CRITI C ISM IN A NT I QUITY
TICISM IN ANTIQUITY D. A. Russell
UNIVE RSI T Y OF CA LIFOR N IA PRESS BERKELEY AND LOS ANGE L ES
University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles
© 19B.
by D. A. R ussdl
Printed in G reat Britain
Ubrary of CoagrH_ Ru~lI ,
Catalogi.D~
in Public:atioa Data
D. A. (Donald Andrew) Criticism in amiquity Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. Classical literature- H istory and criticism. 2. Criticism. I . Title. PA30 13· R82 801 ' .95'0938 IS BN 0-5 2(}-04466-5
Contents Preface [
11
Prologue Narrative: from the Beginnings. to
••
'ill
,
Arjstotle
ill ill ;L
:Ill
Narrative: the Hellenistic Age from ArislOtle to H orace Narrative; the Roman Empire The Poet and his I nspiralion The Poet as Teacher
V II
Mimesis
V II I
R hetoric
IX Theories of Style X Classification of Literature Xl Literary History X II
Epilogue Appendix Bibliography In dex
31 5"
(ig
& 99 "A ~
~ '.'i'l «ig '2l
""9 "'1
Preface I [lAVE tried to inc a personal im p ression orlhe complex ph enom e no n ofGn::co-Roman ' literary criticism' wilh a measure of detailed information su fficient to guide the reader towards further illquiry. I have had in mind the need, of lit erary Sludcnts who>.., Gree k an d Latin il perhaps vestigial, though [ am well awarc that the y are fa\:cd wilh special difficulti!:" in approa(:hing a ~ubj
( '9H ), '7A"·
'" to.,·69 (" I.e 390)·
Prologue
"
embellishments of rhe torical skill ; and finaJl )' ..... he ther the langu age is clear, pure and elegantl y diversifi ed. T his pedagogic synthesis reaches no great depth ofill5ighl. It ..... ou ld bc foolish to ma ke much ofil. BUI it does- and in Ihis it seems 10 be unique in an cient criticism - attem pt to state a comprehensive se t of rules for c rit ical j udgm ent , uniting bo th rhelOrical and moral standpoints. i1s presuppositions, ho ..... eve r, are by no means unique. T hey are typical of the consensus ach ieved in the imperial period by classieisi ng critics a nd readers whose primary interest lay in the old Attic literature and the ways in wh ich it could still be imi_ tated and reproduced. Taken with what we have Sten of Dion ysius a nd 'Longinus' , it e nables us to filrm some view of wh at lite rary judgment (krisis logon ) was supposed to entail, a t any ra te in the f.'lirl y stable cultural conditions of the fi rs t three centuries of th e Ro man Empire. The hilikoJ in this sense, the man good a t ma ki ng such judgments. would need a t least three qualiti C!l. He would have to have a keen sense- a trained sensi bilit y rather than articulatc prinl:ipk-s- of linguisti in A.LC 6--8;
grneral, V, Buchhrit. ,. s"lim '-i-56 fr,
in Radermacher , A..Ii ... Sc.ipw,<J; itpilti( liM>I. 30 fr,
5«
in
]{arratit't: jrom tht Btginllings to Aristotle
'3
really mean that metre alone turned prose into poetry~ It is natural 10 ask whether he conceives the relationship between IOgM and me/ron as an inte rna l one between wholly integrated e1emcnts of a whole, or an external one in which ' poetl)" is simply the sum of the two. The safest way of amwering this question is br looking closelr at the context. Gorgias is 'defending· or 'excusing' Helen. One defence is that she was deceived by logos. Now for this to be an dTective argument, logos should be represented as something she could not possibly be expected to resi
./I'arratiu: fro m tkt BrginningI to Aristotlt
'5
closely allied with poetry in many situations, was only inci dCllIall}' a represelllatio nal art, and did not offer a model of m;mi$is in \he way \bat painting dearly did. If SimonidL"S realiy said that 'p"inting is silem poetry, poetry is pain ting that talks',lph istieated genre, the philosophical dialogue, which may properly be regarded as the literary sy mool of free inquiry, shou ld at the same time have consistently advocated the most rigid and doctrinaire moral censorship of the arts. Clearly aware that exccllo:nce and correc tness in poctry were distinct from excellence and correctness in other activities, he drew the conclusion that they must a lways give way to moral considera tions. Poets could han: no claim to knowlo:dge j they peddled illusion and dece it. The bener pocts they were, the more likely they were to deprave. It is easier to ~ympathise with his parallel rejection of rhetoric. \Ve readily range ourse lves against those who 'honour the probable above the truth', Ihe 'flatterers' (kolaktj ) who cynically exploit (he " 'eakness or their fellow men. We enjoy it therefore when Plato shows us how absurd are the pretentions of the rhetoricians, how facile and easily parodied the tricks of thcir trade, how ridiculous th eir tec hni calt erms.llit is when iLl in his Gorgias- he cxtends his condemnation to all sucial and political systems which rest on public persuasion that unease returns. The ancient debate over Plato's attaek on rhetoric continun'cmpurary Alcidarna, ' written attack 0" written ""ml""ilio" ( Radermacher, AS , 3S ff. ) ,. On ,!o i, ~mbiguily,...., M~nalld e< Rheton ( '!)S' ), [>. xx .
,8
Criticism in Antiquity
powers, no! for any practical
pll~;
but sometimes abo-~
by Aristotle-e xclus ively for the oratory of prai5c and blame, d esigned as it is 10 'display' the good or bad qualiti es afits subject. The first definition , the wider of the two, is the commoner and the more useful as a historical description; the second, probably th e earlier, has a dearer logkal character. In any case, this kind of work was a development of th e sophistic period. Its imJXlrtance for our theme lies in the fact that it is in some wa)"l a half_way hou$C betweo:n oratory and JX'Ctry. Its most obvious functions, praise and blame, werc the traditional
sp heres of the poet, which the orator now claimed to take over. Its subjects were naturally taken from a wider range than th ose of forensic or deliberative oratory. Gorgias and his pupils Polycrates and 1socrates used mythical an d fanciful thcmes. To show how Helen or PalameIIigni()~ ) was also large; encomia ofSah, Fever and Ikath were written primarily to display ingenuity and give the pleasure of paradox." All such speccht"S are meant to have a pennanen!. not just an ephemeral, value. H ence they had to possess the a ccu racy of written ~ty l e, >0 that the di~tant or fU1ure reader could not mistake the writer's meaning. And finally, many speeches a re in Aristotle's sen"" 'mimetic'. bt:onding I prcdcccssorson the one hand, soph ists a nd grammari,,,,s: On the uthn, PIal. His brief, and not ye t cOllll'letdy unde"' ood, allusion 10 the tragic "
