Poetics
{"WorkMasterId":4953,"WpPageId":243311,"ParentWpPageId":189130,"Slug":"poetics","Url":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/philosophers/aristotle-of-stagira/poetics/","RelativeUrl":"theos/humanities/philosophy/philosophers/aristotle-of-stagira/poetics/","HasFullText":true,"RawHtmlLength":167414,"CleanHtmlLength":111304,"Kicker":"Philosophy Work","Title":"Poetics","Deck":"Explains poetry and tragedy through imitation, plot, recognition, reversal, character, and catharsis.","BackLink":{"Text":"Back to Aristotle","Url":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/philosophers/aristotle-of-stagira/"},"AuthorCard":{"Label":"Author","Title":"Aristotle","Url":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/philosophers/aristotle-of-stagira/","MediaHref":"","ImageSrc":"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/aristotle-01-palazzo-altemps-bust-3.jpg","ImageAlt":"Aristotle Bust in the Palazzo Altemps","FilterTerra":"Eastern Mediterranean","ClickText":"Aristotle","ClickHref":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/philosophers/aristotle-of-stagira/","Copies":["384 BCE – 322 BCE","Stagira, Chalcidice","Greek philosopher from Stagira, student of Plato, tutor of Alexander, and founder of the Lyceum whose logic, metaphysics, psychology, ethics, politics, rhetoric, poetics, biology, and philosophy of science shaped later philosophy."]},"ContextCards":[{"Label":"Period","Key":"Period:1","Title":"Ancient History","DateText":"3000 BCE – 499 CE","Url":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/eras-of-thought/philosophers-of-ancient-history/"},{"Label":"Era","Key":"Era:3","Title":"Classical Antiquity","DateText":"500 BCE – 499 CE","Url":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/eras-of-thought/philosophers-of-ancient-history/philosophers-of-classical-antiquity/"},{"Label":"Composition","Title":"328 BCE","Url":"","DateText":""}],"DateNote":"Proxy chronology year for ordering the Aristotelian core corpus; it is not a documented composition date, and several treatises are composite lecture materials revised across Aristotle\u0027s career.","GeoCards":[{"Label":"Region","Key":"Region:1"},{"Label":"Terra Avita","Key":"TerraAvita:2"},{"Label":"Terra Avita Region","Key":"TerraAvitaRegion:8"},{"Label":"Modern Country","Key":"Country:GRC:2"}],"OriginalTitle":"Περὶ Ποιητικῆς","Language":"Ancient Greek","DisciplineCards":[{"Label":"Primary Discipline","Key":"Discipline:aesthetics"},{"Label":"Secondary Discipline","Key":"Discipline:philosophy-of-language"}],"Tradition":"Aristotelian philosophy","FullText":{"Title":"Full Text","Copy":"Public-domain full text from Project Gutenberg eBook #1974 .","Url":"","Label":"","Kicker":"","Cards":[]},"CoreThesis":["Explains poetry and tragedy through imitation, plot, recognition, reversal, character, and catharsis."],"Classification":{"AlternateTitles":"Poetica","KeyConcepts":"mimesis; tragedy; plot; catharsis; poetics","Methodology":"Aristotelian analysis, definition, division, dialectical testing, causal explanation, and ordered inquiry.","Structure":"Treatise or lecture-material text within the traditional Aristotelian corpus."},"Arguments":["Develops a focused part of Aristotle\u0027s system through distinctions, examples, aporiai, definitions, and explanatory principles."],"Influence":{"InfluencedBy":"Plato; Socrates; Presocratic natural philosophy; Greek mathematics, rhetoric, medicine, and biological observation.","InfluenceOn":""},"Significance":["Core text in the Aristotelian corpus and a major source for later ancient, medieval, and modern philosophy.","Still used in research on logic, metaphysics, ethics, politics, psychology, language, science, rhetoric, poetics, and intellectual history."],"EvidenceNote":["Accepted for this Core Corpus pass as an Aristotle-authored or standard Aristotelian corpus work. Fragment-only works, pseudo-Aristotle, source/testimony pages, and excluded disputed works remain evidence rows rather than work pages."],"MainSections":[{"Kind":"RawSection","Title":"Full Versions","BodyHtml":"\u003cdiv class=\"dz-philo__full-version-grid\"\u003e\n \u003carticle class=\"dz-philo__full-version-card\"\u003e\n \u003cp class=\"dz-philo__full-version-provider\"\u003eProject Gutenberg\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003ch3 class=\"dz-philo__full-version-title\"\u003eProject Gutenberg eBook #1974\u003c/h3\u003e\n \u003cp class=\"dz-philo__full-version-meta\"\u003eHtmlText · Imported\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003ca class=\"dz-philo__full-version-link\" href=\"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1974\"\u003eOpen full version\u003c/a\u003e\n \u003c/article\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e"},{"Kind":"TextSection","Title":"Core Thesis","Paragraphs":["Explains poetry and tragedy through imitation, plot, recognition, reversal, character, and catharsis."]},{"Kind":"FieldSection","Title":"Classification","Fields":[{"Label":"Alternate Titles","Value":"Poetica"},{"Label":"Key Concepts","Value":"mimesis; tragedy; plot; catharsis; poetics"},{"Label":"Methodology","Value":"Aristotelian analysis, definition, division, dialectical testing, causal explanation, and ordered inquiry."},{"Label":"Structure","Value":"Treatise or lecture-material text within the traditional Aristotelian corpus."}]},{"Kind":"TextSection","Title":"Arguments","Paragraphs":["Develops a focused part of Aristotle\u0027s system through distinctions, examples, aporiai, definitions, and explanatory principles."]},{"Kind":"FieldSection","Title":"Influence","Fields":[{"Label":"Influenced By","Value":"Plato; Socrates; Presocratic natural philosophy; Greek mathematics, rhetoric, medicine, and biological observation."},{"Label":"Influence On","Value":"Peripatetic philosophy; late antique commentary; Islamic, Jewish, and Christian Aristotelianism; scholastic philosophy; modern philosophical vocabulary."}]},{"Kind":"TextSection","Title":"Significance","Paragraphs":["Core text in the Aristotelian corpus and a major source for later ancient, medieval, and modern philosophy.","Still used in research on logic, metaphysics, ethics, politics, psychology, language, science, rhetoric, poetics, and intellectual history."]},{"Kind":"TextSection","Title":"Evidence Note","Paragraphs":["Accepted for this Core Corpus pass as an Aristotle-authored or standard Aristotelian corpus work. Fragment-only works, pseudo-Aristotle, source/testimony pages, and excluded disputed works remain evidence rows rather than work pages."]},{"Kind":"RawSection","Title":"Full Text","BodyHtml":"\u003cp class=\"dz-philo__section-copy dz-philo__full-text-source\"\u003ePublic-domain full text from \u003ca href=\"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1974\"\u003eProject Gutenberg eBook #1974\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003carticle class=\"dz-philo__full-text-body\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eProduced by An Anonymous Volunteer\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eTHE POETICS OF ARISTOTLE\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eBy Aristotle\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eA Translation By S. H. Butcher\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e[Transcriber\u0026#39;s Annotations and Conventions: the translator left\u003cbr /\u003eintact some Greek words to illustrate a specific point of the original\u003cbr /\u003ediscourse. In this transcription, in order to retain the accuracy of\u003cbr /\u003ethis text, those words are rendered by spelling out each Greek letter\u003cbr /\u003eindividually, such as {alpha beta gamma delta…}. The reader can\u003cbr /\u003edistinguish these words by the enclosing braces {}. Where multiple\u003cbr /\u003ewords occur together, they are separated by the \u0026quot;/\u0026quot; symbol for clarity.\u003cbr /\u003eReaders who do not speak or read the Greek language will usually neither\u003cbr /\u003egain nor lose understanding by skipping over these passages. Those who\u003cbr /\u003eunderstand Greek, however, may gain a deeper insight to the original\u003cbr /\u003emeaning and distinctions expressed by Aristotle.]\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAnalysis of Contents\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eI \u0026#39;Imitation\u0026#39; the common principle of the Arts of Poetry.\u003cbr /\u003e II The Objects of Imitation.\u003cbr /\u003e III The Manner of Imitation.\u003cbr /\u003e IV The Origin and Development of Poetry.\u003cbr /\u003e V Definition of the Ludicrous, and a brief sketch of the rise of\u003cbr /\u003e Comedy.\u003cbr /\u003e VI Definition of Tragedy.\u003cbr /\u003e VII The Plot must be a Whole.\u003cbr /\u003e VIII The Plot must be a Unity.\u003cbr /\u003e IX (Plot continued.) Dramatic Unity.\u003cbr /\u003e X (Plot continued.) Definitions of Simple and Complex Plots.\u003cbr /\u003e XI (Plot continued.) Reversal of the Situation, Recognition, and\u003cbr /\u003e Tragic or disastrous Incident defined and explained.\u003cbr /\u003e XII The \u0026#39;quantitative parts\u0026#39; of Tragedy defined.\u003cbr /\u003e XIII (Plot continued.) What constitutes Tragic Action.\u003cbr /\u003e XIV (Plot continued.) The tragic emotions of pity and fear should\u003cbr /\u003e spring out of the Plot itself.\u003cbr /\u003e XV The element of Character in Tragedy.\u003cbr /\u003e XVI (Plot continued.) Recognition: its various kinds, with examples.\u003cbr /\u003e XVII Practical rules for the Tragic Poet.\u003cbr /\u003e XVIII Further rules for the Tragic Poet.\u003cbr /\u003e XIX Thought, or the Intellectual element, and Diction in Tragedy.\u003cbr /\u003e XX Diction, or Language in general.\u003cbr /\u003e XXI Poetic Diction.\u003cbr /\u003e XXII (Poetic Diction continued.) How Poetry combines elevation of\u003cbr /\u003e language with perspicuity.\u003cbr /\u003e XXIII Epic Poetry.\u003cbr /\u003e XXIV (Epic Poetry continued.) Further points of agreement with Tragedy.\u003cbr /\u003e XXV Critical Objections brought against Poetry, and the principles on\u003cbr /\u003e which they are to be answered.\u003cbr /\u003e XXVI A general estimate of the comparative worth of Epic Poetry and\u003cbr /\u003e Tragedy.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eARISTOTLE\u0026#39;S POETICS\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eI\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eI propose to treat of Poetry in itself and of its various kinds, noting\u003cbr /\u003ethe essential quality of each; to inquire into the structure of the plot\u003cbr /\u003eas requisite to a good poem; into the number and nature of the parts of\u003cbr /\u003ewhich a poem is composed; and similarly into whatever else falls within\u003cbr /\u003ethe same inquiry. Following, then, the order of nature, let us begin\u003cbr /\u003ewith the principles which come first.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eEpic poetry and Tragedy, Comedy also and Dithyrambic: poetry, and the\u003cbr /\u003emusic of the flute and of the lyre in most of their forms, are all in\u003cbr /\u003etheir general conception modes of imitation. They differ, however, from\u003cbr /\u003eone: another in three respects,–the medium, the objects, the manner or\u003cbr /\u003emode of imitation, being in each case distinct.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eFor as there are persons who, by conscious art or mere habit, imitate\u003cbr /\u003eand represent various objects through the medium of colour and form, or\u003cbr /\u003eagain by the voice; so in the arts above mentioned, taken as a whole,\u003cbr /\u003ethe imitation is produced by rhythm, language, or \u0026#39;harmony,\u0026#39; either\u003cbr /\u003esingly or combined.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThus in the music of the flute and of the lyre, \u0026#39;harmony\u0026#39; and rhythm\u003cbr /\u003ealone are employed; also in other arts, such as that of the shepherd\u0026#39;s\u003cbr /\u003epipe, which are essentially similar to these. In dancing, rhythm alone\u003cbr /\u003eis used without \u0026#39;harmony\u0026#39;; for even dancing imitates character, emotion,\u003cbr /\u003eand action, by rhythmical movement.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThere is another art which imitates by means of language alone, and\u003cbr /\u003ethat either in prose or verse–which, verse, again, may either combine\u003cbr /\u003edifferent metres or consist of but one kind–but this has hitherto been\u003cbr /\u003ewithout a name. For there is no common term we could apply to the mimes\u003cbr /\u003eof Sophron and Xenarchus and the Socratic dialogues on the one hand;\u003cbr /\u003eand, on the other, to poetic imitations in iambic, elegiac, or any\u003cbr /\u003esimilar metre. People do, indeed, add the word \u0026#39;maker\u0026#39; or \u0026#39;poet\u0026#39; to\u003cbr /\u003ethe name of the metre, and speak of elegiac poets, or epic (that is,\u003cbr /\u003ehexameter) poets, as if it were not the imitation that makes the poet,\u003cbr /\u003ebut the verse that entitles them all indiscriminately to the name. Even\u003cbr /\u003ewhen a treatise on medicine or natural science is brought out in verse,\u003cbr /\u003ethe name of poet is by custom given to the author; and yet Homer and\u003cbr /\u003eEmpedocles have nothing in common but the metre, so that it would be\u003cbr /\u003eright to call the one poet, the other physicist rather than poet. On the\u003cbr /\u003esame principle, even if a writer in his poetic imitation were to combine\u003cbr /\u003eall metres, as Chaeremon did in his Centaur, which is a medley composed\u003cbr /\u003eof metres of all kinds, we should bring him too under the general term\u003cbr /\u003epoet. So much then for these distinctions.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThere are, again, some arts which employ all the means above mentioned,\u003cbr /\u003enamely, rhythm, tune, and metre. Such are Dithyrambic and Nomic poetry,\u003cbr /\u003eand also Tragedy and Comedy; but between them the difference is, that in\u003cbr /\u003ethe first two cases these means are all employed in combination, in the\u003cbr /\u003elatter, now one means is employed, now another.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eSuch, then, are the differences of the arts with respect to the medium\u003cbr /\u003eof imitation.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eII\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eSince the objects of imitation are men in action, and these men must be\u003cbr /\u003eeither of a higher or a lower type (for moral character mainly answers\u003cbr /\u003eto these divisions, goodness and badness being the distinguishing marks\u003cbr /\u003eof moral differences), it follows that we must represent men either as\u003cbr /\u003ebetter than in real life, or as worse, or as they are. It is the same\u003cbr /\u003ein painting. Polygnotus depicted men as nobler than they are, Pauson as\u003cbr /\u003eless noble, Dionysius drew them true to life.