Title: The Preface to Aristotle's Art of Poetry
Author: Dacier, André, 1651-1722
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.


*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Preface to Aristotle's Art of Poetry" ***


  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.

We come now to the first Consequence, which we draw, from what we have
Establish'd, and shall endeavour to prove, that our Laws, and what
pleases, can never be opposite, since the Rules were made only for what
pleases, and tend only to show the way you must walk in, to do so. By
this we shall destroy the false Maxim, That, _all that pleases is good_,
and assert that we ought on the contrary to say, That, _all that is good
pleases, or ought to please_. For the goodness of any Work whatsoever,
does not proceed from this, that it gives us pleasure, but the pleasure
that we have proceeds from its goodness, unless our deluded Eyes and
corrupt Imaginations mislead us, for that which causes our mistakes, is
not, where is, but what is not.

If the Rules, and what pleased, were things opposite, you would never
arrive at the giving pleasure, but by meer chance, which is absurd:
There must for that reason be a certain way, which leads thither, and
that way is the Rule which we ought to learn; but what is that Rule?
'Tis a Precept, which being drawn from the _Pleasant_ and _Profitable_,
leads us to their source. Now what is the _Pleasant_ and _Profitable_?
'Tis that which pleases naturally, in all Arts 'tis this we consult,
'tis the most sure and perfect Model we can Imitate; in it we find
perfect Unity and Order, for it self is Order, or to speak more
properly, the effect of Order, and the Rule which conducts us thither;
there is but one way to find Order, but a great many to fall into
Confusion.

There would be nothing bad in the World, if all that pleas'd were good;
for there is nothing so ridiculous, but what will have its Admirers. You
may say indeed, 'tis no truer, that what is good pleases, because we see
ev'ry day Disputes about the Good and Pleasant, that the same Thing
pleases some, and displeases others; nay, it pleases and displeases the
very same Persons at different times: from whence then proceeds this
difference? It comes either from an absolute Ignorance of the Rule, or
that the Passions alter it. Rightly to clear this Truth, I believe I may
lay down this Maxim, that all sensible Objects are of two sorts; some
may be judged of, by Sense independantly from Reason. I can Sense that
Impression which the animal Spirits make on the Soul, others can't be
judged of but by Reason exercised in Science, Things simply agreeable,
or disagreeable, are of the first Sort, all the World may judge alike of
these, for example the most Ignorant in Musick, perceives very well,
when a Player on the Lute strikes one String for another, because he
judges by his Sense, and that Sense is the Rule; in such occasions, we
may therefore very well say, that all that pleases is good, because that
which is Good doth please, or that which is Evil never fails to
displease; for neither the Passions, nor Ignorance dull the Senses, on
the contrary they sharpen them. 'Tis not so in Things which spring from
Reason; Passion and Ignorance act very strongly on it, and oftentimes
choak it, this is the Reason, why we ordinarily judge so ill, and
differently concerning those Things, of which, that is the Rule and the
Cause. Why, what is Bad often pleases, and that which is Good doth not
always so, 'tis not the fault of the Object, 'tis the fault of him who
judges; but what is Good will infallibly please those who can judge,
and that's sufficient. By this we may see, that a Play, that shall bring
those Things which are to be judg'd of by Reason, within the Rules, as
also what is to be judg'd of by the Sense, shall never fail to please,
for it will please both the Learned, and Ignorant: Now this Conformity
of suffrages is the most sure,[19] or according to _Aristotle_ the only
Mark of the Good, and Pleasant, as he proves in the following part of
his Discourse. Now these Suffrages are not obtained, but by the
observation of the Rules, and consequently, these Rules are the only
Cause of the Good, and Pleasant, whether they are follow'd Methodically
and with Design, or by Hazard only; for 'tis certain, there are many
Persons who are entirely Ignorant of these Rules, and yet don't fail to
succeed in several Affairs: This is far from destroying the Rules, and
serves to shew their Beauty, and proves how far they are conformable to
Nature, since those often follow them, who know nothing of 'em. In the
Remarks you shall find many Examples of the vast difference, the
observance or neglect of the Rules make in the same Subject, and by that
be throughly convinc'd that they are the two only Causes of Good, or Bad
Works, and that there can never be any occasion, where the perfect
Harmony which is between the Rules, and what pleases, shou'd be broken.