a Q>oumain. and
lik~",i",
Nana/it'! : Ihe Hr/lmiJ/it Age f rom .'Iris/oil! /Q Horact
37
th e late classical (fifih_eentury) e pic poet Antimac hus of Co!ophon, who wrote both lo\'c poetry and an epic Tlubaid. He had appa renlly been a favourite of Pla to, pqnJ~ , '£ - 1~~ "(llt6 [ ) 6!J ,,[I' ""~'" lp .d oc . (~J~," .{.Ipod JO S,";>!,\ :>!OIS '~uo IU"loiodw! II" " IP;>lqIlOpUIl '-'J;>." '\:;>'11 lIl'I - ·'''M :;IW\lS ;> 'P P;> PU;> I IU,)Wn ~.I"c "! fiuup""1 ""!P'OIS!JV '''011 U;>:;>W OU ,\(1 ;>.1:>,\\ s;)P"\! llP. ;>'<JIS ~l'SUUOU 11::l!,WP JO lU:>UHIS!ltpns;>-;>., pue SUO!IISI] ;>!)~!U;>II;> H .)O UOI\Nf -JJ .SIl!S.'UO! O U! U"JiOI S .\J~ I' OSI" pU" 'lO\C.IO I"C ;>P! '-'III )1l ()(1" lIU !~"!4) l":>! IJ '!JU ,\l;>'\ -S.""!I!!"!110 ';>1"1 P"" - S,OJ;l:>!:) .10 S!S"q ;lIp .JWP..lJ'1 .)!lO\;ll[J .ll!;>t ljdosOlllld. ';lI'1I' ld;>:>.)l! punoJ ';)lI"l ;)'11 'I:>!'l-" '01;>4' ;)'11 ,,0 S" O!!'P"O:> p;,.;oo,,,, )';'1"'0'" :n u _ '1).1.\I()S:"I,' :)11 $"'[1 Pln;>n l'(~1(1 P"\! SU"P!'OP'P uo Pl!ll\! s,o Il'ld 'P!4''I l:>! lJUO) ;HU -l;>~";x{ S ;>l[lJO lIoo]lno P'lOUI PUI! l;:lPl!J l!lP ;)l(1 P;l,'(OAUI )\ I!J P'SS;);>;l11 I! ~ SV!Jl JO J:>ll "UI Jl;)W ":>II l OU PI"OJ ' !JOI;> 'P '."J!'\JO lu!od wp U'Olj ·.\\IIP l;>dOld" .)0 III;>w ll)l'lj ;)IP 0) SU".llU "s" ')!JOI;>I..I' ;>lI"l Il O)" ;> ",'M" U! P!P .\:)'11 - ~ll P"Il '-'J OJ;}J!:) S" \ <jUIn P jjU!lUO');}'lJO u". U" - 'OH"O ;>l(1 01 ;l5U OU JO ""'" J JO;llp J l;ll!! !1~1l0411" 'oS' HII.Ux} 'pump snlloq ~!.I '''lnwlOJ ucwo ll :llp U! ' 0(':) "! ;)'1 0) "\I'1"JI10UOll J!JOOL[l :lIn 01 :l.I0p.' :llP I"I'-' ':lJ!1 '!I'lnd 1I~ " )Ill' ~!'I op 01 1).1P:>IIx" W'" .lld!Js!p ,l!OIS ,)11) ::>I{I!,sod JJ,\" ."olj '),1->." 1"·lP! "'I' 01 sum) -elu!xrudd" 'lju,,;> uo pJ)::>;>dx;>:)(1 JJ,\;>U PI'l():) oq." SO I{r/Of ]::>;>.) -l:xl '""[1 U! I';>S!I"'"";'(I 01 " luo IUJm'I $!ldwo~;>~ U" $".\\ ~!'[J pu!' ' . l[J11l1 ~ '[J lIII" ,,:)d~ JO ~}jP"I·"OIl~, U"'Il SS:)I Oil lUlI:)\u .b 'll .IP'" lIu Il{C;x:I, .10 ~lIP~l." OUl!, _\ '1 ~ J'1 01 IllJJuo I! H!t[." .10 ,\\:)!,\ lSIJoll!J AlIeJP S!.!;>P"J"'p I' PPlj plI" ':>!Jo);>']-I 0 ) UO!)U.)llC P!"d oslc ,bIll. '1I0 !)I1J!dsu! J !OI SJO S! '.I) Lt u F "! .\.');>od O)"! ~J )1l IU~UI1.11 nl1lo H IJJ! 'I'" .\JI'III(I>!JoO,\ "! 1I0!jl1,\OI"'! [lu II :)liu",p JO llo!".n -s! P ;>'Ll :.1-~;>.In 81) I'll" ~;>do.!) JO lCI":)! iJ"d II! pu" ';,j'h:nSucl JO IU;)wdol;)AJp pUl! U!jjlJo Jlj I JO S:>IJOOl[ I P"4 .\;)'1.1. on 'S;>I)S! ulIu!l pu" leluw",:5 lelu.l0J JO S.!JPunoJ ;>'11 ;>J;)." Q !OlS ,)11.1. ·~,\C'" 1""l;).lJ!P 1"11,":;''''''' U! U' S!""!'" ,,!> s:):ii"!UtU! )j,,!'I"!'P :;I!'"S
,
,I'
mUO/1 01 }IMS!~ f
/I).IIJ! 1.rV
NlfIIlJll_i/ }~I : },HIPlJI!N
4'
Criliri$m in AlIliquiry
vc r-sc, as in his fa muus H)'I'''' /0 ~rus, to convey philusoph iis ), i•• I"ateri al di" inc a lld human' . Th i, p" .... gc ha. wn muc h di>cu...,.!; see ~ , g , C. 0 , llri nk, l/"rI,a ". (''''Iry, ('t(!l'8fmU"" , 6;,. (The difficult;'" arc .,,,;.,"'. A. it .. and" (i) Po;idoniuo apparent l}' CJjects ;lny expectation that poetry shou ld have a mo ral or faclUal CO nle nt , 3nd any allegori sa tion des igned to produce this result. For him , it wo ul d appear, it is not possibk for a poem to be bOlh good in Ihought and bad in com position; thc two go logether. Nor call composition be judged on irra lional cri teria. In lcrpreta lion of th is IcxI ;" difficult ; we ca n perhap" only say, in very general terms. Ihal I'hilodcmu s held thil t " poem should Ix:ju dged as a whole, a nd nOI Oil I wo se p" ral Cco unts o f form a lid ,·omen! ; ,,,,d I h is mH kes a sharp contrast wil h criti c.\ of other schools. It happen s tha t I'h ilodcmus was him self a pOCI . H is urh"nc un.! humo rous epigrams arc in a notkea h ly simple slyle - certain ly if we co mpare Ihe", with th e exuberan ce of hi" fell ow G ad a rene, ""deage r - and it is lemptin g 10 sec in lh is " rcn eclion o f hi. tlK..., r)' , [I is'lII intriguin g lhoug h l th a t Vi rgil and hi s friends moved in th e circl es around I'hilodelll us, even if we cannO I possibly '" Grulx· '9:1 n. g;v a ,,"""""y "f II,,· ma ;" IX';""; I"" wo,k 0" PI,;t, ~ dd introduction to 'hi$ topic_. i.~ _ to th~ problems of ' A,ianism ' and · ... ttici. m' , i. R. G. "'W!tin', nOt< On Quintili.n to . lo.161f. Wilam ... wit. d ....'lic "t.d16.d ~3 ( , !ln 1 1 &1- 71' lind T Gd""r in En,,,'it~l if.,tll ' S (1979). 1 ![
N 6"6Ii,"'- tnt Htlltnisti( Agt jTDm A,is/Oll, to /lo,au
49
group of' Ro man o rators in th e laur, r yea rs o r the Repuhli c. \Vhat they did was consc ious ly to rejec t th e fullness ofst}'le in which Cicero's o wn main stre ngt h I"y, T his is obviously ';Qmething like the rejec tion by th e poets of th e same gClleration of the looser St n!(:lUre o f carlier writing - a nd ind.:~:d !IOmr,thing likc C"lIi",acilu£' carlier polemic """i,,£t atl Cm p'£ to rcvivc Homaic epic. Now in poetry, pole mics uf this ~ind produ ced no clear reaclion unl ess Lucrelius' deliberale choice or a rch aic. cven pre.Cieeronian tec hniqu es should be so regarded - fi)r Ih.: idell thaI I he Craflsmanship of IIO/:try sho uld be po;rk..: t commanded na lural acceptance. Once the c harge of impcrfec· tion was mad e against a panicul a r fashion. il was \'Cry difli cu h 10 answer. I ndeed. it was perha ps o nly an swera ble i" the term s in ",hirh ·l .(lnginus· answcr; ie hv obsrrving that grc;lt )l;.·nius ClI n be pardoned a lew Ilmlts a nd il i~ h.:lter to he a ge niu~ th a n a n impeccahle medi oc rity. liut o ratory wa s qu ite difrerem . It was a praclical an , and ils excelJelll:e co uld on ly be j udged by ils success. Antim achu s. the con noisse urs' poet, migh t be salisfi L-d with an audience of on~' , if (ha 10m: was I'la to: but o ra tors cannot go o n ",i(holl( a n audiC llce. 50 ~ow success ",ilh a udio e nces. C icero rca"ona bly maintains. belo ng» nment, only incidentall y to uches the c hoice in taste between the 'grand ' ami th,: 'simple' , the overwhelm ing and the delicate. " B",III, :!.~.
" Qu;n,;l; " " I 'l , "'. '~. "" f ", M...,alia. iC10 Q ui",. '" .' 0." . 10-'_" 3: H.
" .,LUn . gmu, . . '"+
R...."""'"' Hot",,"I •. no. 1;6.
~lalc"va ,;,
Or.w" ..
