Various Works Page 34

  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. Hence they are in error who censure Euripides just

  because he follows this principle in his plays, many of which end

  unhappily. It is, as we have said, the right ending. The best proof is

  that on the stage and in dramatic competition, such plays, if well

  worked out, are the most tragic in effect; and Euripides, faulty

  though he may be in the general management of his subject, yet is felt

  to be the most tragic of the poets.

  In the second rank comes the kind of tragedy which some place first.

  Like the Odyssey, it has a double thread of plot, and also an opposite

  catastrophe for the good and for the bad. It is accounted the best

  because of the weakness of the spectators; for the poet is guided in

  what he writes by the wishes of his audience. The pleasure, however,

  thence derived is not the true tragic pleasure. It is proper rather to

  Comedy, where those who, in the piece, are the deadliest enemies- like

  Orestes and Aegisthus- quit the stage as friends at the close, and

  no one slays or is slain.

  POETICS|14

  XIV

  Fear and pity may be aroused by spectacular means; but they may also

  result from the inner structure of the piece, which is the better way,

  and indicates a superior poet. For the plot ought to be so constructed

  that, even without the aid of the eye, he who hears the tale told will

  thrill with horror and melt to pity at what takes Place. This is the

  impression we should receive from hearing the story of the Oedipus.

  But to produce this effect by the mere spectacle is a less artistic

  method, and dependent on extraneous aids. Those who employ spectacular

  means to create a sense not of the terrible but only of the monstrous,

  are strangers to the purpose of Tragedy; for we must not demand of

  Tragedy any and every kind of pleasure, but only that which is

  proper to it. And since the pleasure which the poet should afford is

  that which comes from pity and fear through imitation, it is evident

  that this quality must be impressed upon the incidents.

  Let us then determine what are the circumstances which strike us

  as terrible or pitiful.

  Actions capable of this effect must happen between persons who are

  either friends or enemies or indifferent to one another. If an enemy

  kills an enemy, there is nothing to excite pity either in the act or

  the intention- except so far as the suffering in itself is pitiful. So

  again with indifferent persons. But when the tragic incident occurs

  between those who are near or dear to one another- if, for example,

  a brother kills, or intends to kill, a brother, a son his father, a

  mother her son, a son his mother, or any other deed of the kind is

  done- these are the situations to be looked for by the poet. He may

  not indeed destroy the framework of the received legends- the fact,

  for instance, that Clytemnestra was slain by Orestes and Eriphyle by

  Alcmaeon- but he ought to show of his own, and skilfully handle the

  traditional. material. Let us explain more clearly what is meant by

  skilful handling.

  The action may be done consciously and with knowledge of the

  persons, in the manner of the older poets. It is thus too that

  Euripides makes Medea slay her children. Or, again, the deed of horror

  may be done, but done in ignorance, and the tie of kinship or

  friendship be discovered afterwards. The Oedipus of Sophocles is an

  example. Here, indeed, the incident is outside the drama proper; but

  cases occur where it falls within the action of the play: one may cite

  the Alcmaeon of Astydamas, or Telegonus in the Wounded Odysseus.

  Again, there is a third case- [to be about to act with knowledge of

  the persons and then not to act. The fourth case] is when some one

  is about to do an irreparable deed through ignorance, and makes the

  discovery before it is done. These are the only possible ways. For the

  deed must either be done or not done- and that wittingly or

  unwittingly. But of all these ways, to be about to act knowing the

  persons, and then not to act, is the worst. It is shocking without

  being tragic, for no disaster follows It is, therefore, never, or very

  rarely, found in poetry. One instance, however, is in the Antigone,

  where Haemon threatens to kill Creon. The next and better way is

  that the deed should be perpetrated. Still better, that it should be

  perpetrated in ignorance, and the discovery made afterwards. There

  is then nothing to shock us, while the discovery produces a

  startling effect. The last case is the best, as when in the

  Cresphontes Merope is about to slay her son, but, recognizing who he

  is, spares his life. So in the Iphigenia, the sister recognizes the

  brother just in time. Again in the Helle, the son recognizes the

  mother when on the point of giving her up. This, then, is why a few

  families only, as has been already observed, furnish the subjects of

  tragedy. It was not art, but happy chance, that led the poets in

  search of subjects to impress the tragic quality upon their plots.