'Tis true to come to the last Consequence, that Poetry is an Art,
invented for the Instruction of Mankind, and consequently must be
profitable: 'Tis a general Truth that ev'ry Art is a good Thing, because
there is none whose End is not Good: But, as it is not less true, that
Men ordinarily abuse the best Things, that which was design'd for an
wholsome Remedy, may in time become a very dangerous Poison. I declare
then that I don't speak of corrupted _Tragedy_, for 'tis not in vitious
and depraved Works, that we must look for Reason, and the intent of
Nature, but in those which are sound and perfect; I speak of Ancient
_Tragedy_, that which is conform to _Aristotle's_ Rules, and I dare say,
'tis the most profitable, and necessary of all Diversions.

If 'twas possible to oblige Men to follow the Precepts of the Gospel,
nothing could be more happy, they would find there true Peace, solid
Pleasure, and a Remedy for all their Infirmities, and would look on
_Tragedy_ as useless and below them. How could they do otherwise than
have this opinion? since those _Pagans_ who apply'd themselves to the
Study of Wisdome, consider'd it with the same Genius. They themselves
own, that could the People be always brought up in the solid Truths of
Philosophy, the Philosophers need have no recourse to Fables, to give
their Instructions: But as so much Corruption was inconsistent with such
Wisdom, they were forc'd to seek for a Remedy to the Disorders of their
Pleasures; they then invented _Tragedy_, and inspir'd them with it, not
as the best Employment Men could take up, but as a means, which was able
to correct the excess, into which they plung'd themselves at their
Feasts, and to render those amusements profitable, which Custom and
their Infirmities had made necessary, and their Corruption very
dangerous.

Men are the same now, they were then, they have the same Passions, and
run with the same Eagerness after Pleasures. To endeavour to reclaim
them from that State, by the severity of Precepts, is attempting to put
a Bridle on an unruly Horse in the middle of his carrier, in the
mean while, there is no Medium, they run into the most criminal excess,
unless you afford them regular and sober Pleasures. 'Tis a great
Happiness that their remaining Reason inclines them to love Diversions,
where there is Order, and Shows, where Truth is to be found, and I am
perswaded, that Charity obliges us, to take advantage of this, and not
to allow too much time for Debauches, which would extinguish that Spark
of Reason, which yet shines in them. Those People are distemper'd, and
_Tragedy_ is all the Remedy they are capable of receiving any advantage
from; for it is the only Recreation in which they can find the agreeable
and Profitable.

_Tragedy_ does not only represent the Punishments, which voluntary Crimes
always draw on their Authors, these are too common, and well known
Truths, and leave too much liberty to our Passions; this is the meanest
sort of _Tragedy_: But it sets forth the misfortunes which even in
voluntary Crimes, and those committed by Imprudence, draw on such as we
are, and this is perfect _Tragedy_. It instructs us to stand on our
guard, to refine and moderate our Passions, which alone occasion'd the
loss of those unfortunate ones. Thus the aspiring may learn to give
bounds to his Ambition; the Prophane to fear God; the Malicious to
forget his Wrongs; the Passionate to restrain his Anger; the Tyrant to
forsake his Violence and Injustice, _&c._ Those idle and infirm Men, who
are not able to bear the Yoak of Religion, and have need of a grosser
sort of Instruction, which falls under the Senses, can never have more
profitable amusements; 'twere to be wish'd, that they would renounce all
other Pleasures, and love this only. If any shall now condemn _Tragedy_,
he must also condemn the use of Fables, which the most Holy Men have
employ'd, and God himself has vouchsaf't to make use of: For _Tragedy_
is only a Fable, and was invented as a Fable, to form the Manners, by
Instructions, disguis'd under the Allegory of an Action. He must also
condemn History; for History is much less Grave and Moral than Fable,
insomuch as 'tis particular, when a Fable is more general, and
universal, and by consequence more profitable.

We may say too, that the only Aim of true Politicks, is to procure to
the People Virtue, Peace and Pleasure, this Design cannot be contrary to
Religion, because we chuse none of those Pleasures which destroy Virtue,
or Peace. _Tragedy_ is far from it, and endeavours only their
preservation; for 'tis the only Pleasure, which disposes Men to endure
their Passions, to a perfect Mediocrity, which contributes more to the
maintaining of Peace, and acquisition of Virtue, than any thing else; I
also believe that from this Truth, we might draw a sure Rule to judge of
those Pleasures which might be permitted, and those which ought to be
forbidden.