Nanaliu(: Iltt Hd/(Ilislic tlgtfrQI/I
A riSI~II! /Q H QfaU
51
Th r corrl'C t reproduct io n of classical \'ocabulary and gr.lm, malica] usage is a nCCCS$a ry hIli not lu fl i"iem eomlil ion of lh", kind of 'correctness' an d 'purity ' demanded by ' Aui . and not the third , is rather Ihe 'lamem fo r frentom· in (he dos ing c hal't (;r, " 'hi eh has ,",~ry mueh th e a ir of cenain fir:slC('"n( u '·y specu la l ions 011 th c mora I alld lil crary consc'] uenc(;s o r repla c.ing repu hlica n hy mo na rc hi cal goyr, rn mscs hi rTlsdf 10 (he problems of the ora lO,. who wrilcs for 1)()llcril y. Like Diony, ius agaill, hc d ra ws eXlcnsi'·cly on r oe try fo r hi s illustralions. :'\'Iorey Aristides, is ha.\cd on no critical pri nciplcs. The criticisms ,)1' pe\"S(JnaJiti,:l."d.", '~i~\. lJ ,\ I ~n.nder ,n" .'\ri,,,,ph~n,~: .It,,,"Ii. 8V\~ If. 1..1 I.e .'i't, f \. On " ·,,din,. p"2C> But, whether th e point at iSll ue i~ one of style or of argument, the rhetorical criti c. of thi s period , true to their kind, arc criti as of means and of d etail , not of ends and of overall impression, It is dillicuh to find in them any ki nd ofliterary theory, cven any great diversity of tast' well_documented t,ontroversy between Apollodorus and Theodor us in th e lime of Augustus, T hL'Odorus, it waS sometimes said, was a son of proto-Romantic, in revoh againSt the rigorous form al ism rep rese nted by his oppone n ts. T hi s was quite fa lse; ApollOC\oru~' vi ew tha t ev,",ry spe,",ch had to have a fi ,«"d i"" " .' p"ak,·r h,,, ·"i",..-I "I' hi, ,-Io"'''rK- "rt~r a lon~ in " ..,·,1. to p!ca.,. 'he I.d, and join iTO thdr ' I'ringtime· . .. Epi,,_ ,08. 2~' 16Iio.J 11.1,·;.", 1;.3- 4. ,. So Lunapiu. Jj,'''- of '''' ",.i/",o"I1"" 1'. 3~2 II-right ( _ 456 lIoi»o,,~de).
M.,.
(;....
" Suda • •_v _ Mi"ucia-n ",; J- Ride>. I'j, J, Po,ployrt, 30. 7' " Syria"", Hcrmogon"" IN ibi" <Xtic troth. This is the background 10 the mosl remarkahl e work of literary thoory which W~ possC"ss from the later ages of the ancien! worl d : Proclus' commentary (or rather cssay5) on Republir II, HI. an d x. Prod us. the f(reat sy"tenlat iser of the school, was a pupil of Syrian us. whose views he largely reproduces, though adding mu ch of hi s own. His system is based nn N eegins with th e programmatic stateme nts of tlte ea rly poets. Th e Odyssey is especially explicit. 'A god'. or InO...' specificall)' 'tho:- " ·I usc'. gives Demodocus the powrr 10 delight wilh song. and yet also blinds him. Phemius is aUloJidaklDS, 'se lf-taugh". and a !!;od has 'implanted' Itn'phuSl ) , I.... ALe 39 If.; .-i rs ' 95 If. (AU: oH7 ).
Th, f WI wid his Im/lira lioll
7'
""my war' arsong in his ",ind.' Th ese descriptions denote a pc rrn,menl gift; Ph emius and Demodocus a rc profess ional banls. ill whum the poe t, nO dou ht , c n, ate~" fi e tion,,1 modcllaid to have hcd '0 be 'wer a huoor«l. ' II D, Q10J." ~. I94 ~ th;, illlcrprctatioll i. eVell less cautiously cxprCl!«! in Dt JitmaJID", ' ,flo - 'no pob ,10",
Criticism in
A n/iq~i!r
a very forced argumem. Wha t comes next also should be taken in the same spirit, as a rhetori cal ]Xlint supporting the paradoxical main proposition, not as something necessarily in accordance with accepted vi"ws or with any conviction Plato might himsdf defend in a serious moment. The inspired poet stands 10 the mere technician as the inspired prophel sland~ 10 the mere augur. But Ihe passage seems to say t..... o things more. On the one hand , Ihe mind th e Muse invades is 'tender and untrodden '. The poet is innocem and ignorant ; he is not necessarily young (th e Gree ks did nO t thin k ofpoelr)" as par_ ticularly a young man·s occupalion ), nor necessarily virtu ous, but he is impressionable. And he 'puts in order' or 'adorns' (kosl/lol/J"a)16 the deeds of men of old and so educates (paideuti ) future generations. It is necessary for Ihe argument that this benefic ial activity sho uld be seen to be the r~ult ofmonia. It is this that has enabled the poe t to do somethi ng that improves the moral q uality oflife; th e paidtia intended must be th e hand ing down to posteri ty of Ih" exampl"" Sel by grea I men of ol d . In lat er antiquity, as we sha ll >ce, this passage was takl!t1 as a serious Defence of POI!try, linking Ihe notion of insp ira tion wit h that of a didactic purpose. But its origina l intention may be wholly ironical ; there are, as often in Pl alO, fantastic features in the argument, which seem to colour th e whol e; and th e closing words oflhe passage suggesl that the whole paradox is to be ta ken lightly: H" .... hu, .... ithuut the 1> \ uses· madness. comes to the door of jX>Clry. in the hdieflhat he will be an ad.-quate jX>Ct, jfyou please, by art alone, vanishes unfulfi lled, he and hi5 jX>Ct ry together, th., sane man' . jX>Ctrr a t the hands of Ihe mad man ·s.
In fact, it is dear that Pl ato had no wi.h, in th is or any other context , to p rese nt a defence of poetry. He believed it to offer no road to knowledge; and he entcrtilins th e idea thilt the poet'S activity involves an uncotllrolJed element, akin 10 ecsta.y or insani ty, simply because it sui ts the general position h e has taken up. Aristotle was di fferent. H e held p
Tht
P~tI
{wd his
Ilispirali~1I
8,
This rationalisi nll ,,"d morHli.,ing transfo rmation of the traditional s)'mhols of ' inspiration' is not (onfined to poets. It ma), fuund , for oarnplc, in ' Lnnginu~- , though at first sight things look a lillie diffe re nt. T he frequency with which the langn,,!:,· of fnlimlisillsmM is u"xl in 011 slIhlimi!>" has So we have IWO sta ges : the ex citatiun of the writer's mind by emotio n, and the ;;onsequent exci tation of the reader's, whi ch is th e purpoSt: oflhe who le procedure. But there is a .:omplie"Iion _ ' 1.•Ollgin\~~' has a further rxpcctation : he requires that the 'emotion' sha ll be not on ly vehement bnt of a certain mora l qual ity. In fac t emotion in itself, d espite hi s p<Jlcm ical insi'H:ne'! on it as a n element wmngly overlooked hy hi s 0ppom,m C,,('cili u•. is nOt in hi. view "b....lutri y e",">H;,,1 tu 'su bli mily', whic h can act ually ex isl withuu til; indced .... me e mot ions, nota bly pity and fear, are 'low', and so not relatt'd to 's ublimi ty' at "ll.J' This is why lh e ~rsonali(y of the writ er is important. He C, at least in the Rrpuhlic, was deali ng with very special chi ldren, the future guardians, who have 10 Ix broug ht up to he su perio r to o rdina ry man kind. In this context. the mora ls of the actual audiences of real life-i ncl ... ding women , c hildren and slaves- an; o~ nOgreat ~o",:cr n . Pl utarc h's trea t ise On li.. because philosophy was no' accnsihl< [0 lh~m . • E. ,,,,ct. in tl/£ ~o7 If.
86
Crilimm in Anliqui!J
cciltury lext of sophistic origin.- Now whenever such a ge nera l statement is mad e, on eit her side, il has to be seen as part of a polemic. Unless poets claimed truth, this particular selUenee would not be worth uttering; and what makes the contrary worth saying is the belief, often enough expr(:SS(:d, Ihal poetry
is a delusion and a source of moral harm. ' Pleasure' and 'utility' or 'truthfulness' thus play the same SOrt of part in allempls 10 define the purpose of poetry as 'art' and 'endowment' do in attempts 10 describe th e capacity which produces it. And just as (JT~ and ingmium could be said to 'combin e' to pro_ du(e the perfecu""d. c _g_. by P_ H . Sdtrij,·.... a, /);,in4 1'. /.rlll-1 ( '970), .,.p. 325 If.
