Chapter 1

Produced by Chris Curnow, Stephanie Eason, Joseph Cooper and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net

THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY

A. DACIER THE PREFACE TO ARISTOTLE'S ART OF POETRY (1705)

Publication Number 76

William Andrews Clark Memorial Library University of California Los Angeles 1959

GENERAL EDITORS Richard C. Boys, _University of Michigan_ Ralph Cohen, _University of California, Los Angeles_ Vinton A. Dearing, _University of California, Los Angeles_ Lawrence Clark Powell, _Clark Memorial Library_

ASSISTANT EDITOR W. Earl Britton, _University of Michigan_

ADVISORY EDITORS Emmett L. Avery, _State College of Washington_ Benjamin Boyce, _Duke University_ Louis Bredvold, _University of Michigan_ John Butt, _King's College, University of Durham_ James L. Clifford, _Columbia University_ Arthur Friedman, _University of Chicago_ Louis A. Landa, _Princeton University_ Samuel H. Monk, _University of Minnesota_ Ernest C. Mossner, _University of Texas_ James Sutherland, _University College, London_ H. T. Swedenberg, Jr., _University of California, Los Angeles_

CORRESPONDING SECRETARY Edna C. Davis, _Clark Memorial Library_

INTRODUCTION

André Dacier's _Poëtique d'Aristote Traduite en François avec des Remarques_ was published in Paris in 1692. His translation of Horace with critical remarks (1681-1689) had helped to establish his reputation in both France and England. Dryden, for example, borrowed from it extensively in his _Discourse Concerning the Original and Progress of Satire_ (1693). No doubt this earlier work assured a ready reception and a quick response to the commentary on Aristotle: how ready and how quick is indicated by the fact that within a year of its publication in France Congreve could count on an audience's recognizing a reference to it. In the _Double Dealer_ (II, ii) Brisk says to Lady Froth: "I presume your ladyship has read _Bossu_?" The reply comes with the readiness of a _cliché_: "O yes, and _Rapine_ and _Dacier_ upon _Aristotle_ and _Horace_." A quarter of a century later Dacier's reputation was still great enough to allow Charles Gildon to eke out the second part of his _Complete Art of Poetry_ (1718) by translating long excerpts from the Preface to the "admirable" Dacier's Aristotle.[1] Addison ridiculed the pedantry of Sir Timothy Tittle (a strict Aristotelian critic) who rebuked his mistress for laughing at a play: "But Madam," says he, "you ought not to have laughed; and I defie any one to show me a single rule that you could laugh by.... There are such people in the world as _Rapin_, _Dacier_, and several others, that ought to have spoiled your mirth."[2] But the scorn is directed at the pupil, not the master, whom Addison considered a "true critic."[3] A work so much esteemed was certain to be translated, and so in 1705 an English version by an anonymous translator was published.

It cannot be claimed that Dacier's Aristotle introduced any new critical theories into England. Actually it provides material for little more than an extended footnote on the history of criticism in the Augustan period. Dacier survived as an influence only so long as did a respect for the rules; and he is remembered today merely as one of the historically important interpreters--or misinterpreters--of the _Poetics_.[4] He was, however, the last Aristotelian formalist to affect English critical theory, for the course of such speculation in the next century was largely determined by other influences. None the less, his preface and his commentary are worth knowing because they express certain typically neo-classical ideas about poetry, especially dramatic poetry, which were acceptable to many men in England and France at the end of the seventeenth century. Dacier's immediate and rather special influence on English criticism may be observed in Thomas Rymer's proposal to introduce the chorus into English tragedy and in the admiration which the moralistic critics at the turn of the century felt for his theories.

In the very year of its publication Rymer read with obvious approbation Dacier's _Poëtique d'Aristote_. In the preface to _A Short View of Tragedy_ (1692) he announced that "we begin to understand the Epick Poem by means of _Bossu_; and Tragedy by Monsieur _Dacier_."[5] That Rymer admired Dacier's strict formalism is plain, but he was especially moved by the French critic's argument that the chorus is _the_ essential part of true tragedy, since it is necessary both for _vraisemblance_ and for moral instruction.[6] He therefore boldly proposed that English tragic poets should henceforth use the chorus in the manner of the ancients, since it is "the root and original, and ... certainly always the most necessary part of Tragedy."[7] Moreover he praised (as had Dacier) the example of Racine, who had introduced the chorus into the plays that he had written for private performance, by the young ladies of St. Cyr--_Esther_ (1689) and _Athalie_ (1691). As is well known, he even went so far as to write the synopsis of what inevitably would have been an absurd Aeschylean tragedy on the defeat of the Armada.[8]