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eNow it is evident that each of the modes of imitation above mentioned\u003cbr /\u003ewill exhibit these differences, and become a distinct kind in imitating\u003cbr /\u003eobjects that are thus distinct. Such diversities may be found even in\u003cbr /\u003edancing, flute-playing, and lyre-playing. So again in language, whether\u003cbr /\u003eprose or verse unaccompanied by music. Homer, for example, makes men\u003cbr /\u003ebetter than they are; Cleophon as they are; Hegemon the Thasian, the\u003cbr /\u003einventor of parodies, and Nicochares, the author of the Deiliad, worse\u003cbr /\u003ethan they are. The same thing holds good of Dithyrambs and Nomes;\u003cbr /\u003ehere too one may portray different types, as Timotheus and Philoxenus\u003cbr /\u003ediffered in representing their Cyclopes. The same distinction marks\u003cbr /\u003eoff Tragedy from Comedy; for Comedy aims at representing men as worse,\u003cbr /\u003eTragedy as better than in actual life.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIII\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThere is still a third difference–the manner in which each of these\u003cbr /\u003eobjects may be imitated. For the medium being the same, and the objects\u003cbr /\u003ethe same, the poet may imitate by narration–in which case he can either\u003cbr /\u003etake another personality as Homer does, or speak in his own person,\u003cbr /\u003eunchanged–or he may present all his characters as living and moving\u003cbr /\u003ebefore us.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThese, then, as we said at the beginning, are the three differences\u003cbr /\u003ewhich distinguish artistic imitation,–the medium, the objects, and the\u003cbr /\u003emanner. So that from one point of view, Sophocles is an imitator of the\u003cbr /\u003esame kind as Homer–for both imitate higher types of character; from\u003cbr /\u003eanother point of view, of the same kind as Aristophanes–for both\u003cbr /\u003eimitate persons acting and doing. Hence, some say, the name of \u0026#39;drama\u0026#39;\u003cbr /\u003eis given to such poems, as representing action. For the same reason the\u003cbr /\u003eDorians claim the invention both of Tragedy and Comedy. The claim to\u003cbr /\u003eComedy is put forward by the Megarians,–not only by those of Greece\u003cbr /\u003eproper, who allege that it originated under their democracy, but also\u003cbr /\u003eby the Megarians of Sicily, for the poet Epicharmus, who is much earlier\u003cbr /\u003ethan Chionides and Magnes, belonged to that country. Tragedy too is\u003cbr /\u003eclaimed by certain Dorians of the Peloponnese. In each case they appeal\u003cbr /\u003eto the evidence of language. The outlying villages, they say, are by\u003cbr /\u003ethem called {kappa omega mu alpha iota}, by the Athenians {delta eta\u003cbr /\u003emu iota}: and they assume that Comedians were so named not from {kappa\u003cbr /\u003eomega mu \u0026#39;alpha zeta epsilon iota nu}, \u0026#39;to revel,\u0026#39; but because they\u003cbr /\u003ewandered from village to village (kappa alpha tau alpha / kappa omega mu\u003cbr /\u003ealpha sigma), being excluded contemptuously from the city. They add\u003cbr /\u003ealso that the Dorian word for \u0026#39;doing\u0026#39; is {delta rho alpha nu}, and the\u003cbr /\u003eAthenian, {pi rho alpha tau tau epsilon iota nu}.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThis may suffice as to the number and nature of the various modes of\u003cbr /\u003eimitation.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIV\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003ePoetry in general seems to have sprung from two causes, each of them\u003cbr /\u003elying deep in our nature. First, the instinct of imitation is implanted\u003cbr /\u003ein man from childhood, one difference between him and other animals\u003cbr /\u003ebeing that he is the most imitative of living creatures, and through\u003cbr /\u003eimitation learns his earliest lessons; and no less universal is the\u003cbr /\u003epleasure felt in things imitated. We have evidence of this in the facts\u003cbr /\u003eof experience. Objects which in themselves we view with pain, we delight\u003cbr /\u003eto contemplate when reproduced with minute fidelity: such as the forms\u003cbr /\u003eof the most ignoble animals and of dead bodies. The cause of this again\u003cbr /\u003eis, that to learn gives the liveliest pleasure, not only to philosophers\u003cbr /\u003ebut to men in general; whose capacity, however, of learning is more\u003cbr /\u003elimited. Thus the reason why men enjoy seeing a likeness is, that in\u003cbr /\u003econtemplating it they find themselves learning or inferring, and saying\u003cbr /\u003eperhaps, \u0026#39;Ah, that is he.\u0026#39; For if you happen not to have seen the\u003cbr /\u003eoriginal, the pleasure will be due not to the imitation as such, but to\u003cbr /\u003ethe execution, the colouring, or some such other cause.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eImitation, then, is one instinct of our nature. Next, there is the\u003cbr /\u003einstinct for \u0026#39;harmony\u0026#39; and rhythm, metres being manifestly sections of\u003cbr /\u003erhythm. Persons, therefore, starting with this natural gift developed\u003cbr /\u003eby degrees their special aptitudes, till their rude improvisations gave\u003cbr /\u003ebirth to Poetry.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003ePoetry now diverged in two directions, according to the individual\u003cbr /\u003echaracter of the writers. The graver spirits imitated noble actions, and\u003cbr /\u003ethe actions of good men. The more trivial sort imitated the actions of\u003cbr /\u003emeaner persons, at first composing satires, as the former did hymns to\u003cbr /\u003ethe gods and the praises of famous men. A poem of the satirical kind\u003cbr /\u003ecannot indeed be put down to any author earlier than Homer; though many\u003cbr /\u003esuch writers probably there were. But from Homer onward, instances\u003cbr /\u003ecan be cited,–his own Margites, for example, and other similar\u003cbr /\u003ecompositions. The appropriate metre was also here introduced; hence the\u003cbr /\u003emeasure is still called the iambic or lampooning measure, being that\u003cbr /\u003ein which people lampooned one another. Thus the older poets were\u003cbr /\u003edistinguished as writers of heroic or of lampooning verse.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAs, in the serious style, Homer is pre-eminent among poets, for he alone\u003cbr /\u003ecombined dramatic form with excellence of imitation, so he too first\u003cbr /\u003elaid down the main lines of Comedy, by dramatising the ludicrous instead\u003cbr /\u003eof writing personal satire. His Margites bears the same relation to\u003cbr /\u003eComedy that the Iliad and Odyssey do to Tragedy. But when Tragedy and\u003cbr /\u003eComedy came to light, the two classes of poets still followed their\u003cbr /\u003enatural bent: the lampooners became writers of Comedy, and the Epic\u003cbr /\u003epoets were succeeded by Tragedians, since the drama was a larger and\u003cbr /\u003ehigher form of art.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhether Tragedy has as yet perfected its proper types or not; and\u003cbr /\u003ewhether it is to be judged in itself, or in relation also to the\u003cbr /\u003eaudience,–this raises another question. Be that as it may, Tragedy–as\u003cbr /\u003ealso Comedy–was at first mere improvisation. The one originated with\u003cbr /\u003ethe authors of the Dithyramb, the other with those of the phallic songs,\u003cbr /\u003ewhich are still in use in many of our cities. Tragedy advanced by slow\u003cbr /\u003edegrees; each new element that showed itself was in turn developed.\u003cbr /\u003eHaving passed through many changes, it found its natural form, and there\u003cbr /\u003eit stopped.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAeschylus first introduced a second actor; he diminished the importance\u003cbr /\u003eof the Chorus, and assigned the leading part to the dialogue. Sophocles\u003cbr /\u003eraised the number of actors to three, and added scene-painting.\u003cbr /\u003eMoreover, it was not till late that the short plot was discarded for\u003cbr /\u003eone of greater compass, and the grotesque diction of the earlier satyric\u003cbr /\u003eform for the stately manner of Tragedy. The iambic measure then replaced\u003cbr /\u003ethe trochaic tetrameter, which was originally employed when the poetry\u003cbr /\u003ewas of the Satyric order, and had greater affinities with dancing. Once\u003cbr /\u003edialogue had come in, Nature herself discovered the appropriate measure.\u003cbr /\u003eFor the iambic is, of all measures, the most colloquial: we see it\u003cbr /\u003ein the fact that conversational speech runs into iambic lines more\u003cbr /\u003efrequently than into any other kind of verse; rarely into hexameters,\u003cbr /\u003eand only when we drop the colloquial intonation. The additions to\u003cbr /\u003ethe number of \u0026#39;episodes\u0026#39; or acts, and the other accessories of which\u003cbr /\u003etradition; tells, must be taken as already described; for to discuss\u003cbr /\u003ethem in detail would, doubtless, be a large undertaking.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eV\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eComedy is, as we have said, an imitation of characters of a lower type,\u003cbr /\u003enot, however, in the full sense of the word bad, the Ludicrous being\u003cbr /\u003emerely a subdivision of the ugly. It consists in some defect or ugliness\u003cbr /\u003ewhich is not painful or destructive. To take an obvious example, the\u003cbr /\u003ecomic mask is ugly and distorted, but does not imply pain.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe successive changes through which Tragedy passed, and the authors\u003cbr /\u003eof these changes, are well known, whereas Comedy has had no history,\u003cbr /\u003ebecause it was not at first treated seriously. It was late before the\u003cbr /\u003eArchon granted a comic chorus to a poet; the performers were till then\u003cbr /\u003evoluntary. Comedy had already taken definite shape when comic poets,\u003cbr /\u003edistinctively so called, are heard of. Who furnished it with masks, or\u003cbr /\u003eprologues, or increased the number of actors,–these and other similar\u003cbr /\u003edetails remain unknown. As for the plot, it came originally from\u003cbr /\u003eSicily; but of Athenian writers Crates was the first who, abandoning the\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026#39;iambic\u0026#39; or lampooning form, generalised his themes and plots.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eEpic poetry agrees with Tragedy in so far as it is an imitation in verse\u003cbr /\u003eof characters of a higher type. They differ, in that Epic poetry admits\u003cbr /\u003ebut one kind of metre, and is narrative in form. They differ, again,\u003cbr /\u003ein their length: for Tragedy endeavours, as far as possible, to confine\u003cbr /\u003eitself to a single revolution of the sun, or but slightly to exceed this\u003cbr /\u003elimit; whereas the Epic action has no limits of time. This, then, is\u003cbr /\u003ea second point of difference; though at first the same freedom was\u003cbr /\u003eadmitted in Tragedy as in Epic poetry.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eOf their constituent parts some are common to both, some peculiar to\u003cbr /\u003eTragedy, whoever, therefore, knows what is good or bad Tragedy, knows\u003cbr /\u003ealso about Epic poetry. All the elements of an Epic poem are found in\u003cbr /\u003eTragedy, but the elements of a Tragedy are not all found in the Epic\u003cbr /\u003epoem.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eVI\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eOf the poetry which imitates in hexameter verse, and of Comedy, we\u003cbr /\u003ewill speak hereafter. Let us now discuss Tragedy, resuming its formal\u003cbr /\u003edefinition, as resulting from what has been already said.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eTragedy, then, is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete,\u003cbr /\u003eand of a certain magnitude; in language embellished with each kind of\u003cbr /\u003eartistic ornament, the several kinds being found in separate parts of\u003cbr /\u003ethe play; in the form of action, not of narrative; through pity and\u003cbr /\u003efear effecting the proper purgation of these emotions. By \u0026#39;language\u003cbr /\u003eembellished,\u0026#39; I mean language into which rhythm, \u0026#39;harmony,\u0026#39; and song\u003cbr /\u003eenter. By \u0026#39;the several kinds in separate parts,\u0026#39; I mean, that some parts\u003cbr /\u003eare rendered through the medium of verse alone, others again with the\u003cbr /\u003eaid of song.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eNow as tragic imitation implies persons acting, it necessarily follows,\u003cbr /\u003ein the first place, that Spectacular equipment will be a part of\u003cbr /\u003eTragedy. Next, Song and Diction, for these are the medium of imitation.\u003cbr /\u003eBy \u0026#39;Diction\u0026#39; I mean the mere metrical arrangement of the words: as for\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026#39;Song,\u0026#39; it is a term whose sense every one understands.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAgain, Tragedy is the imitation of an action; and an action implies\u003cbr /\u003epersonal agents, who necessarily possess certain distinctive qualities\u003cbr /\u003eboth of character and thought; for it is by these that we qualify\u003cbr /\u003eactions themselves, and these–thought and character–are the two\u003cbr /\u003enatural causes from which actions spring, and on actions again all\u003cbr /\u003esuccess or failure depends. Hence, the Plot is the imitation of the\u003cbr /\u003eaction: for by plot I here mean the arrangement of the incidents. By\u003cbr /\u003eCharacter I mean that in virtue of which we ascribe certain qualities to\u003cbr /\u003ethe agents. Thought is required wherever a statement is proved, or, it\u003cbr /\u003emay be, a general truth enunciated. Every Tragedy, therefore, must have\u003cbr /\u003esix parts, which parts determine its quality–namely, Plot, Character,\u003cbr /\u003eDiction, Thought, Spectacle, Song. Two of the parts constitute the\u003cbr /\u003emedium of imitation, one the manner, and three the objects of imitation.\u003cbr /\u003eAnd these complete the list. These elements have been employed, we may\u003cbr /\u003esay, by the poets to a man; in fact, every play contains Spectacular\u003cbr /\u003eelements as well as Character, Plot, Diction, Song, and Thought.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eBut most important of all is the structure of the incidents. For Tragedy\u003cbr /\u003eis an imitation, not of men, but of an action and of life, and life\u003cbr /\u003econsists in action, and its end is a mode of action, not a quality. Now\u003cbr /\u003echaracter determines men\u0026#39;s qualities, but it is by their actions that\u003cbr /\u003ethey are happy or the reverse. Dramatic action, therefore, is not with\u003cbr /\u003ea view to the representation of character: character comes in as\u003cbr /\u003esubsidiary to the actions. Hence the incidents and the plot are the\u003cbr /\u003eend of a tragedy; and the end is the chief thing of all. Again, without\u003cbr /\u003eaction there cannot be a tragedy; there may be without character.