II.".,
T"~
POri as TrtU/.tr
9S
least were interested in "n"lysing the mechanism by wh ich poetry effected ib beguilement, however trivial iLl object was. T u the Stoics, a t the o ther extreme, a poem was, of cou~, a verbal construct, giving charm and pleasure- but it was also 'significant' of the world ofgoos and men. Ifit is a good poem, it contribule5 to the good life, T he general view of the Stoics may be seen in Strabo's polemic against Eratosthe nes. JI T hey held that Homer was (an d iutended to be) educa tive, a nd on more than one level. T he poe ms were of use to farmers and geographers, a. wel l as to n"",kind in general in a mora l sense. T he poel's skills were thus anci ll ary to ~.Jucationa l needs _ C leant hcs and (in a sense ) Aratus and Manil ius t:onsciously used it to promulgate Stoic views of the un ivt,n;e. T his a tti tude has afilnities, of co urse, with Plato , But instead of following Plato in confining the legitimate uses of poetry to hymns and encomia, the Stoics tell in wi th t he old er tradi tion of allegorical interpretation. This was in accord with thdr similar conservative attitude to myth and (ult; and it is la rgely through the Stoics that allegory became so very important in Hellenist ic, Roman an d indeed Christi an times. Some discussion of allegory is thus a natura l pendant tu the topics we have been conside ring_
I n"" Ol"'n ); 1/. I/"u,,'. A,i"oll" ('""ie> r '9.[ r K",n. ill .Hod". 1>~iI(J(~", 34 [ , !l1Gj , ' - 35' \\' ..1, V "rocni"" ,\I;",,,., ( '953): G. F. [ I" in C(~jJi,.1 Phi/(J(b,,' ~3 ( '9:,11), 73-9''' and ",0., """ '"Ily . .1 . [",t", ... I .,.;~, I" /li.I.,,", pl.'D.idI. , . . [ '!1781, 7~ If. ;lIld H , rta,h", in t ;."'li,., /f.,d, ~~ ('!l79I, 79 ff, , Ikmr"iu. n7 (:lI.C 2' , ),
But this is still a very long way from the Romanti c concept of literature as motivated by th e need for '~ If-expressio n'. Agai n, ancient notions of 'imaginat ion' - phanlasia- are a long way from Coleridge; and the whole idea of the writer as somehow creating a new world, rath er than merely offering a partial image of th e world of the senses, is in general alien to Gr~ k and Roman thinking. The man who sees with the eye of the mind, and penetrates depths unkn ow n before, is the philosopher Or sdentist, nOl the poet o r man ofletters. Such passages ofanciem literature a.o; are some times alkge.gnificcnt a nd dC>(:ryedly inAu.nti,,! book. ,·. ry irnporlalll 10 da .. ical "'hola D .
,\-fimtsis
w,
ties whic h are radi call y different in inte ntion . .-Himimala ma y be of two quite ditlerent kinds. I can cnpy somebod y doing something for ei ther of two reasons : in o rd er to do the sam e thing m yself, or in orde r to produce a lO y or model of the activit y. The liNt sort of ,imitation' is the principle of ma ny human skills and artefacts; 'a rt imi ta tes na ture' by pla ntin g seeds a nd le tting the m grow, a nd in countless ot her wa ys! It is also th e bask procedure of h uman lea rning. Such mimiJis is obvio usly useful. The second sort occurs, say, whe n the painter pain ts a pic tu re of a shot"", o r the 10~' mak er makes a m in ia tu re model; nei th er model nor pict ure will keep on e'~ fee t dry. To mak e an y apologia for poe try, ifit i.1 regarded as a mim etic a rt, invol\'~"S show ing that th e second ki nd of mimisis, the makin g of models or IOys, has a utility. Ari stotle a ppea rs to do th is in a special ca.'I(: by his ps ychological theory of the 'catha rt ic' effect of traged y; but he also, in the ea rl y .:hapters of the Poetics, e mphasises the valu e of imita tio n as a pnx:ed ure of lea rning, a_I tho ug h th e obvio us utility of copying in Ihis mntext mi ght ru b otT, as it we re, On what tht· poet does. 3 The verb mimelliliai a nd its cog nates do not a ppea r in the Iliad or th e Od)"S$ty . They may be o ll o ma topoeie in o ri gin, a nd it see ms that th ey a pply pri ma ril y to the mimicry of so und s. The compos
Criticism in Antiquilj
unlikely that the actors introduced any identifiable oddities of pronunciation. Bill, even in early times, this group of words has a wide range; and there is nothing in our evidence for its use that throws much light on the later theorctical developments,'
• The fil1!t tlll>()retical discussion we pos-o;es$ of m;m/sis in connection with literaturc is that which wc find in Plato's Rtpubiic. PlalO uses the co nce pt as an integral pan of his argument for rejecting poe try, thc moral grounds for which we ha'"e already considered. He IJegins by isolating ' perwnative' poetry-to use Twining's word - and assigning the name mimlsis especially to this.! He distinguishes three kinds of story-telling: by simple narrative, br mimisis, and by a combination of the two. The difference betwcen drama and epic is the formal one that the latler includes narrative in addition to direct . peech. This division is thus a da,,~ification uf modes of imitatiun (in the wider sense ), nOI ofslIbjects; it is ex haustive "nd a PTiori; and il seems to atlach unreal importance to the simplt: difference between direct and indirect speech, Ihough we have to remember that this kind of grammatical analysis was nO\'e! in I'lato's time, and Ihat he himself clearly attached significance to the diSlin~._ lion in question.~ In any case, Ihe purpose of thc mo\"e in the total argument is clear. Those parts of literature- all drama , and portions of epic- which directly imperwnate characters can, according to Plato, exert an ex traordinari ly powerful influence on the mind of the ' imitator'. It dO' of 'he m)"mri ... which ..\ndocidco impiou,l)" par;. (;,,,k P";IOJ~.J. 733 · .. C.m ....~/4f.J OJ! 'IV/'t'bli£' i. '79.5 Kroll. cr.• bo,·~, Chap'er IV 8.
Mim(Jis
'"7
matter - is human action (praxis ), This involves inten tion, execUliorl and uutcome, A praxis is nOi juSt a happening animals ca nnot 'a(t ' (protlein), nor ~ven ch ildren, 20 for ' act ion' is a complex whole into wluch feeling, c haracte r and rational thought all en ter. T he J>O"'t's primary work is therefo re the plot (m~ lhos) of play or epic ; in this he const ructs a representation of peuplt pc rlunni ng actions of the kind s th at p~'(}ple of their sort wi ll naturally do, with the conseq uences that may be expo:ctcd to follow . Th e mimisis is thus an image ofa praxis. Th is ubviously applies to d rama and epic; thoug h Aristotle does not say much a bout ot her grnrt.J, suc h as lyric , he evide ntly held that thc saine account would hold of anything that could properly be brought under thc he ad of poiiliki. (iii ) T he portrayal of action involves the portrayal of iW, i.e. hu Illan Illilnners iI nd charilctcrs, and t hest are eit her 'good' or 'bad ' . Poetry i. therefor.: a representation of some thing morall y differentiated, a nd ils 1,,"0 main kinds ca n be distingui shed, o n th e basis of thei r objects, on this prin eipl ~ : traged y imitates 'good' characters and co medy ' had ' ones. It is no! ea.'y to inter pret this position; tll(!re are pitfalls on either sid~ . On the on~ h'llld, it is tempting to water the statement down , and say that 'good ' a nd 'b"d' an: primarily soc ial o r pol itiealt u m •. There is plausibility in th is. 'The bell er sort' is a common Athtnian way of denoting the upper Sira ta of soc iet y, and it is of course': true that the perso nages of tragedy are heroes and princes, a nd those of corned)' pri vate ci tizens ; Thcophra.tus~' , poJ< e of tragcdy as com prising 't he circumstances ofl":roi(. fortune' , ami of cOllu!dy as 'a stOry of private ilffairs involving nO danger' . Yet this social diflcrcnce ca nnot be the whole story. Prominent among the d lilractcri. ti cs of ilhi a rc wh," we sho uld enll m o r~1 virtues - j ustice. conra!;lc. moderatioJl a nd so forth. T he ·action.\ ' ofthc IlC IWns in the play are partly detc.rmined by these, and partly b y other, mOl"e external, q ualit ics wh ich also eha racteril.c ilki, \.;U t do not a p pear to us as 'moral" at all - power, wealth, statu s o r age. For Aristotle, as for most Gree ks of his tim e, " certain deg ree of good fortu ne in Ih ~'"Se respens was nec=ary for human happ i_ nl'S', an d their presence Or ahsenee affects the way;n wl,ich '''' "DiomcdcsGra"''''./AI.
, . ~H7.
"'"
Critici=
i~
Aflliqlli!y
individual behaves, and goes to determine what son of person he is. (iv ) Aristot 11'22 ~arg that tragedy imitat~.. pcopl" 'ben". than the present population' and comedy thOM: who aT" 'wor.;.,· than these. Again,'l poets imitate eithe r things as they were or are, or a. people sayor think they are, or as th ey 'ought' to be. Yet again,24 the poet is more 'philosophical' than the historjan, because he is not concerned with individual facts but with generalities (Ia kallwioll ). All th ese state ments make it clear that ,\rislOtle's mimisis is something very different from (he striclly realistic copying or mimicry that is the basis of Plato's arguments. The result of the process, it appears, is often an idealisation or a generalisation-in comedy, a caricature-of the object pcrceived in life. The poet, like the painter," can fill up deficie ncies in his modd, and show panicular i lhi in a more complete form than we can e\"er discern them in the world in which we li\"e. (v) This generalising and idealising tend ency in poetic mimisis is to be co nnected with another aspect on which Aristotle lays stress: its instructive ness. We learn by imitating, and we cnjoy the pleasure ofrccognition. But the recognition is not of identical objects, but of sim ilar ones; to see like n~, to sense the common features between events on the stage and events around us, is to e nhan ce one'.' understanding and SO 10 gain a little of the high es t of human pleasures. It is fundamental for Aristotle thaI 'allmen d esire 10 understand'; by his inter_ pretation of mimi.r;. he shows how poetry also may contribute to the fulfilment of the desire.
7 /i.fimisi. thus takes on a creative look; it supplements. improves and illuminales its ostensible models. But it remains of cour.;.,
who lly dependent on them
"'4411"'1·
fOf
its initiati,·es. It cannot 'make
I
" '460' 8. " 145"
" X~"" p hon
(M, ...,abili4 1.10.1 - 5) ·...,poru· a
com·~ ..... 6on
;n "'hieh Soc,a ..,. con"inca Parrh ... iu, lhal b}' rCndix , 1'. 20~ ). JO Hi, namp! .. are all of "lO"wn" of ,,'h.. ,,-. ,ho"ld call1'~ 'h,,,, : At • . 9_H6 ('he ,holl]e .Iil" from lh~ hand, of Eo,)"al",' mo'hef ",h~n ,h. hu", 'he fumd'.32 Wh en he makC'S Hdi'-"! n
th~
manuscript tTadition f' wnginW!' (t ~_~ ) giva _
11m Manut iu, cottjectuRd 'did 'I,ll " 'ould mal e ' Lo nginu,'
p"".la"o a.
~
a~r ..
capacity which
~hold',
and thi s (an .as)· correction )
e",,,tl y " 'ith I'hil()$tr-atu" and rel"" .. m
,.ppl"",." the 'enis terminology em ployed. There are two possible areas. T he first rdates 10 the 'mimetic' use of language. This was discussed in ancient theory in eormection both with wordgrouping> (figures and arrangement ) and with individua l words a nd sounds. u.nginus shows how asyndeta a nd hyper_ bata reproduce the haste, impediment and disorder of anxious or excited speech;" Deme trius'" and Quintilian lO make the point that 'small words' and short cola are more expressive of sma 11 things. Some of this th~'()rising is absurd ; but Ihe ela borate analysis b ~' D ioll}'sius of Homer's description of Ihe rock of Sisyphus is worth careful study ..lIi Discussio n of the association of sounds goes back perhaps to Democritus; it is a main theme of Plato'. C,at;·/Ul ; and thc later rhetorical tradition, repre.;ented by Dionys ius and Quintilian, makes a lot of it. [n Ctal.Jius, R repr~nts movement, l:J.ecause of the trill of the tongue; PS, X, S, PH (an aspirated P) produce a sense of agitation: D and T, in which the tongue rests against the tee th, display rest; the long open-mouthed vowels A and E denote size. This kind ofthoory, uased o n ouscrva tion of the mouth and tongue. does nOt say muc h about the aesthetic qualities of sounds, and in this respec t it differs from the precepts commonl r giw:n in the rhetorical traditio n. For Dion ys ius, for example, L is 'sweet' , R 'noble', and S disagreeable if used in excess: ;\ 1 and N ma ke a noise like a horn; and the order of e uphony of the vowel s is A E 0 U I - in o ther .....o rd s, the thinner, front vowels are the least allrae li vt. 31 That poetS usc, · (.onginu,· '9,22. '" l)em~"iu, 48 . ..., Quinlili~n 8.3.20 (on Virgil". '""iguu, mu' ). ,. Sec al",,"c , Ch~p'cr IV , . ., D, ''''''(Jonl;"", ..,/00",.. I~. J.J
",
Criticism in Anliqlliry
or invent, words which reproduce or strongly suggest natural sounds is an obvious extens ion of this way of thinking: Dio Chrysostom discourses at length on Homer's kanachi, bombos, JIJUPOS, and so 011.:18 So we have Iwo a pproaches to the sounds of words: the mimetic and the aesthetic. [n the p ractice of poclSVirgil for example- we can see booth in use. For our present purpooe, it is lhe mimetic that matters; Twining's 'imitation by sound' was clead y recognised in antiquity, while Plato at least tried to see an aCI of mimicry in the ph ysical movements which form the leiters rather than in the resulting noise. 9 T he seco nd area \0 which the te rm mimiJis exte nds has at first sig ht nu mure than an accidental connec tiun with the main sense of the word . It is that of the 'imi tation' of earlier writers by later. This is, in iL'itlf, very important in the history of cri,ieisTTl. [11 classica[ Greek [iterature, Lyric poet! fulluwcd the sto ri es, and sometimes adapted the language. of e pi c, and this hlet was obvious an d widely recognised; morrover, the development of the variou~ genn:s proceeded by a proccri bcd for I'rooc co" .. nt jun with haL'ing mo •• than an)'on~ die to ... y a bout a giHn subj«:l, but, in ony .ubjC lIled ?' (i ,-) Fear: 'Why $hou ld I tell of wars rising out of T yre and your brother'S menaces?' (v) Expediency: 'Whal a ci ty will )'OU beh old here !' (vi) Method: ' Extend his wekome, make reason, for dday .' (vi i) (,.onjnture "bout tile gods' intent ion : 'I Ihink it is ",it h the gods' f"vour . " that his $hip' came (hi, way.' Som~",ha t
simil ar is t he discussion of Aen eas' reply 10 Did o later o n in the sam e bookY T hi s is ill H!rmS of slalus t heor y: Ae neas uses the status of exc use (s/atus vellialis),"' putting the respons ibility I(,r his departure o n th e gods, bill it a lso involves a ]XIi"t of 'definition': he remOveS the objeclio n thaI he is 'running away' by ca lling il 'de panure' , We know that cu tai n teac hers of rhetoric, by name T i[ianus and Ca!vus, pe r haps in
" ","t!" ." J '1.3' n·, 2< Amtld ~. 3~3 tl'. " For Ihi. >«, rn:e, Chapter II 2 (ALe II If.). ' (),.tW~ 5" ( ti LC .1'4 If.). cr_ abm'c, p _ 6].
'33 lar! y thought of as a Euripidean characteristic. But (h t stri ctly stylistic qualilits, as !\rislophanes sets [hem, arc no! so dear. We hear ufprccisiun (the key word is saphis, 'dear', 'd ist;nc\ ' ) , ck gancc (the key adjective is Ifp/os) , ingenuity, sha rp arguments , and word .. suit~d 10 the real world . In brief, Euripides deliberately avoids Ihe gr,,,,d words on which Aes d epends, a nd lhe grand concep tions thai gu wilh them ; instead, I,,: gives his plays a stricter intellectual d iscipline. and the appropria te language of argume nt. I n term' ufthe effect un the hea rer, A..-schylus ';lma7.C',
'34
Criticism ill AII/iq"ilJ
slightly unexpected pair, until we recall that they are commonly
opposed to each other in an ..,thkal sense, as 'pleasure' and 'honour'. Under hidonl come two sets of qualities. One is represented by pillu).1WII, 'persuasiveness'. This indude5 the notion of plausible argument, the appeal to th e rational; but it includes also an dem ent of in gratia lion. The other tenns- Mfa, {karl! and so o n - have to do with the euphony and elegance of discourse, not with its intellene of writing ; they are , as :\riSl(>tle woul.-l put it, 'c\hica ll y' differentiated. T he sharp disti netion bet",ccn rharaktir and artli is now Ihoroug hl y blurred.
6 [I is in Ihe COnle:.:1 of\his blu rri ng that we sho uld consider (h e class ification of stylistic. 10n~"j\ im o three, nOt two o r ((JUr, ,q main r.ategori ~... whic h is the best known form or s~ y lis~i c th eory in the Rom a n timcs , This 't ripartitc sche mc ' is found aga in and again in Cicero, Dion ysius and Quinti[ia n ,1O I I was Iradil iona II)' iIlustra ted Out or Homer , thc (()unt of a ll wisdom , who was nat U rall y ima gined to have known this ,,1';0. 21 T he grand stylc a nd til(: plain were d escr ibed, il was believed , in lhe account of the o ralory or Od ysseus "nd lI,'l cnelaus in the third book of thc I1i(ld: Od ysse os' words 'eam e likt: tlt e sno ws of winter', while
"1,,,;4, ' 3.
" Four not onl v in U.'m~"iu" hut in IP1utarrh) l-if••1 11••", 73, M"'"robiu. Sal",,,,,/ia ~.l.i. I'rod", in Photi", rod . ~39 (..,e Appendix. p. 00' ). ,. Stt <sperially Cicero /I'MI., 4"; Dion)",iu, Ikmo;lht." , If. and 8 (AI.e 307 IT.) ; Q"i tltilian 12. 10 ,58 If, (AI.e 4'3). II Se •.•. g., Cicero 40 (ALC ",J; Quintilian 1~.!O.6~ (ALC 41 41; Gelli". 6 , '4.7; IPlutarch ) /-if. "1 1/"",,, ' 7>; R~dcrmach.r. IITli ... ",ipl.",·, 6 If. T h. pa ....g .. of Hom.r arc II. 3.'" IT. and, " 49. Libaniu. (&clam , 3 and 4) i'l\'en!ffl "yliuically contrasting l"",,cll'" by M endllul lind Od )'",:u.
1/,",.,
d.liming Helen bock from the Troja",.
,,8
CriliciIffl in Antiquity
the laconic ;\",cnclaus 'spoke Iillk, bUi never mi$.\td th e point'. With them. wherever this illustration is fOlund, apjl(:ars also the figure Olf Nestor, whose words, as we learn from another passage Olf the epic, are 'swee ter than honey'. The division Olf stylistic tones thus portrayed nOw includes [socra!",an smoot hll f$'l and swectnes, as a third characteristic kind, side by side with stormy power and laconic sim plici ty. Whether this scheme was an invention of Theophrastus has been much debated. n Ii probably does date from about hi s time. II ca n be S«ll as a formul ation Olf distinctions dose to those Olf Aristotle, since the plain style may be thought Olf as a reproduction Olf natural language, the Ody~an storms as the emotive style of the courts and assemblies (texis aguniflikl) and Nesto~'s smoothntt'l a. language meant for reading (tmagrWsis). Moreover, the system is taken fo~ grantt>d in what is generally hdie\"ed to he the earliest of the late Hellenistic treatisn to survive, the Rlle/on'ca ad Htrmnium. u Once accepted, such a s.: heme offered a tcmpt_ ing way o r classifying w~itel'S in any genre. Thucydides, Herodo tus and Xellophon stood for the 'three styles' in history;I' Dcmosthenes, lsocrates a nd Lysias in u~atory ; Hesiud demonstrates th e 'middle style', and ,\nlim achus Ihe forcible, in epic." This kind of labelling, whether based strictly on the tripartite scheme or o n some version of the doctrine of arelai, was obviousl y superficial and unsatisfactory; H orace was quite right to make fun of it as applied to the early Roman poets.'" It is natural to ask what tht> rdationships orthe three styles 10 one ano th er was suppose
.
ThtoritJ of SIJlt
t39
all. H e a$.SO{;iaH:d th\: grand slyle with the oratOrS fUJ1(;(io n of exciting eillot ion, the smooth with his giving pleasure, the plain wi t h his conveyi ng inlo rma lion." /o.'lo reo\'er , he elai med to ha V" ovc, Chap«r III 5. ," It is pCThap> iml'Jicd in 3+
J-
C,;lici1m in Antiquity
'4"
among th e multifarious idlaiJ1 of the later rh etoricians, for these \00 arc based both on arela; and on charakliru. But ' L.onginus" uniqueness must not be forgotten. H e alone of [he .tylistic theorists identifies the quality he is discussing wilh lIie essence of the highe r kind of lit erature and regards the exponents of o th er qualities a:j practising an inferior art. MOr(:-
o\"cr, he has a dear conviction that a certain kind of moral excellence is necessary to achieve his end, and tha t this mUSt cO me-or is most likely to corne - from Ihe personal qualities of the ",ri ter. Still, so far as the logic of his system goes, he is of much the same school as the rhe loTS we have now to consider. 'Aristides' and Herrnogenes a re Ihe chiefofthesc." Their idtai- like Demetrius' charaklirtj - invuln: thoughts and ways of puuing them - mnoiai or gnomai and ukimala ur m~/hQdoiD-as well as features of language. This is cunnected with the fact that both writers import into the d iscussion a dis. tinction hetween the various kinds ofpruse writing with which they were familiar. I n 'Ari'l;dco' Ihis takco th e form of a separation hell"een 'ora torical' language (politikDs or agonijtikos logos ) and 'sim pie' language (aplulis or IuJplous logos ) ; the Jailer is represe nted especia lly uy Xcnopho n 's C),ropardia and by various Srn; ral;C works. ' Ar istides' hardly has a system ; but the qualities he assigns to palilikos logos ran into two g roups. One comprises the qualiti~ of grand and powerful uratory, the other those of the lighter, more 'Attic' kind . Apkelis logos has a less oven structure , less scope for elahora tion and furce. more e mphasis on characte r, a readiness to accept hum b le examples and a more personal tone. Something like this broad distinction of genres was common doctrine in later rhetoric; we find it, for example. in the rhetoT Menander."'" In H ermogenes, though his terminology fluc tuates, Ihe panegurik.f logos comes to be opposed 10 Ihe pa/i/ikos, Ihe exemplar of it ;s Plalo, and it Can " 1.1 0"'''''' (13. 16 ) had alrudy used the term iba in a OI I'lutie co"lo~l. In are linked . ·Aris'W...· i,us and l1'Ari"idt:S' , I~x' in Spe) is I)emootl""", 20 (I,-pI;",,) [[ _ .. Ba,ic lext" Ad l/mnn;um 4, Cic_ IN ",.,. " 3- [48- 7' , Quintilian 8--- Schcnkovdd '3' - . > K. Bar",·ick. P,. bu",. J" .",,,,ht~ Sp"..hJ.k .. IIht/lm t. 86-, 1I. B. Vick . ... CI... ,ual Rlul"'u i . EneliJA PM"), 83- '5,·non)"m . Homer u.... of i, land. hI' me"I,,!"" ' . ·SynO'Ses, whatever they were , whidl determined his cho ice of "xpress ion. And th e comrast of 'inanimate' and ' aninl
4 The su bj ec t of Aris totle's Poelics is 'poiili/;;i and ils kin ds (eidi )' . • &1;'" 1.4, 56---60; d. abo, -• . Cha p .. , !I 4 . • R",.
39~D
(ALC 6 1).
, s.:c abo..-c. Ch ap .., V II 4.
Classificat;on oj Lilnolurt
"
,
T he kinds, il appears, arc Iraged y, ~omerly, epic ~nd dithyramb - the last standing ror a ra ngl: of lyr ic forms which Aristotle is not concerned 10 dilkrcnliale. The lirsl three of these dilfer from one another in 'media', 'objeelwcen form and conl en l. and both lerms arc need ed 10 char,,,:tcrise Ihe 'genre'. Thus hcxameler epic, votive elegy, encomiastic lyric an d so 011 arc easily distinguished; 110 OIlC who does not understand this deserves the name of poet. Hordee works Out one exa mple in detail: Ihe satyr play. Th is is d isIi n!!,"uishcd from tra!!."..,dy hy .ubject, for the heroes a Ild divini tics in it act ridic: ulouslyj a nd from comedy by the laet that its chara(:ters are n<Jt drawn from daily life, but from the world of myth and lege nd . lI\ltthis is not all: the language ;ltld vers ifi ca_ tion of the sa tyr-pia), arc essentially those of tragedy, not of comedy. It is not clear that Hora ce sees this quile as we do, when we ohserve the ' lyl e and metre 01" the Irhf/tul/li o r the C)'clops; but he sees plainly enough that the special chamcter of the genre demands a sty listic le\"C1 which is distinct from both the major g('nres to whic h il is rdated. 6 \Ve must now tum Ii-om theorists to grammarialls. There ,:om he little douht that the form, of ea rl y lyric: were regulated by the ron\"cntions anaching to occasions and ceremonies. ~'I uch of i( was, in a broad sense, rel igious. When Alexandrian scholars came to cI".s ify the poems they had collec1Cd, they did sO Oil the ha.l is of what they knew of these o ften obsolete a nd unrecorded conventions. l'indar was edited under nine hea ds: hymns, pae"ns, d ith yra mbs , 1'roout his act ual cla .... ificatio n. 'Narrative ' poetry was conveyed in hexamete r.;, iamb iCll, elegy or lyric: in ot her words, a elassifi ca tion by metre suflict"! that stated in .. n . 1l1CY write oma/r, but also in a qui"t,
,Ill
"NQkn and Witson «I . of Mcd on a good deal of learning_ \\'e find him using an arehon list, and knowing the
titles and t0 ga"e II dcli~ale 1I",'our 10 Iheir song •. Wore \UrbanI; "nd, ill Irue l o"i~ fashion. As men , ...·ere broken ... ForofncceMil), One', poelry is like one', nalure. ' Ribaldry aparl. Ihis represcn ts " common unrclltcling view. I I is a mOTali.li ng \'icw, nOI o nl y in lhe ~cnsc Ihat il rciales moru tu wri ling, but lJ.ecnuse il "lmOSI a l ways involves moral judgments. T here is an obvious link lJ.etween this passage of ArislOph anes and Seneca's formulation "fthe prindpk Idlil oralio qualis vila,9 and his porlrayal of Ihe dfemi nale r.Iaece na5, whose style demonstrated th aI ' he was the marl whose altclldants, when h" , On liter-MY biograph)' .., • •'. Leo. [)i, /:. i«hi"h·.iimtu:M R io/:l.pIli.. I I If.; A. ~!orni~lian". ]'''' [)m lcp .. ,.1 0/ eftd Hiog'.pIl,1 ( , '17' ), «p. fog If. • T"'.<mcp/ICfi8"';c rved that Aristo tle, a few Jin es above, had left
...