Rymer's proposal provoked a public debate, which was begun by John Dennis, at that time an almost unknown young critic. Though _The Impartial Critick_ (1693) was directed against Rymer (who had given grave offence to Dryden and others by his attack on Shakespeare in the _Short View_), Dennis knew Dacier's ideas intimately, and his discussion of the chorus in the first and the fourth dialogues, is more directly a refutation of the French than of the English critic.[9] This lively treatise established whatever intimacy existed between young Dennis and the aging Dryden.[10]

Though Dryden avoided any extended public argument with Rymer, he obviously knew both the _Short View_ and Dacier's Aristotle. In the _Parallel of Poetry and Painting_ (1695), he followed Rymer's lead in equating Dacier, the critic of tragedy ("in his late excellent Translation of Aristotle and his notes upon him"[11]) with Le Bossu, the framer of "exact rules for the Epic Poem...." But he disagreed with Dacier's opinions on the chorus and explained away Racine's use of it on the sensible grounds that _Esther_ had not been written for public, but for private performances which gave occasion to the young ladies of St. Cyr "of entertaining the king with vocal music, and of commending their voices."[12] He also suggested the practical consideration that plays with choruses would bankrupt any company of actors because it would be necessary to provide a number of costumes for the additional players and to enlarge the stage (and consequently the theater) to make room for the choral dances.

Dacier's insistence that the primary function of poetry is to instruct and that pleasure is merely an aid to that end could easily be distorted into a crudely moralistic view of the art. Doubtless it was this that recommended the treatise to minor critics and poets who were creating the atmosphere out of which came Jeremy Collier's attack on contemporary dramatists in 1698.

Blackmore's preface to _Prince Arthur_ (1695) is a long plea for the reformation of poetry, whose "true and genuine End is, by universal Confession, the Instruction of our Minds and Regulation of our Manners...." One is not surprised, when toward the end he names his authorities, that they turn out to be Rapin, Le Bossu, Dacier (as commentators on Aristotle and Horace) and "our own _excellent Critick, Mr. Rymer_."[13] W.J. who translated Le Bossu in 1695, dedicated his work to Blackmore. In his preface he linked Blackmore and Dacier as proponents of the thesis that poetry's "true Use and End is to instruct and profit the world more than to delight and please it."[14] And Jeremy Collier himself quoted Dacier from time to time, and on one occasion invoked his commentary on Horace, "_The Theater condemned as inconsistent with Prudence and Religion_," as one of many answers to the unrepentant Congreve.[15]

But besides starting these minor controversies Dacier's preface states some of the typical themes of neo-Aristotelian criticism: the idea that proper tragedy is based on a fable that imitates an "Allegorical and Universal Action" intended "to Form the Manners," a view that closely relates tragic fable to epic fable as interpreted by Le Bossu;[16] that modern tragedy, being concerned with individuals and their intrigues, cannot be universal and is therefore necessarily defective; that love is an improper subject for tragedy; that the Aristotelian _katharsis_ proposes as its end not the expulsion of passions from the soul, but the moderation of excessive passions and the inuring of the audience to the inevitable calamities of life, and so on. Finally, he is nowhere more typical of French critics in his time than in his vigorous defense of the rules, which he declares are valid because of the nature of poetry which, being an art, must have an end, and there must necessarily be some way to arrive at it; because of the authority of Aristotle, whose knowledge of our passions equipped him to give rules for poetry; because of the illustrious works from which Aristotle deduced his rules; because of the quality of the poetry that they produce when followed; because, since they are drawn from "the common Sentiment of Mankind," they must be reasonable; because nothing can please that is not conformable to the rules, "for good Sense and right Reason, is of all Countries and places;" and finally "because they are the Laws of Nature who always acts uniformly, reviews them incessantly, and gives them a perpetual Existence." It is his simultaneous appeal to the authority of the ancients, to the _consensus gentium_, to general nature, and to good sense that makes Dacier seem to us to represent the final phase of French neo-classical critical theory.