You may say, _Tragedy_ is dangerous, by reason of the abuses which
creep into it. Every Thing is dangerous, and may be condemn'd at this
rate, for there is nothing so excellent where Abuses may not be
committed, and of which a bad, or good use may not be made. We must
remember this Truth, that all Arts and Sciences, by the Ignorance and
Corruption of Men, ordinarily produce false Arts, and false Sciences;
but these false Arts and false Sciences, are more opposite to what they
Counterfeit than any thing besides; for there is nothing more opposite
to what is good, than what is bad in the same Kind. If that which is
false, engages us to condemn what is true, it has gain'd its point,
that's what it would have, and having thus Triumph'd over Truth, soon
puts its self into its place, than which nothing can be more
Pernicious.

Since _Tragedy_ has no defect, but what is external, it follows from
thence, that 'tis good in its self, and consequently profitable; this
cannot be contested, and those who condemn it, condemn, not only the
most noble Diversion, but the most capable to raise the Courage, and
form the Genius, and the only one, which can refine the Passions, and
touch the most vicious and obdurate Souls. I could give many examples;
but shall content my self with relating the Story of _Alexander_ of[20]
_Pherea_: This barbarous Man, having order'd the _Hecuba_ of _Euripides_
to be Acted before him, found himself so affected, that he went out
before the end of the first Act, saying, _That he was asham'd to be seen
to weep, at the Misfortunes of_ Hecuba _and_ Polyxena, _when he daily
imbrud his Hands in the Blood of his Citizens_; he was affraid that his
Heart should be truly mollify'd, that the Spirit of Tyranny would now
leave the possession of his Breast, and that he should come a private
person out of that Theatre into which he enter'd Master. The Actor who
so sensibly touch'd him, difficultly escaped with his Life, but was
secur'd by some remains of that pity, which was the cause of his Crime.

A very grave Historian, makes reflection much to this purpose, and
which seems to me no indifferent one in Politicks; in speaking of the
People of _Arcadia_, he says, _That their Humanity, sweetness of Temper,
respect for Religion, in a word, the Purity of their Manners, and all
their Virtues proceeded chiefly from the Love they had to Musick, which
by its Melody, corrected those ill Impressions, a thick and unwholesome
Air, joyn'd to a hard, and laborious way of living, made on their Bodies
and Minds._ He says on the contrary, _That the_ Cynethians _fell into
all sorts of Crimes and Impieties, because they despised the wise
Institutions of their Ancestors; and neglected this Art, which was so
much the more necessary for them, as they liv'd in the coldest and worst
place of_ Arcadia: _There was scarcely any City in_ Greece, _where
wickedness was so great and frequent as here_. If _Polybius_ speaks thus
of Musick, and accuses _Ephorus_, for having spoken a thing unworthy of
himself, when he said, _That 'twas invented to deceive Mankind_: what
ought we then to say of _Tragedy_, of which Musick is only a small part;
and which is as much above it, as a Word is above an inarticulate Sound,
which signifies nothing.

This is what, according to my Opinion, may be truly said of _Tragedy_,
and the Mean we ought to keep. But to the end this may be justly said,
the Parts must conform themselves entirely to the Rules of Ancient
_Tragedy_, that is to say, which endeavours rather to Instruct than
Please, and regard the Agreeable, as a means only to make the Profitable
more taking; they must paint the Disorders of the Passions, and the
inevitable Mischiefs which arise from thence. 'Twas for this the _Greek
Tragedians_ were so much Honour'd in their own Age, and esteemed in
those which follow'd. Their Theatre was a School, where Virtue was
generally better Taught, than in the Schools of their Philosophers, and
at this very Day, the reading their Pieces will Inspire an Hatred to
Vice, and a Love to Virtue. To Imitate them profitably, we should
re-establish the _Chorus_, which establishing the _veri-Similitude_ of
the _Tragedy_, gives an Opportunity to set forth to the People, those
particular Sentiments, you would inspire them with, and to let them
know, what is Vicious or Laudable, in the Characters which are
Introduc'd. _Mr. Racine_ saw the necessity of this, and cannot be
sufficiently praised, for having brought it, into his two last Pieces,
which have happily reconcil'd _Tragedy_ to its greatest Enemies. Those
who have seen the effects of these _Chorus's_, cannot but be sensible of
their Advantage, and by Consequence, must Consent to what I say in my
Remarks. After Examples, and Authorities of this Nature, I have no
Reason to fear my Arguments. But enough of this Matter, tis time to come
to what respects my self, and to give some Account of this Work.

