The present study states the three key ancient concepts of Horace and Aristotle upfront in order to organise the wider field of Graeco-Roman literary criticism within
88 Marguerat and Bourquin, Bible Stories. 43; Cf. Paul Larivaille, “L’analyse (morpho)
logique du récit”, Poétique 19 (1974): 368–388, citing 386–87.
89 Jennine Lanouette, “A History of Three-Act Structure”, https://www.screentakes.com/an-
evolutionary-study-of-the-three-act-structure-model-in-drama/; Gabe Moura, “The Three-Act Structure”, http://www.elementsofcinema.com/screenwriting/three-act-structure/; Stephen Cannell, “What is the Three Act Structure?”, https://www.writerswrite.com/screenwriting/cannell/lecture4/.
90 Yorke, Into the Woods, 26; Syd Field, The Screenwriter’s Workbook, rev. ed. (New York:
Delta Trade, 2006), 44–45.
91 Field, Screenwriters Workbook, 193–209, divides his middle “Act II” into a first and
second half around the midpoint.
92 Yorke, Into the Woods, 33–36. 93 See Chapter Two (§2.2.4.2, pp.67–74).
which they were discovered. The concepts also connect the ancient and modern literary shape into an overlapping framework for structure and story. Dealing first with literary structure means Horace’s concept is considered first followed by Aristotle’s earlier literary story concepts.
1.2.1 Horace’s “Five-Act Structure”
The earliest extant reference to a “Five-Act Structure” is by Horace, ca. 10–8 BC, who states,
neue minor neu sit quinto productior actu fabula (let no play be either shorter or longer than five acts). (Ars poetica, 189 [Fairclough, LCL]).
This has a long history of interpretation within literary criticism, but T. W. Baldwin’s work from 1947 remains the most recent definitive study and is relied upon for the summary which follows.94 Horace does not explain whether his rule is a
reference to structure or story.95 Structure seems more likely since the quotation is
one of a series of separate comments about the performance of stories on stage.96 The
“Acts” therefore divide the drama into distinct parts. It is unclear whether the “Five- Act Structure” originates from Greek literary theory97 or later Roman dramatic
practice.98 Also although choruses were later used as an interlude marking act-
divisions, they were first used as part of the drama itself.99
The earlier Roman playwright, Publius Terentius Afer, known as Terence (195–159 BC), is sometimes cited as the originator of the rule.100 However, this is
unproven, since even though discernible in his plays, Terence does not mention the
94 T. W. Baldwin, Shakspere’s Five-Act Structure: Shakspere’s Early Plays on the
Background of Renaissance Theories of Five-Act Structure from 1470 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1947), 65. Cf. reviews by H. S. Wilson, Modern Language Notes 63 (1948): 494–96; J. M. Nosworthy, Review of English Studies, 25 (1949): 359–61; Clifford Leech, Modern Language Review, 42 (1948), 494–96.
95 C. O. Brink, Horace on Poetry: The ‘Ars Poetica’ (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1971), 248.
96 Horace, Ars 179–201.
97 Baldwin, Five-Act Structure, 65.
98 Atkins, Literary Criticism in Antiquity, 2.86; Andrew Laird, “The Ars Poetica”, in The
Cambridge Companion to Horace, ed. Stephen Harrison (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 132–43, citing 133–35; Brink, Prolegomena, 43–74.
99 W. Beare, “Horace, Donatus and the Five-Act Law”, Herm 67 (1946): 52–59, citing 52–
56.
