Ancient rhetoric and poetic : $b Interpreted from representative worksBaldwin, Charles Sears
History
Ancient rhetoric and poetic : $b Interpreted from representative works
Baldwin, Charles Sears
Classical literature -- History and criticism -- Theory, etc.; Poetics -- History -- To 1500; Rhetoric, Ancient
What, then, are seen to be in ancient practise the essentials of
epic? First, its inspiration and its appeal are communal. By contrast
the modern novel, which is also extended narrative and also within
Aristotle’s definition of poetic, is seen to be individual; or, where in
exceptional cases it is broader and simpler,[3] is often distinguished
by criticism as having epic appeal. Then, epic is in style objective. It
narrates habitually without interposition, by images visual, auditory,
motor. Its scenery is merely the background of heroic activity. Its
speeches are in primary epic for characterization, not for plot. There
is no plot in the dramatic sense for the whole; and such as there is for
component parts is only to bring out persons. The object of epic being
persons, its commonest descriptive details are of personal activity:
attitude, movement, speech, gesture. The method is to suggest that heroic
life by its physical sensations, to make the characters, as Aristotle
says,[4] reveal themselves. Epic gives few reflections. It does not
comment even on Helen’s coming to the Scæan gates, or on Hector’s parting
from Andromache; it merely describes. This objectivity is a main means of
epic directness.
The characteristic form of epic[5] is for scope and variety. Drama is
intensive; epic is extensive. It has time to give us a sense of the
fulness of life; and its movement does not preclude excursions. We meet
many people and see them in various aspects. We can linger over a scene
for itself without being urged forward. Continuity may be but leisurely
succession from scene to scene. A scene may within itself have dramatic
progress; but the movement of the whole has not the dramatic causal
compulsion. Drama has its characteristic force through unity. Unity in
epic is neither compelling nor compulsory. In fact, to stretch the term
unity over epic tends to deprive it of all force. No epic poet has ever
composed more carefully than Vergil, or with keener awareness of the ways
of drama. The _Æneid_ was composed as a whole; its parts were carefully
adjusted to a plan, and its plan was controlled by a single idea. Epic
has never gone further toward unity; and Homer never dreamed of going so
far. But even such dramatization of epic as Vergil’s has time for the
funeral games, and does not sacrifice to the story of Rome the story
and the person of Dido. In poetic, unity means nothing unless it means
unity of form. This epic cannot have as a whole. Nor does any one regret
the lack, or think it a fault. The unity of drama is for intensity; the
object of epic is the realization not of a crisis, but of great persons
in a long and various course.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account