Reading philosophical treatises in the midst of a pretty hefty sinus infection is not conducive to much understanding. Nevertheless, I'm trying to make sense of things. I don't really remember reading Scaliger's Poetics, but fortunately I underlined some things!
"Of those things which the Maker of all framed, the other sciences are, as it were, overseers; but since poetry fashions images of those things which are not, as well as images more beautiful than life of those things which are, it seems unlike other literary forms, such as history which confine themselves to actual events, and rather to be another god and to create."
This seems to me to be an echo of Aristotle's ideas about enhancing and improving upon nature, and also Longinus who talks about achieving the sublime as an act of creation. But it also echoes a thread I've seen quite a bit where the relationship of history and poetry is investigated and expounded upon. Does it really matter if someone composes a poem based in historical fact or not? I guess when your ultimate truths lie in reason and science and mathematics (like Plato), something artistic doesn't have much merit, or use. Scaliger thinks poetry is better than science, and more akin to a God-like act of creation.
Castelvetro, who fancies himself to be translating and clarifying Aristotle's Poetics, seems to be just using Aristotle's name to give credence to his own ideas. But his ideas about poetry and history are rather limited in scope: "to introduce new names of kinmgs and to attribute to them new actions is to contradict history and fame and to sin against open truth." Poetry must, therefore, act in verisimilitude rather than creativity.
I think I have too much mucus in my head to make much sense of this right now...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment