Poetics.pdf

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/poetics.mb.txt

<BASE HREF="http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/poetics.mb.txt"><table border=1 width=100%><tr><td><table border=1 bgcolor=#ffffff cellpadding=10 cellspacin

Googl<font color

The page may have changed since that time. Click here for the <A HREF="http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/poetics.mb.txt">current page</f

Provided by The Internet Classics Archive.

See bottom for copyright. Available online at

http://classics.mit.edu//Aristotle/poetics.html

Poetics

By Aristotle

Translated by S. H. Butcher

----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECTION 1

Part I

I propose to treat of Poetry in itself and of its various kinds,

noting the essential quality of each, to inquire into the structure

of the plot as requisite to a good poem; into the number and nature

of the parts of which a poem is composed; and similarly into whatever

else falls within the same inquiry. Following, then, the order of

nature, let us begin with the principles which come first.

Epic poetry and Tragedy, Comedy also and Dithyrambic poetry, and the

music of the flute and of the lyre in most of their forms, are all

in their general conception modes of imitation. They differ, however,

from one another in three respects- the medium, the objects, the manner

or mode of imitation, being in each case distinct.

For as there are persons who, by conscious art or mere habit, imitate

and represent various objects through the medium of color and form,

or again by the voice; so in the arts above mentioned, taken as a

whole, the imitation is produced by rhythm, language, or 'harmony,'

either singly or combined.

Thus in the music of the flute and of the lyre, 'harmony' and rhythm

alone are employed; also in other arts, such as that of the shepherd's

pipe, which are essentially similar to these. In dancing, rhythm alone

is used without 'harmony'; for even dancing imitates character, emotion,

and action, by rhythmical movement.

There is another art which imitates by means of language alone, and

that either in prose or verse- which verse, again, may either combine

different meters or consist of but one kind- but this has hitherto

been without a name. For there is no common term we could apply to

the mimes of Sophron and Xenarchus and the Socratic dialogues on the

one hand; and, on the other, to poetic imitations in iambic, elegiac,

or any similar meter. People do, indeed, add the word 'maker' or 'poet'

to the name of the meter, and speak of elegiac poets, or epic (that

is, hexameter) poets, as if it were not the imitation that makes the

poet, but the verse that entitles them all to the name. Even when

a treatise on medicine or natural science is brought out in verse,

the name of poet is by custom given to the author; and yet Homer and

Empedocles have nothing in common but the meter, so that it would

be right to call the one poet, the other physicist rather than poet.

On the same principle, even if a writer in his poetic imitation were

to combine all meters, as Chaeremon did in his Centaur, which is a

medley composed of meters of all kinds, we should bring him too under

the general term poet.

So much then for these distinctions.

There are, again, some arts which employ all the means above mentioned-

namely, rhythm, tune, and meter. Such are Dithyrambic and Nomic poetry,

and also Tragedy and Comedy; but between them originally the difference

is, that in the first two cases these means are all employed in combination,

in the latter, now one means is employed, now another.

Such, then, are the differences of the arts with respect to the medium

of imitation

Part II

Since the objects of imitation are men in action, and these men must

be either of a higher or a lower type (for moral character mainly

answers to these divisions, goodness and badness being the distinguishing

marks of moral differences), it follows that we must represent men

either as better than in real life, or as worse, or as they are. It

is the same in painting. Polygnotus depicted men as nobler than they

are, Pauson as less noble, Dionysius drew them true to life.

Now it is evident that each of the modes of imitation above mentioned

will exhibit these differences, and become a distinct kind in imitating

objects that are thus distinct. Such diversities may be found even

in dancing, flute-playing, and lyre-playing. So again in language,

whether prose or verse unaccompanied by music. Homer, for example,

makes men better than they are; Cleophon as they are; Hegemon the

Thasian, the inventor of parodies, and Nicochares, the author of the

Deiliad, worse than they are. The same thing holds good of Dithyrambs

and Nomes; here too one may portray different types, as Timotheus

and Philoxenus differed in representing their Cyclopes. The same distinction

marks off Tragedy from Comedy; for Comedy aims at representing men

as worse, Tragedy as better than in actual life.

Part III

There is still a third difference- the manner in which each of these

objects may be imitated. For the medium being the same, and the objects

the same, the poet may imitate by narration- in which case he can

either take another personality as Homer does, or speak in his own

person, unchanged- or he may present all his characters as living

and moving before us.

These, then, as we said at the beginning, are the three differences

which distinguish artistic imitation- the medium, the objects, and

the manner. So that from one point of view, Sophocles is an imitator

of the same kind as Homer- for both imitate higher types of character;

from another point of view, of the same kind as Aristophanes- for

both imitate persons acting and doing. Hence, some say, the name of

'drama' is given to such poems, as representing action. For the same

1 of 14

7/14/2004 2:05 PM

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/poetics.mb.txt

reason the Dorians claim the invention both of Tragedy and Comedy.

The claim to Comedy is put forward by the Megarians- not only by those

of Greece proper, who allege that it originated under their democracy,

but also by the Megarians of Sicily, for the poet Epicharmus, who

is much earlier than Chionides and Magnes, belonged to that country.

Tragedy too is claimed by certain Dorians of the Peloponnese. In each

case they appeal to the evidence of language. The outlying villages,

they say, are by them called komai, by the Athenians demoi: and they

assume that comedians were so named not from komazein, 'to revel,'

but because they wandered from village to village (kata komas), being

excluded contemptuously from the city. They add also that the Dorian

word for 'doing' is dran, and the Athenian, prattein.

This may suffice as to the number and nature of the various modes

of imitation.

Part IV

Poetry in general seems to have sprung from two causes, each of them

lying deep in our nature. First, the instinct of imitation is implanted

in man from childhood, one difference between him and other animals

being that he is the most imitative of living creatures, and through

imitation learns his earliest lessons; and no less universal is the

pleasure felt in things imitated. We have evidence of this in the

facts of experience. Objects which in themselves we view with pain,

we delight to contemplate when reproduced with minute fidelity: such

as the forms of the most ignoble animals and of dead bodies. The cause

of this again is, that to learn gives the liveliest pleasure, not

only to philosophers but to men in general; whose capacity, however,

of learning is more limited. Thus the reason why men enjoy seeing

a likeness is, that in contemplating it they find themselves learning

or inferring, and saying perhaps, 'Ah, that is he.' For if you happen

not to have seen the original, the pleasure will be due not to the

imitation as such, but to the execution, the coloring, or some such

other cause.

Imitation, then, is one instinct of our nature. Next, there is the

instinct for 'harmony' and rhythm, meters being manifestly sections

of rhythm. Persons, therefore, starting with this natural gift developed

by degrees their special aptitudes, till their rude improvisations

gave birth to Poetry.

Poetry now diverged in two directions, according to the individual

character of the writers. The graver spirits imitated noble actions,

and the actions of good men. The more trivial sort imitated the actions

of meaner persons, at first composing satires, as the former did hymns

to the gods and the praises of famous men. A poem of the satirical

kind cannot indeed be put down to any author earlier than Homer; though

many such writers probably there were. But from Homer onward, instances

can be cited- his own Margites, for example, and other similar compositions.

The appropriate meter was also here introduced; hence the measure

is still called the iambic or lampooning measure, being that in which

people lampooned one another. Thus the older poets were distinguished

as writers of heroic or of lampooning verse.

As, in the serious style, Homer is pre-eminent among poets, for he

alone combined dramatic form with excellence of imitation so he too

first laid down the main lines of comedy, by dramatizing the ludicrous

instead of writing personal satire. His Margites bears the same relation

to comedy that the Iliad and Odyssey do to tragedy. But when Tragedy

and Comedy came to light, the two classes of poets still followed

their natural bent: the lampooners became writers of Comedy, and the

Epic poets were succeeded by Tragedians, since the drama was a larger

and higher form of art.

Whether Tragedy has as yet perfected its proper types or not; and

whether it is to be judged in itself, or in relation also to the audience-

this raises another question. Be that as it may, Tragedy- as also

Comedy- was at first mere improvisation. The one originated with the

authors of the Dithyramb, the other with those of the phallic songs,

which are still in use in many of our cities. Tragedy advanced by

slow degrees; each new element that showed itself was in turn developed.

Having passed through many changes, it found its natural form, and

there it stopped.