I have endeavour'd to make the Translation as literal as possible,
being perswaded, that I could not do better, than to stick close to the
Words of a Man, who wrote with wonderful Exactness, and puts in nothing,
but what is to the purpose. I have nevertheless taken the Liberty
sometimes, to enlarge his Thoughts, for what was understood in his time,
by half a Word, would hardly be Intelligible now, unless some Pains was
taken to explain it.

A simple Translation of _Aristotle_, would be clear enough, and there
would be no need of Commentaries, if we were well Instructed in those
Poets, from whom he takes his Rules, but as almost all the World is
Ignorant of them, and 'tis necessary to explain by Example, what is
Obscure in the Rule. This is what I have endeavour'd to do in my
Remarks, which will seem short, if you consider the many large Volumes
which have been wrote on this little Treatise.

Of all the _Latin_ Commentators, _Victorius_ seems to me the most Wise,
Knowing, and Exact, but his Assistance is not sufficient, to give us an
Understanding of Poesie. The _Italian Castelvetro_, has a great deal of
Wit, and Knowledge, if we may call that Wit, which is only Fancy, and
bestow on much Reading the name of Knowledge. If we recollect all the
Qualities of a good Interpreter, we shall have an Idea just contrary to
that of _Castelvetro_. He knew neither the Theatre, the Passions, nor the
Characters; he understood neither _Aristotle's_ Reasons, nor his Method,
and strove rather to contradict, than explain him. On the other hand, he
is so Infatuated with the Author's of his own Country, that he forgot
how to Criticise well; he talks without Measure, like _Homer's
Thersites_, and declares War to all that is fine. Indeed he has some
good things, but 'tis not worth while to spend our time in looking after
them. The _French_ Art of Poetry by _Mesnardiere_, may pass for a
Commentary on some Chapters of _Aristotle_, but that Work is of little
value; for besides that Author's being no good Critick, and perpetually
deceiv'd, he did not penetrate into the Meaning of the Philosopher. The
Practice of the Theatre by the Abbot _D'Aubignac_, is infinitely better,
but is rather a Sequel and Supplement, than an Explication of
_Aristotle_; on which, a perfect Instruction in the Ancient Rules, will
enable you to pass a Judgment. The Treatise of Epick Poem by Father
_Bossu_, is above all the Moderns have done in that Kind, and is the best
Commentary Extant, on what _Aristotle_ has wrote concerning that sort of
Poem; none ever penetrated deeper into the bottom of that Art, and set
in a better Light (according to _Aristotle's_ Rules) _Homer's_, and
_Virgil's_ Beauties, or the Solidity, and Beauty of _Aristotle's_ Rules,
by the marvellous Conduct of those two great Poets. If he had Treated
of _Tragedy_, as throughly, as he has done of the _Epopoeia_, he had
left almost nothing for me to have done after him; but unfortunately, he
omitted the most difficult, which he could have Explain'd much better
than my self, had he had spare time. His Work however has done me great
Service. I have profited by the good, which others have Wrote, and must
confess, that their Faults have been useful to me. But after all, the
most excellent Commentators on the Poetick Art, are the Ancient Poems,
and as they gave the hint to make Rules, 'tis by them, that these ought
to be Explain'd. I hope, I have not followed such good Guides in vain.
If I have wander'd, by following them, without a true Understanding, I
should be very well pleased to be put in the right way, by any, who
would advise me of my Faults, or make them publickly known.

Perhaps some may Reproach me, as Mr. _Corneille_ did all the precedent
Commentators. _They have Explain'd_ Aristotle (says that great Man)
_as Grammarians, or Philosophers, and not as Poets; because they had more
of the Study, and Speculation, than Experience of the Theatre. The
Reading them may make us more Learned, but can give us no further
Insight, how we may succeed._ This Reproach is founded on this general
Maxim, _That every one ought to be believ'd in his own Art._ It seems
then, that those should not pretend to explain the Rules of Poesie, who
never yet made Poems. The Principle is true, but the Consequence is not
so, for before that is drawn, we must see to whom the Art of Poetry, and
what it produc'd, does property belong. 'Tis not Poesie it self which is
produced, for then it would have been, before it was. 'Tis Philosophy
that brought it first into play, and consequently, it belongs to
Philosophy, to give, and explain its Rules. This is so true, that
_Aristotle_ made not these Rules as a Poet, but as a Philosopher: And if
he made them as such, why may they not be explain'd that way too? And as
it was not necessary to make _Dramatick_ Poems, to give Rules to that
Art, so 'tis no more necessary that they should be made, to Explain
those Rules.

I don't know indeed, whether he who has made Pieces for the Theatre, is
so proper to explain the Rules of this Art, as he that never did, for
'twould be a Miracle if one was not biass'd by self-Love, when the other
is a dis-interested Judge, who has no other Aim, than discovering the
Truth, and making it known. Mr. _Corneille_ himself may be an Example of
this. All that he would Establish in his new Discourse of _Dramatick
Poetry_, is less founded on Nature, than his own proper Interest. It
appears by his own Words, that the design he had of defending what he
had ventured on the Stage, obliged him to forsake _Aristotle's_ Rules,
and to Establish new ones, which should be more favourable to himself;
we shall see in the Remarks, whether they can bear the Test. 'Tis
therefore no ways necessary to have made Poems, to prescribe Rules for
Poesie, and yet much less to explain them. If it was so, I would say
there were none, for of all those which have given any, I knew but one
that was a Poet; _Horace_ himself never made an Epick Poem or a Tragedy,
but to prescribe Rules for Poesie, as also to explain them; it is
sufficient to know the Origine, and Scope of the Art Treated of; to have
examin'd those Poems, which are the Basis and Foundation, to have made
Reflections on what is agreeable, and disagreeable, and rightly to
discover the Causes; this is the only necessary Knowledge I have
endeavour'd to acquire, and Philosophy alone can lead me thither.

I shall add once more, that if we make a Man more Learned, by
explaining the Rules as a Philosopher, 'tis Impossible, but he must
attain a surer Knowledge, to succeed in this Art. 'Tis true, we can't
give a _Genius_, that's not done by Art, but we can shew the Path a
_Genius_ ought to Tread in, and that is the only Design of all Rules.

I have not made the Apology of Commentators, to praise my self, for
although I am no Poet, it does not follow that I cannot be a good
Philosopher; I leave it to the Publick, and time, to Judge of my Work,
for I will neither Court, nor slight their Favours.

I have spoken very freely, in what I have pass'd my Judgment on, and in
so doing, Imitated the ancient Criticks, who spared neither
_Demosthenes_, nor _Thucidides_, nor _Plato_, nor any that was Great, or
Venerable in Antiquity. A flattering Criticism would be a pleasant sort
of one, when we should seek to Applaud, and the Respect due to the Name,
should check the Censure due to the Fault. I am not so scrupulous, and
if any one be offended, I shall Answer him as _Dionysius Halicarnassæus_
answered _Pompey_ the Great, who wrote to him, to complain, that he had
tax'd _Plato_ with some Faults. _The Veneration you have for_ Plato _is
Just_, (says that excellent Critick,) _but the Blame you lay on me, is
not so. When any one writes on a Subject, to shew what is Good or Bad in
it, he ought to discover, and mark very exactly all its Virtues, and
Vices, for that is a sure way to find out the Truth, which is more
valuable than all things else whatever. If I had written against_ Plato
_with a Design to Decry his Works, I should be as Impious as_[21]
Zoilus, _but on the contrary, I would praise him, and if in doing so I
have Improved any of his Defects, I have done nothing worthy of
Complaint, and which was not necessary for my Design._ Notwithstanding
this, I have put some Bounds to this Liberty, and if I have discovered
some Faults, I have conceal'd some others, that seem'd to me not so
considerable. I had respect in them, to the Approbation of many Persons
of Merit, for I would not run Counter to an almost Universal Consent,
which always is of great Weight, and ought at least to oblige us to be
cautious. But that I might give to those Persons, an Opportunity of
recollecting themselves, I have endeavoured to explain the Rule, in such
a manner, that they may perceive those very Faults, if they will Read
the Remarks with attention. As for the rest, I had no design to offend
any Body; if there are some things which make them uneasie, 'tis
impossible to write any Work of this nature, without disgusting some.
'Tis also the Mark of good Criticism, as well as good Philosophy. From
hence it proceeded, that _Plato_ was blamed for having taught his
Philosophy a long time, without displeasing any one Person; and they
pretended by that, to say that either his Doctrine was not good, or his
Method defective, since none had by Hearing him been made sensible of
that Uneasiness, which People naturally have, when they perceive
themselves to be Vitious.