"".x.". "pUI. " [. , 6-- ' 7. So,.(. Appmdix, p. 'zoo. lOt lI 'orb dnd d"-,, " If. : ·So .here ;, '"'' juS! on~ kind or "rif~ hut earth : one to l>e grazed hy sh~'Cp.' Hcgtsias - in . aying Ihat the l"nd dm' oore the Sow" 1Iltn was unso"'n -tah. hi. antithesis from "'ords, nOI from raCI,_ Th e consequence is appaUinf: frigidity, like that of Hermesianax' in his cncorlli"", "f Atlren,: '&;n. "", "f head (k'PMIf) of Zeus, il is ",,,ural she sh""ld h",'r. tlr" sum (k'phalaion ) of ltaJ>pi,,~-'
,I",
rO lher similar examples from
Hegesias loliow,]
Ag",h~rchidcs
thcn produces OratOn. who 'poke On Ihe.ame theme with darity and appropri,"e d~'Cency, 5t ralodes: -The t>ttch. ' Cf. P~;I;ppit' 3_~6_
'Th~bts.
APPtlldlX
'77
for no unfigured discourse (logo. ) can ea,ily be found, T his, the~' say, is jnevitable, ,ince discourse depends on the configuration (",alu_ po"J ) of thc mind (pmdll), and indeed waj invented to e><pr= the mi nd 's forms, experience and movement' in generaL Now the mind is in eOn,tant motion , and (l. kes On many figurations (schi"'ali.m~i) , e.g .... hen it ddines, repro" cs, t"kcs cou n.d, or docs or experienn'. anyone of tile Ihi ngs which h"ppohlcnl. 1>1, S/oo ii. "9: K. Reinhard t. P05rit!ollios, 408 [ T he sculptor Phidias is imagined explaining how much easier the poet'S craft is than hi s own. " 'Ian has a rich inheritance ofwor&;, a nd poetS are especially bles..ed.
The "rt
(.r 'he poe!> is pani~lIlaTly fre~ from ('QnS1rain' and 'e regard to their pH:sti)!;c, rather tha" using "u" Ow" judgmNl l. Wc ".,.,.-I" ,." Ic • .> .ra,,,brd.,, wdl_dc/,noo touch"onc. hr considerin!/: wh ich wc can incline our judgment one wa), Or thc OIher. [ will put my "iew to )·Otl. In mr opinioll , there arc four points 011 whkh appredation and judgment $hould rest. T hese are: character (i/M.< l . thought ~,,6"'t1, art ( 1~""" 1 , diction (f•.,il ). We must therefore always con~ider, in rdation to c"crythi ng tha t " 'c read aloud Or hear Or gct to know in "n)' way, what rn.nc fi t or diSl,dvantagc it giVe!< in these four respects. T here are no standards apa rl from these. J
II. 4,443.
Crilicnm in Anliqui[y I,;, important '0 und~t'I,a"d what I mran_ Etho.rund ,... (] .... ,,' "01'
,'C." 0'1-"
' O:I,! 11''11 J~""W
-(00'1:>'> ~'II Jo}'''1 "'''J :>"" P~['O:"ld ~H '>'>!I"n'J'II "'" 1)1 ·' I I"!""'·!\'.> pm' "u!"!p:>w 0, UO! ,UJIIl' I,,!) :xl. ",u lf ,)'1 'SO'!]'" I' J~'I'O S!'I :;;i" o,,,V 's,ul.[d"O ~u"'u J'I I J~l'"n I'''I'''''! ""I >!'I pm: (pU!I'I"'M JJ'II"J '! 'I ) '1u~J"d "!4 lsol ~'I U~1.P' ""'" U.'" uj1 " ,,,.•, ,'H "'I!~!$110'1" 1""( P"" ·' P"·'!,'.! ' !'U" ~1!SOJ"IIJlf :>'11 Ol ~~ IH"II '!;'»)JJJI'aS '~>O'O""'O I " Il".>11 ['.1>'I'->;>od J H -1U!'1 P.}JJlJo sn ISllS nV 'P!'I." "I!n "" JO " 1J.)do.ld " 'II JdJJJ\l 01 JPSUI!llli"lJ\j IoU PI n,,) ) H -~nO'I I $.JJ""" J 'II II! ~j1'1~J :ill! , ,,, '('1 '''!'! '" l'''lII!,x l I"''' P",,,01l0) 01(" """1(1 I',([":"'~ ~I( 'Il'.'." "1"'''' ,\J",' ~'I ;>J)'I " ''''''O'M I" :>!('1'1(1 "I ".>,,1 'C," '''1 ".,"""" l. \ \ '.1 mil S,' 'A :>'11. 'S"! u;>'llJ ", I P"II"" ,'!"Ol"IUOJ ""." ~Il ""Id,,~ I" w'll I"'!'U 1''''' l.p,>'([ ')O ,un!! 00; " '." "'I ''')!I '!'lJo II! ,'''! lI.l"'l 11 :>11" I")!! I!:!,'!" IU'II '1'1" S"." "'I' u ~'P' '.i", 0. 1'-"''' JI ..... ~4 " 1'''( .Il(' ''''I' " ·" Jlll" ,':>.>:>."0'1 . 11 11",1''',1 III !" o;.;-V -" !-'~! H "nol ,I 4'! ,It I).) " os" ,,:> osl" '''1 ''''I' I'! "s .\ I''''''It II.., ~ I' • ( '1:>Od ""'l" ."." ""'I":) I"''' ' jjU!UJ"J(Jo "a,u ~J~." 'l"tH '''!lI''J III!" !~V UlOJJ 'U!1l 01 l U;JS;>Jd " s"_,, 0,(,,, pu c ' ~ !luJng ~'II J" ~ lIlfo[JJ PlIllJ;lS :>'11 U! S!s:>IV ' 11"":> 4 "'01('" 'J"I'''~~~IY P"~ 9 '1 :>-. ) P"_'OI '(P"I""!IJ"d ~Il 1U0Il,")0 " "<XI 01 P"U!PU! )Ill,([dr. I'JIl x~s S! H ·JU,." .to ]>'.>0) ~ 1I)l1 'fOOl aH 'pool'l l"ds "~\Ju 1''''' '''''1''''1''',' 4 I'"" I""J'II .HII "P'''''''I' :>1(1 ",0.') 'P"'" P"' ;l;IJ"\ :>'1 Ju:>,p I'u" 'U"I! J ~ (H cu"",,,,:) U'\.>JJ ['.'-'QU, "·1(1) 1!:lJI ,\ 1"'11 I'~!I' ,u!l:>,'~w l pod ~ 4' 11"11 p:n" '~4) I! IH'" :d!4'1"5UOJ I''' u:>,os "!" 'I' j1"! .... "os ,\\0" 'u,'OlI ' ''''' ~Il "" "I" sum ~'" L'S ,>111 J.l pUll '.'" I"I)J !( I 'I''' 'u \ u.>.,,>< ' !\1 110 Ie." ' P !'I." '"SO] s, u"", "1(1 p:>wnss" "1l1!IUn '"uo,u;'J:) '" ~J !1 i IJ"H!I( Iu:xl~ " 1.[ 'J')'(I 1'''0.\ J!"'P P!"d PUE ~ P"'" 1l1<XI 04'" ''';'''W.I\ I""" S~JJ)U s.n " ",\J :»qo ' IIO!li'!];lJ
-.,,,1' ;.""',
.. ..
limbllUjI '", WfW IIJ ') , .
