<p><SPAN name="link2H_4_0019" id="link2H_4_0019"></SPAN></p>
<h2> 17 </h2>
<p>At the time when he is constructing his Plots, and engaged on the Diction
in which they are worked out, the poet should remember (1) to put the
actual scenes as far as possible before his eyes. In this way, seeing
everything with the vividness of an eye-witness as it were, he will devise
what is appropriate, and be least likely to overlook incongruities. This
is shown by what was censured in Carcinus, the return of Amphiaraus from
the sanctuary; it would have passed unnoticed, if it had not been actually
seen by the audience; but on the stage his play failed, the incongruity of
the incident offending the spectators. (2) As far as may be, too, the poet
should even act his story with the very gestures of his personages. Given
the same natural qualifications, he who feels the emotions to be described
will be the most convincing; distress and anger, for instance, are
portrayed most truthfully by one who is feeling them at the moment. Hence
it is that poetry demands a man with special gift for it, or else one with
a touch of madness in him; the former can easily assume the required mood,
and the latter may be actually beside himself with emotion. (3) His story,
again, whether already made or of his own making, he should first simplify
and reduce to a universal form, before proceeding to lengthen it out by
the insertion of episodes. The following will show how the universal
element in <i>Iphigenia</i>, for instance, may be viewed: A certain maiden
having been offered in sacrifice, and spirited away from her sacrificers
into another land, where the custom was to sacrifice all strangers to the
Goddess, she was made there the priestess of this rite. Long after that
the brother of the priestess happened to come; the fact, however, of the
oracle having for a certain reason bidden him go thither, and his object
in going, are outside the Plot of the play. On his coming he was arrested,
and about to be sacrificed, when he revealed who he was—either as
Euripides puts it, or (as suggested by Polyidus) by the not improbable
exclamation, 'So I too am doomed to be sacrificed, as my sister was'; and
the disclosure led to his salvation. This done, the next thing, after the
proper names have been fixed as a basis for the story, is to work in
episodes or accessory incidents. One must mind, however, that the episodes
are appropriate, like the fit of madness in Orestes, which led to his
arrest, and the purifying, which brought about his salvation. In plays,
then, the episodes are short; in epic poetry they serve to lengthen out
the poem. The argument of the <i>Odyssey</i> is not a long one.</p>
<p>A certain man has been abroad many years; Poseidon is ever on the watch
for him, and he is all alone. Matters at home too have come to this, that
his substance is being wasted and his son's death plotted by suitors to
his wife. Then he arrives there himself after his grievous sufferings;
reveals himself, and falls on his enemies; and the end is his salvation
and their death. This being all that is proper to the <i>Odyssey</i>,
everything else in it is episode.</p>
<p><SPAN name="link2H_4_0020" id="link2H_4_0020"></SPAN></p>
<h2> 18 </h2>
<p>(4) There is a further point to be borne in mind. Every tragedy is in part
Complication and in part Denouement; the incidents before the opening
scene, and often certain also of those within the play, forming the
Complication; and the rest the Denouement. By Complication I mean all from
the beginning of the story to the point just before the change in the
hero's fortunes; by Denouement, all from the beginning of the change to
the end. In the <i>Lynceus</i> of Theodectes, for instance, the
Complication includes, together with the presupposed incidents, the
seizure of the child and that in turn of the parents; and the Denouement
all from the indictment for the murder to the end. Now it is right, when
one speaks of a tragedy as the same or not the same as another, to do so
on the ground before all else of their Plot, i.e. as having the same or
not the same Complication and Denouement. Yet there are many dramatists
who, after a good Complication, fail in the Denouement. But it is
necessary for both points of construction to be always duly mastered. (5)
There are four distinct species of Tragedy—that being the number of
the constituents also that have been mentioned: first, the complex
Tragedy, which is all Peripety and Discovery; second, the Tragedy of
suffering, e.g. the <i>Ajaxes</i> and <i>Ixions</i>; third, the Tragedy of
character, e.g. <i>The Phthiotides</i> and <i>Peleus</i>. The fourth
constituent is that of 'Spectacle', exemplified in <i>The Phorcides</i>,
in <i>Prometheus</i>, and in all plays with the scene laid in the nether
world. The poet's aim, then, should be to combine every element of
interest, if possible, or else the more important and the major part of
them. This is now especially necessary owing to the unfair criticism to
which the poet is subjected in these days. Just because there have been
poets before him strong in the several species of tragedy, the critics now
expect the one man to surpass that which was the strong point of each one
of his predecessors. (6) One should also remember what has been said more
than once, and not write a tragedy on an epic body of incident (i.e. one
with a plurality of stories in it), by attempting to dramatize, for
instance, the entire story of the <i>Iliad</i>. In the epic owing to its
scale every part is treated at proper length; with a drama, however, on
the same story the result is very disappointing. This is shown by the fact
that all who have dramatized the fall of Ilium in its entirety, and not
part by part, like Euripides, or the whole of the Niobe story, instead of
a portion, like Aeschylus, either fail utterly or have but ill success on
the stage; for that and that alone was enough to ruin a play by Agathon.
Yet in their Peripeties, as also in their simple plots, the poets I mean
show wonderful skill in aiming at the kind of effect they desire—a
tragic situation that arouses the human feeling in one, like the clever
villain (e.g. Sisyphus) deceived, or the brave wrongdoer worsted. This is
probable, however, only in Agathon's sense, when he speaks of the
probability of even improbabilities coming to pass. (7) The Chorus too
should be regarded as one of the actors; it should be an integral part of
the whole, and take a share in the action—that which it has in
Sophocles rather than in Euripides. With the later poets, however, the
songs in a play of theirs have no more to do with the Plot of that than of
any other tragedy. Hence it is that they are now singing intercalary
pieces, a practice first introduced by Agathon. And yet what real
difference is there between singing such intercalary pieces, and
attempting to fit in a speech, or even a whole act, from one play into
another?</p>
<p><SPAN name="link2H_4_0021" id="link2H_4_0021"></SPAN></p>
<h2> 19 </h2>
<p>The Plot and Characters having been discussed, it remains to consider the
Diction and Thought. As for the Thought, we may assume what is said of it
in our Art of Rhetoric, as it belongs more properly to that department of
inquiry. The Thought of the personages is shown in everything to be
effected by their language—in every effort to prove or disprove, to
arouse emotion (pity, fear, anger, and the like), or to maximize or
minimize things. It is clear, also, that their mental procedure must be on
the same lines in their actions likewise, whenever they wish them to
arouse pity or horror, or have a look of importance or probability. The
only difference is that with the act the impression has to be made without
explanation; whereas with the spoken word it has to be produced by the
speaker, and result from his language. What, indeed, would be the good of
the speaker, if things appeared in the required light even apart from
anything he says?</p>
<p>As regards the Diction, one subject for inquiry under this head is the
turns given to the language when spoken; e.g. the difference between
command and prayer, simple statement and threat, question and answer, and
so forth. The theory of such matters, however, belongs to Elocution and
the professors of that art. Whether the poet knows these things or not,
his art as a poet is never seriously criticized on that account. What
fault can one see in Homer's 'Sing of the wrath, Goddess'?—which
Protagoras has criticized as being a command where a prayer was meant,
since to bid one do or not do, he tells us, is a command. Let us pass over
this, then, as appertaining to another art, and not to that of poetry.</p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />