|
23. What of representation in verse that takes the form of narrative? The story should, as in tragedy, be constructed dramatically, that is, based on a single action that is whole and entire and that has a beginning, a middle, and an end. Only thus can epic, like a living organism, produce its own proper pleasure. The stories should not be organized like histories which call for an exposition not of a single action but of a single period of time, with all the things that happened to one or more people during it, each with only a chance relationship to the others. The sea-fight at Salamis and the battle against the Carthaginians in Sicily occurred simultaneously, without converging on a single goal; so in successive periods of time one thing may come after another without any single outcome.* Most poets, however, probably compose in this way. |
20 |
|
Homer’s superlative talent, as I have said before, shows itself here as elsewhere. He did not try to cover the Trojan war in its entirety, even though it did have a beginning and an end, for the story would have been too long and difficult to take in at one view—or if curtailed in length, too complex in its variety. Instead, he singled out one segment, using others as episodes to add variety—episodes such as the catalogue of ships and the like. Other poets write about a single person or a single period, or a single action made up of many parts. Thus the author of the Cypria and of the Little Iliad. What is the result? From the Iliad and the Odyssey only one or at most two tragedies can be made; but from the Cypria you could make many and from the Little Iliad no less than eight: for instance, The Trial at Arms, Philoctetes, Neoptolemus, Eurypylus, Going Begging, Spartan Women, Sack of Troy, Making Sail, as well as Sinon and Women of Troy.* |
30 |
|
24. Epic, moreover, must needs come in the same kinds as tragedy: simple or complex, and based on character or suffering. The component parts, too, must be the same, with the exception of song and spectacle: we need reversals, discoveries, and sufferings, as well as intelligence and style. Homer was the first to employ all of these, and he did so most satisfactorily. His two poems exemplify different structures: the Iliad is simple and full of suffering, and the Odyssey is complex (full of identifications) and is based on character. In addition, he excels everyone in ideas and style. |
10 |
|
The difference between epic and tragedy lies in the metre and in the length of the plot. An adequate limitation of length has already been suggested: it must be possible to take the beginning and the end in a single view. This would be the case if the plots were shorter than the older epics, but as long as a series of tragedies presented at a single session. But epic offers particular scope for the extension of length. In tragedy it is not possible to represent several parts of the story occurring simultaneously, but only the one part on stage performed by the actors. But in epic the narrative form makes it possible to include many simultaneous incidents that, if germane to the issue, add weight to the poem. This gives epic the advantage in achieving grandeur, in offering variety to the hearer, and in diversifying the episodes, while uniformity quickly palls and may cause tragedies to flop. |
20 |
|
As for the metre, experience has shown the suitability of heroic verse. If one were to try narrative imitation in one or more of the other metres the incongruity would be manifest. Heroic verse is the most solemn and stately metre, while the iambic trimeter and the trochaic tetrameter are metres for movement—the latter for dancing, and the former for action.* (Hence heroic verse welcomes foreign words and metaphors, because narrative is an exceptional form of representation.) It would be even odder to combine these metres together, as Chairemon did. For this reason, no one has composed a long structure in any metre other than the heroic; as we have said, the very nature of the thing teaches people to choose what is most appropriate. |
35 |
|
Among all his other admirable qualities, Homer deserves praise because he is the only epic poet who knows what he should do in his own person. The poet should say as little as possible in his own voice; for that is not what makes him a mimic. Other poets are always coming forward in person, and engage in representation only rarely and briefly; whereas Homer, after a brief preamble, brings on stage a man or woman or other personage—every one a character and none of them mere dummies. |
5 |
|
Astonishment is certainly something that tragedy must evoke—but the chief cause of astonishment is improbability, and this is more feasible in epic because we do not actually see the agent. The pursuit of Hector would seem ridiculous on stage, with the Greeks, because Achilles is shaking his head, standing still instead of joining in the chase, but in epic it excites no remark. Astonishment gives pleasure: evidence of this is the fact that we all exaggerate when recounting events, hoping to please our audience. |
15 |
|
Homer, more than anyone else, taught poets the right way to tell falsehoods. That is by the fallacy of affirming the consequent. When the existence or occurrence of A follows from the existence of occurrence of B, people think that if B is the case, A too exists or occurs—but that is a fallacy. Suppose that A is not the case, but if it were the case B would follow, the poet should insert B, and because our mind knows that B is true it will draw the false inference that A. An example of this is the bath scene in the Odyssey. |
20 |
|
Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to implausible possibilities. Stories should not be made up from incredible parts. Ideally there should be nothing incredible, or failing that, it should lie outside the narrative (like Oedipus not knowing how Laius died) rather than inside the drama (like the report of the Pythian Games in Electra or the man in the Mysians who comes from Tegea to Mysia without saying a word). It is a ridiculous excuse to say that leaving these elements out would ruin the story; plots like this should never be constructed in the first place.* Even in the Odyssey the incredible details in the setting ashore of Odysseus would be manifestly intolerable if treated by an inferior poet. As it is, Homer uses his other talents to soften and conceal the incredibility. |
30 |
|
Style needs particular attention in quiet passages where little is happening and there is no expression of character or intelligence; a brilliant style, on the other hand, obscures character and ideas. |
5 |
|
25. Now for problems and solutions.* Consider the matter in the following way and you will see how many there are and the kinds in which they come. |
|
|
The poet, like a painter or any other image-maker, is engaged in representation, and there are three kinds of thing that he is representing: things that are or were the case, things that are said or thought to be the case, and things that ought to be the case. These are expressed in a style that includes foreign words, metaphors, and the various modifications that poets are licensed to make. The criterion of correctness is not the same in poetry as in ethics, and not the same in poetry as in any other art. But within poetry itself two kinds of error are possible, one intrinsic and the other incidental. If the poet meant to represent something and failed through incompetence, the fault is intrinsic.* But if he deliberately chooses to misrepresent—for example, to show a horse galloping with both right legs forward—the error is not a fault in the poetry, but a sin against some other art such as medicine. These, then, are the principles on which one should confront and solve the objections posed by problems. |
10 |
|
First, those relating to the art of poetry itself. If a poem contains impossibilities, that is a fault. However, the fault may be forgiven if they serve the purpose of the art, as specified earlier, that is to say, if they make this or some other part of the poem more impressive. A prime example is the pursuit of Hector. However, if the purpose could have been achieved better, or equally well, without violating the rules of the art, then the fault cannot be forgiven. If at all possible, no fault at all should be committed. |
25 |
|
The question may be raised: if there is a fault, where is it located? Is it a violation of the poetic art, or is it something incidental? It is less serious to be ignorant of the fact that a female deer has no horns than to paint a poor representation of one. |
30 |
|
If the objection is that something is not true, then perhaps it is something that ought to be true. That was the answer that Sophocles gave when he said that while Euripides portrayed men as they actually are, he himself portrayed them as they ought to be. That is the right response. |
35 |
|
If neither response is possible, then the response must be that it accords with popular opinion. |
|
|
The stories about the gods, for instance, may be, as Xenophanes says, neither true nor edifying; none the less they are current. In other cases it is not a matter of edification, but a reflection of past practice: when we read ‘the spears stood upright on their butt-end’, that was the custom in those days, as it still is among the Illyrians. |
1461a |
|
To determine whether something said or done was good or bad you have to look not only at the actual deeds or words, but also at the identity of the person saying or doing the thing, the person to whom he said or did it, plus the occasion, the means, and the motive (for example, whether it was to achieve a greater good or avert a greater evil). |
5 |
|
Other criticisms are to be met by considerations of style. The foreign word oureis in the passage ‘first against the oureis’ perhaps means not ‘mules’ but ‘guards’. When we are told that Dolon was ugly in appearance, perhaps this does not mean that he was deformed, but simply plain-featured, since the Cretans call facial beauty ‘beauty of appearance’. The command ‘mix it stronger’ need not mean ‘serve the wine neat’, as for drunkards, but simply mix it faster. Other things are said metaphorically, for instance, ‘all gods and men slept through the night’ when at the same time he says ‘when he looked over the Trojan plain he marvelled at the sound of flutes and pipes’—here ‘all’ is said metaphorically for ‘many’, since ‘all’ is a subset of ‘many’. Metaphorical too is ‘alone without a share’, a person who is best known is unique. In some cases, as Hippias of Thasos suggested, difficulties may be removed by a change of accentuation, as ‘We allow the granting of his prayer’ and ‘the part the rain has rotted’. Sometimes punctuation does the trick, as in Empedocles’ ‘On a sudden, things once immortal mortal became, and things unmixed once mixed’. On other occasions, it is ambiguity: in ‘more of the night had passed’, ‘more’ is ambiguous.* |
10 |
|
One can appeal to linguistic usage. People call diluted wine ‘wine’ and in the same way Homer speaks of ‘a greave of new-forged tin’. We call ironworkers ‘bronze-smiths’, and in the same way Ganymede is said to pour wine for Zeus even though the gods do not drink wine. (This last case could also be metaphorical.) |
30 |
|
