Essay 90
¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 11 March 1768[90.1]
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 In answer to how it aspires to this, Aristotle says it has been demonstrated clearly by comedy:[90.2] ἐπὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς κωμῳδίας ἤδη τοῦτο δῆλον γέγονεν: συστήσαντες γὰρ τὸν μῦθον διὰ τῶν εἰκότων οὕτω τὰ τυχόντα ὀνόματα ἐπιτιθέασι, καὶ οὐχ ὥσπερ οἱ ἰαμβοποιοὶ περὶ τῶν καθ᾽ ἕκαστον ποιοῦσιν.[90.3] I must also quote the translations of this by Dacier and Curtius. Dacier says: “C’est ce qui est déja rendu sensible dans las comedie, car les Poëtes comiques, aprés avoir dressé leur sujet sur la vray-semblance [sic], imposent aprés cela à leurs personnages tels noms qu’il leur plaît, & n’imitent pas les Poëtes satyriques, qui ne s’attachent qu’aux chose particulieres.”[90.4] And Curtius: “In the comedy this has long been visible. For when the writers of comedy conceived the plot of the story according to probability, they attributed arbitrary names to the characters and did not have something particular in mind like the iambic poets did.”[90.5]What do we find in these translations that corresponds to what concerns Aristotle most? Both have him saying only that the comic writers did not do the same as the iambic (that is, satiric) poets in keeping to the individual but rather tended to the universal with their characters, to whom they gave arbitrary names: “tels noms qu’il leur plaît.”[90.6] Granted, now, that τὰ τυχόντα ὀνόματα could mean such names, where have both translators left the οὕτω?[90.7] Did this οὕτω mean absolutely nothing to them? And yet it says everything here: for according to this οὕτω the comic writers did not only give arbitrary names to their characters, but they gave them these arbitrary names “so”: οὕτω [thusly]. And how “so”? “So,” that they aimed at universality with these very names: οὗ στοχάζεται ἡ ποίησις ὀνόματα ἐπιτιθεμένη.[90.8] And how did that happen? Find me one word about it in the commentaries by Dacier and Curtius!
¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 Without any further beating about the bush, it happened like this. Comedy gave names to its characters that expressed the essence of these characters by means of their grammatical derivation and composition, or some other meaning. In short, it gave them telling names, names one needed only to hear in order to know instantly what kind of person it was who bore the name. I will quote a passage from Donatus on this here:[90.9] “Nomina personarum,” he says with regard to the first line of the first act of The Brothers, “in comoediis duntaxat, habere debent rationem & etymologiam. Etenim absurdum est, comicum aperte argumentum confingere: vel nomen personae incongruum dare vel officium quod sit a nomine diversum.[*][90.10] Hinc servus fidelis Parmeno: infidelis vel Syrus vel Geta; miles Thraso vel Polemon: juvenisPamphilus: matrona Myrrhina, & puer ab odore Storax: vel a ludo & a gesticulatione Circus: & item similia. In quibus summum Poetae visium est, si quid et contrario repugnans contrarium diversumque protulerit, nisi per ἀντιφρασινnomen imposuerit joculariter, ut Misargyrides in Plauto diciter trapezita.”[90.11] Anyone who wishes to be convinced of this through further examples need only look at the names in Plautus and Terence. Because their plays have all been taken from the Greek, the names of their characters are also of Greek origin and always refer, etymologically, to the social status, way of thinking, or some other thing that these characters could have in common with many others, even if we cannot still always specify such etymologies with clarity and certainty.
¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0 I am not going to dwell on such a well-known matter; but I do wonder how Aristotle’s interpreters could have failed to remember it, when Aristotle so undeniably points it out. For what can be more true, more clear, than what the philosopher says of the consideration poetry has for universality in issuing names? What can be more undeniable, than that ἐπὶ μὲν τῆς κωμῳδίας ἤδη τοῦτο δῆλον γέγονεν; that this consideration has apparently long been demonstrated, especially in comedy?[90.12] From its first origins, that is, as soon as the iambic poets rose from the particular to the universal, as soon as instructive comedy grew out of libelous satire, they tried to indicate universality through the names themselves. The boastful cowardly soldier was not named for this or that leader from this or that clan; he was called Pyrgopolinices, Captain Battering-ram.[90.13] The miserable parasite who was eager to please him was not named after some poor fellow in the city; he was called Artotrogus, Crumbcarrier.[90.14] The youth who plunged his father into debt through his expenditures, particularly on horses, was not named for the son of this or that upright citizen; he was called Pheidippides, Squire Sparesteed.[90.15]
¶ 5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0 It could be objected that such signifying names might only have been an invention of Greek New Comedy, whose poets were strictly forbidden to make use of real names, and that Aristotle did not know these New Comedies and therefore could not have taken them into consideration for his rules.[90.16] Hurd claims this latter,[†][90.17] but this is just as false as the claim that the older Greek comedies only made use of real names. Even in those plays whose primary, sole purpose was to make a certain well-known person ridiculous and hated, nearly all the names except for that of this one real person were made up, and made up in such a way as to correspond with their social standing and character.