Samuel Holt Monk University of Minnesota

Notes to the Introduction

[1] Willard H. Durham, ed., _Critical Essays of the Eighteenth Century_, New Haven, 1915, pp. 62-72.

[2] _Tatler_ 165.

[3] _Spectator_ 592.

[4] For Dacier in England see A.F.B. Clark, _Boileau and the French Classical Critics in England (1660-1830)_, Paris, 1925, pp. 286-288. As late as 1895, S.H. Butcher, in _Aristotle's Theory of Poetry and Fine Art_, mentioned Dacier frequently, if only to disagree with him as often as he mentioned him.

[5] Thomas Rymer, _Critical Works_ (ed. C.A. Zimansky), New Haven, 1956, p. 83.

[6] This view, announced in the Preface, was elaborately argued by Dacier in Remarque 27, Ch. XIX.

[7] Rymer, _op. cit._, p. 84. Zimansky, in his introduction and notes, discusses the influence of Dacier on Rymer and other English critics.

[8] _Ibid._ p. 84 and pp. 80-93.

[9] John Dennis, _Critical Works_ (ed. Edward N. Hooker), Baltimore (1939-43), I, 30-35. For a succinct account of the English controversy about the chorus see _ibid._, I, 437-438. Though Dennis did not agree with Dacier on this point, he admired him. As late as 1726, in the preface to _The Stage Defended_, he quoted Dacier's preface and spoke of him as "that most judicious Critick." _Ibid._, II, 309.

[10] John Dryden, _Letters_ (ed. C.E. Ward), Duke University Press, 1942, pp. 71-72. Hooker has noticed the similarity of two of Dennis's opinions to views expressed by Dryden in his then unpublished "Heads of an Answer" to Rymer's _Tragedies of the Last Age_, 1678.

[11] W.P. Ker, _Essays of John Dryden_, Oxford, 1926, II, 136.

[12] Ker, II, 144. Cf. Dennis's similar remark in _The Impartial Critick_, Hooker, I, 31. Racine, in his preface to _Esther_, said nothing doctrinaire about the use of the chorus. He merely mentioned that it had occurred to him to introduce the chorus in order to imitate the ancients and to sing the praises of the true God.

[13] J.E. Spingarn, _Critical Essays of the Seventeenth Century_, Oxford, 1908-09, III, 227 and 240.

[14] _Treatise of the Epick Poem_, London, 1695, _sig._ [A 3] _verso_- A 4, _recto_.

[15] Jeremy Collier, "A Defence of the Short View.... Being a Reply to Mr. Congreve's Amendments," _A Short View of the Profaneness and Immorality of the English Stage_, etc., London, 1738, p. 251.

[16] _Traité du Poëme Epique_, I, ch. vi and vii.

ARISTOTLE'S

ART

OF

POETRY.

Translated from the Original _Greek_, according to Mr. _Theodore Goulston_'s Edition.

TOGETHER,

With Mr. _D'ACIER_'s Notes Translated from the _French_.

----_Vero nomine poena Non Honor est._----

Ovid Metam. _lib._ 2.

_LONDON_:

Printed for _Dan. Browne_ at the _Blalk Swan_ without _Temple Bar_, and _Will. Turner_ at the _Angel_ at _Lincolns-Inn_ Back Gate, 1705.

THE PREFACE

If I was to speak here of _Aristotle's_ Merit only, the excellence of his Poetick Art, and the reasons I had to publish it, I need do no more than refer the Reader to that Work, to shew the disorders into which the Theatre is long since fallen, and to let him see that as the Injustice of Men, gave occasion to the making of Laws; so the decay of Arts and the Faults committed in them, oblig'd first to the making Rules, and the renewing them. But in order to prevent the Objections of some, who scorn to be bound to any Rules, only that of their own fancy, I think it necessary, to prove, not only that Poetry is an Art, but that 'tis known and its Rules so certainly those which _Aristotle_ gives us, that 'tis impossible to succeed any other way. This being prov'd, I shall examine the two Consequences which naturally flow from thence: First, that the Rules, and what pleases, are never contrary to one another, and that you can never obtain the latter without the former. Secondly, That Poesie being an Art can never be prejudicial to Mankind, and that 'twas invented and improv'd for their advantage only.

To follow this Method, 'tis necessary to trace Poetry from its Original, to shew that 'twas the Daughter of Religion, that at length 'twas vitiated, and debauch'd, and lastly, brought under the Rules of Art, which assisted, in Correcting the defaults of Nature.

God touch'd with Compassion for the Misery of Men, who were obliged to toil and labour, ordain'd Feasts to give them some rest; the offering of Sacrifices to himself, by way of Thanksgiving, for those Blessings they had received by his Bounty. This is a Truth which the _Heathens_ themselves acknowledged; they not only imitated these Feasts, but spake of them as a Gift of the Gods, who having granted a time of Repose, requir'd some tokens of their grateful remembrance.

The first Feasts of the Ancients were thus, They assembled at certain times, especially in Autumn, after the gathering in their Fruits, for to rejoyce, and to offer the choicest of them to God; and this 'tis, which first gave birth to Poetry: For Men, who are naturally inclined to the imitation of Musick, employ'd their Talents to sing the praises of the God they worshipped, and to celebrate his most remarkable Actions.

If they had always kept to that Primitive Simplicity, all the Poesie we should have had, would have been, only Thanksgivings, Hymns, and Songs, as amongst the _Jews_. But 'twas very difficult, or rather impossible, that Wisdom and Purity, should reign long in the _Heathen_ Assemblies; they soon mingl'd the Praises of Men, with those of their Gods, and came at last, to the Licentiousness of filling their Poems with biting Satyrs, which they sung to one another at their drunken Meetings; Thus Poetry was entirely Corrupted, and the present scarce retains any Mark of Religion.

The Poets which followed, and who were (properly speaking,) the Philosophers and Divines of those Times, seeing the desire the People had for those Feasts, and Shows, and impossibility of retrieving the first Simplicity; took another way to remedy this Disorder, and making an advantage of the Peoples Inclinations, gave them Instructions, disguis'd under the Charmes of Pleasure, as Physicians gild and sweeten the bitter Pills they administer to their Patients.

I shall not recount all the different Changes, which have happen'd in Poetry, and by what degrees it has arrived to the Perfection, we now find it; I have spoken of it already in my _Commentaries_ on _Horace's Art of Poetry_, and shall say more in explaining, what _Aristotle_ writes in this Treatise.

_Homer_ was the first that invented, or finished, an Epick Poem, for he found out the Unity of the Subject, the Manners, the Characters, and the Fable. But this Poem could only affect Customes, and was not moving enough to Correct the Passions, there wanted a Poem, which by imitating our Actions, might work in our Spirits a more ready and sensible effect. 'Twas this, which gave occasion for _Tragedy_, and banished all Satyrs, by this means Poetry was entirely purg'd from all the disorders its Corruption had brought it into.

This is no proper place to shew, that Men who are quickly weary of regulated Pleasures, took pains to plunge themselves again into their former Licentiousness by the invention of _Comedy_. I shall keep my self to _Tragedy_, which is the most noble Imitation, and principal Subject of this Treatise, all the Parts of an Epick Poem are comprized in a _Tragedy_.

However short this account may be, it suffices to let you see that Poesie is an Art, for since it has a certain End, there must necessarily be some way to arrive there: No body doubts of this constant Truth, that in all concerns where you may be in the right, or the wrong, there is an Art and sure Rules to lead you to the one, and direct you, how to avoid the other.

The question then is, whether the Rules of this Art are known, and whether they are those which _Aristotle_ gives us here? This question is no less doubtful, than the former, I must also confess that this cannot be determined, but by the unlearned; who because they are the greater number, I shall make my Examination in their favour. To do this with some sort of Method, there are four Things to be consider'd, who gives the Rules, the time when he gives them; the manner in which he gives them, and the effects they have in divers times wrought on different People: For I believe from these four Circumstances, I can draw such Conclusions, that the most obstinate shall not be able to gainsay.

He who gives these Rules, is one of the greatest Philosophers that ever was, his Genius was large, and of vast extent, the great Discoveries he made in all Sciences, and particularly in the Knowledge of Man, are certain Signs, that he had a sufficient insight into our Passions, to discover the Rules of the Art of Poetry, which is founded on them. But I shall suspend my Judgment, and pass on to the time in which he gave these Rules.

I find that he was born in the Age in which _Tragedy_ first appear'd, for he lived with the Disciples of _Æschylus_, who brought it out of Confusion; and he had the same Masters with _Sophocles_, and _Euripides_, who carried it to its utmost Perfection: Besides he was witness of the Opinion the most nice and knowing People of the World had of this Poem. 'Tis therefore impossible that _Aristotle_ should be ignorant of the Origine, Progress, Design and Effects of this Art; and consequently even before I examine these Rules, I am well assur'd upon his account who gives them, that they have all the Certainty, and Authority, that Rules can possibly have.

But when I come to examine the Manner in which _Aristotle_ delivers them, I find them so evident and conformable to Nature, that I cannot but be sensible they are true; for what does _Aristotle_? He gives not his Rules as _Legisltors_ do their Laws, without any other reason than their Wills only; he advances nothing but what is accompanied with Reason, drawn from the common Sentiment of Mankind, insomuch that the Men themselves become the Rule and Measure of what he prescribes. Thus without considering that the Rules are of almost equal Date with the Art they Teach, or any prejudice, in favour of _Aristotle's_ Name, (for 'tis the Work which ought to make the Name valued, and not the Name the Work) I am forced to submit to all his Decisions, the Truth of which I am convinc'd of in my self, and whose Certainty I discover by Reason and Experience, which never yet deceiv'd any body.

To this I shall add, the Effects which these Rules have produc'd in all Ages, on different sort of People, and I see, that as they made the Beauty of _Homer's Sophocles_, and _Euripides_ Poems in _Greece_, from which they were drawn; so four or five Hundred Years after, they adorn'd the Poems of _Virgil_ and other famous Latin Poets, and that now after Two Thousand Years they make the best _Tragedies_ we have, in which all that pleases, only does so, as 'tis conformable to these Rules, (and that too without our being aware of it,) and what is displeasing, is such, because it is contrary to them, for good Sense, and right Reason, is of all Countries and Places, the same Subjects which caus'd so many Tears to be shed in the _Roman_ Theatre, produce the same Effects in ours, and those Things which gave distaste then, do the same now, from whence I am convinced, that never any Laws had either so much Force, Authority, or Might. Humane Laws expire or Change very often after the Deaths of their Authors, because Circumstances Change, and the Interests of Men, whom they are made to serve, are different; but these still take new vigor, because they are the Laws of Nature, who always acts uniformly, renews them incessantly, and gives them a perpetual Existence.

I won't pretend nevertheless that the Rules of this Art, are so firmly established, that 'tis impossible to add any thing to them, for tho' _Tragedy_ has all its proper Parts, 'tis probable one of those may yet arrive to greater Perfection. I am perswaded, that tho' we have been able to add nothing to the Subject, or Means, yet we have added something to the Manner, as you'l find in the Remarks, and all the new Discoveries are so far from destroying this Establishment, that they do nothing more than confirm it; for Nature is never contrary to herself, and one may apply to the Art of Poetry, what _Hippocrates_ says of Physick,[17] _Physick is of long standing, hath sure Principles, and a certain way by which in the Course of many Ages, an Infinity of Things have been discovered, of which, Experience confirms the Goodness; All that is wanting, for the perfection of this Art, will without doubt be found out, by those Ingenious Men, who will search for it, according to the Instructions and Rules of the Ancients, and endeavour to arrive at what is unknown, by what is already plain: For whoever shall boast that he has obtained this Art by rejecting the ways of the Ancients, and taking a quite different one, deceives others, and is himself deceived; because that's absolutely impossible._ This Truth extends it self to all Arts and Sciences, 'tis no difficult matter to find a proper Example in our Subject, there is no want of _Tragedies_, where the management is altogether opposite to that of the Ancients. According to the Rules of _Aristotle_, a _Tragedy_ is the Imitation of an Allegorical and Universal Action, which by the means of Terror, and Compassion, moderates and corrects our Inclinations. But according to these new _Tragedies_ 'tis an imitation of some particular Action, which affects no body, and is only invented to amuse the Spectators, by the Plot, and unravelling a vain Intrigue, which tends only to excite and satisfie their Curiosity, and stir up their Passions, instead of rend'ring them calm and quiet. This is not only not the same Art, but can be none at all, since it tends to no good, and 'tis a pure Lye without any mixture of Truth; what advantage can be drawn from this Falshood? In a word, 'tis not a Fable, and by consequence, is in no wise a_ Tragedy_, for a _Tragedy_ cannot subsist without a Fable,[18] as you will see elsewhere.