Whenever a term seems to bear a sense that is contradictory, one should consider how many senses it might bear in the context. For instance, in ‘By it was the bronze spear stopped’, we should ask in how many different ways it might be stopped, and choose, among the alternatives, the one that gives the best sense. This is the exact opposite of the fault of which Glaucon complains, when people adopt unreasonable prejudices and deduce consequences, and if something in the text goes against their verdict they criticize the poet as if he had actually stated what they happen to believe. This is what happened in the case of Icarius. Some people think he was a Spartan. If so, they say, it is very odd that Telemachus did not meet him when he went to Sparta.* But the Cephallenians say that Odysseus’ wife came from a Cephallenian family, and that her father’s name was Icadius, not Icarius, and perhaps they are right. So probably the problem is created by a mistake of the critics. |
35 |
|
In general, impossibilities should be justified by reference to the needs of poetry, the desire for edification, or the prevalence of an opinion. The needs of poetry make what is plausible though impossible preferable to what is possible but implausible. Perhaps it is not possible* for people to look the way Zeuxis painted them, but that is an idealization of the truth, and the artist should improve upon the model. Implausibilities should either be justified by their conformity to prevalent opinion, or made plausible by the defence that it is probable that some improbable things will occur. |
10 |
|
Contradictory statements should be scrutinized in the same way as arguments rebutting a philosophical position. Is the same thing said, about the same thing, and in the same sense? |
|
|
Is the poet contradicting something he has said himself, or something a reasonable person would assume? |
|
|
It is, however, right to object to implausibility and immorality when they are unnecessary and serve no dramatic purpose. Aegeus in Euripides* provides an example of such implausibility, and Menelaus in Orestes provides an example of such immorality. |
20 |
|
The objections of critics, then, come under five heads: impossibility, implausibility, immorality, self-contradiction, and violation of artistic standards. They are to be answered under the heads I have set out, which add up to twelve. |
25 |
|
The question may be asked whether epic or tragic representation is superior. If ‘superior’ means less vulgar, and an art is the less vulgar the more superior the public it addresses, it is utterly clear that an art which represents indiscriminately is vulgar. Actors believe that the audience is incapable of understanding anything unless they emphasize it, and so they go in for exaggerated motions—poor flute-players spin round if they have to show a discus being thrown, and they manhandle the conductor if the piece is about Scylla. Well, tragedy is like that—just as more recent actors were in the opinion of their predecessors. Mynniscus used to call Callippides an ape because of his overacting, and people took a similar view of Pindarus too.* The tragic art as a whole stands in the same relation to epic as the recent actors did to their predecessors. Critics say that epic addresses a decent public which does not need gestures, whereas tragedy addresses a public that is debased. If, then, tragedy is vulgar, it will manifestly be inferior. |
30 |
|
First of all, this charge is laid not against the art of poetry, but against the art of performance. In reciting epic poetry too it is possible to overdo gestures, like Sosistratus; so too in a song recital, as Mnasitheus of Opus used to do. |
5 |
|
Next, not all movement is to be condemned, any more than all dancing, but only that of debased people, which was the complaint against Callippides (and now against other actors too) for portraying women who were not respectable. |
10 |
|
Again, tragedy, no less than epic, produces its effect even without movement; its quality is apparent from a mere reading. So if it is superior in other respects this charge need not damage it. |
|
|
Further, there is nothing that epic has that tragedy does not also have—it can even use the same metre—but tragedy has a substantial extra element in the form of music, which is a source of intense pleasure. It offers verisimilitude when read no less than when performed. Tragedy achieves the purpose of representation in a shorter space, and the pleasure is greater through being more concentrated rather than diluted over a long time. Suppose someone were to expand Sophocles’ Oedipus into as many lines as the Iliad! |
15 |
|
Again, epic poets offer a less unified representation. (Evidence of this is that one epic provides material for several tragedies.) If they present a single story, it will seem either truncated if told briefly, or feeble if the telling is as long as is appropriate to epic metre. What I have in mind here is a plot containing many actions. The Iliad and the Odyssey have many such parts, each on a considerable scale; yet the poems are structured as well as they possibly could, and are as close as possible to the representation of a single action. |
5 |
|
Tragedy, then, excels in all these respects and also in artistic effect—remember that it is not just any pleasure, but a specific one, that these two genres should produce. So, since it achieves its purpose better, it is superior to epic. |
15 |
|
So much, then, about tragedy and epic, their kinds and parts, and the differences between them; so much also for the causes of their success and failure, and how to answer the criticisms made of them. |