Aeschylus first introduced a second actor; he diminished the importance

of the Chorus, and assigned the leading part to the dialogue. Sophocles

raised the number of actors to three, and added scene-painting. Moreover,

it was not till late that the short plot was discarded for one of

greater compass, and the grotesque diction of the earlier satyric

form for the stately manner of Tragedy. The iambic measure then replaced

the trochaic tetrameter, which was originally employed when the poetry

was of the satyric order, and had greater with dancing. Once dialogue

had come in, Nature herself discovered the appropriate measure. For

the iambic is, of all measures, the most colloquial we see it in the

fact that conversational speech runs into iambic lines more frequently

than into any other kind of verse; rarely into hexameters, and only

when we drop the colloquial intonation. The additions to the number

of 'episodes' or acts, and the other accessories of which tradition

tells, must be taken as already described; for to discuss them in

detail would, doubtless, be a large undertaking.

Part V

Comedy is, as we have said, an imitation of characters of a lower

type- not, however, in the full sense of the word bad, the ludicrous

being merely a subdivision of the ugly. It consists in some defect

or ugliness which is not painful or destructive. To take an obvious

example, the comic mask is ugly and distorted, but does not imply

pain.

The successive changes through which Tragedy passed, and the authors

of these changes, are well known, whereas Comedy has had no history,

because it was not at first treated seriously. It was late before

the Archon granted a comic chorus to a poet; the performers were till

then voluntary. Comedy had already taken definite shape when comic

poets, distinctively so called, are heard of. Who furnished it with

masks, or prologues, or increased the number of actors- these and

other similar details remain unknown. As for the plot, it came originally

from Sicily; but of Athenian writers Crates was the first who abandoning

the 'iambic' or lampooning form, generalized his themes and plots.

Epic poetry agrees with Tragedy in so far as it is an imitation in

verse of characters of a higher type. They differ in that Epic poetry

2 of 14

7/14/2004 2:05 PM

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/poetics.mb.txt

admits but one kind of meter and is narrative in form. They differ,

again, in their length: for Tragedy endeavors, as far as possible,

to confine itself to a single revolution of the sun, or but slightly

to exceed this limit, whereas the Epic action has no limits of time.

This, then, is a second point of difference; though at first the same

freedom was admitted in Tragedy as in Epic poetry.

Of their constituent parts some are common to both, some peculiar

to Tragedy: whoever, therefore knows what is good or bad Tragedy,

knows also about Epic poetry. All the elements of an Epic poem are

found in Tragedy, but the elements of a Tragedy are not all found

in the Epic poem.

Part VI

Of the poetry which imitates in hexameter verse, and of Comedy, we

will speak hereafter. Let us now discuss Tragedy, resuming its formal

definition, as resulting from what has been already said.

Tragedy, then, is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete,

and of a certain magnitude; in language embellished with each kind

of artistic ornament, the several kinds being found in separate parts

of the play; in the form of action, not of narrative; through pity

and fear effecting the proper purgation of these emotions. By 'language

embellished,' I mean language into which rhythm, 'harmony' and song

enter. By 'the several kinds in separate parts,' I mean, that some

parts are rendered through the medium of verse alone, others again

with the aid of song.

Now as tragic imitation implies persons acting, it necessarily follows

in the first place, that Spectacular equipment will be a part of Tragedy.

Next, Song and Diction, for these are the media of imitation. By 'Diction'

I mean the mere metrical arrangement of the words: as for 'Song,'

it is a term whose sense every one understands.

Again, Tragedy is the imitation of an action; and an action implies

personal agents, who necessarily possess certain distinctive qualities

both of character and thought; for it is by these that we qualify

actions themselves, and these- thought and character- are the two

natural causes from which actions spring, and on actions again all

success or failure depends. Hence, the Plot is the imitation of the

action- for by plot I here mean the arrangement of the incidents.

By Character I mean that in virtue of which we ascribe certain qualities

to the agents. Thought is required wherever a statement is proved,

or, it may be, a general truth enunciated. Every Tragedy, therefore,

must have six parts, which parts determine its quality- namely, Plot,

Character, Diction, Thought, Spectacle, Song. Two of the parts constitute

the medium of imitation, one the manner, and three the objects of

imitation. And these complete the fist. These elements have been employed,

we may say, by the poets to a man; in fact, every play contains Spectacular

elements as well as Character, Plot, Diction, Song, and Thought.

But most important of all is the structure of the incidents. For Tragedy

is an imitation, not of men, but of an action and of life, and life

consists in action, and its end is a mode of action, not a quality.

Now character determines men's qualities, but it is by their actions

that they are happy or the reverse. Dramatic action, therefore, is

not with a view to the representation of character: character comes

in as subsidiary to the actions. Hence the incidents and the plot

are the end of a tragedy; and the end is the chief thing of all. Again,

without action there cannot be a tragedy; there may be without character.