It would be unjust to finish this Preface, without saying something of
_Aristotle's_ Life, that those who read his Work, may know something of
him. He was the Son of _Nicomachus_, Physician of[22] _Amyntas_, and
descended from _Esculapius_. His Mother was the Daughter of one of the
Descendants of those, who Transplanted a Colony, from _Chalcis_ to
_Stagira_, in _Macedonia_; that is to say, she was of Noble Extraction,
on both sides. He was born at _Stagira_, about four Hundred Years,
before our Saviour. At Eighteen Years of Age, he went to _Athens_, and
abode with _Plato_, he pass'd twenty Years in his School, and when his
Master was dead, he went to _Hermeas_ the Tyrant of _Atarna_, a City of
_Mysia_; he went from thence to _Mytelene_, from whence he was call'd by
_Philip_, to be his Son _Alexander's_ Tutor; he was eight Years, with
that Young Prince, and after _Philip's_ Death, returned to _Athens_,
where he Taught, in the _Lyceum_ twelve Years, till the Death of
_Alexander_. For _Antipater_ having carried the War into _Greece,
Aristotle_, who fancied, the _Athenians_ suspected him, by reason of the
strict Friendship, which was between him, and the Viceroy of _Macedonia_,
retir'd to _Calchis_, where he died soon after, by a Fit of Sickness in
the sixty third Year of his Age. He left one Son, and one Daughter, both
Young, and made _Antipater_ Executor of his Will, and Administrator of
all his Goods, which were very considerable, if we may judge of them by
_Alexander's_ Liberality, who gave him eight Hundred Talents, for his
History of Animals, that is according to the lesser Talent, one hundred
and forty Thousand Pounds Sterling, or according to the greater, one
Hundred eighty six Thousand, six Hundred, sixty five Pounds, thirteen
Shillings and four Pence. The most precious of his Moveables was his
Library, which was afterwards Sold to _Ptolomy Philadelphus_, and which
he had Enrich'd with four Hundred Volumes, of his own making. In those
of his Writings which now remain, and are happily a considerable Number,
we find a very discerning Spirit, a solid Judgment, a wonderful Method,
prodigious Knowledge, and an Eloquence both strong and sweet. He himself
found out more, than the most Knowing now, learn with a great deal of
Labour and Pains, and as for those things which depended on the Vivacity
of the Spirit, no Man ever carried his Knowledge further, or Establish'd
more sure, or extensive Principles. In Dialecticks, Logick, Rhetorick,
Politicks, and Morality, we have little but what he taught us.

By making a proper use of his Informations, there have appear'd Works
in some of these Sciences, preferable to his, but his Rhetorick is the
most Preferable we as yet have. His Art of Poetry is more to be admir'd,
for in his Rhetorick, he made use of the Precepts of those, who Wrote
before him. But he is the first that discovered the Grounds, and Secrets
of Poesie, and none since have undertaken to Write, but in Explication
of his Thoughts, which have serv'd, and will always serve as the Rule.
He alone has Reviv'd _Tragedy_ more than once.

In effect after it was brought to its Perfection, under the Reign of
_Alexander_, the Son of _Amyntas_, under the Reigns of _Perdiccas_, and
_Archelaus_, and degenerated in those which follow'd, but under that of
_Philip_, and _Alexander_, the Poets being Encourag'd by those Glorious
Princes, and guided by _Aristotle's_ Genius, made it flourish as before.

After the Death of _Alexander_, it began to Languish, and never
recover'd its entire Strength till the Reign of _Augustus_, in which the
Rules of this Philosopher were Reviv'd.

Since the _Death of Augustus_, it has grown Feeble, for more than
sixteen Hundred Years, till in this last Age 'twas recover'd out of its
long Decay, by Mr. _Corneille_, and Mr. _Racine_, who upheld themselves
by _Aristotle's_ Rules. So true is it, that Time is the Faithful
Guardian, not only of Great Men, as _Pindar_ saith, but also of the
Liberal Arts, which it revives as occasion offers, and always, under the
greatest Princes. For what a good Soil and Air, are to Seeds and Fruits,
such is the Glory, Grandeur, Magnificence, and Liberality of Princes,
to Arts, and Sciences, which do not so much flourish under them, as by
them; and we may very properly apply to this Subject the fallowing Verse
of _Agathon_.