\u003cbr /\u003eThe tragedies of most of our modern poets fail in the rendering of\u003cbr /\u003echaracter; and of poets in general this is often true. It is the same\u003cbr /\u003ein painting; and here lies the difference between Zeuxis and Polygnotus.\u003cbr /\u003ePolygnotus delineates character well: the style of Zeuxis is devoid\u003cbr /\u003eof ethical quality. Again, if you string together a set of speeches\u003cbr /\u003eexpressive of character, and well finished in point of diction and\u003cbr /\u003ethought, you will not produce the essential tragic effect nearly so well\u003cbr /\u003eas with a play which, however deficient in these respects, yet has a\u003cbr /\u003eplot and artistically constructed incidents. Besides which, the most\u003cbr /\u003epowerful elements of emotional: interest in Tragedy Peripeteia or\u003cbr /\u003eReversal of the Situation, and Recognition scenes–are parts of the\u003cbr /\u003eplot. A further proof is, that novices in the art attain to finish: of\u003cbr /\u003ediction and precision of portraiture before they can construct the plot.\u003cbr /\u003eIt is the same with almost all the early poets.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe Plot, then, is the first principle, and, as it were, the soul of\u003cbr /\u003ea tragedy: Character holds the second place. A similar fact is seen in\u003cbr /\u003epainting. The most beautiful colours, laid on confusedly, will not give\u003cbr /\u003eas much pleasure as the chalk outline of a portrait. Thus Tragedy is\u003cbr /\u003ethe imitation of an action, and of the agents mainly with a view to the\u003cbr /\u003eaction.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThird in order is Thought,–that is, the faculty of saying what is\u003cbr /\u003epossible and pertinent in given circumstances. In the case of oratory,\u003cbr /\u003ethis is the function of the Political art and of the art of rhetoric:\u003cbr /\u003eand so indeed the older poets make their characters speak the language\u003cbr /\u003eof civic life; the poets of our time, the language of the rhetoricians.\u003cbr /\u003eCharacter is that which reveals moral purpose, showing what kind of\u003cbr /\u003ethings a man chooses or avoids. Speeches, therefore, which do not make\u003cbr /\u003ethis manifest, or in which the speaker does not choose or avoid anything\u003cbr /\u003ewhatever, are not expressive of character. Thought, on the other hand,\u003cbr /\u003eis found where something is proved to be, or not to be, or a general\u003cbr /\u003emaxim is enunciated.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eFourth among the elements enumerated comes Diction; by which I mean, as\u003cbr /\u003ehas been already said, the expression of the meaning in words; and its\u003cbr /\u003eessence is the same both in verse and prose.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eOf the remaining elements Song holds the chief place among the\u003cbr /\u003eembellishments.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe Spectacle has, indeed, an emotional attraction of its own, but, of\u003cbr /\u003eall the parts, it is the least artistic, and connected least with the\u003cbr /\u003eart of poetry. For the power of Tragedy, we may be sure, is felt\u003cbr /\u003eeven apart from representation and actors. Besides, the production of\u003cbr /\u003espectacular effects depends more on the art of the stage machinist than\u003cbr /\u003eon that of the poet.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eVII\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThese principles being established, let us now discuss the proper\u003cbr /\u003estructure of the Plot, since this is the first and most important thing\u003cbr /\u003ein Tragedy.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eNow, according to our definition, Tragedy is an imitation of an action\u003cbr /\u003ethat is complete, and whole, and of a certain magnitude; for there may\u003cbr /\u003ebe a whole that is wanting in magnitude. A whole is that which has a\u003cbr /\u003ebeginning, a middle, and an end. A beginning is that which does not\u003cbr /\u003eitself follow anything by causal necessity, but after which something\u003cbr /\u003enaturally is or comes to be. An end, on the contrary, is that which\u003cbr /\u003eitself naturally follows some other thing, either by necessity, or as\u003cbr /\u003ea rule, but has nothing following it. A middle is that which follows\u003cbr /\u003esomething as some other thing follows it. A well constructed plot,\u003cbr /\u003etherefore, must neither begin nor end at haphazard, but conform to these\u003cbr /\u003eprinciples.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAgain, a beautiful object, whether it be a living organism or any whole\u003cbr /\u003ecomposed of parts, must not only have an orderly arrangement of parts,\u003cbr /\u003ebut must also be of a certain magnitude; for beauty depends on magnitude\u003cbr /\u003eand order. Hence a very small animal organism cannot be beautiful;\u003cbr /\u003efor the view of it is confused, the object being seen in an almost\u003cbr /\u003eimperceptible moment of time. Nor, again, can one of vast size be\u003cbr /\u003ebeautiful; for as the eye cannot take it all in at once, the unity and\u003cbr /\u003esense of the whole is lost for the spectator; as for instance if there\u003cbr /\u003ewere one a thousand miles long. As, therefore, in the case of animate\u003cbr /\u003ebodies and organisms a certain magnitude is necessary, and a magnitude\u003cbr /\u003ewhich may be easily embraced in one view; so in the plot, a certain\u003cbr /\u003elength is necessary, and a length which can be easily embraced by the\u003cbr /\u003ememory. The limit of length in relation to dramatic competition and\u003cbr /\u003esensuous presentment, is no part of artistic theory. For had it been the\u003cbr /\u003erule for a hundred tragedies to compete together, the performance would\u003cbr /\u003ehave been regulated by the water-clock,–as indeed we are told was\u003cbr /\u003eformerly done. But the limit as fixed by the nature of the drama itself\u003cbr /\u003eis this: the greater the length, the more beautiful will the piece be\u003cbr /\u003eby reason of its size, provided that the whole be perspicuous. And\u003cbr /\u003eto define the matter roughly, we may say that the proper magnitude is\u003cbr /\u003ecomprised within such limits, that the sequence of events, according\u003cbr /\u003eto the law of probability or necessity, will admit of a change from bad\u003cbr /\u003efortune to good, or from good fortune to bad.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eVIII\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eUnity of plot does not, as some persons think, consist in the Unity of\u003cbr /\u003ethe hero. For infinitely various are the incidents in one man\u0026#39;s life\u003cbr /\u003ewhich cannot be reduced to unity; and so, too, there are many actions of\u003cbr /\u003eone man out of which we cannot make one action. Hence, the error, as it\u003cbr /\u003eappears, of all poets who have composed a Heracleid, a Theseid, or other\u003cbr /\u003epoems of the kind. They imagine that as Heracles was one man, the story\u003cbr /\u003eof Heracles must also be a unity. But Homer, as in all else he is of\u003cbr /\u003esurpassing merit, here too–whether from art or natural genius–seems\u003cbr /\u003eto have happily discerned the truth. In composing the Odyssey he did not\u003cbr /\u003einclude all the adventures of Odysseus–such as his wound on Parnassus,\u003cbr /\u003eor his feigned madness at the mustering of the host–incidents between\u003cbr /\u003ewhich there was no necessary or probable connection: but he made the\u003cbr /\u003eOdyssey, and likewise the Iliad, to centre round an action that in our\u003cbr /\u003esense of the word is one. As therefore, in the other imitative arts, the\u003cbr /\u003eimitation is one when the object imitated is one, so the plot, being an\u003cbr /\u003eimitation of an action, must imitate one action and that a whole, the\u003cbr /\u003estructural union of the parts being such that, if any one of them is\u003cbr /\u003edisplaced or removed, the whole will be disjointed and disturbed. For a\u003cbr /\u003ething whose presence or absence makes no visible difference, is not an\u003cbr /\u003eorganic part of the whole.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIX\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt is, moreover, evident from what has been said, that it is not\u003cbr /\u003ethe function of the poet to relate what has happened, but what may\u003cbr /\u003ehappen,–what is possible according to the law of probability or\u003cbr /\u003enecessity. The poet and the historian differ not by writing in verse or\u003cbr /\u003ein prose. The work of Herodotus might be put into verse, and it would\u003cbr /\u003estill be a species of history, with metre no less than without it. The\u003cbr /\u003etrue difference is that one relates what has happened, the other what\u003cbr /\u003emay happen. Poetry, therefore, is a more philosophical and a higher\u003cbr /\u003ething than history: for poetry tends to express the universal, history\u003cbr /\u003ethe particular. By the universal, I mean how a person of a certain type\u003cbr /\u003ewill on occasion speak or act, according to the law of probability or\u003cbr /\u003enecessity; and it is this universality at which poetry aims in the names\u003cbr /\u003eshe attaches to the personages. The particular is–for example–what\u003cbr /\u003eAlcibiades did or suffered. In Comedy this is already apparent: for here\u003cbr /\u003ethe poet first constructs the plot on the lines of probability, and then\u003cbr /\u003einserts characteristic names;–unlike the lampooners who write about\u003cbr /\u003eparticular individuals. But tragedians still keep to real names, the\u003cbr /\u003ereason being that what is possible is credible: what has not happened\u003cbr /\u003ewe do not at once feel sure to be possible: but what has happened is\u003cbr /\u003emanifestly possible: otherwise it would not have happened. Still there\u003cbr /\u003eare even some tragedies in which there are only one or two well known\u003cbr /\u003enames, the rest being fictitious. In others, none are well known, as in\u003cbr /\u003eAgathon\u0026#39;s Antheus, where incidents and names alike are fictitious, and\u003cbr /\u003eyet they give none the less pleasure. We must not, therefore, at all\u003cbr /\u003ecosts keep to the received legends, which are the usual subjects of\u003cbr /\u003eTragedy. Indeed, it would be absurd to attempt it; for even subjects\u003cbr /\u003ethat are known are known only to a few, and yet give pleasure to all.\u003cbr /\u003eIt clearly follows that the poet or \u0026#39;maker\u0026#39; should be the maker of plots\u003cbr /\u003erather than of verses; since he is a poet because he imitates, and what\u003cbr /\u003ehe imitates are actions. And even if he chances to take an historical\u003cbr /\u003esubject, he is none the less a poet; for there is no reason why some\u003cbr /\u003eevents that have actually happened should not conform to the law of the\u003cbr /\u003eprobable and possible, and in virtue of that quality in them he is their\u003cbr /\u003epoet or maker.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eOf all plots and actions the epeisodic are the worst. I call a plot\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026#39;epeisodic\u0026#39; in which the episodes or acts succeed one another without\u003cbr /\u003eprobable or necessary sequence. Bad poets compose such pieces by their\u003cbr /\u003eown fault, good poets, to please the players; for, as they write show\u003cbr /\u003epieces for competition, they stretch the plot beyond its capacity, and\u003cbr /\u003eare often forced to break the natural continuity.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eBut again, Tragedy is an imitation not only of a complete action, but of\u003cbr /\u003eevents inspiring fear or pity. Such an effect is best produced when the\u003cbr /\u003eevents come on us by surprise; and the effect is heightened when, at the\u003cbr /\u003esame time, they follow as cause and effect. The tragic wonder will thee\u003cbr /\u003ebe greater than if they happened of themselves or by accident; for even\u003cbr /\u003ecoincidences are most striking when they have an air of design. We may\u003cbr /\u003einstance the statue of Mitys at Argos, which fell upon his murderer\u003cbr /\u003ewhile he was a spectator at a festival, and killed him. Such events seem\u003cbr /\u003enot to be due to mere chance. Plots, therefore, constructed on these\u003cbr /\u003eprinciples are necessarily the best.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eX\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003ePlots are either Simple or Complex, for the actions in real life, of\u003cbr /\u003ewhich the plots are an imitation, obviously show a similar distinction.\u003cbr /\u003eAn action which is one and continuous in the sense above defined, I call\u003cbr /\u003eSimple, when the change of fortune takes place without Reversal of the\u003cbr /\u003eSituation and without Recognition.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eA Complex action is one in which the change is accompanied by such\u003cbr /\u003eReversal, or by Recognition, or by both. These last should arise from\u003cbr /\u003ethe internal structure of the plot, so that what follows should be the\u003cbr /\u003enecessary or probable result of the preceding action. It makes all the\u003cbr /\u003edifference whether any given event is a case of propter hoc or post hoc.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eXI\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eReversal of the Situation is a change by which the action veers round\u003cbr /\u003eto its opposite, subject always to our rule of probability or necessity.\u003cbr /\u003eThus in the Oedipus, the messenger comes to cheer Oedipus and free\u003cbr /\u003ehim from his alarms about his mother, but by revealing who he is, he\u003cbr /\u003eproduces the opposite effect. Again in the Lynceus, Lynceus is being led\u003cbr /\u003eaway to his death, and Danaus goes with him, meaning, to slay him; but\u003cbr /\u003ethe outcome of the preceding incidents is that Danaus is killed and\u003cbr /\u003eLynceus saved. Recognition, as the name indicates, is a change from\u003cbr /\u003eignorance to knowledge, producing love or hate between the persons\u003cbr /\u003edestined by the poet for good or bad fortune. The best form of\u003cbr /\u003erecognition is coincident with a Reversal of the Situation, as in the\u003cbr /\u003eOedipus. There are indeed other forms. Even inanimate things of the most\u003cbr /\u003etrivial kind may in a sense be objects of recognition. Again, we may\u003cbr /\u003erecognise or discover whether a person has done a thing or not. But the\u003cbr /\u003erecognition which is most intimately connected with the plot and action\u003cbr /\u003eis, as we have said, the recognition of persons. This recognition,\u003cbr /\u003ecombined, with Reversal, will produce either pity or fear; and actions\u003cbr /\u003eproducing these effects are those which, by our definition, Tragedy\u003cbr /\u003erepresents. Moreover, it is upon such situations that the issues of good\u003cbr /\u003eor bad fortune will depend. Recognition, then, being between persons,\u003cbr /\u003eit may happen that one person only is recognised by the other-when the\u003cbr /\u003elatter is already known–or it may be necessary that the recognition\u003cbr /\u003eshould be on both sides. Thus Iphigenia is revealed to Orestes by the\u003cbr /\u003esending of the letter; but another act of recognition is required to\u003cbr /\u003emake Orestes known to Iphigenia.