The tragedies of most of our modern poets fail in the rendering of

character; and of poets in general this is often true. It is the same

in painting; and here lies the difference between Zeuxis and Polygnotus.

Polygnotus delineates character well; the style of Zeuxis is devoid

of ethical quality. Again, if you string together a set of speeches

expressive of character, and well finished in point of diction and

thought, you will not produce the essential tragic effect nearly so

well as with a play which, however deficient in these respects, yet

has a plot and artistically constructed incidents. Besides which,

the most powerful elements of emotional interest in Tragedy- Peripeteia

or Reversal of the Situation, and Recognition scenes- are parts of

the plot. A further proof is, that novices in the art attain to finish

of diction and precision of portraiture before they can construct

the plot. It is the same with almost all the early poets.

The plot, then, is the first principle, and, as it were, the soul

of a tragedy; Character holds the second place. A similar fact is

seen in painting. The most beautiful colors, laid on confusedly, will

not give as much pleasure as the chalk outline of a portrait. Thus

Tragedy is the imitation of an action, and of the agents mainly with

a view to the action.

Third in order is Thought- that is, the faculty of saying what is

possible and pertinent in given circumstances. In the case of oratory,

this is the function of the political art and of the art of rhetoric:

and so indeed the older poets make their characters speak the language

of civic life; the poets of our time, the language of the rhetoricians.

Character is that which reveals moral purpose, showing what kind of

things a man chooses or avoids. Speeches, therefore, which do not

make this manifest, or in which the speaker does not choose or avoid

anything whatever, are not expressive of character. Thought, on the

other hand, is found where something is proved to be or not to be,

or a general maxim is enunciated.

Fourth among the elements enumerated comes Diction; by which I mean,

as has been already said, the expression of the meaning in words;

and its essence is the same both in verse and prose.

Of the remaining elements Song holds the chief place among the embellishments

The Spectacle has, indeed, an emotional attraction of its own, but,

of all the parts, it is the least artistic, and connected least with

the art of poetry. For the power of Tragedy, we may be sure, is felt

even apart from representation and actors. Besides, the production

of spectacular effects depends more on the art of the stage machinist

than on that of the poet.

Part VII

These principles being established, let us now discuss the proper

structure of the Plot, since this is the first and most important

thing in Tragedy.

3 of 14

7/14/2004 2:05 PM

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/poetics.mb.txt

Now, according to our definition Tragedy is an imitation of an action

that is complete, and whole, and of a certain magnitude; for there

may be a whole that is wanting in magnitude. A whole is that which

has a beginning, a middle, and an end. A beginning is that which does

not itself follow anything by causal necessity, but after which something

naturally is or comes to be. An end, on the contrary, is that which

itself naturally follows some other thing, either by necessity, or

as a rule, but has nothing following it. A middle is that which follows

something as some other thing follows it. A well constructed plot,

therefore, must neither begin nor end at haphazard, but conform to

these principles.

Again, a beautiful object, whether it be a living organism or any

whole composed of parts, must not only have an orderly arrangement

of parts, but must also be of a certain magnitude; for beauty depends

on magnitude and order. Hence a very small animal organism cannot

be beautiful; for the view of it is confused, the object being seen

in an almost imperceptible moment of time. Nor, again, can one of

vast size be beautiful; for as the eye cannot take it all in at once,

the unity and sense of the whole is lost for the spectator; as for

instance if there were one a thousand miles long. As, therefore, in

the case of animate bodies and organisms a certain magnitude is necessary,

and a magnitude which may be easily embraced in one view; so in the

plot, a certain length is necessary, and a length which can be easily

embraced by the memory. The limit of length in relation to dramatic

competition and sensuous presentment is no part of artistic theory.

For had it been the rule for a hundred tragedies to compete together,

the performance would have been regulated by the water-clock- as indeed

we are told was formerly done. But the limit as fixed by the nature

of the drama itself is this: the greater the length, the more beautiful

will the piece be by reason of its size, provided that the whole be

perspicuous. And to define the matter roughly, we may say that the

proper magnitude is comprised within such limits, that the sequence

of events, according to the law of probability or necessity, will

admit of a change from bad fortune to good, or from good fortune to

bad.