“Five-Act Structure”.101 Also Horace makes no mention of Terence. It is not until the
fourth/fifth century AD that the Roman grammarian, Donatus, connects Terence (without mention of Horace) to the “Five-Act Structure”102 for presenting Greek
literary works on stage.103
Aristotle seems to influence Horace,104 though Horace does not directly refer
to him.105 It is unclear how the quinquepartite Latin drama divisions correlate with
Aristotle’s tripartite story concepts (see §1.2.2 below).106 The structure and story
often overlap. For example, Aristotle’s inclusion of choruses in the drama with five anatomical divisions of prologue, parode (chorus), episode, stasimon (chorus), and exode107 possibly makes a “Five-Act Structure”. Donatus delineates the three parts of
a play after the prologue as “protasis, epitasis, and catastrophe”.108
The debate over structure and story continues with the fifteenth and sixteenth century AD literary critics who, like Philipp Melanchthon, apply “protasis, epitasis, and catastrophe”to “Acts I, III, and V” respectively.109 However, “Acts II and IV” as
connecting links were more difficult to identify.110 Renaissance literary critics, such
as Christoforo Landino, Jacobus Latomus, and Josse Willich, put “Acts I and II” together into the beginning and “Acts III and IV” together into the middle.111 “Act
II” is seen as completing the beginning112 and “Act IV” as preparing for the
ending.113 However, as Baldwin points out, “Acts I, III, and V” are the crucial
ones114 and the attempt to force the “Five-Act Structure” into the tripartite story
101 Baldwin, Five-Act, 9–27. Cf. Terence, The Comedies, trans. Betty Radice (London:
Penguin, 1976).
102 Donatus, Euanthius 3.1–2 (Wessner, 1.18–19), Eunuchus, Praef. 1.5–5* (Wessner 1.265–
66), Adelphoe 1.3–4 (Wessner 2.4); Baldwin, Five-Act, 28–52.
103 Baldwin, Five-Act, 29–31.
104 Richard Rutherford, “Poetics and Literary Criticism”, in Harrison, Horace, 248–261,
citing 248.
105 Marvin. T. Herrick, “The Fusion of Horatian and Aristotelian Literary Criticism, 1531–
1555”. Illinois Studies in Language and Literature 32 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1946), 3; Tobias Reinhardt, “The Ars Poetica”, in Brill’s Companion to Horace, ed. Hans-Christian Günther (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 499–526, citing, 505.
106 Nosworthy, “Review”, 359.
107 Aristotle, Poet. 12. 15–27. Cf. Herrick, “Fusion”, 91; Baldwin, Five-Act, 53–54; Brink,
Ars Poetica, 248.
108 Donatus, Euanthius 4.5 (Wessner, 1.22); Baldwin, Five-Act, 33–34. 109 Baldwin, Five-Act, 176–78, for Melanchthon’s edition of Terence (1528). 110 Baldwin, Five-Act, 227.
111 Baldwin, Five-Act, 115–16, for Landino’s edition of Horace (1482); 227, for Latomus’s
edition of Terence (1534); 239, for Willich(us)’s edition of Horace (1539). Cf. Leech, “Review”, 502– 503.
112 Baldwin, Five-Act, 239, citing Willich(us) (1539). 113 Baldwin, Five-Act, 223, citing Latomus (1534). 114 Baldwin, Five-Act, 311.
divisions of beginning, middle, and ending is unnecessary.115 This chapter explores
later how literary critics such as Freytag and also recent dramatists develop Horace’s “Five-Act Structure”.
The second foundational literary shape concept is from Aristotle.
1.2.2 Aristotle’s “Beginning, Middle, and End(ing)” Aristotle states ca. 335 BC,
ὅλον δέ ἐστιν τὸ ἔχον ἀρχὴν καὶ μέσον καὶ τελευτήν. ἀρχὴ δέ ἐστιν ὃ αὐτὸ μὲν μὴ ἐξ ἀνάγκης μετ᾽ ἄλλο ἐστίν, μετ᾽ ἐκεῖνο δ᾽ ἕτερον πέφυκεν εἶναι ἢ γίνεσθαι: τελευτὴ δὲ τοὐναντίον ὃ αὐτὸ μὲν μετ᾽ ἄλλο πέφυκεν εἶναι ἢ ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἢ ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολύ, μετὰ δὲ τοῦτο ἄλλο οὐδέν: μέσον δὲ ὃ καὶ αὐτὸ μετ᾽ ἄλλο καὶ μετ᾽ ἐκεῖνο ἕτερον. (A whole is that which has a beginning, a middle, and end. A beginning is that which does not itself follow necessarily from something else, but after which a further event or process naturally occurs. An end by contrast, is that which itself naturally occurs, whether necessarily or usually, after a preceding event, but need not be followed by anything else. A middle is that which both follows a preceding event and has further consequences). Poetics, 7.3–6 (1450b. 25–30 [Halliwell, LCL]).
