Quattro dialoghi in materia di rappresentazioni sceniche (Four Dialogues on the Art of the Stage)

What, does it seem to you, is a comedy, who was its first author, what is its purpose, is it rendered in verse or in prose, why is it divided in five acts, and other similar matters.

For me, these matters have been made much more difficult since up until now, I have seen authors who, when discussing this topic, have treated it most confusingly. For my part—if I had reason to please you—I declare that I would not like to repeat more than only a little of what the others have written previously, not because I am so fearless that I reject the judgments of those wiser than I, but because it would seem to me tiresome to repeat, in their decorous and prudent manner, the arrangement of the stories and all of their parts: things I would like to overlook for the most part, since I know how to reason with the most expert people adorned with every virtue.

Please, away with the formalities; do not worry about holding onto these arguments during this brief hour of idleness left to us, which we will consider a pleasure and will oblige you.

Oblige me, no, for it is my obligation to please you, and so, I beg you, direct me thus: here I am, willing to answer just what you ask, though I know myself to be completely unable to satisfy you entirely.

To cut the ceremonials short, saying simply that we know you most sufficiently, we ask you first (following the order of Santino’s requests): what, exactly, is comedy, and what are its origins?

Comedy, according to the judgment of the wisest, is nothing but an imitation to exemplify a portrait of human life, in which one can assess vices in order to escape them and approve of virtues to imitate them; accordingly, we will more clearly say that we will have demonstrated its origins and the ways in which it was introduced. Some wish that the countrymen of Athens were the ones who first gave the rules of acting, aware that, outraged by their superiors and not having any other way to avenge themselves, they joined together on the corners of public streets at nighttime, speaking badly about their oppressors, the result being that many, wandering around to hear others besmirched, competed among themselves, much like peaceful vigils of today comprising conversations between amorous women and virtuous men; but there are various opinions about this, and I hardly believe that it matters to know who first appeared acting; rather, I prefer to investigate who, employing authority and judgment, first composed something suitable and worthy to act. I recall that upon previously discussing this topic, I explained one of my eccentric opinions (so as not to leave the reputation of always usurping others’ glory solely to the lying Greeks—their inventions of many arts and their virtues are very clearly known, but the oldest and divine histories are actually much older than theirs). It seems to me—more for a way of conversing than for wanting to affirm that it is so—that the modern vernaculars drew upon what you see by Livius Andronicus, who is said to have been the first among the Latins, and then Plautus and Terence, who illustrated the use of writing comedies, and other Romans who learned from Aristophanes and Menander, or perhaps Eupolis, the most ancient among the Greeks; so too, it seems to me possible to say that the most ancient and sacred Hebrew writings may have shown how to represent how various people communicate together, and then this was imitated by Plato, and from there comedy has drawn its origin. It was not found at random by a crude person, as some also like to say about the beginning of painting (a natural blood brother of poetry), which tells of one of those first rustic shepherds, standing with his flock in the sun, who, upon seeing the shadow of a goat imprinted on the ground, begins doodling with his stick to mark the outlines of that shadow in the sand, from which began fine art, a welcome imitator of nature. It was not, I say (as it seems to me, at least), random, nor was comedy found in the rustic intellect, which is none other than an imitation or portrait of human life; rather, I can believe that this principle was given to us with divine purpose, primarily by the sublime intelligence of that celestial legislator Moses, expert leader of the Jews, who, after having written his five books on divine law, revealed to him by Divine Providence, indeed from the very mouth of supreme God in five thousand five hundred and fifty verses, he accordingly wrote, as is manifest to the Hebrews, the most elegant and philosophical tragedy of Job, with five sole human interlocutors, which, if it were not perhaps composed for the purpose of being performed on stage (though it has been performed there several times), it was however depicted in the manner of conversation or reasoning treated by several people, from which one can easily judge the use of every poem to be portrayed as part of a scene for the stage. [ . . . ] From this and many other conjectures, I argue that the invention of the comedy must be the most ancient, and we are not persuaded by Greek writers, for, not to deviate from this topic, I return to saying that it seems to me that I do not believe I am fooling myself when I say that the first poets must have learned the use of comedy from the poem of Job (without a doubt older than any other known work), and I will believe further that hence they might also have extracted the law (more so than from the aforementioned ancients), in order for their tragedies to have depicted true and ancient histories, presupposing (as many have affirmed) that the story of Job is truest in the literal sense.