¶ 6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0
¶ 7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0 [*] This could easily be misunderstood. That is, if one wanted to understand it as if Donatus also held “comicum aperte argumentum confingere” [“to openly invent a comedic plot”] to be absurd. Of course, that is not at all Donatus’s meaning. Rather, he intends to say that, because the comic writer manifestly invents his subject, it would be absurd if he nonetheless attributed unsuitable names to his characters, or occupations that conflicted with their names. For certainly, since the subject is completely the poet’s, it is wholly and singularly up to him what kind of names he gives his characters, or what kind of social standing or occupation he wants to connect with these names. Therefore, perhaps Donatus ought not to have expressed himself so ambivalently, and by changing a single syllable, this hindrance is avoided. Namely, it should either read: “Absurdum est, comicum aperte argumentum confingentem vel nomen personae” etc; or even “aperte argumentum confingere & nomen personae” etc.
¶ 8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 0 [†] Hurd, in his “Dissertation on the Provinces of the Drama”: “From the account of comedy, here given, it may appear, that the idea of this drama is much enlarged beyond what it was in Aristotle’s time; who defines it to be an imitation of light and trivial actions, provoking ridicule. His notion was taken from the state and practice of the Athenian stage; that is from the old or middle comedy, which answer to this description. The great revolution, which the introduction of the new comedy made in the drama, did not happen till afterwards” [Hurd, “Dissertation” 201]. But Hurd merely assumes this so that his explanation of comedy does not appear to conflict with Aristotle’s so directly. Aristotle did indeed live to see the New Comedy, and he recalls it specifically in the Nicomachean Ethics, where he deals with decent and indecent jokes (Bk. IV, ch. 14). ἴδοι δ᾽ ἄν τις καὶ ἐκ τῶν κωμῳδιῶν τῶν παλαιῶν καὶ τῶν καινῶν: τοῖς μὲν γὰρ ἦν γελοῖον ἡ αἰσχρολογία, τοῖς δὲ μᾶλλον ἡ ὑπόνοια. [“The difference may be seen by comparing the old and the new comedies; the earlier dramatists found their fun in obscenity, the moderns prefer innuendo, which marks a great advance in decorum.” Tr. by H. Rackham, Nicomachean Ethics 4.8.6.] One could, of course, say that we are to understand Middle here for New, for since there were no New Comedies yet, the Middle ones must have been called new. One could add that Aristotle died in the same Olympiad in which Menander premiered his first play; in fact, it was the year before (Eusebius in Chronico ad Olymp. CXIV. 4). But one would be wrong to reckon the beginning of New Comedy from Menander; Menander was the first writer of this epoch in terms of poetic merit, but not in terms of time. Philemon, who also belongs to that era, wrote much earlier, and the transition from the Middle to New Comedy was so imperceptible that Aristotle cannot possibly have lacked for examples of it. Aristophanes himself had already provided such an example; his Cocalus was so constituted that Philemon could appropriate it with few changes. It says in the Life of Aristophanes: “Κωκαλον ἐν ψ ἐισαγει φθοραν καὶ ἀναγνωρισμὸν καὶ τἀλλα πάντα ά ἐζηλώσε Μένανδρος.” Thus, since Aristophanes provided examples of all the various modifications of comedy, Aristotle could also build his definition of comedy on all of them. That is what he did, and comedy did not develop further to a point beyond which this explanation became too narrow. If Hurd had only understood this correctly, he would not have found it necessary to take refuge in Aristotle’s supposed lack of experience in order to remove all conflict between his own ideas of comedy (which were of course in and of themselves correct) and Aristotle’s.
Comments
Comments are closed
0 Comments on the whole Page
0 Comments on paragraph 1
0 Comments on paragraph 2
0 Comments on paragraph 3
0 Comments on paragraph 4
0 Comments on paragraph 5
0 Comments on paragraph 6
0 Comments on paragraph 7
0 Comments on paragraph 8