, sixty five Pounds, thirteen\nShillings and four Pence. The most precious of his Moveables was his\nLibrary, which was afterwards Sold to _Ptolomy Philadelphus_, and which\nhe had Enrich'd with four Hundred Volumes, of his own making. In those\nof his Writings which now remain, and are happily a considerable Number,\nwe find a very discerning Spirit, a solid Judgment, a wonderful Method,\nprodigious Knowledge, and an Eloquence both strong and sweet. He himself\nfound out more, than the most Knowing now, learn with a great deal of\nLabour and Pains, and as for those things which depended on the Vivacity\nof the Spirit, no Man ever carried his Knowledge further, or Establish'd\nmore sure, or extensive Principles. In Dialecticks, Logick, Rhetorick,\nPoliticks, and Morality, we have little but what he taught us.\n\nBy making a proper use of his Informations, there have appear'd Works\nin some of these Sciences, preferable to his, but his Rhetorick is the\nmost Preferable we as yet have. His Art of Poetry is more to be admir'd,\nfor in his Rhetorick, he made use of the Precepts of those, who Wrote\nbefore him. But he is the first that discovered the Grounds, and Secrets\nof Poesie, and none since have undertaken to Write, but in Explication\nof his Thoughts, which have serv'd, and will always serve as the Rule.\nHe alone has Reviv'd _Tragedy_ more than once.\n\nIn effect after it was brought to its Perfection, under the Reign of\n_Alexander_, the Son of _Amyntas_, under the Reigns of _Perdiccas_, and\n_Archelaus_, and degenerated in those which follow'd, but under that of\n_Philip_, and _Alexander_, the Poets being Encourag'd by those Glorious\nPrinces, and guided by _Aristotle's_ Genius, made it flourish as before.\n\nAfter the Death of _Alexander_, it began to Languish, and never\nrecover'd its entire Strength till the Reign of _Augustus_, in which the\nRules of this Philosopher were Reviv'd.\n\nSince the _Death of Augustus_, it has grown Feeble, for more than\nsixteen Hundred Years, till in this last Age 'twas recover'd out of its\nlong Decay, by Mr. _Corneille_, and Mr. _Racine_, who upheld themselves\nby _Aristotle's_ Rules. So true is it, that Time is the Faithful\nGuardian, not only of Great Men, as _Pindar_ saith, but also of the\nLiberal Arts, which it revives as occasion offers, and always, under the\ngreatest Princes. For what a good Soil and Air, are to Seeds and Fruits,\nsuch is the Glory, Grandeur, Magnificence, and Liberality of Princes,\nto Arts, and Sciences, which do not so much flourish under them, as by\nthem; and we may very properly apply to this Subject the fallowing Verse\nof _Agathon_.\n\n    Art favours Fortune, Fortune favours Art.\n\n\nIf _Tragedy_ shall some time hence suffer any sort of Eclipse, 'twill\nbe by the Laziness, and Haste of those Poets, who Write without being\nrightly Instructed. _Plato_ in his _Phedrus_ Introduces a young Poet\nseeking _Sophocles_ and _Euripides_, and Accosting them thus. _I can\nmake Verses tolerably well; and I know how in my Descriptions to extend\na mean Subject, and Contract a great one: I know how to excite Terror,\nand Compassion, and to make pitiful things appear Dreadful and Menacing.\nI will therefore go, and write_ Tragedies. Sophocles _and_ Euripides\nanswer'd him, _Don't go so fast_, Tragedy _is not what you take it to\nbe; 'tis a Body, composed of many different, and well-suited Parts, of\nwhich you will make a Monster, unless you know how to adjust them; you\nmay know what is to be learn'd, before the Study of the Art of Tragedy;\nbut you don't yet know that Art._\n\nIf there are Poets now, which don't know so much as the Young Man, of\nwhom _Plato_ speaks, these Rules can be of no Advantage to them; but\nthose who are like him, and in the same Circumstances, need only keep to\nthese Rules, which will teach them what they are Ignorant of, and the\nfourth time restore _Tragedy_ to its first Lustre and Brightness. This\nis the most profitable Present, can be made them, if by Meditation and\nPractice they will endeavour to make a right use of it; for Precepts\nalone are not sufficient to make us Learned, the Advantage, and Profit\nof any Rules, depend on our Labour and Pains. If these Rules are not for\nthem, they will be against them, and their Works shall be Judg'd by\nthem.\n\n\n\n\nFootnotes:\n\n[17] In his Treatise of Ancient Physick.\n\n[18] Chap. 18. _Rem._ 8. _&c._\n\n[19] _Chap._ 13. Rem. 25.\n\n[20] A Town in _Thessaly_.\n\n[21] Called Impious, because he writ against _Homer_.\n\n[22] Grandfather to _Alexander_ the Great.\n\n\n\n\nNotes on Dacier's Preface\n\n\n_Sig._ [A 3], _recto_, 11. 17-18. \"_Horace's Art of Poetry._\" Published,\nParis, 1689, in Vol. X of Dacier's _Remarques Critiques sur les Oeuvres\n[d'Horace] Avec une Nouvelle Traduction_.\n\n_Sig._ [A 5], _verso_, 1.2, note. \"Chap. 18, Rem. 8.\" In this remark,\nDacier explicates Aristotle's injunction that the poet should sketch the\ngeneral outline of the fable before filling in episodes and naming\ncharacters, thus making it general and universal.\n\n_Sig._ [A 6], _verso_, 1.7, note. \"Chap. 13, Rem. 25.\" Dacier says in\nthis remark that a regular tragedy submitted to the judgment of the\nlearned and the ignorant will always please best, \"_car l'un remarque\nune chose, l'autre une autre, & tous ensemble ils remarquent tout_.\"\n\n_Sig._ [A 8], _recto_, 1.7. \"History is much less grave.\" \"Ch. IX, Rem.\n5\" (Dacier's note) Dacier adds nothing to the traditional discussion of\nthe superiority of poetry to history and philosophy.\n\n_Sig._ [A 8], _verso_, 1.18. \"Alexander of Pherea.\" See Plutarch's\noration \"On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander,\" II, in _Moralia_\n(tr. F.C. Babbitt, Loeb Classical Library), IV, 424.\n\n_Sig._ [b 1], _recto_, 1.1. \"A Very Grave Historian.\" Polybius,\n_Histories_, IV, 20.\n\n_Sig._ [b 1], _verso_ 1.20. \"Mr. Racine ... his last two pieces...\"\n_Esther_ (1689) and _Athalie_, 1691.\n\n_Sig._ [b 2], _recto_, 11. 23-24. \"Victorius.\" Pietro Vettori,\n_Commentarii in Primum Librum Aristotelis de Arte Poetarum_, Florentiae,\n1560.\n\n_Ibid._, 1.27. \"Castelvetro.\" Ludovico Castelvetro, _La Poetica\nd'Aristotele vulgarizzata et sposta_, 1570. This view of Castelvetro,\nwho was remarkable for his independence of Aristotle, was fairly common\nin France. La Mesnardiere, for instance, was extremely hostile to him.\n\n_Sig._ [b 2], _verso_, 1.13. \"Mesnardiere.\" Jules de La Mesnardiere, _La\nPoetique_, Paris, 1693.\n\n_Ibid._, 1.20. \"D'Aubignac.\" Aubignac (abbe Hedelin d'), _La Pratique du\nTheatre_, Paris, 1657. English translation, 1684.\n\n_Ibid._, 1.26. \"_Father Bossu._\" _Traite du Poeme Epique_, Paris, 1675.\n\n_Sig._ [b 3], _recto_, 1.22. \"Corneille.\" \"Discours de l'Utilite et des\nParties du Poeme Dramatique,\" _Oeuvres_ (ed. Ch. Marty-Laveaux), Paris,\n1862, I, 16.\n\n_Sig._ [b 4], _verso_, 1. 12. \"Dionysius of Halicarnassus.\" See\n\"Epistola ad Cn. Pompeio de Platone,\" Dionysii Halicarnassensis, _Opera\nOmnia_, Lipsiae, 1774-1777, VI, 750-752.\n\n_Sig._ [b 6], _verso_, 1. 27. \"Pindar\" Fragment 159, _Odes_ (tr. Sir\nJohn Sandys, Loeb Classical Library) p. 600.\n\n_Sig._ [b 7], _recto_, 1. 5. \"verse of Agathon\" _Ars atque fortuna\ninvicem se diligunt_. \"Agathones Fragmenta\" 6, in _Fragmenta Euripides_\n(ed. F.G. Wagner), Paris, 1843-1846, II, 58.\n\n_Ibid._, 1.10. \"Plato in his Phaedrus.\" \"Phaedrus,\" 268, _Dialogues_\n(tr. B. Jowett) Third Edition, Oxford, 1892, I, 477.\n\n\n\n\n  William Andrews Clark Memorial Library: University of California\n\n  THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY\n\n  _General Editors_\n\n  R.C. BOYS\n  University of Michigan\n\n  RALPH COHEN\n  University of California, Los Angeles\n\n  VINTON A. DEARING\n  University of California, Los Angeles\n\n  LAWRENCE CLARK POWELL\n  Wm. Andrews Clark Memorial Library\n\n  _Corresponding Secretary_: Mrs. EDNA C. DAVIS, Wm. Andrews Clark\n  Memorial Library\n\n\nThe Society exists to make available inexpensive reprints (usually\nfacsimile reproductions) of rare seventeenth and eighteenth century\nworks. The editorial policy of the Society remains unchanged. As in the\npast, the editors welcome suggestions concerning publications. All\nincome of the Society is devoted to defraying cost of publication and\nmailing.\n\nAll correspondence concerning subscriptions in the United States and\nCanada should be addressed to the William Andrews Clark Memorial\nLibrary, 2205 West Adams Boulevard, Los Angeles 18, California.\nCorrespondence concerning editorial matters may be addressed to any of\nthe general editors. The membership fee is $3.00 a year for subscribers\nin the United States and Canada and 15/- for subscribers in Great\nBritain and Europe. British and European subscribers should address B.\nH. Blackwell, Broad Street, Oxford, England.\n\n\nPublications for the thirteenth year [1958-1959]\n\n(At least six items, most of them from the following list, will be\nreprinted.)\n\n  Andre Dacier, _Preface to Aristotle's Art of Poetry_ (1705). Introduction\n  by Samuel Holt Monk.\n\n  William Herbert, Third Earl of Pembroke. _Poems_ (1660). Introduction by\n  Gaby Onderwyzer.\n\n  Francis Hutcheson, _Reflections on Laughter_ (1729). Introduction by\n  Scott Elledge.\n\n  _Eighteenth-Century Newspaper Essays on the Theatre._ Selected, with an\n  introduction, by John Loftis.\n\n  Samuel Johnson, _Notes to Shakespeare, Vol. III, Tragedies._ Edited by\n  Arthur Sherbo.\n\n  John Joyne, _A Journal_ (1679). Edited by R. E. Hughes.\n\n  Richard Savage, _An Author to be Let_ (1732). Introduction by James\n  Sutherland.\n\n  _Seventeenth-Century Tales of the Supernatural._ Selected, with an\n  introduction, by Isabel M. Westcott.\n\n\n  THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY\n  _WILLIAM ANDREWS CLARK MEMORIAL LIBRARY_\n  2205 WEST ADAMS BOULEVARD, LOS ANGELES 18, CALIFORNIA\n\n  Make check or money order payable to THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF\n  CALIFORNIA.\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Notes:\n\nThe origianl text of \"Aristotle's Art of Poetry\" is printed in italic font\nwith plain font used for emphasis. For ease of reading, the transcriber\nhas used _underscore_ to represent the plain text. In all other sections\nof this document, _underscore_ is used to represent italic text.\n\n\nElongated \"s\" has been modernized.\n\nAdditional spacing after some of the quotes is intentional to indicate\nboth the end of a quotation and the beginning of a new paragraph as\npresented in the original text.","title":"The Preface to Aristotle's Art of Poetry","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":10170}