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eTwo parts, then, of the Plot–Reversal of the Situation and\u003cbr /\u003eRecognition–turn upon surprises. A third part is the Scene of\u003cbr /\u003eSuffering. The Scene of Suffering is a destructive or painful action,\u003cbr /\u003esuch as death on the stage, bodily agony, wounds and the like.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eXII\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e[The parts of Tragedy which must be treated as elements of the whole\u003cbr /\u003ehave been already mentioned. We now come to the quantitative parts,\u003cbr /\u003eand the separate parts into which Tragedy is divided, namely, Prologue,\u003cbr /\u003eEpisode, Exode, Choric song; this last being divided into Parode and\u003cbr /\u003eStasimon. These are common to all plays: peculiar to some are the songs\u003cbr /\u003eof actors from the stage and the Commoi.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe Prologue is that entire part of a tragedy which precedes the Parode\u003cbr /\u003eof the Chorus. The Episode is that entire part of a tragedy which\u003cbr /\u003eis between complete choric songs. The Exode is that entire part of a\u003cbr /\u003etragedy which has no choric song after it. Of the Choric part the Parode\u003cbr /\u003eis the first undivided utterance of the Chorus: the Stasimon is a Choric\u003cbr /\u003eode without anapaests or trochaic tetrameters: the Commos is a joint\u003cbr /\u003elamentation of Chorus and actors. The parts of Tragedy which must\u003cbr /\u003ebe treated as elements of the whole have been already mentioned. The\u003cbr /\u003equantitative parts the separate parts into which it is divided–are here\u003cbr /\u003eenumerated.]\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eXIII\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAs the sequel to what has already been said, we must proceed to consider\u003cbr /\u003ewhat the poet should aim at, and what he should avoid, in constructing\u003cbr /\u003ehis plots; and by what means the specific effect of Tragedy will be\u003cbr /\u003eproduced.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eA perfect tragedy should, as we have seen, be arranged not on the simple\u003cbr /\u003ebut on the complex plan. It should, moreover, imitate actions which\u003cbr /\u003eexcite pity and fear, this being the distinctive mark of tragic\u003cbr /\u003eimitation. It follows plainly, in the first place, that the change, of\u003cbr /\u003efortune presented must not be the spectacle of a virtuous man brought\u003cbr /\u003efrom prosperity to adversity: for this moves neither pity nor fear; it\u003cbr /\u003emerely shocks us. Nor, again, that of a bad man passing from adversity\u003cbr /\u003eto prosperity: for nothing can be more alien to the spirit of Tragedy;\u003cbr /\u003eit possesses no single tragic quality; it neither satisfies the moral\u003cbr /\u003esense nor calls forth pity or fear. Nor, again, should the downfall of\u003cbr /\u003ethe utter villain be exhibited. A plot of this kind would, doubtless,\u003cbr /\u003esatisfy the moral sense, but it would inspire neither pity nor fear; for\u003cbr /\u003epity is aroused by unmerited misfortune, fear by the misfortune of a man\u003cbr /\u003elike ourselves. Such an event, therefore, will be neither pitiful\u003cbr /\u003enor terrible. There remains, then, the character between these two\u003cbr /\u003eextremes,–that of a man who is not eminently good and just,-yet whose\u003cbr /\u003emisfortune is brought about not by vice or depravity, but by some error\u003cbr /\u003eor frailty. He must be one who is highly renowned and prosperous,–a\u003cbr /\u003epersonage like Oedipus, Thyestes, or other illustrious men of such\u003cbr /\u003efamilies.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eA well constructed plot should, therefore, be single in its issue,\u003cbr /\u003erather than double as some maintain. The change of fortune should be not\u003cbr /\u003efrom bad to good, but, reversely, from good to bad. It should come about\u003cbr /\u003eas the result not of vice, but of some great error or frailty, in a\u003cbr /\u003echaracter either such as we have described, or better rather than\u003cbr /\u003eworse. The practice of the stage bears out our view. At first the poets\u003cbr /\u003erecounted any legend that came in their way. Now, the best tragedies\u003cbr /\u003eare founded on the story of a few houses, on the fortunes of Alcmaeon,\u003cbr /\u003eOedipus, Orestes, Meleager, Thyestes, Telephus, and those others who\u003cbr /\u003ehave done or suffered something terrible. A tragedy, then, to be perfect\u003cbr /\u003eaccording to the rules of art should be of this construction. Hence\u003cbr /\u003ethey are in error who censure Euripides just because he follows this\u003cbr /\u003eprinciple in his plays, many of which end unhappily. It is, as we have\u003cbr /\u003esaid, the right ending. The best proof is that on the stage and in\u003cbr /\u003edramatic competition, such plays, if well worked out, are the most\u003cbr /\u003etragic in effect; and Euripides, faulty though he may be in the general\u003cbr /\u003emanagement of his subject, yet is felt to be the most tragic of the\u003cbr /\u003epoets.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn the second rank comes the kind of tragedy which some place first.\u003cbr /\u003eLike the Odyssey, it has a double thread of plot, and also an opposite\u003cbr /\u003ecatastrophe for the good and for the bad. It is accounted the best\u003cbr /\u003ebecause of the weakness of the spectators; for the poet is guided in\u003cbr /\u003ewhat he writes by the wishes of his audience. The pleasure, however,\u003cbr /\u003ethence derived is not the true tragic pleasure. It is proper rather to\u003cbr /\u003eComedy, where those who, in the piece, are the deadliest enemies–like\u003cbr /\u003eOrestes and Aegisthus–quit the stage as friends at the close, and no\u003cbr /\u003eone slays or is slain.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eXIV\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eFear and pity may be aroused by spectacular means; but they may also\u003cbr /\u003eresult from the inner structure of the piece, which is the better way,\u003cbr /\u003eand indicates a superior poet. For the plot ought to be so constructed\u003cbr /\u003ethat, even without the aid of the eye, he who hears the tale told will\u003cbr /\u003ethrill with horror and melt to pity at what takes place. This is the\u003cbr /\u003eimpression we should receive from hearing the story of the Oedipus. But\u003cbr /\u003eto produce this effect by the mere spectacle is a less artistic method,\u003cbr /\u003eand dependent on extraneous aids. Those who employ spectacular means\u003cbr /\u003eto create a sense not of the terrible but only of the monstrous, are\u003cbr /\u003estrangers to the purpose of Tragedy; for we must not demand of Tragedy\u003cbr /\u003eany and every kind of pleasure, but only that which is proper to it. And\u003cbr /\u003esince the pleasure which the poet should afford is that which comes from\u003cbr /\u003epity and fear through imitation, it is evident that this quality must be\u003cbr /\u003eimpressed upon the incidents.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eLet us then determine what are the circumstances which strike us as\u003cbr /\u003eterrible or pitiful.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eActions capable of this effect must happen between persons who are\u003cbr /\u003eeither friends or enemies or indifferent to one another. If an enemy\u003cbr /\u003ekills an enemy, there is nothing to excite pity either in the act or\u003cbr /\u003ethe intention,–except so far as the suffering in itself is pitiful.\u003cbr /\u003eSo again with indifferent persons. But when the tragic incident occurs\u003cbr /\u003ebetween those who are near or dear to one another–if, for example, a\u003cbr /\u003ebrother kills, or intends to kill, a brother, a son his father, a mother\u003cbr /\u003eher son, a son his mother, or any other deed of the kind is done–these\u003cbr /\u003eare the situations to be looked for by the poet. He may not indeed\u003cbr /\u003edestroy the framework of the received legends–the fact, for instance,\u003cbr /\u003ethat Clytemnestra was slain by Orestes and Eriphyle by Alcmaeon but he\u003cbr /\u003eought to show invention of his own, and skilfully handle the traditional\u003cbr /\u003ematerial. Let us explain more clearly what is meant by skilful handling.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe action may be done consciously and with knowledge of the persons, in\u003cbr /\u003ethe manner of the older poets. It is thus too that Euripides makes Medea\u003cbr /\u003eslay her children. Or, again, the deed of horror may be done, but\u003cbr /\u003edone in ignorance, and the tie of kinship or friendship be discovered\u003cbr /\u003eafterwards. The Oedipus of Sophocles is an example. Here, indeed, the\u003cbr /\u003eincident is outside the drama proper; but cases occur where it falls\u003cbr /\u003ewithin the action of the play: one may cite the Alcmaeon of Astydamas,\u003cbr /\u003eor Telegonus in the Wounded Odysseus. Again, there is a third case,–\u0026lt;to\u003cbr /\u003ebe about to act with knowledge of the persons and then not to act. The\u003cbr /\u003efourth case is\u0026gt; when some one is about to do an irreparable deed through\u003cbr /\u003eignorance, and makes the discovery before it is done. These are the only\u003cbr /\u003epossible ways. For the deed must either be done or not done,–and that\u003cbr /\u003ewittingly or unwittingly. But of all these ways, to be about to act\u003cbr /\u003eknowing the persons, and then not to act, is the worst. It is shocking\u003cbr /\u003ewithout being tragic, for no disaster follows. It is, therefore, never,\u003cbr /\u003eor very rarely, found in poetry. One instance, however, is in the\u003cbr /\u003eAntigone, where Haemon threatens to kill Creon. The next and better way\u003cbr /\u003eis that the deed should be perpetrated. Still better, that it should be\u003cbr /\u003eperpetrated in ignorance, and the discovery made afterwards. There\u003cbr /\u003eis then nothing to shock us, while the discovery produces a startling\u003cbr /\u003eeffect. The last case is the best, as when in the Cresphontes Merope is\u003cbr /\u003eabout to slay her son, but, recognising who he is, spares his life. So\u003cbr /\u003ein the Iphigenia, the sister recognises the brother just in time. Again\u003cbr /\u003ein the Helle, the son recognises the mother when on the point of giving\u003cbr /\u003eher up. This, then, is why a few families only, as has been already\u003cbr /\u003eobserved, furnish the subjects of tragedy. It was not art, but happy\u003cbr /\u003echance, that led the poets in search of subjects to impress the tragic\u003cbr /\u003equality upon their plots. They are compelled, therefore, to have\u003cbr /\u003erecourse to those houses whose history contains moving incidents like\u003cbr /\u003ethese.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eEnough has now been said concerning the structure of the incidents, and\u003cbr /\u003ethe right kind of plot.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eXV\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn respect of Character there are four things to be aimed at. First, and\u003cbr /\u003emost important, it must be good. Now any speech or action that manifests\u003cbr /\u003emoral purpose of any kind will be expressive of character: the character\u003cbr /\u003ewill be good if the purpose is good. This rule is relative to each\u003cbr /\u003eclass. Even a woman may be good, and also a slave; though the woman\u003cbr /\u003emay be said to be an inferior being, and the slave quite worthless. The\u003cbr /\u003esecond thing to aim at is propriety. There is a type of manly valour;\u003cbr /\u003ebut valour in a woman, or unscrupulous cleverness, is inappropriate.\u003cbr /\u003eThirdly, character must be true to life: for this is a distinct thing\u003cbr /\u003efrom goodness and propriety, as here described. The fourth point is\u003cbr /\u003econsistency: for though the subject of the imitation, who suggested the\u003cbr /\u003etype, be inconsistent, still he must be consistently inconsistent. As an\u003cbr /\u003eexample of motiveless degradation of character, we have Menelaus in\u003cbr /\u003ethe Orestes: of character indecorous and inappropriate, the lament of\u003cbr /\u003eOdysseus in the Scylla, and the speech of Melanippe: of inconsistency,\u003cbr /\u003ethe Iphigenia at Aulis,–for Iphigenia the suppliant in no way resembles\u003cbr /\u003eher later self.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAs in the structure of the plot, so too in the portraiture of character,\u003cbr /\u003ethe poet should always aim either at the necessary or the probable. Thus\u003cbr /\u003ea person of a given character should speak or act in a given way, by the\u003cbr /\u003erule either of necessity or of probability; just as this event should\u003cbr /\u003efollow that by necessary or probable sequence. It is therefore evident\u003cbr /\u003ethat the unravelling of the plot, no less than the complication, must\u003cbr /\u003earise out of the plot itself, it must not be brought about by the \u0026#39;Deus\u003cbr /\u003eex Machina\u0026#39;–as in the Medea, or in the Return of the Greeks in the\u003cbr /\u003eIliad. The \u0026#39;Deus ex Machina\u0026#39; should be employed only for events external\u003cbr /\u003eto the drama,–for antecedent or subsequent events, which lie beyond the\u003cbr /\u003erange of human knowledge, and which require to be reported or foretold;\u003cbr /\u003efor to the gods we ascribe the power of seeing all things. Within the\u003cbr /\u003eaction there must be nothing irrational. If the irrational cannot be\u003cbr /\u003eexcluded, it should be outside the scope of the tragedy. Such is the\u003cbr /\u003eirrational element in the Oedipus of Sophocles.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAgain, since Tragedy is an imitation of persons who are above the common\u003cbr /\u003elevel, the example of good portrait-painters should be followed. They,\u003cbr /\u003ewhile reproducing the distinctive form of the original, make a likeness\u003cbr /\u003ewhich is true to life and yet more beautiful. So too the poet, in\u003cbr /\u003erepresenting men who are irascible or indolent, or have other defects\u003cbr /\u003eof character, should preserve the type and yet ennoble it. In this way\u003cbr /\u003eAchilles is portrayed by Agathon and Homer.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThese then are rules the poet should observe. Nor should he neglect\u003cbr /\u003ethose appeals to the senses, which, though not among the essentials, are\u003cbr /\u003ethe concomitants of poetry; for here too there is much room for error.\u003cbr /\u003eBut of this enough has been said in our published treatises.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eXVI\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhat Recognition is has been already explained. We will now enumerate\u003cbr /\u003eits kinds.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eFirst, the least artistic form, which, from poverty of wit, is\u003cbr /\u003emost commonly employed recognition by signs. Of these some are\u003cbr /\u003econgenital,–such as \u0026#39;the spear which the earth-born race bear on their\u003cbr /\u003ebodies,\u0026#39; or the stars introduced by Carcinus in his Thyestes. Others are\u003cbr /\u003eacquired after birth; and of these some are bodily marks, as scars; some\u003cbr /\u003eexternal tokens, as necklaces, or the little ark in the Tyro by which\u003cbr /\u003ethe discovery is effected. Even these admit of more or less skilful\u003cbr /\u003etreatment. Thus in the recognition of Odysseus by his scar, the\u003cbr /\u003ediscovery is made in one way by the nurse, in another by the swineherds.\u003cbr /\u003eThe use of tokens for the express purpose of proof–and, indeed,\u003cbr /\u003eany formal proof with or without tokens–is a less artistic mode of\u003cbr /\u003erecognition. A better kind is that which comes about by a turn of\u003cbr /\u003eincident, as in the Bath Scene in the Odyssey.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eNext come the recognitions invented at will by the poet, and on that\u003cbr /\u003eaccount wanting in art. For example, Orestes in the Iphigenia reveals\u003cbr /\u003ethe fact that he is Orestes. She, indeed, makes herself known by the\u003cbr /\u003eletter; but he, by speaking himself, and saying what the poet, not what\u003cbr /\u003ethe plot requires. This, therefore, is nearly allied to the fault above\u003cbr /\u003ementioned:–for Orestes might as well have brought tokens with him.\u003cbr /\u003eAnother similar instance is the \u0026#39;voice of the shuttle\u0026#39; in the Tereus of\u003cbr /\u003eSophocles.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe third kind depends on memory when the sight of some object awakens\u003cbr /\u003ea feeling: as in the Cyprians of Dicaeogenes, where the hero breaks into\u003cbr /\u003etears on seeing the picture; or again in the \u0026#39;Lay of Alcinous,\u0026#39; where\u003cbr /\u003eOdysseus, hearing the minstrel play the lyre, recalls the past and\u003cbr /\u003eweeps; and hence the recognition.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe fourth kind is by process of reasoning. Thus in the Choephori: \u0026#39;Some\u003cbr /\u003eone resembling me has come: no one resembles me but Orestes: therefore\u003cbr /\u003eOrestes has come.\u0026#39; Such too is the discovery made by Iphigenia in the\u003cbr /\u003eplay of Polyidus the Sophist. It was a natural reflection for Orestes to\u003cbr /\u003emake, \u0026#39;So I too must die at the altar like my sister.\u0026#39; So, again, in\u003cbr /\u003ethe Tydeus of Theodectes, the father says, \u0026#39;I came to find my son, and\u003cbr /\u003eI lose my own life.\u0026#39; So too in the Phineidae: the women, on seeing the\u003cbr /\u003eplace, inferred their fate:–\u0026#39;Here we are doomed to die, for here\u003cbr /\u003ewe were cast forth.\u0026#39; Again, there is a composite kind of recognition\u003cbr /\u003einvolving false inference on the part of one of the characters, as in\u003cbr /\u003ethe Odysseus Disguised as a Messenger. A said \u0026lt;that no one else was able\u003cbr /\u003eto bend the bow;… hence B (the disguised Odysseus) imagined that A\u003cbr /\u003ewould\u0026gt; recognise the bow which, in fact, he had not seen; and to bring\u003cbr /\u003eabout a recognition by this means that the expectation A would recognise\u003cbr /\u003ethe bow is false inference.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eBut, of all recognitions, the best is that which arises from the\u003cbr /\u003eincidents themselves, where the startling discovery is made by natural\u003cbr /\u003emeans. Such is that in the Oedipus of Sophocles, and in the Iphigenia;\u003cbr /\u003efor it was natural that Iphigenia should wish to dispatch a letter.\u003cbr /\u003eThese recognitions alone dispense with the artificial aid of tokens or\u003cbr /\u003eamulets. Next come the recognitions by process of reasoning.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eXVII\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn constructing the plot and working it out with the proper diction,\u003cbr /\u003ethe poet should place the scene, as far as possible, before his eyes. In\u003cbr /\u003ethis way, seeing everything with the utmost vividness, as if he were a\u003cbr /\u003espectator of the action, he will discover what is in keeping with it,\u003cbr /\u003eand be most unlikely to overlook inconsistencies. The need of such a\u003cbr /\u003erule is shown by the fault found in Carcinus. Amphiaraus was on his way\u003cbr /\u003efrom the temple. This fact escaped the observation of one who did not\u003cbr /\u003esee the situation. On the stage, however, the piece failed, the audience\u003cbr /\u003ebeing offended at the oversight.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAgain, the poet should work out his play, to the best of his power, with\u003cbr /\u003eappropriate gestures; for those who feel emotion are most convincing\u003cbr /\u003ethrough natural sympathy with the characters they represent; and one\u003cbr /\u003ewho is agitated storms, one who is angry rages, with the most life-like\u003cbr /\u003ereality. Hence poetry implies either a happy gift of nature or a strain\u003cbr /\u003eof madness. In the one case a man can take the mould of any character;\u003cbr /\u003ein the other, he is lifted out of his proper self.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAs for the story, whether the poet takes it ready made or constructs it\u003cbr /\u003efor himself, he should first sketch its general outline, and then\u003cbr /\u003efill in the episodes and amplify in detail. The general plan may be\u003cbr /\u003eillustrated by the Iphigenia. A young girl is sacrificed; she disappears\u003cbr /\u003emysteriously from the eyes of those who sacrificed her; She is\u003cbr /\u003etransported to another country, where the custom is to offer up all\u003cbr /\u003estrangers to the goddess. To this ministry she is appointed. Some time\u003cbr /\u003elater her own brother chances to arrive. The fact that the oracle for\u003cbr /\u003esome reason ordered him to go there, is outside the general plan of the\u003cbr /\u003eplay. The purpose, again, of his coming is outside the action proper.\u003cbr /\u003eHowever, he comes, he is seized, and, when on the point of being\u003cbr /\u003esacrificed, reveals who he is. The mode of recognition may be either\u003cbr /\u003ethat of Euripides or of Polyidus, in whose play he exclaims very\u003cbr /\u003enaturally:–\u0026#39;So it was not my sister only, but I too, who was doomed to\u003cbr /\u003ebe sacrificed\u0026#39;; and by that remark he is saved.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAfter this, the names being once given, it remains to fill in the\u003cbr /\u003eepisodes. We must see that they are relevant to the action. In the case\u003cbr /\u003eof Orestes, for example, there is the madness which led to his capture,\u003cbr /\u003eand his deliverance by means of the purificatory rite. In the drama, the\u003cbr /\u003eepisodes are short, but it is these that give extension to Epic poetry.\u003cbr /\u003eThus the story of the Odyssey can be stated briefly. A certain man is\u003cbr /\u003eabsent from home for many years; he is jealously watched by Poseidon,\u003cbr /\u003eand left desolate. Meanwhile his home is in a wretched plight–suitors\u003cbr /\u003eare wasting his substance and plotting against his son. At length,\u003cbr /\u003etempest-tost, he himself arrives; he makes certain persons acquainted\u003cbr /\u003ewith him; he attacks the suitors with his own hand, and is himself\u003cbr /\u003epreserved while he destroys them. This is the essence of the plot; the\u003cbr /\u003erest is episode.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eXVIII\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eEvery tragedy falls into two parts,–Complication and Unravelling or\u003cbr /\u003eDenouement. Incidents extraneous to the action are frequently combined\u003cbr /\u003ewith a portion of the action proper, to form the Complication; the rest\u003cbr /\u003eis the Unravelling. By the Complication I mean all that extends from\u003cbr /\u003ethe beginning of the action to the part which marks the turning-point\u003cbr /\u003eto good or bad fortune. The Unravelling is that which extends from the\u003cbr /\u003ebeginning of the change to the end. Thus, in the Lynceus of Theodectes,\u003cbr /\u003ethe Complication consists of the incidents presupposed in the drama, the\u003cbr /\u003eseizure of the child, and then again, The Unravelling extends from\u003cbr /\u003ethe accusation of murder to the end.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThere are four kinds of Tragedy, the Complex, depending entirely on\u003cbr /\u003eReversal of the Situation and Recognition; the Pathetic (where the\u003cbr /\u003emotive is passion),–such as the tragedies on Ajax and Ixion; the\u003cbr /\u003eEthical (where the motives are ethical),–such as the Phthiotides and\u003cbr /\u003ethe Peleus. The fourth kind is the Simple \u0026lt;We here exclude the purely\u003cbr /\u003espectacular element\u0026gt;, exemplified by the Phorcides, the Prometheus, and\u003cbr /\u003escenes laid in Hades. The poet should endeavour, if possible, to combine\u003cbr /\u003eall poetic elements; or failing that, the greatest number and those the\u003cbr /\u003emost important; the more so, in face of the cavilling criticism of the\u003cbr /\u003eday. For whereas there have hitherto been good poets, each in his own\u003cbr /\u003ebranch, the critics now expect one man to surpass all others in their\u003cbr /\u003eseveral lines of excellence.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn speaking of a tragedy as the same or different, the best test to take\u003cbr /\u003eis the plot. Identity exists where the Complication and Unravelling are\u003cbr /\u003ethe same. Many poets tie the knot well, but unravel it ill. Both arts,\u003cbr /\u003ehowever, should always be mastered.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAgain, the poet should remember what has been often said, and not make\u003cbr /\u003ean Epic structure into a Tragedy–by an Epic structure I mean one with\u003cbr /\u003ea multiplicity of plots–as if, for instance, you were to make a tragedy\u003cbr /\u003eout of the entire story of the Iliad. In the Epic poem, owing to its\u003cbr /\u003elength, each part assumes its proper magnitude. In the drama the result\u003cbr /\u003eis far from answering to the poet\u0026#39;s expectation. The proof is that the\u003cbr /\u003epoets who have dramatised the whole story of the Fall of Troy, instead\u003cbr /\u003eof selecting portions, like Euripides; or who have taken the whole\u003cbr /\u003etale of Niobe, and not a part of her story, like Aeschylus, either fail\u003cbr /\u003eutterly or meet with poor success on the stage. Even Agathon has been\u003cbr /\u003eknown to fail from this one defect. In his Reversals of the Situation,\u003cbr /\u003ehowever, he shows a marvellous skill in the effort to hit the popular\u003cbr /\u003etaste,–to produce a tragic effect that satisfies the moral sense. This\u003cbr /\u003eeffect is produced when the clever rogue, like Sisyphus, is outwitted,\u003cbr /\u003eor the brave villain defeated. Such an event is probable in Agathon\u0026#39;s\u003cbr /\u003esense of the word: \u0026#39;it is probable,\u0026#39; he says, \u0026#39;that many things should\u003cbr /\u003ehappen contrary to probability.\u0026#39;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe Chorus too should be regarded as one of the actors; it should be an\u003cbr /\u003eintegral part of the whole, and share in the action, in the manner not\u003cbr /\u003eof Euripides but of Sophocles. As for the later poets, their choral\u003cbr /\u003esongs pertain as little to the subject of the piece as to that of any\u003cbr /\u003eother tragedy. They are, therefore, sung as mere interludes, a practice\u003cbr /\u003efirst begun by Agathon. Yet what difference is there between introducing\u003cbr /\u003esuch choral interludes, and transferring a speech, or even a whole act,\u003cbr /\u003efrom one play to another?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eXIX\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt remains to speak of Diction and Thought, the other parts of Tragedy\u003cbr /\u003ehaving been already discussed. Concerning Thought, we may assume what\u003cbr /\u003eis said in the Rhetoric, to which inquiry the subject more strictly\u003cbr /\u003ebelongs. Under Thought is included every effect which has to be produced\u003cbr /\u003eby speech, the subdivisions being,–proof and refutation; the excitation\u003cbr /\u003eof the feelings, such as pity, fear, anger, and the like; the suggestion\u003cbr /\u003eof importance or its opposite. Now, it is evident that the dramatic\u003cbr /\u003eincidents must be treated from the same points of view as the dramatic\u003cbr /\u003espeeches, when the object is to evoke the sense of pity, fear,\u003cbr /\u003eimportance, or probability. The only difference is, that the incidents\u003cbr /\u003eshould speak for themselves without verbal exposition; while the effects\u003cbr /\u003eaimed at in speech should be produced by the speaker, and as a result of\u003cbr /\u003ethe speech. For what were the business of a speaker, if the Thought were\u003cbr /\u003erevealed quite apart from what he says?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eNext, as regards Diction. One branch of the inquiry treats of the Modes\u003cbr /\u003eof Utterance. But this province of knowledge belongs to the art\u003cbr /\u003eof Delivery and to the masters of that science. It includes, for\u003cbr /\u003einstance,–what is a command, a prayer, a statement, a threat, a\u003cbr /\u003equestion, an answer, and so forth. To know or not to know these things\u003cbr /\u003einvolves no serious censure upon the poet\u0026#39;s art. For who can admit\u003cbr /\u003ethe fault imputed to Homer by Protagoras,–that in the words, \u0026#39;Sing,\u003cbr /\u003egoddess, of the wrath,\u0026#39; he gives a command under the idea that he utters\u003cbr /\u003ea prayer? For to tell some one to do a thing or not to do it is, he\u003cbr /\u003esays, a command. We may, therefore, pass this over as an inquiry that\u003cbr /\u003ebelongs to another art, not to poetry.