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.
POETICS|12
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.
POETICS|13
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. 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,