  They are compelled, therefore, to have recourse to those houses

  whose history contains moving incidents like these.

  Enough has now been said concerning the structure of the

  incidents, and the right kind of plot.

  POETICS|15

  XV

  In respect of Character there are four things to be aimed at. First,

  and most important, it must be good. Now any speech or action that

  manifests moral purpose of any kind will be expressive of character:

  the character will be good if the purpose is good. This rule is

  relative to each class. Even a woman may be good, and also a slave;

  though the woman may be said to be an inferior being, and the slave

  quite worthless. The second thing to aim at is propriety. There is a

  type of manly valor; but valor in a woman, or unscrupulous

  cleverness is inappropriate. Thirdly, character must be true to

  life: for this is a distinct thing from goodness and propriety, as

  here described. The fourth point
is consistency: for though the

  subject of the imitation, who suggested the type, be inconsistent,

  still he must be consistently inconsistent. As an example of

  motiveless degradation of character, we have Menelaus in the

  Orestes; of character indecorous and inappropriate, the lament of

  Odysseus in the Scylla, and the speech of Melanippe; of inconsistency,

  the Iphigenia at Aulis- for Iphigenia the suppliant in no way

  resembles her later self.

  As in the structure of the plot, so too in the portraiture of

  character, the poet should always aim either at the necessary or the

  probable. Thus a person of a given character should speak or act in

  a given way, by the rule either of necessity or of probability; just

  as this event should follow that by necessary or probable sequence. It

  is therefore evident that the unraveling of the plot, no less than the

  complication, must arise out of the plot itself, it must not be

  brought about by the Deus ex Machina- as in the Medea, or in the

  return of the Greeks in the Iliad. The Deus ex Machina should be

  employed only for events external to the drama- for antecedent or

  subsequent events, which lie beyond the range of human knowledge,

  and which require to be reported or foretold; for to the gods we

  ascribe the power of seeing all things. Within the action there must

  be nothing irrational. If the irrational cannot be excluded, it should

  be outside the scope of the tragedy. Such is the irrational element

  the Oedipus of Sophocles.

  Again, since Tragedy is an imitation of persons who are above the

  common level, the example of good portrait painters should be

  followed. They, while reproducing the distinctive form of the

  original, make a likeness which is true to life and yet more

  beautiful. So too the poet, in representing men who are irascible or

  indolent, or have other defects of character, should preserve the type

  and yet ennoble it. In this way Achilles is portrayed by Agathon and

  Homer.

  These then are rules the poet should observe. Nor should he

  neglect those appeals to the senses, which, though not among the

  essentials, are the concomitants of poetry; for here too there is much

  room for error. But of this enough has been said in our published

  treatises.

  POETICS|16

  XVI

  What Recognition is has been already explained. We will now

  enumerate its kinds.

  First, the least artistic form, which, from poverty of wit, is

  most commonly employed- recognition by signs. Of these some are

  congenital- such as 'the spear which the earth-born race bear on their

  bodies,' or the stars introduced by Carcinus in his Thyestes. Others

  are acquired after birth; and of these some are bodily marks, as

  scars; some external tokens, as necklaces, or the little ark in the

  Tyro by which the discovery is effected. Even these admit of more or

  less skilful treatment. Thus in the recognition of Odysseus by his

  scar, the discovery is made in one way by the nurse, in another by the

  swineherds. The use of tokens for the express purpose of proof- and,

  indeed, any formal proof with or without tokens- is a less artistic

  mode of recognition. A better kind is that which comes about by a turn

  of incident, as in the Bath Scene in the Odyssey.

  Next come the recognitions invented at will by the poet, and on that

  account wanting in art. For example, Orestes in the Iphigenia

  reveals the fact that he is Orestes. She, indeed, makes herself

  known by the letter; but he, by speaking himself, and saying what

  the poet, not what the plot requires. This, therefore, is nearly

  allied to the fault above mentioned- for Orestes might as well have

  brought tokens with him. Another similar instance is the 'voice of the

  shuttle' in the Tereus of Sophocles.

  The third kind depends on memory when the sight of some object

  awakens a feeling: as in the Cyprians of Dicaeogenes, where the hero

  breaks into tears on seeing the picture; or again in the Lay of

  Alcinous, where Odysseus, hearing the minstrel play the lyre,

  recalls the past and weeps; and hence the recognition.