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eXX\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e[Language in general includes the following parts:–Letter, Syllable,\u003cbr /\u003eConnecting word, Noun, Verb, Inflexion or Case, Sentence or Phrase.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eA Letter is an indivisible sound, yet not every such sound, but only\u003cbr /\u003eone which can form part of a group of sounds. For even brutes utter\u003cbr /\u003eindivisible sounds, none of which I call a letter. The sound I mean\u003cbr /\u003emay be either a vowel, a semi-vowel, or a mute. A vowel is that which\u003cbr /\u003ewithout impact of tongue or lip has an audible sound. A semi-vowel, that\u003cbr /\u003ewhich with such impact has an audible sound, as S and R. A mute, that\u003cbr /\u003ewhich with such impact has by itself no sound, but joined to a vowel\u003cbr /\u003esound becomes audible, as G and D. These are distinguished according\u003cbr /\u003eto the form assumed by the mouth and the place where they are produced;\u003cbr /\u003eaccording as they are aspirated or smooth, long or short; as they are\u003cbr /\u003eacute, grave, or of an intermediate tone; which inquiry belongs in\u003cbr /\u003edetail to the writers on metre.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eA Syllable is a non-significant sound, composed of a mute and a\u003cbr /\u003evowel: for GR without A is a syllable, as also with A,–GRA. But the\u003cbr /\u003einvestigation of these differences belongs also to metrical science.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eA Connecting word is a non-significant sound, which neither causes nor\u003cbr /\u003ehinders the union of many sounds into one significant sound; it may\u003cbr /\u003ebe placed at either end or in the middle of a sentence. Or, a\u003cbr /\u003enon-significant sound, which out of several sounds, each of them\u003cbr /\u003esignificant, is capable of forming one significant sound,–as {alpha mu\u003cbr /\u003etheta iota}, {pi epsilon rho iota}, and the like. Or, a non-significant\u003cbr /\u003esound, which marks the beginning, end, or division of a sentence; such,\u003cbr /\u003ehowever, that it cannot correctly stand by itself at the beginning of a\u003cbr /\u003esentence, as {mu epsilon nu}, {eta tau omicron iota}, {delta epsilon}.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eA Noun is a composite significant sound, not marking time, of which no\u003cbr /\u003epart is in itself significant: for in double or compound words we do not\u003cbr /\u003eemploy the separate parts as if each were in itself significant. Thus\u003cbr /\u003ein Theodorus, \u0026#39;god-given,\u0026#39; the {delta omega rho omicron nu} or \u0026#39;gift\u0026#39; is\u003cbr /\u003enot in itself significant.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eA Verb is a composite significant sound, marking time, in which, as in\u003cbr /\u003ethe noun, no part is in itself significant. For \u0026#39;man,\u0026#39; or \u0026#39;white\u0026#39; does\u003cbr /\u003enot express the idea of \u0026#39;when\u0026#39;; but \u0026#39;he walks,\u0026#39; or \u0026#39;he has walked\u0026#39; does\u003cbr /\u003econnote time, present or past.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eInflexion belongs both to the noun and verb, and expresses either the\u003cbr /\u003erelation \u0026#39;of,\u0026#39; \u0026#39;to,\u0026#39; or the like; or that of number, whether one or\u003cbr /\u003emany, as \u0026#39;man\u0026#39; or \u0026#39;men \u0026#39;; or the modes or tones in actual delivery, e.g.\u003cbr /\u003ea question or a command. \u0026#39;Did he go?\u0026#39; and \u0026#39;go\u0026#39; are verbal inflexions of\u003cbr /\u003ethis kind.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eA Sentence or Phrase is a composite significant sound, some at least of\u003cbr /\u003ewhose parts are in themselves significant; for not every such group\u003cbr /\u003eof words consists of verbs and nouns–\u0026#39;the definition of man,\u0026#39; for\u003cbr /\u003eexample–but it may dispense even with the verb. Still it will always\u003cbr /\u003ehave some significant part, as \u0026#39;in walking,\u0026#39; or \u0026#39;Cleon son of Cleon.\u0026#39; A\u003cbr /\u003esentence or phrase may form a unity in two ways,–either as signifying\u003cbr /\u003eone thing, or as consisting of several parts linked together. Thus the\u003cbr /\u003eIliad is one by the linking together of parts, the definition of man by\u003cbr /\u003ethe unity of the thing signified.]\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eXXI\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWords are of two kinds, simple and double. By simple I mean those\u003cbr /\u003ecomposed of non-significant elements, such as {gamma eta}. By double\u003cbr /\u003eor compound, those composed either of a significant and non-significant\u003cbr /\u003eelement (though within the whole word no element is significant), or\u003cbr /\u003eof elements that are both significant. A word may likewise be triple,\u003cbr /\u003equadruple, or multiple in form, like so many Massilian expressions, e.g.\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026#39;Hermo-caico-xanthus who prayed to Father Zeus\u0026gt;.\u0026#39;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eEvery word is either current, or strange, or metaphorical, or\u003cbr /\u003eornamental, or newly-coined, or lengthened, or contracted, or altered.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eBy a current or proper word I mean one which is in general use among\u003cbr /\u003ea people; by a strange word, one which is in use in another country.\u003cbr /\u003ePlainly, therefore, the same word may be at once strange and current,\u003cbr /\u003ebut not in relation to the same people. The word {sigma iota gamma\u003cbr /\u003eupsilon nu omicron nu}, \u0026#39;lance,\u0026#39; is to the Cyprians a current term but\u003cbr /\u003eto us a strange one.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eMetaphor is the application of an alien name by transference either from\u003cbr /\u003egenus to species, or from species to genus, or from species to species,\u003cbr /\u003eor by analogy, that is, proportion. Thus from genus to species, as:\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026#39;There lies my ship\u0026#39;; for lying at anchor is a species of lying. From\u003cbr /\u003especies to genus, as: \u0026#39;Verily ten thousand noble deeds hath Odysseus\u003cbr /\u003ewrought\u0026#39;; for ten thousand is a species of large number, and is here\u003cbr /\u003eused for a large number generally. From species to species, as: \u0026#39;With\u003cbr /\u003eblade of bronze drew away the life,\u0026#39; and \u0026#39;Cleft the water with the\u003cbr /\u003evessel of unyielding bronze.\u0026#39; Here {alpha rho upsilon rho alpha iota},\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026#39;to draw away,\u0026#39; is used for {tau alpha mu epsilon iota nu}, \u0026#39;to cleave,\u0026#39;\u003cbr /\u003eand {tau alpha mu epsilon iota nu} again for {alpha rho upsilon alpha\u003cbr /\u003eiota},–each being a species of taking away. Analogy or proportion is\u003cbr /\u003ewhen the second term is to the first as the fourth to the third. We\u003cbr /\u003emay then use the fourth for the second, or the second for the fourth.\u003cbr /\u003eSometimes too we qualify the metaphor by adding the term to which the\u003cbr /\u003eproper word is relative. Thus the cup is to Dionysus as the shield to\u003cbr /\u003eAres. The cup may, therefore, be called \u0026#39;the shield of Dionysus,\u0026#39; and\u003cbr /\u003ethe shield \u0026#39;the cup of Ares.\u0026#39; Or, again, as old age is to life, so is\u003cbr /\u003eevening to day. Evening may therefore be called \u0026#39;the old age of\u003cbr /\u003ethe day,\u0026#39; and old age, \u0026#39;the evening of life,\u0026#39; or, in the phrase\u003cbr /\u003eof Empedocles, \u0026#39;life\u0026#39;s setting sun.\u0026#39; For some of the terms of the\u003cbr /\u003eproportion there is at times no word in existence; still the metaphor\u003cbr /\u003emay be used. For instance, to scatter seed is called sowing: but the\u003cbr /\u003eaction of the sun in scattering his rays is nameless. Still this process\u003cbr /\u003ebears to the sun the same relation as sowing to the seed. Hence the\u003cbr /\u003eexpression of the poet \u0026#39;sowing the god-created light.\u0026#39; There is another\u003cbr /\u003eway in which this kind of metaphor may be employed. We may apply an\u003cbr /\u003ealien term, and then deny of that term one of its proper attributes; as\u003cbr /\u003eif we were to call the shield, not \u0026#39;the cup of Ares,\u0026#39; but \u0026#39;the wineless\u003cbr /\u003ecup.\u0026#39;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e{An ornamental word…}\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eA newly-coined word is one which has never been even in local use, but\u003cbr /\u003eis adopted by the poet himself. Some such words there appear to be: as\u003cbr /\u003e{epsilon rho nu upsilon gamma epsilon sigma}, \u0026#39;sprouters,\u0026#39; for {kappa\u003cbr /\u003eepsilon rho alpha tau alpha}, \u0026#39;horns,\u0026#39; and {alpha rho eta tau eta rho},\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026#39;supplicator,\u0026#39; for {iota epsilon rho epsilon upsilon sigma}, \u0026#39;priest.\u0026#39;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eA word is lengthened when its own vowel is exchanged for a longer one,\u003cbr /\u003eor when a syllable is inserted. A word is contracted when some part of\u003cbr /\u003eit is removed. Instances of lengthening are,–{pi omicron lambda eta\u003cbr /\u003eomicron sigma} for {pi omicron lambda epsilon omega sigma}, and {Pi eta\u003cbr /\u003elambda eta iota alpha delta epsilon omega} for {Pi eta lambda epsilon\u003cbr /\u003eiota delta omicron upsilon}: of contraction,–{kappa rho iota}, {delta\u003cbr /\u003eomega}, and {omicron psi}, as in {mu iota alpha / gamma iota nu epsilon\u003cbr /\u003etau alpha iota / alpha mu phi omicron tau episilon rho omega nu /\u003cbr /\u003eomicron psi}.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAn altered word is one in which part of the ordinary form is left\u003cbr /\u003eunchanged, and part is re-cast; as in {delta epsilon xi iota-tau epsilon\u003cbr /\u003erho omicron nu / kappa alpha tau alpha / mu alpha zeta omicron nu},\u003cbr /\u003e{delta epsilon xi iota tau epsilon rho omicron nu} is for {delta epsilon\u003cbr /\u003exi iota omicron nu}.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e[Nouns in themselves are either masculine, feminine, or neuter.\u003cbr /\u003eMasculine are such as end in {nu}, {rho}, {sigma}, or in some letter\u003cbr /\u003ecompounded with {sigma},–these being two, and {xi}. Feminine, such as\u003cbr /\u003eend in vowels that are always long, namely {eta} and {omega}, and–of\u003cbr /\u003evowels that admit of lengthening–those in {alpha}. Thus the number of\u003cbr /\u003eletters in which nouns masculine and feminine end is the same; for {psi}\u003cbr /\u003eand {xi} are equivalent to endings in {sigma}. No noun ends in a mute\u003cbr /\u003eor a vowel short by nature. Three only end in {iota},–{mu eta lambda\u003cbr /\u003eiota}, {kappa omicron mu mu iota}, {pi epsilon pi epsilon rho iota}:\u003cbr /\u003efive end in {upsilon}. Neuter nouns end in these two latter vowels; also\u003cbr /\u003ein {nu} and {sigma}.]\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eXXII\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe perfection of style is to be clear without being mean. The clearest\u003cbr /\u003estyle is that which uses only current or proper words; at the same\u003cbr /\u003etime it is mean:–witness the poetry of Cleophon and of Sthenelus. That\u003cbr /\u003ediction, on the other hand, is lofty and raised above the commonplace\u003cbr /\u003ewhich employs unusual words. By unusual, I mean strange (or rare) words,\u003cbr /\u003emetaphorical, lengthened,–anything, in short, that differs from the\u003cbr /\u003enormal idiom. Yet a style wholly composed of such words is either a\u003cbr /\u003eriddle or a jargon; a riddle, if it consists of metaphors; a jargon, if\u003cbr /\u003eit consists of strange (or rare) words. For the essence of a riddle is\u003cbr /\u003eto express true facts under impossible combinations. Now this cannot be\u003cbr /\u003edone by any arrangement of ordinary words, but by the use of metaphor it\u003cbr /\u003ecan. Such is the riddle:–\u0026#39;A man I saw who on another man had glued the\u003cbr /\u003ebronze by aid of fire,\u0026#39; and others of the same kind. A diction that\u003cbr /\u003eis made up of strange (or rare) terms is a jargon. A certain infusion,\u003cbr /\u003etherefore, of these elements is necessary to style; for the strange (or\u003cbr /\u003erare) word, the metaphorical, the ornamental, and the other kinds above\u003cbr /\u003ementioned, will raise it above the commonplace and mean, while the use\u003cbr /\u003eof proper words will make it perspicuous. But nothing contributes more\u003cbr /\u003eto produce a clearness of diction that is remote from commonness than\u003cbr /\u003ethe lengthening, contraction, and alteration of words. For by deviating\u003cbr /\u003ein exceptional cases from the normal idiom, the language will gain\u003cbr /\u003edistinction; while, at the same time, the partial conformity with usage\u003cbr /\u003ewill give perspicuity. The critics, therefore, are in error who censure\u003cbr /\u003ethese licenses of speech, and hold the author up to ridicule. Thus\u003cbr /\u003eEucleides, the elder, declared that it would be an easy matter to be\u003cbr /\u003ea poet if you might lengthen syllables at will. He caricatured the\u003cbr /\u003epractice in the very form of his diction, as in the verse: \u0026#39;{Epsilon pi\u003cbr /\u003eiota chi alpha rho eta nu / epsilon iota delta omicron nu / Mu alpha rho\u003cbr /\u003ealpha theta omega nu alpha delta epsilon / Beta alpha delta iota zeta\u003cbr /\u003eomicron nu tau alpha}, or, {omicron upsilon kappa / alpha nu / gamma /\u003cbr /\u003eepsilon rho alpha mu epsilon nu omicron sigma / tau omicron nu / epsilon\u003cbr /\u003ekappa epsilon iota nu omicron upsilon /epsilon lambda lambda epsilon\u003cbr /\u003ebeta omicron rho omicron nu}. To employ such license at all obtrusively\u003cbr /\u003eis, no doubt, grotesque; but in any mode of poetic diction there must\u003cbr /\u003ebe moderation. Even metaphors, strange (or rare) words, or any similar\u003cbr /\u003eforms of speech, would produce the like effect if used without propriety\u003cbr /\u003eand with the express purpose of being ludicrous. How great a difference\u003cbr /\u003eis made by the appropriate use of lengthening, may be seen in Epic\u003cbr /\u003epoetry by the insertion of ordinary forms in the verse. So, again, if\u003cbr /\u003ewe take a strange (or rare) word, a metaphor, or any similar mode of\u003cbr /\u003eexpression, and replace it by the current or proper term, the truth of\u003cbr /\u003eour observation will be manifest. For example Aeschylus and Euripides\u003cbr /\u003eeach composed the same iambic line. But the alteration of a single word\u003cbr /\u003eby Euripides, who employed the rarer term instead of the ordinary one,\u003cbr /\u003emakes one verse appear beautiful and the other trivial. Aeschylus in his\u003cbr /\u003ePhiloctetes says: {Phi alpha gamma epsilon delta alpha iota nu alpha /\u003cbr /\u003edelta / eta / mu omicron upsilon / sigma alpha rho kappa alpha sigma /\u003cbr /\u003eepsilon rho theta iota epsilon iota / pi omicron delta omicron sigma}.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eEuripides substitutes {Theta omicron iota nu alpha tau alpha iota}\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026#39;feasts on\u0026#39; for {epsilon sigma theta iota epsilon iota} \u0026#39;feeds on.\u0026#39;\u003cbr /\u003eAgain, in the line, {nu upsilon nu / delta epsilon / mu /epsilon omega\u003cbr /\u003enu / omicron lambda iota gamma iota gamma upsilon sigma / tau epsilon /\u003cbr /\u003ekappa alpha iota / omicron upsilon tau iota delta alpha nu omicron sigma\u003cbr /\u003e/ kappa alpha iota / alpha epsilon iota kappa eta sigma), the difference\u003cbr /\u003ewill be felt if we substitute the common words, {nu upsilon nu / delta\u003cbr /\u003eepsilon / mu / epsilon omega nu / mu iota kappa rho omicron sigma /\u003cbr /\u003etau epsilon / kappa alpha iota / alpha rho theta epsilon nu iota kappa\u003cbr /\u003eomicron sigma / kappa alpha iota / alpha epsilon iota delta gamma\u003cbr /\u003esigma}. Or, if for the line, {delta iota phi rho omicron nu / alpha\u003cbr /\u003eepsilon iota kappa epsilon lambda iota omicron nu / kappa alpha tau\u003cbr /\u003ealpha theta epsilon iota sigma / omicron lambda iota gamma eta nu /\u003cbr /\u003etau epsilon / tau rho alpha pi epsilon iota sigma / omicron lambda iota\u003cbr /\u003egamma eta nu / tau epsilon / tau rho alpha pi epsilon zeta alpha nu,}\u003cbr /\u003eWe read, {delta iota phi rho omicron nu / mu omicron chi theta eta rho\u003cbr /\u003eomicron nu / kappa alpha tau alpha theta epsilon iota sigma / mu iota\u003cbr /\u003ekappa rho alpha nu / tau epsilon / tau rho alpha pi epsilon zeta alpha\u003cbr /\u003enu}.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eOr, for {eta iota omicron nu epsilon sigma / beta omicron omicron omega\u003cbr /\u003erho iota nu, eta iota omicron nu epsilon sigma kappa rho alpha zeta\u003cbr /\u003eomicron upsilon rho iota nu}\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAgain, Ariphrades ridiculed the tragedians for using phrases which no\u003cbr /\u003eone would employ in ordinary speech: for example, {delta omega mu alpha\u003cbr /\u003etau omega nu / alpha pi omicron} instead of {alpha pi omicron / delta\u003cbr /\u003eomega mu alpha tau omega nu}, {rho epsilon theta epsilon nu}, {epsilon\u003cbr /\u003egamma omega / delta epsilon / nu iota nu}, {Alpha chi iota lambda lambda\u003cbr /\u003eepsilon omega sigma / pi epsilon rho iota} instead of {pi epsilon rho\u003cbr /\u003eiota / \u0026#39;Alpha chi iota lambda lambda epsilon omega sigma}, and the like.\u003cbr /\u003eIt is precisely because such phrases are not part of the current idiom\u003cbr /\u003ethat they give distinction to the style. This, however, he failed to\u003cbr /\u003esee.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt is a great matter to observe propriety in these several modes of\u003cbr /\u003eexpression, as also in compound words, strange (or rare) words, and so\u003cbr /\u003eforth. But the greatest thing by far is to have a command of metaphor.\u003cbr /\u003eThis alone cannot be imparted by another; it is the mark of genius, for\u003cbr /\u003eto make good metaphors implies an eye for resemblances.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eOf the various kinds of words, the compound are best adapted to\u003cbr /\u003eDithyrambs, rare words to heroic poetry, metaphors to iambic. In heroic\u003cbr /\u003epoetry, indeed, all these varieties are serviceable. But in iambic\u003cbr /\u003everse, which reproduces, as far as may be, familiar speech, the most\u003cbr /\u003eappropriate words are those which are found even in prose. These\u003cbr /\u003eare,–the current or proper, the metaphorical, the ornamental.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eConcerning Tragedy and imitation by means of action this may suffice.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eXXIII\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAs to that poetic imitation which is narrative in form and employs\u003cbr /\u003ea single metre, the plot manifestly ought, as in a tragedy, to be\u003cbr /\u003econstructed on dramatic principles. It should have for its subject a\u003cbr /\u003esingle action, whole and complete, with a beginning, a middle, and\u003cbr /\u003ean end. It will thus resemble a living organism in all its unity, and\u003cbr /\u003eproduce the pleasure proper to it. It will differ in structure from\u003cbr /\u003ehistorical compositions, which of necessity present not a single action,\u003cbr /\u003ebut a single period, and all that happened within that period to one\u003cbr /\u003eperson or to many, little connected together as the events may be. For\u003cbr /\u003eas the sea-fight at Salamis and the battle with the Carthaginians in\u003cbr /\u003eSicily took place at the same time, but did not tend to any one result,\u003cbr /\u003eso in the sequence of events, one thing sometimes follows another, and\u003cbr /\u003eyet no single result is thereby produced. Such is the practice, we may\u003cbr /\u003esay, of most poets. Here again, then, as has been already observed, the\u003cbr /\u003etranscendent excellence of Homer is manifest. He never attempts to make\u003cbr /\u003ethe whole war of Troy the subject of his poem, though that war had\u003cbr /\u003ea beginning and an end. It would have been too vast a theme, and not\u003cbr /\u003eeasily embraced in a single view. If, again, he had kept it within\u003cbr /\u003emoderate limits, it must have been over-complicated by the variety of\u003cbr /\u003ethe incidents. As it is, he detaches a single portion, and admits as\u003cbr /\u003eepisodes many events from the general story of the war–such as the\u003cbr /\u003eCatalogue of the ships and others–thus diversifying the poem. All other\u003cbr /\u003epoets take a single hero, a single period, or an action single indeed,\u003cbr /\u003ebut with a multiplicity of parts. Thus did the author of the Cypria\u003cbr /\u003eand of the Little Iliad. For this reason the Iliad and the Odyssey\u003cbr /\u003eeach furnish the subject of one tragedy, or, at most, of two; while the\u003cbr /\u003eCypria supplies materials for many, and the Little Iliad for eight–the\u003cbr /\u003eAward of the Arms, the Philoctetes, the Neoptolemus, the Eurypylus, the\u003cbr /\u003eMendicant Odysseus, the Laconian Women, the Fall of Ilium, the Departure\u003cbr /\u003eof the Fleet.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eXXIV\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAgain, Epic poetry must have as many kinds as Tragedy: it must be\u003cbr /\u003esimple, or complex, or \u0026#39;ethical,\u0026#39; or \u0026#39;pathetic.\u0026#39; The parts also, with\u003cbr /\u003ethe exception of song and spectacle, are the same; for it requires\u003cbr /\u003eReversals of the Situation, Recognitions, and Scenes of Suffering.\u003cbr /\u003eMoreover, the thoughts and the diction must be artistic. In all these\u003cbr /\u003erespects Homer is our earliest and sufficient model. Indeed each of\u003cbr /\u003ehis poems has a twofold character. The Iliad is at once simple and\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026#39;pathetic,\u0026#39; and the Odyssey complex (for Recognition scenes run through\u003cbr /\u003eit), and at the same time \u0026#39;ethical.\u0026#39; Moreover, in diction and thought\u003cbr /\u003ethey are supreme.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eEpic poetry differs from Tragedy in the scale on which it is\u003cbr /\u003econstructed, and in its metre. As regards scale or length, we have\u003cbr /\u003ealready laid down an adequate limit:–the beginning and the end must be\u003cbr /\u003ecapable of being brought within a single view. This condition will be\u003cbr /\u003esatisfied by poems on a smaller scale than the old epics, and answering\u003cbr /\u003ein length to the group of tragedies presented at a single sitting.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eEpic poetry has, however, a great–a special–capacity for enlarging\u003cbr /\u003eits dimensions, and we can see the reason. In Tragedy we cannot imitate\u003cbr /\u003eseveral lines of actions carried on at one and the same time; we must\u003cbr /\u003econfine ourselves to the action on the stage and the part taken by the\u003cbr /\u003eplayers. But in Epic poetry, owing to the narrative form, many events\u003cbr /\u003esimultaneously transacted can be presented; and these, if relevant to\u003cbr /\u003ethe subject, add mass and dignity to the poem. The Epic has here an\u003cbr /\u003eadvantage, and one that conduces to grandeur of effect, to diverting the\u003cbr /\u003emind of the hearer, and relieving the story with varying episodes. For\u003cbr /\u003esameness of incident soon produces satiety, and makes tragedies fail on\u003cbr /\u003ethe stage.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAs for the metre, the heroic measure has proved its fitness by the test\u003cbr /\u003eof experience. If a narrative poem in any other metre or in many metres\u003cbr /\u003ewere now composed, it would be found incongruous. For of all measures\u003cbr /\u003ethe heroic is the stateliest and the most massive; and hence it most\u003cbr /\u003ereadily admits rare words and metaphors, which is another point in which\u003cbr /\u003ethe narrative form of imitation stands alone. On the other hand, the\u003cbr /\u003eiambic and the trochaic tetrameter are stirring measures, the latter\u003cbr /\u003ebeing akin to dancing, the former expressive of action. Still more\u003cbr /\u003eabsurd would it be to mix together different metres, as was done by\u003cbr /\u003eChaeremon. Hence no one has ever composed a poem on a great scale in any\u003cbr /\u003eother than heroic verse. Nature herself, as we have said, teaches the\u003cbr /\u003echoice of the proper measure.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eHomer, admirable in all respects, has the special merit of being the\u003cbr /\u003eonly poet who rightly appreciates the part he should take himself. The\u003cbr /\u003epoet should speak as little as possible in his own person, for it is not\u003cbr /\u003ethis that makes him an imitator. Other poets appear themselves upon the\u003cbr /\u003escene throughout, and imitate but little and rarely. Homer, after a few\u003cbr /\u003eprefatory words, at once brings in a man, or woman, or other personage;\u003cbr /\u003enone of them wanting in characteristic qualities, but each with a\u003cbr /\u003echaracter of his own.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe element of the wonderful is required in Tragedy. The irrational, on\u003cbr /\u003ewhich the wonderful depends for its chief effects, has wider scope in\u003cbr /\u003eEpic poetry, because there the person acting is not seen. Thus, the\u003cbr /\u003epursuit of Hector would be ludicrous if placed upon the stage–the\u003cbr /\u003eGreeks standing still and not joining in the pursuit, and Achilles\u003cbr /\u003ewaving them back. But in the Epic poem the absurdity passes unnoticed.\u003cbr /\u003eNow the wonderful is pleasing: as may be inferred from the fact that\u003cbr /\u003eevery one tells a story with some addition of his own, knowing that his\u003cbr /\u003ehearers like it. It is Homer who has chiefly taught other poets the\u003cbr /\u003eart of telling lies skilfully. The secret of it lies in a fallacy, For,\u003cbr /\u003eassuming that if one thing is or becomes, a second is or becomes, men\u003cbr /\u003eimagine that, if the second is, the first likewise is or becomes. But\u003cbr /\u003ethis is a false inference. Hence, where the first thing is untrue, it is\u003cbr /\u003equite unnecessary, provided the second be true, to add that the first\u003cbr /\u003eis or has become. For the mind, knowing the second to be true, falsely\u003cbr /\u003einfers the truth of the first. There is an example of this in the Bath\u003cbr /\u003eScene of the Odyssey.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAccordingly, the poet should prefer probable impossibilities to\u003cbr /\u003eimprobable possibilities. The tragic plot must not be composed of\u003cbr /\u003eirrational parts. Everything irrational should, if possible, be\u003cbr /\u003eexcluded; or, at all events, it should lie outside the action of the\u003cbr /\u003eplay (as, in the Oedipus, the hero\u0026#39;s ignorance as to the manner of\u003cbr /\u003eLaius\u0026#39; death); not within the drama,–as in the Electra, the messenger\u0026#39;s\u003cbr /\u003eaccount of the Pythian games; or, as in the Mysians, the man who\u003cbr /\u003ehas come from Tegea to Mysia and is still speechless. The plea that\u003cbr /\u003eotherwise the plot would have been ruined, is ridiculous; such a plot\u003cbr /\u003eshould not in the first instance be constructed. But once the irrational\u003cbr /\u003ehas been introduced and an air of likelihood imparted to it, we must\u003cbr /\u003eaccept it in spite of the absurdity. Take even the irrational incidents\u003cbr /\u003ein the Odyssey, where Odysseus is left upon the shore of Ithaca. How\u003cbr /\u003eintolerable even these might have been would be apparent if an inferior\u003cbr /\u003epoet were to treat the subject. As it is, the absurdity is veiled by the\u003cbr /\u003epoetic charm with which the poet invests it.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe diction should be elaborated in the pauses of the action, where\u003cbr /\u003ethere is no expression of character or thought. For, conversely,\u003cbr /\u003echaracter and thought are merely obscured by a diction that is over\u003cbr /\u003ebrilliant.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eXXV\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWith respect to critical difficulties and their solutions, the number\u003cbr /\u003eand nature of the sources from which they may be drawn may be thus\u003cbr /\u003eexhibited.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe poet being an imitator, like a painter or any other artist, must\u003cbr /\u003eof necessity imitate one of three objects,–things as they were or are,\u003cbr /\u003ethings as they are said or thought to be, or things as they ought to be.\u003cbr /\u003eThe vehicle of expression is language,–either current terms or, it\u003cbr /\u003emay be, rare words or metaphors. There are also many modifications of\u003cbr /\u003elanguage, which we concede to the poets. Add to this, that the standard\u003cbr /\u003eof correctness is not the same in poetry and politics, any more than in\u003cbr /\u003epoetry and any other art. Within the art of poetry itself there are\u003cbr /\u003etwo kinds of faults, those which touch its essence, and those which are\u003cbr /\u003eaccidental. If a poet has chosen to imitate something, \u0026lt;but has imitated\u003cbr /\u003eit incorrectly\u0026gt; through want of capacity, the error is inherent in\u003cbr /\u003ethe poetry. But if the failure is due to a wrong choice if he has\u003cbr /\u003erepresented a horse as throwing out both his off legs at once, or\u003cbr /\u003eintroduced technical inaccuracies in medicine, for example, or in any\u003cbr /\u003eother art the error is not essential to the poetry. These are the points\u003cbr /\u003eof view from which we should consider and answer the objections raised\u003cbr /\u003eby the critics.