    Art favours Fortune, Fortune favours Art.


If _Tragedy_ shall some time hence suffer any sort of Eclipse, 'twill
be by the Laziness, and Haste of those Poets, who Write without being
rightly Instructed. _Plato_ in his _Phedrus_ Introduces a young Poet
seeking _Sophocles_ and _Euripides_, and Accosting them thus. _I can
make Verses tolerably well; and I know how in my Descriptions to extend
a mean Subject, and Contract a great one: I know how to excite Terror,
and Compassion, and to make pitiful things appear Dreadful and Menacing.
I will therefore go, and write_ Tragedies. Sophocles _and_ Euripides
answer'd him, _Don't go so fast_, Tragedy _is not what you take it to
be; 'tis a Body, composed of many different, and well-suited Parts, of
which you will make a Monster, unless you know how to adjust them; you
may know what is to be learn'd, before the Study of the Art of Tragedy;
but you don't yet know that Art._

If there are Poets now, which don't know so much as the Young Man, of
whom _Plato_ speaks, these Rules can be of no Advantage to them; but
those who are like him, and in the same Circumstances, need only keep to
these Rules, which will teach them what they are Ignorant of, and the
fourth time restore _Tragedy_ to its first Lustre and Brightness. This
is the most profitable Present, can be made them, if by Meditation and
Practice they will endeavour to make a right use of it; for Precepts
alone are not sufficient to make us Learned, the Advantage, and Profit
of any Rules, depend on our Labour and Pains. If these Rules are not for
them, they will be against them, and their Works shall be Judg'd by
them.



Footnotes:

[17] In his Treatise of Ancient Physick.

[18] Chap. 18. _Rem._ 8. _&c._

[19] _Chap._ 13. Rem. 25.

[20] A Town in _Thessaly_.

[21] Called Impious, because he writ against _Homer_.

[22] Grandfather to _Alexander_ the Great.



Notes on Dacier's Preface


_Sig._ [A 3], _recto_, 11. 17-18. "_Horace's Art of Poetry._" Published,
Paris, 1689, in Vol. X of Dacier's _Remarques Critiques sur les Oeuvres
[d'Horace] Avec une Nouvelle Traduction_.

_Sig._ [A 5], _verso_, 1.2, note. "Chap. 18, Rem. 8." In this remark,
Dacier explicates Aristotle's injunction that the poet should sketch the
general outline of the fable before filling in episodes and naming
characters, thus making it general and universal.

_Sig._ [A 6], _verso_, 1.7, note. "Chap. 13, Rem. 25." Dacier says in
this remark that a regular tragedy submitted to the judgment of the
learned and the ignorant will always please best, "_car l'un remarque
une chose, l'autre une autre, & tous ensemble ils remarquent tout_."

_Sig._ [A 8], _recto_, 1.7. "History is much less grave." "Ch. IX, Rem.
5" (Dacier's note) Dacier adds nothing to the traditional discussion of
the superiority of poetry to history and philosophy.

_Sig._ [A 8], _verso_, 1.18. "Alexander of Pherea." See Plutarch's
oration "On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander," II, in _Moralia_
(tr. F.C. Babbitt, Loeb Classical Library), IV, 424.

_Sig._ [b 1], _recto_, 1.1. "A Very Grave Historian." Polybius,
_Histories_, IV, 20.

_Sig._ [b 1], _verso_ 1.20. "Mr. Racine ... his last two pieces..."
_Esther_ (1689) and _Athalie_, 1691.

_Sig._ [b 2], _recto_, 11. 23-24. "Victorius." Pietro Vettori,
_Commentarii in Primum Librum Aristotelis de Arte Poetarum_, Florentiae,
1560.

_Ibid._, 1.27. "Castelvetro." Ludovico Castelvetro, _La Poetica
d'Aristotele vulgarizzata et sposta_, 1570. This view of Castelvetro,
who was remarkable for his independence of Aristotle, was fairly common
in France. La Mesnardière, for instance, was extremely hostile to him.

_Sig._ [b 2], _verso_, 1.13. "Mesnardière." Jules de La Mesnardière, _La
Poëtique_, Paris, 1693.

_Ibid._, 1.20. "D'Aubignac." Aubignac (abbé Hédelin d'), _La Pratique du
Theatre_, Paris, 1657. English translation, 1684.

_Ibid._, 1.26. "_Father Bossu._" _Traité du Poëme Epique_, Paris, 1675.

_Sig._ [b 3], _recto_, 1.22. "Corneille." "Discours de l'Utilité et des
Parties du Poëme Dramatique," _Oeuvres_ (ed. Ch. Marty-Laveaux), Paris,
1862, I, 16.

_Sig._ [b 4], _verso_, 1. 12. "Dionysius of Halicarnassus." See
"Epistola ad Cn. Pompeio de Platone," Dionysii Halicarnassensis, _Opera
Omnia_, Lipsiae, 1774-1777, VI, 750-752.

_Sig._ [b 6], _verso_, 1. 27. "Pindar" Fragment 159, _Odes_ (tr. Sir
John Sandys, Loeb Classical Library) p. 600.

_Sig._ [b 7], _recto_, 1. 5. "verse of Agathon" _Ars atque fortuna
invicem se diligunt_. "Agathones Fragmenta" 6, in _Fragmenta Euripides_
(ed. F.G. Wagner), Paris, 1843-1846, II, 58.

_Ibid._, 1.10. "Plato in his Phaedrus." "Phaedrus," 268, _Dialogues_
(tr. B. Jowett) Third Edition, Oxford, 1892, I, 477.



  William Andrews Clark Memorial Library: University of California

  THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY

  _General Editors_

  R.C. BOYS
  University of Michigan

  RALPH COHEN
  University of California, Los Angeles

  VINTON A. DEARING
  University of California, Los Angeles

  LAWRENCE CLARK POWELL
  Wm. Andrews Clark Memorial Library

  _Corresponding Secretary_: Mrs. EDNA C. DAVIS, Wm. Andrews Clark
  Memorial Library


The Society exists to make available inexpensive reprints (usually
facsimile reproductions) of rare seventeenth and eighteenth century
works. The editorial policy of the Society remains unchanged. As in the
past, the editors welcome suggestions concerning publications. All
income of the Society is devoted to defraying cost of publication and
mailing.

All correspondence concerning subscriptions in the United States and
Canada should be addressed to the William Andrews Clark Memorial
Library, 2205 West Adams Boulevard, Los Angeles 18, California.
Correspondence concerning editorial matters may be addressed to any of
the general editors. The membership fee is $3.00 a year for subscribers
in the United States and Canada and 15/- for subscribers in Great
Britain and Europe. British and European subscribers should address B.
H. Blackwell, Broad Street, Oxford, England.


Publications for the thirteenth year [1958-1959]

(At least six items, most of them from the following list, will be
reprinted.)

  André Dacier, _Preface to Aristotle's Art of Poetry_ (1705). Introduction
  by Samuel Holt Monk.

  William Herbert, Third Earl of Pembroke. _Poems_ (1660). Introduction by
  Gaby Onderwyzer.

  Francis Hutcheson, _Reflections on Laughter_ (1729). Introduction by
  Scott Elledge.

  _Eighteenth-Century Newspaper Essays on the Theatre._ Selected, with an
  introduction, by John Loftis.

  Samuel Johnson, _Notes to Shakespeare, Vol. III, Tragedies._ Edited by
  Arthur Sherbo.

  John Joyne, _A Journal_ (1679). Edited by R. E. Hughes.

  Richard Savage, _An Author to be Let_ (1732). Introduction by James
  Sutherland.

  _Seventeenth-Century Tales of the Supernatural._ Selected, with an
  introduction, by Isabel M. Westcott.


  THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY
  _WILLIAM ANDREWS CLARK MEMORIAL LIBRARY_
  2205 WEST ADAMS BOULEVARD, LOS ANGELES 18, CALIFORNIA

  Make check or money order payable to THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
  CALIFORNIA.



Transcriber's Notes:

The origianl text of "Aristotle's Art of Poetry" is printed in italic font
with plain font used for emphasis. For ease of reading, the transcriber
has used _underscore_ to represent the plain text. In all other sections
of this document, _underscore_ is used to represent italic text.


Elongated "s" has been modernized.

Additional spacing after some of the quotes is intentional to indicate
both the end of a quotation and the beginning of a new paragraph as
presented in the original text.





*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Preface to Aristotle's Art of Poetry" ***

Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.