  The fourth kind is by process of reasoning. Thus in the Choephori:

  'Some one resembling me has come: no one resembles me but Orestes:

  therefore Orestes has come.' Such too is the discovery made by

  Iphigenia in the play of Polyidus the Sophist. It was a natural

  reflection for Orestes to make, 'So I too must die at the altar like

  my sister.' So, again, in the Tydeus of Theodectes, the father says,

  'I came to find my son, and I lose my own life.' So too in the

  Phineidae: the women, on seeing the place, inferred their fate-

  'Here we are doomed to die, for here we were cast forth.' Again, there

  is a composite kind of recognition involving false inference on the

  part of one of the characters, as in the Odysseus Disguised as a

  Messenger. A said [that no one else was able to bend the bow; ...

  hence B (the disguised Odysseus) imagined that A would] recognize

  the bow which, in fact, he had not seen; and to bring about a

  recognition by this means- the expectation that A would recognize

  the bow- is false inference.

  But, of all recognitions, the best is that which arises from the

  incidents themselves, where the startling discovery is made by natural

  means. Such is that in the Oedipus of Sophocles, and in the Iphigenia;

  for it was natural that Iphigenia should wish to dispatch a letter.

  These recognitions alone dispense with the artificial aid of tokens or

  amulets. Next come the recognitions by process of reasoning.

  POETICS|17

  XVII

  In constructing the plot and working it out with the proper diction,

  the poet should place the scene, as far as possible, before his

  eyes. In this way, seeing everything with the utmost vividness, as

  if he were a spectator of the action, he will discover what is in

  keeping with it, and be most unlikely to overlook inconsistencies. The

  need of such a rule is shown by the fault found in Carcinus.

  Amphiaraus was on his way from the temple. This fact escaped the

  observation of one who did not see the situation. On the stage,

  however, the Piece failed, the audience being offended at the

  oversight.

  Again, the poet should work out his play, to the best of his

  power, with appropriate gestures; for those who feel emotion are

  most convincing through natural sympathy with the characters they

  represent; and one who is agitated storms, one who is angry rages,

  with the most lifelike reality. Hence poetry implies either a happy

  gift of nature or a strain of madness. In the one case a man can

  take the mould of any character; in the other, he is lifted out of his

  proper self.

  As for the story, whether the poet takes it ready made or constructs

  it for himself, he should first sketch its general outline, and then

  fill in the episodes and amplify in detail. The general plan may be

  illustrated by the Iphigenia. A young girl is sacrificed; she

  disappears mysteriously from the eyes of those who sacrificed her; she


  is transported to another country, where the custom is to offer up

  an strangers to the goddess. To this ministry she is appointed. Some

  time later her own brother chances to arrive. The fact that the oracle

  for some reason ordered him to go there, is outside the general plan

  of the play. The purpose, again, of his coming is outside the action

  proper. However, he comes, he is seized, and, when on the point of

  being sacrificed, reveals who he is. The mode of recognition may be

  either that of Euripides or of Polyidus, in whose play he exclaims

  very naturally: 'So it was not my sister only, but I too, who was

  doomed to be sacrificed'; and by that remark he is saved.

  After this, the names being once given, it remains to fill in the

  episodes. We must see that they are relevant to the action. In the

  case of Orestes, for example, there is the madness which led to his

  capture, and his deliverance by means of the purificatory rite. In the

  drama, the episodes are short, but it is these that give extension

  to Epic poetry. Thus the story of the Odyssey can be stated briefly. A

  certain man is absent from home for many years; he is jealously

  watched by Poseidon, and left desolate. Meanwhile his home is in a

  wretched plight- suitors are wasting his substance and plotting

  against his son. At length, tempest-tost, he himself arrives; he makes

  certain persons acquainted with him; he attacks the suitors with his

  own hand, and is himself preserved while he destroys them. This is the

  essence of the plot; the rest is episode.

  POETICS|18

  XVIII

  Every tragedy falls into two parts- Complication and Unraveling

  or Denouement. Incidents extraneous to the action are frequently

  combined with a portion of the action proper, to form the

  Complication; the rest is the Unraveling. By the Complication I mean

  all that extends from the beginning of the action to the part which

  marks the turning-point to good or bad fortune. The Unraveling is that