Text: John Albee, “Poe and Aristotle,” The Dial (Chicago, IL), vol. XXXIV, no. 402, March 16, 1903, p. 192

[page 192, column 1, continued:]

In Mr. Moore's admirable and acute discussion of “Poe's Place as a Critic,” published in THE DIAL of February 16, the writer dwells at considerable length on one of Poe's critical dicta, namely, that there can be no long poem in the nature of things. “The nature of things” is a loose phrase; he meant, probably, the natural powers of attention and memory. Mr. Moore objects that Poe has left us in doubt as to what measure of length he would fix in strictly defining a poem. Poe was apt to be whimsical and vague in criticism, but sometimes he hit the nail on the head. I think he had already anticipated the impatience of modern readers of poetry, as well as of poets themselves. Perhaps he was also thinking of the time when poetry was recited; which would naturally imply a time-limit. If he had said no long poems are now written and no one has time or mind to attend to them, he would have come near the truth. The longest poem has now the shortest life. And if read, it is for the purpose of finding and enjoying its gems, its striking passages. These, if really great, are soon disengaged and re-set as specimens, and are gathered at last into anthologies. Poe therefore laid down a rule in accordance with popular taste, possibly cover his own work, and to justify his rover attempting a poem of any length.

It used to be urged upon poets who attained some [column 2:] fame in verse, that for the completion of their reputation, or for the honor of their country, their work should be crowned with one supreme effort, — if possible, an epic on a great theme. And poets themselves seem to have been impelled by the same desire for Aristotle's “ certain magnitude “ in their works. Yet I cannot quite agree with Mr. Moore in his application of Aristotle's “magnitude” as referring to the length of a poem. Is not Mr. Moore here speaking of long poems in distinetion from short ones? Unless I mistake, he is. But in the place where Aristotle employs the expression “ certain magnitude,” chapter seven of the Poetics, he ‘is not di ing length or quantity of poems. He is speaking only of tragedy; and he means by magnitude simply a consistent action, perfect and whole, — or, as we might express it, a beautiful, and orderly arrangement and treatment of the theme, and only long enough to be easily remembered. Aristotle expressly says that length with reference to dramatic representation does not fall under the consideration of art. In short, as I understand Aristotle he is not referring to poetry in general but to the construction of tragedies.

Yet there can be no doubt that in the mate of Greek literature long poems were held in Sigler estimation than short ones. Lyrical and occasional verse had also its place of honor, — Pindar, Sappho, and many others, being as popular poets as Homer. In Aristotle's comment on magnitude it must be remembered that he refers solely to tragedies. As these were sometimes in the form of trilogies, he had to take into account magnitude, or length, and explain its propriety, — not as mere length but as duration of time in the action; yet to this he denies any in artistic theory.

I would like to add to the list of great and authoritative critics cited by Mr. Moore, Goethe, who has left a larger though scattered body of purely literary criticism than either Aristotle or Lessing. And he is at one with Poe, in both theory and practice, in regard to long poems, if we leave out, as we ought, his dramatic works. For by a long poem I apprehend we mean such as “The Faérie Queene,” “Paradise Lost” and “ Paradise Regained,” “Roman de la Rose,” “The Divine Comedy,” and the works of Homer and Virgil. It is to be noticed in all long poems, that when closely analysed they consist largely of episodes, — as if the authors realized that the reader's attention and memory could not be relied on to carry him through without a break. All long poems with which I am acquainted may be resolved into short ones, and were so resolved in the more ancient times when recited; and thus I think Poe was right in his philosophy in saying that in the nature of things — that is, in the constitution of the poet and of the hearer or reader, and for the perfect effects of poetry, including the shock of delighted surprise and the fixing in the memory, — there can be no long poems. Of course, Poe never intended to include dramatic composition in his dictum. There is where length — or, in Aristotle's word, “magnitude,” — has its appropriate place and rights; unless, as in Lessing's story, the “ characters die of the Fifth Act.”

Allow me to conclude with a line from a poet who was alsoa master critic, Horace; and to translate it into the vernacular:

(If you must read your long poem, don’t take offense if I go to sleep occasionally. )

JOHN ALBEE.

Pequaket, N. H., March 7, 1903.