The immediate context is about writing a tragedy. Aristotle’s succeeding comment that “stories (plots) that are well-constructed should not begin (and end) at some arbitrary point (random) but should conform to the stated pattern (formulae)”116
suggests that his beginning, middle, and end(ing)117 connects to story stages rather
than structure. The terms ἀρχή and μέσος can indicate structural starts or middles respectively. However, τελευτή is probably a reference to a conceptual closure118
rather than using the alternative ἔσχατος which indicates a temporal or spatial conclusion.119 The third foundational literary shape concept is also from Aristotle.
115 Baldwin, Five-Act, 198.
116 Aristotle, Poet. 7.7 (1450b. 31–33) [Kenny, OUP, alternative translation in brackets by
Fyfe, LCL].
117 Ending is used rather than end throughout this study as the overall literary term combining
both a structural finish and a story closure.
118 LSJ, τελευτ-αῖος, 1771, as finish, accomplishment, completion. The use of time
suggesting the “last day”. Cf. BDAG, τελευτή, 997, marking the point when something ceases to exist. Also an euphemism for death (Matt 2:15).
1.2.3 Aristotle’s “Complication, Transformation, and Denouement” Aristotle states, ἔστι δὲ πάσης τραγῳδίας τὸ μὲν δέσις τὸ δὲ λύσις, τὰ μὲν ἔξωθεν καὶ ἔνια τῶν ἔσωθεν πολλάκις ἡ δέσις, τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν ἡ λύσις: λέγω δὲ δέσιν μὲν εἶναι τὴν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς μέχρι τούτου τοῦ μέρους ὃ ἔσχατόν ἐστιν ἐξ οὗ μεταβαίνει εἰς εὐτυχίαν ἢ εἰς ἀτυχίαν, λύσιν δὲ τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς ἀρχῆς τῆς μεταβάσεως μέχρι τέλους. (Every tragedy has both a complication and denouement: the complication comprises events outside the play, and often some of those within it; the remainder is the denouement. I define the complication as extending from the beginning to the furthest point before the transformation to prosperity or adversity; and the denouement as extending from the beginning of the transformation till the end). (Poetics, 18.1–2 (1445b.24–28 [Halliwell, LCL]).
For Aristotle the δέσις (tying up) and λύσις (loosing) are two processes mapping the story’s plot development. The tying up or complication develops from the beginning to the middle and the loosing or denouement from the middle to the end. The μετάβασις is the transformation or change taking place in the middle and moves the story to a denouement or explication.120 Notably for Aristotle denouement
is a neutral term bringing a story’s plot to a satisfactory conclusion of prosperity or adversity depending on whether the preceding complication is negative or positive. This foundational principle applies to literary shape in the progression as a journey to the ending from the beginning through the middle. Also the transitional midpoint of the story and each “Act” produces an episodic rhythm in a series of climaxes.121
These are also called story peaks and troughs, or in this study, advances and declines, in contrast to a pyramid-shaped rise and fall or a straight line ascending progression. There is also the possibility that the overall plot is made up of a number of sub- plots.122
The three foundational principles organise the material from a wider exploration of ancient and modern literary shape concepts.
120 Aristotle, Poet. 18.1–2 (1445b.24–28) [Halliwell, LCL, “denouement”; Kenny, OUP,
“explication”].
121 John Gardner, The Art of Fiction: Notes on Craft for Young Writers (New York: Knopf,
1984), 188.