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eFirst as to matters which concern the poet\u0026#39;s own art. If he describes\u003cbr /\u003ethe impossible, he is guilty of an error; but the error may be\u003cbr /\u003ejustified, if the end of the art be thereby attained (the end being that\u003cbr /\u003ealready mentioned), if, that is, the effect of this or any other part of\u003cbr /\u003ethe poem is thus rendered more striking. A case in point is the pursuit\u003cbr /\u003eof Hector. If, however, the end might have been as well, or better,\u003cbr /\u003eattained without violating the special rules of the poetic art, the\u003cbr /\u003eerror is not justified: for every kind of error should, if possible, be\u003cbr /\u003eavoided.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAgain, does the error touch the essentials of the poetic art, or some\u003cbr /\u003eaccident of it? For example,–not to know that a hind has no horns is a\u003cbr /\u003eless serious matter than to paint it inartistically.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eFurther, if it be objected that the description is not true to fact, the\u003cbr /\u003epoet may perhaps reply,–\u0026#39;But the objects are as they ought to be\u0026#39;: just\u003cbr /\u003eas Sophocles said that he drew men as they ought to be; Euripides,\u003cbr /\u003eas they are. In this way the objection may be met. If, however, the\u003cbr /\u003erepresentation be of neither kind, the poet may answer,–This is how men\u003cbr /\u003esay the thing is.\u0026#39; This applies to tales about the gods. It may well be\u003cbr /\u003ethat these stories are not higher than fact nor yet true to fact: they\u003cbr /\u003eare, very possibly, what Xenophanes says of them. But anyhow, \u0026#39;this\u003cbr /\u003eis what is said.\u0026#39; Again, a description may be no better than the fact:\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026#39;still, it was the fact\u0026#39;; as in the passage about the arms: \u0026#39;Upright\u003cbr /\u003eupon their butt-ends stood the spears.\u0026#39; This was the custom then, as it\u003cbr /\u003enow is among the Illyrians.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAgain, in examining whether what has been said or done by some one is\u003cbr /\u003epoetically right or not, we must not look merely to the particular act\u003cbr /\u003eor saying, and ask whether it is poetically good or bad. We must also\u003cbr /\u003econsider by whom it is said or done, to whom, when, by what means, or\u003cbr /\u003efor what end; whether, for instance, it be to secure a greater good, or\u003cbr /\u003eavert a greater evil.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eOther difficulties may be resolved by due regard to the usage of\u003cbr /\u003elanguage. We may note a rare word, as in {omicron upsilon rho eta alpha\u003cbr /\u003esigma / mu epsilon nu / pi rho omega tau omicron nu}, where the poet\u003cbr /\u003eperhaps employs {omicron upsilon rho eta alpha sigma} not in the sense\u003cbr /\u003eof mules, but of sentinels. So, again, of Dolon: \u0026#39;ill-favoured indeed\u003cbr /\u003ehe was to look upon.\u0026#39; It is not meant that his body was ill-shaped, but\u003cbr /\u003ethat his face was ugly; for the Cretans use the word {epsilon upsilon\u003cbr /\u003eepsilon iota delta epsilon sigma}, \u0026#39;well-favoured,\u0026#39; to denote a fair\u003cbr /\u003eface. Again, {zeta omega rho omicron tau epsilon rho omicron nu /\u003cbr /\u003edelta epsilon / kappa epsilon rho alpha iota epsilon}, \u0026#39;mix the drink\u003cbr /\u003elivelier,\u0026#39; does not mean `mix it stronger\u0026#39; as for hard drinkers, but\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026#39;mix it quicker.\u0026#39;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eSometimes an expression is metaphorical, as \u0026#39;Now all gods and men were\u003cbr /\u003esleeping through the night,\u0026#39;–while at the same time the poet says:\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026#39;Often indeed as he turned his gaze to the Trojan plain, he marvelled\u003cbr /\u003eat the sound of flutes and pipes.\u0026#39; \u0026#39;All\u0026#39; is here used metaphorically for\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026#39;many,\u0026#39; all being a species of many. So in the verse,–\u0026#39;alone she hath\u003cbr /\u003eno part…,\u0026#39; {omicron iota eta}, \u0026#39;alone,\u0026#39; is metaphorical; for the best\u003cbr /\u003eknown may be called the only one.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAgain, the solution may depend upon accent or breathing. Thus Hippias of\u003cbr /\u003eThasos solved the difficulties in the lines,–{delta iota delta omicron\u003cbr /\u003emu epsilon nu (delta iota delta omicron mu epsilon nu) delta epsilon\u003cbr /\u003e/ omicron iota,} and { tau omicron / mu epsilon nu / omicron upsilon\u003cbr /\u003e(omicron upsilon) kappa alpha tau alpha pi upsilon theta epsilon tau\u003cbr /\u003ealpha iota / omicron mu beta rho omega}.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eOr again, the question may be solved by punctuation, as in\u003cbr /\u003eEmpedocles,–\u0026#39;Of a sudden things became mortal that before had learnt to\u003cbr /\u003ebe immortal, and things unmixed before mixed.\u0026#39;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eOr again, by ambiguity of meaning,–as {pi alpha rho omega chi eta kappa\u003cbr /\u003eepsilon nu / delta epsilon / pi lambda epsilon omega / nu upsilon xi},\u003cbr /\u003ewhere the word {pi lambda epsilon omega} is ambiguous.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eOr by the usage of language. Thus any mixed drink is called {omicron\u003cbr /\u003eiota nu omicron sigma}, \u0026#39;wine.\u0026#39; Hence Ganymede is said \u0026#39;to pour the wine\u003cbr /\u003eto Zeus,\u0026#39; though the gods do not drink wine. So too workers in iron\u003cbr /\u003eare called {chi alpha lambda kappa epsilon alpha sigma}, or workers in\u003cbr /\u003ebronze. This, however, may also be taken as a metaphor.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAgain, when a word seems to involve some inconsistency of meaning, we\u003cbr /\u003eshould consider how many senses it may bear in the particular passage.\u003cbr /\u003eFor example: \u0026#39;there was stayed the spear of bronze\u0026#39;–we should ask\u003cbr /\u003ein how many ways we may take \u0026#39;being checked there.\u0026#39; The true mode\u003cbr /\u003eof interpretation is the precise opposite of what Glaucon mentions.\u003cbr /\u003eCritics, he says, jump at certain groundless conclusions; they pass\u003cbr /\u003eadverse judgment and then proceed to reason on it; and, assuming that\u003cbr /\u003ethe poet has said whatever they happen to think, find fault if a thing\u003cbr /\u003eis inconsistent with their own fancy. The question about Icarius\u003cbr /\u003ehas been treated in this fashion. The critics imagine he was a\u003cbr /\u003eLacedaemonian. They think it strange, therefore, that Telemachus should\u003cbr /\u003enot have met him when he went to Lacedaemon. But the Cephallenian story\u003cbr /\u003emay perhaps be the true one. They allege that Odysseus took a wife from\u003cbr /\u003eamong themselves, and that her father was Icadius not Icarius. It is\u003cbr /\u003emerely a mistake, then, that gives plausibility to the objection.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn general, the impossible must be justified by reference to artistic\u003cbr /\u003erequirements, or to the higher reality, or to received opinion. With\u003cbr /\u003erespect to the requirements of art, a probable impossibility is to\u003cbr /\u003ebe preferred to a thing improbable and yet possible. Again, it may be\u003cbr /\u003eimpossible that there should be men such as Zeuxis painted. \u0026#39;Yes,\u0026#39; we\u003cbr /\u003esay, \u0026#39;but the impossible is the higher thing; for the ideal type must\u003cbr /\u003esurpass the reality.\u0026#39; To justify the irrational, we appeal to what is\u003cbr /\u003ecommonly said to be. In addition to which, we urge that the irrational\u003cbr /\u003esometimes does not violate reason; just as \u0026#39;it is probable that a thing\u003cbr /\u003emay happen contrary to probability.\u0026#39;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThings that sound contradictory should be examined by the same rules as\u003cbr /\u003ein dialectical refutation whether the same thing is meant, in the same\u003cbr /\u003erelation, and in the same sense. We should therefore solve the question\u003cbr /\u003eby reference to what the poet says himself, or to what is tacitly\u003cbr /\u003eassumed by a person of intelligence.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe element of the irrational, and, similarly, depravity of character,\u003cbr /\u003eare justly censured when there is no inner necessity for introducing\u003cbr /\u003ethem. Such is the irrational element in the introduction of Aegeus by\u003cbr /\u003eEuripides and the badness of Menelaus in the Orestes.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThus, there are five sources from which critical objections are drawn.\u003cbr /\u003eThings are censured either as impossible, or irrational, or morally\u003cbr /\u003ehurtful, or contradictory, or contrary to artistic correctness. The\u003cbr /\u003eanswers should be sought under the twelve heads above mentioned.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eXXVI\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe question may be raised whether the Epic or Tragic mode of imitation\u003cbr /\u003eis the higher. If the more refined art is the higher, and the more\u003cbr /\u003erefined in every case is that which appeals to the better sort of\u003cbr /\u003eaudience, the art which imitates anything and everything is manifestly\u003cbr /\u003emost unrefined. The audience is supposed to be too dull to comprehend\u003cbr /\u003eunless something of their own is thrown in by the performers, who\u003cbr /\u003etherefore indulge in restless movements. Bad flute-players twist and\u003cbr /\u003etwirl, if they have to represent \u0026#39;the quoit-throw,\u0026#39; or hustle the\u003cbr /\u003ecoryphaeus when they perform the \u0026#39;Scylla.\u0026#39; Tragedy, it is said, has\u003cbr /\u003ethis same defect. We may compare the opinion that the older actors\u003cbr /\u003eentertained of their successors. Mynniscus used to call Callippides\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026#39;ape\u0026#39; on account of the extravagance of his action, and the same view\u003cbr /\u003ewas held of Pindarus. Tragic art, then, as a whole, stands to Epic in\u003cbr /\u003ethe same relation as the younger to the elder actors. So we are told\u003cbr /\u003ethat Epic poetry is addressed to a cultivated audience, who do not need\u003cbr /\u003egesture; Tragedy, to an inferior public. Being then unrefined, it is\u003cbr /\u003eevidently the lower of the two.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eNow, in the first place, this censure attaches not to the poetic but to\u003cbr /\u003ethe histrionic art; for gesticulation may be equally overdone in\u003cbr /\u003eepic recitation, as by Sosi-stratus, or in lyrical competition, as by\u003cbr /\u003eMnasitheus the Opuntian. Next, all action is not to be condemned any\u003cbr /\u003emore than all dancing–but only that of bad performers. Such was the\u003cbr /\u003efault found in Callippides, as also in others of our own day, who are\u003cbr /\u003ecensured for representing degraded women. Again, Tragedy like Epic\u003cbr /\u003epoetry produces its effect even without action; it reveals its power\u003cbr /\u003eby mere reading. If, then, in all other respects it is superior, this\u003cbr /\u003efault, we say, is not inherent in it.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAnd superior it is, because it has all the epic elements–it may even\u003cbr /\u003euse the epic metre–with the music and spectacular effects as important\u003cbr /\u003eaccessories; and these produce the most vivid of pleasures. Further,\u003cbr /\u003eit has vividness of impression in reading as well as in representation.\u003cbr /\u003eMoreover, the art attains its end within narrower limits; for the\u003cbr /\u003econcentrated effect is more pleasurable than one which is spread over a\u003cbr /\u003elong time and so diluted. What, for example, would be the effect of the\u003cbr /\u003eOedipus of Sophocles, if it were cast into a form as long as the Iliad?\u003cbr /\u003eOnce more, the Epic imitation has less unity; as is shown by this, that\u003cbr /\u003eany Epic poem will furnish subjects for several tragedies. Thus if\u003cbr /\u003ethe story adopted by the poet has a strict unity, it must either be\u003cbr /\u003econcisely told and appear truncated; or, if it conform to the Epic canon\u003cbr /\u003eof length, it must seem weak and watery. \u0026lt;Such length implies some loss\u003cbr /\u003eof unity,\u0026gt; if, I mean, the poem is constructed out of several actions,\u003cbr /\u003elike the Iliad and the Odyssey, which have many such parts, each with a\u003cbr /\u003ecertain magnitude of its own. Yet these poems are as perfect as possible\u003cbr /\u003ein structure; each is, in the highest degree attainable, an imitation of\u003cbr /\u003ea single action.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIf, then, Tragedy is superior to Epic poetry in all these respects, and,\u003cbr /\u003emoreover, fulfils its specific function better as an art for each art\u003cbr /\u003eought to produce, not any chance pleasure, but the pleasure proper to\u003cbr /\u003eit, as already stated it plainly follows that Tragedy is the higher art,\u003cbr /\u003eas attaining its end more perfectly.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThus much may suffice concerning Tragic and Epic poetry in general;\u003cbr /\u003etheir several kinds and parts, with the number of each and their\u003cbr /\u003edifferences; the causes that make a poem good or bad; the objections of\u003cbr /\u003ethe critics and the answers to these objections.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003c/article\u003e"}],"SectionSequence":["Back Link","Work Title","Deck","Author","Period","Era","Composition","Date Note","Region","Terra Avita","Terra Avita Region","Modern Country","Original Title","Language","Primary Discipline","Secondary Discipline","Tradition","Full Versions","Core Thesis","Classification","Arguments","Influence","Significance","Evidence Note","Full Text"],"Counts":{"ContextCards":3,"GeoCards":4,"DisciplineCards":2,"Links":11,"Sections":25,"Styles":3,"Scripts":1}}