9S
'
,87 when he was
!we"ly_$i_~.
He also IIrOIC
:J 'I~",
1111, au thorsh ip uf
which is 'I uCl tion~od . Later, after l>egilllling a pcm On Roman hi>!nry.
he found th e subject troublesome a",1 movcU On:r 10 the Bw(o/ir,s.
principally in ordtr 10 PI''';SC :\sinius Pollio. AJfcllus Varus and CoTlldiu. G all",. hee,"",,' th ey h"d .""cd hion from loss in lhe di.sio" a"d dramatic deli",'ry ; line, Ihal .()u" d~xI well whcn Virgil rcad Ihcm were ellll"~' and d" mh wil hOll ' h; m . He I,,,,·r I"
Came "u ' a
~"rtaj"
:>;umj,,,,-ju. ""rote
Alllitm(olirs. twO eclogues of inept I>:' rudy. th.· first beginning:
Wh ),. lityr",. if )'on\',' a ~."d wann duak_ go to 11", Iweeh for o"'''''cr th~t Vi rgil ddended him_ sclfagainSI Ihis char~~ b)' sa yi"g: 'A"d why dnn', ,hey Iry the .ame Ihefts? They would soon undC~land Ihal it"! " a,icr w pinf.1I Hertnlts" club 110"" a Ii",: from Ho,ner' ..
I-"KO N T O
[ n Ihis !c:lI..,r to I>i~ I'upil. Ihe fU l ure e"'IWI"Qr :\[ arclis Aurelius
(Ad .H . C~l$IlTlm .1.:\.2 ) {'ronlO ma kes il d"ar Ih;'1 11(" re!!;trds an arduhing nKabubr)' as lhe muSI impon alll clemen I in a
gond slyle. 5l'(' Chapler IV 7. Consl"1:[uClHly. "crr rew of I he old wri tCTS (ommi lied Ihelllseil-". to Ih,' ef[on, troohk risk in,""keel in >('m~. un" on;):11I "I", ..ay. a. t..~bic Ihal Ih","" i. 110 ,l~ jn of wicked lal~.. in the CI)'O. 'I'll/" /lib', :"lIt I:llr. tiM' U1fJ~ of Iyranny in a similar , ",allnn to a "onny "'-';1 It would I", l ..",,,,,!. And fi,~, Ie, us :I,k "ha , ~d "i ce ,h":ln of rh6. /I. 13.3119 and 16.4Ih. Your 1""'1 ha, ('xpr"",cd the difficulty of c" "ing dO"'n " hug .. tree: Homer, tree is cu t do,,"n withnut any lrouble. (i\') Am. 4.36;.. II . 16.3~ (d. Cdl. 1~.1.~0) Virgil did ""I Ihe &calc great w~r. \\,hac .Iced, ~re grcat, thc words til", rebtc to ,hem .hould he greal also. To remind yOIl of the other style:.. let me say that Herodotus IIsed the middle style-toc ith er dc,'aled nor sie"da - ,,"d :\cII"phun the Slender. It is becaus ,'"
Crilitiml in Alltiquity
cannot ",xcel, we ""exsomething wh.,,,, we can sh ine. Thus Crequent and rapid change b«om e!l the greatest hintlrance to perfcct work. It i. not only Ihe chronological limitation., but the gwgraphical ones, lhal excite wonde •. The .inglc city of Ath"m, o\'"r a p".iod of many years, flourished in literature and art mOf(: liIan the whole ortile rest of Greece. Physically, that nation ~p r"ad. over many cities; it! j,ncllcclual Mrcnglh, o"e might well judge, i. confined within the walls of Athem alone. No less surprising i, Ihe fact that there is not a single Argive, Theban or Spartan oralorjudged of any amhon ty while
he lived orwonh remernberingwhcn he died. Thesecitiesindced were banen in olher branches of li'cralUft 3JOO, .,,,cept Ihal Pindar'$ one
"oice is the glory of Th ebes. T he Spanan claim to Aleman is fa!",.
Bibliography
(1/) rol/fe/ions (lnd all/lwll/gin
ALL Iknso n and Prosser ['rtlllinger
Anrim/ Li/aM)' Criticism , the principal (cxtS in IIew (ranstillions, cd. D . A. Ru sse ll and M. Winterbottom, Oxford 1972 Readings ill Classical Rhtlor;r, ed. T. W. Benson and M. H . Prosser, Boston 1969 GIl/HiraI and M tliina/ /.;/(r(1.,)' (;ri/;c;sm, cd _ A. Prelllinger, O. B. H ardison and K . Ke rrans, New York [974 (translations of some ccmrallCXtll)
Lanala
Radnmachcr, AS
Spenger
Walz
H arm
PffliclI pre.P/a/oll;C(1, ed. G. Lanala, Florence 1963 (texts with It al ian (T,ms. and cornm. ) Artlum Strip/OilS, cd. L. Raderma ch er, 1951 (texIs of pre-Aristotelian rhetoric) RhtlorlS Grutci, ed. L. Spengel, 3 \"o\s, l.cjp~ig , 8s6 (tcx tsorlhc mai" amho ... ; partly replaced by la ter editions, but still Ihe must convenient collection ror reference ) RhlllJrtJ Grau !, I'd. C. Walz, 9 vols, 1832-6 (still the fullest collection of rhetor ical tex ts, partIr replaced by more mod ern editions) Rhtlorls LA/ini mimms, cd. R . H a lm, 1863
CriliciJ1Tj in Antiquity
"" (b) Indh·idual au/hOTS ( (l briif srl«lion of Itxlf and tram/alions) AnSlides Quintilianus
Aristot le, Pollia
ed. R . P . Wi nnington- Ing ram, 1~3 ed. I. Bywater, Oxford 1909 (with trans-
lation); cd. R. Kassel, Oxford 1965 Ari sto tl e, Rheto,;,
(with co mm. by D. W. Luc'u, Oxford 11)68); tra ns. M . E.. H ubbard (in ALC). ed. R . K 'ISSd, Berlin 1976 ed. with comm., E. M. Co~ r8n Trans. J. H . Freese (Loe b)
(Aristotle] Rh etorica ad Al exandrum cd. M . Fuhrmann, 1966 trans. E. S. For:ster (O xford Aristotle vol. I r, 1924) Fragmlnla , ed. E. Oren loch 1907 Caecilius Cicero De Ora/IITt ed. K. F. K umani~k i, 1969 ed. A. S . Wilkins (with com mentary ) Irans. E. W. SUllon and H . R a c kh am (Loeb) Brutus ed. H . M alcovati roo O .Ja hn - W. K roll - B. K ytzler (wit h commentary ) !g6~ ed. A. E. Doug las (with co mm entary ) , 10 lil'9., 3..' If, ~ If" 9.! If.. LQ!l ff., UJ6 If., '.!9. 1f., ~ If., ~ ~ If.; R~'lorit::;OI t.P' i,JItWttisOTalitJ, ' prooc'), '--i9, 80,91, ~ '53, l.1IlI f, 1I)·ginu., ti I'flIth"gog;a. 9L 2flO
Qni n(ilian. '0.60, '--'2!.h !l!.. T19 H'., """ If.
rhetoric.
,L '--'L
41 (s,., .1,. Chapter
\' 11/)
HIu''';'d"J Alt>d",,',um. :!::!l Rluwrna"J /fmn"ium , i1 R~ .i lh, . I. ~p,,'. ~
"9
Stoia, 3!1,jl f.. !l:. ·style·. melaphorical u$l: in Engli.h, , :1 ' ' . "'."., it '21 '--.l1 so.lh"'-, , '-1!
,ong'.""•. '""J,.pilik.,.
lali, .,,,,,'. qOdl;, ,i,. ('style rcfl.e", lifc" ), tfu f. Tacitu., fu r. , 'bi Th •• gen .. of R hegium , '--!I Th.odo,u>, lli Theogni•. :H T h.oph, .."",. J,. 3!L !J,L !.QL !.!!1 ~03
Theof'Ompm, 6 ' three OI)"I ...·. ,u, !...l:L !ill fT. (Sit ./'" Chapter IX) n,ucydid