Part VIII

Unity of plot does not, as some persons think, consist in the unity

of the hero. For infinitely various are the incidents in one man's

life which cannot be reduced to unity; and so, too, there are many

actions of one man out of which we cannot make one action. Hence the

error, as it appears, of all poets who have composed a Heracleid,

a Theseid, or other poems of the kind. They imagine that as Heracles

was one man, the story of Heracles must also be a unity. But Homer,

as in all else he is of surpassing merit, here too- whether from art

or natural genius- seems to have happily discerned the truth. In composing

the Odyssey he did not include all the adventures of Odysseus- such

as his wound on Parnassus, or his feigned madness at the mustering

of the host- incidents between which there was no necessary or probable

connection: but he made the Odyssey, and likewise the Iliad, to center

round an action that in our sense of the word is one. As therefore,

in the other imitative arts, the imitation is one when the object

imitated is one, so the plot, being an imitation of an action, must

imitate one action and that a whole, the structural union of the parts

being such that, if any one of them is displaced or removed, the whole

will be disjointed and disturbed. For a thing whose presence or absence

makes no visible difference, is not an organic part of the whole.

Part IX

It is, moreover, evident from what has been said, that it is not the

function of the poet to relate what has happened, but what may happen-

what is possible according to the law of probability or necessity.

The poet and the historian differ not by writing in verse or in prose.

The work of Herodotus might be put into verse, and it would still

be a species of history, with meter no less than without it. The true

difference is that one relates what has happened, the other what may

happen. Poetry, therefore, is a more philosophical and a higher thing

than history: for poetry tends to express the universal, history the

particular. By the universal I mean how a person of a certain type

on occasion speak or act, according to the law of probability or necessity;

and it is this universality at which poetry aims in the names she

attaches to the personages. The particular is- for example- what Alcibiades

did or suffered. In Comedy this is already apparent: for here the

poet first constructs the plot on the lines of probability, and then

inserts characteristic names- unlike the lampooners who write about

particular individuals. But tragedians still keep to real names, the

reason being that what is possible is credible: what has not happened

we do not at once feel sure to be possible; but what has happened

is manifestly possible: otherwise it would not have happened. Still

there are even some tragedies in which there are only one or two well-known

names, the rest being fictitious. In others, none are well known-

as in Agathon's Antheus, where incidents and names alike are fictitious,

and yet they give none the less pleasure. We must not, therefore,

at all costs keep to the received legends, which are the usual subjects

of Tragedy. Indeed, it would be absurd to attempt it; for even subjects

that are known are known only to a few, and yet give pleasure to all.

It clearly follows that the poet or 'maker' should be the maker of

plots rather than of verses; since he is a poet because he imitates,

and what he imitates are actions. And even if he chances to take a

historical subject, he is none the less a poet; for there is no reason

why some events that have actually happened should not conform to

the law of the probable and possible, and in virtue of that quality

in them he is their poet or maker.

Of all plots and actions the episodic are the worst. I call a plot

'episodic' in which the episodes or acts succeed one another without

probable or necessary sequence. Bad poets compose such pieces by their

own fault, good poets, to please the players; for, as they write show

pieces for competition, they stretch the plot beyond its capacity,

and are often forced to break the natural continuity.

But again, Tragedy is an imitation not only of a complete action,

but of events inspiring fear or pity. Such an effect is best produced

when the events come on us by surprise; and the effect is heightened

when, at the same time, they follows as cause and effect. The tragic

wonder will then be greater than if they happened of themselves or

by accident; for even coincidences are most striking when they have

an air of design. We may instance the statue of Mitys at Argos, which

fell upon his murderer while he was a spectator at a festival, and

killed him. Such events seem not to be due to mere chance. Plots,

therefore, constructed on these principles are necessarily the best.

4 of 14

7/14/2004 2:05 PM

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/poetics.mb.txt

Part X

Plots are either Simple or Complex, for the actions in real life,

of which the plots are an imitation, obviously show a similar distinction.

An action which is one and continuous in the sense above defined,

I call Simple, when the change of fortune takes place without Reversal

of the Situation and without Recognition

A Complex action is one in which the change is accompanied by such

Reversal, or by Recognition, or by both. These last should arise from

the internal structure of the plot, so that what follows should be

the necessary or probable result of the preceding action. It makes

all the difference whether any given event is a case of propter hoc

or post hoc.

Part XI

Reversal of the Situation is a change by which the action veers round

to its opposite, subject always to our rule of probability or necessity.

Thus in the Oedipus, the messenger comes to cheer Oedipus and free

him from his alarms about his mother, but by revealing who he is,

he produces the opposite effect. Again in the Lynceus, Lynceus is

being led away to his death, and Danaus goes with him, meaning to

slay him; but the outcome of the preceding incidents is that Danaus

is killed and Lynceus saved.

Recognition, as the name indicates, is a change from ignorance to

knowledge, producing love or hate between the persons destined by

the poet for good or bad fortune. The best form of recognition is

coincident with a Reversal of the Situation, as in the Oedipus. There

are indeed other forms. Even inanimate things of the most trivial

kind may in a sense be objects of recognition. Again, we may recognize

or discover whether a person has done a thing or not. But the recognition

which is most intimately connected with the plot and action is, as

we have said, the recognition of persons. This recognition, combined

with Reversal, will produce either pity or fear; and actions producing

these effects are those which, by our definition, Tragedy represents.

Moreover, it is upon such situations that the issues of good or bad

fortune will depend. Recognition, then, being between persons, it

may happen that one person only is recognized by the other- when the

latter is already known- or it may be necessary that the recognition

should be on both sides. Thus Iphigenia is revealed to Orestes by

the sending of the letter; but another act of recognition is required

to make Orestes known to Iphigenia.

Two parts, then, of the Plot- Reversal of the Situation and Recognition-

turn upon surprises. A third part is the Scene of Suffering. The Scene

of Suffering is a destructive or painful action, such as death on

the stage, bodily agony, wounds, and the like.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECTION 2

Part XII

The parts of Tragedy which must be treated as elements of the whole

have been already mentioned. We now come to the quantitative parts-

the separate parts into which Tragedy is divided- namely, Prologue,

Episode, Exode, Choric song; this last being divided into Parode and

Stasimon. These are common to all plays: peculiar to some are the

songs of actors from the stage and the Commoi.

The Prologue is that entire part of a tragedy which precedes the Parode

of the Chorus. The Episode is that entire part of a tragedy which

is between complete choric songs. The Exode is that entire part of

a tragedy which has no choric song after it. Of the Choric part the

Parode is the first undivided utterance of the Chorus: the Stasimon

is a Choric ode without anapaests or trochaic tetrameters: the Commos

is a joint lamentation of Chorus and actors. The parts of Tragedy

which must be treated as elements of the whole have been already mentioned.

The quantitative parts- the separate parts into which it is divided-

are here enumerated.

Part XIII

As the sequel to what has already been said, we must proceed to consider

what the poet should aim at, and what he should avoid, in constructing

his plots; and by what means the specific effect of Tragedy will be

produced.

A perfect tragedy should, as we have seen, be arranged not on the

simple but on the complex plan. It should, moreover, imitate actions

which excite pity and fear, this being the distinctive mark of tragic

imitation. It follows plainly, in the first place, that the change

of fortune presented must not be the spectacle of a virtuous man brought

from prosperity to adversity: for this moves neither pity nor fear;

it merely shocks us. Nor, again, that of a bad man passing from adversity

to prosperity: for nothing can be more alien to the spirit of Tragedy;

it possesses no single tragic quality; it neither satisfies the moral

sense nor calls forth pity or fear. Nor, again, should the downfall

of the utter villain be exhibited. A plot of this kind would, doubtless,

satisfy the moral sense, but it would inspire neither pity nor fear;

for pity is aroused by unmerited misfortune, fear by the misfortune

of a man like ourselves. Such an event, therefore, will be neither

pitiful nor terrible. There remains, then, the character between these

two extremes- that of a man who is not eminently good and just, yet

whose misfortune is brought about not by vice or depravity, but by

some error or frailty. He must be one who is highly renowned and prosperous-

a personage like Oedipus, Thyestes, or other illustrious men of such

families.

A well-constructed plot should, therefore, be single in its issue,

rather than double as some maintain. The change of fortune should

be not from bad to good, but, reversely, from good to bad. It should

come about as the result not of vice, but of some great error or frailty,

in a character either such as we have described, or better rather

than worse. The practice of the stage bears out our view. At first

the poets recounted any legend that came in their way. Now, the best

tragedies are founded on the story of a few houses- on the fortunes

of Alcmaeon, Oedipus, Orestes, Meleager, Thyestes, Telephus, and those

others who have done or suffered something terrible. A tragedy, then,

to be perfect according to the rules of art should be of this construction.

5 of 14

7/14/2004 2:05 PM

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: