poetry which arise in the course of his general argument.

In addressing himself to the consideration of poetry as a branch of art, Aristotle first lays down certain elementary characteristics of the process of imitation which are common to art and, therefore, appear in all forms of poetry, or creative literature. Having thus cleared the ground, he proceeds to examine the structure and methods of the one form of poetry, tragedy, which might, or might not, represent the ultimate development of the art, but which, at any rate, contained all the elements found in any known form of poetic composition. These elements are six in number. There is the plot, or contexture of incidents; the character, or that by which we distinguish the natures of the persons ; the diction in which their thoughts are expressed; the sentiment which animates them; the stagerepresentation; and the music by which the songs of the chorus are accompanied. Of these, the plot, which is repeatedly asserted to be the most im• portant, being successively termed the final aim,' the 'soul' and the 'central principle' of tragedy, bears the same relation to the completed poem as the design of a painter bears to his picture.

.

From this view of tragedy it follows that an ability on the part of the composer to choose a suitable subject is an elementary necessity. That is to say, the poet must know how to select so much human action, and human action of such a character,

as admits of being effectively reproduced by the methods of art, and within the limits of the poetic composition in question. Aristotle, therefore, proceeds to state the rules for the composition of this all-important element. But in thus formulating rules for the construction of the plot with reference to the one form, tragedy, which he regards as the highest development of the art of poetry, he is careful to point out where they fail in their application to epic poetry.

The first requirement of the plot is unity. As in the other imitative arts the one imitation must have one subject, so, too, the plot, since it is an imitation of an action, must be an imitation of an action that is one and whole, and its separate incidents must be so connected that if one is changed or removed the whole plot is altered and disturbed for a part which can be added or withdrawn without producing any effect is not a member of the whole.' It must also contain a powerful appeal to the emotions of pity and fear. In order to effect this, there must be a change from good to bad fortune, and this change, or disaster, must be so managed as to enlist the sympathies of the spectator in the highest degree.

'The change exhibited must neither be that of good men from good fortune to bad (for this does not arouse fear or pity but disgust), not that of bad men from bad fortune to good (for this is furthest of all removed from the tragic ideal, for it has nothing that it ought to have; it neither commands

1 1451*.

sympathy, nor pity, nor fear). Nor, again, should the change be that of an utterly worthless man suddenly hurled from good fortune to bad; for a change so managed would com✔mand our sympathy without causing pity or fear. For of these two last emotions, the former is felt in respect of undeserved misfortune, the latter in cases which resemble our own-pity because the suffering is undeserved; fear because the persons who suffer resemble ourselves. And so the situation commands neither pity nor fear. An intermediate character remains. Such a character is one who, without possessing conspicuous virtue or goodness, is overtaken by misfortune, not through vice or worthlessness, but through some defect, when he is at the height of his reputation and prosperity, as was the case with Edipus and Thyestes and other notable members of the heroic families.'1

Aristotle further distinguishes the kinds of plots, as 'simple' and 'complicated'; 'single' and 'double'; he characterizes and discusses 'revolution,' ' recognition,' 'development,' and 'solution'; gives rules for the length of the episodes and for their treatment in relation to the central action, and finally concludes with practical hints for the actual work of composing. It is unnecessary, however, for us to follow him further in this detailed examination, for a mere enumeration of these heads is sufficient to indicate the character of the criticism which it contains.

To pass on to the remaining elements into which tragedy is analyzed. The second element, character, appears to include any outward manifestation of the 1 1452b.

!

will.

1

There will be character,' he says, ‘if the dialogue or the action reveals some principle of choice,✔ of whatever kind; and good character if this principle be good.' He then states, with illustrations, the four requisites of character: it must be good, that is, relatively good, appropriate, typical, and consistent. When Aristotle comes to discuss the next two elements, sentiment and diction, he feels that he is✓ travelling beyond the scope of his subject.

'The principles involved in sentiment,' he says, 'have been laid down in my treatise on rhetoric, for the subject is one which belongs more properly to that inquiry. It is concerned with all effects which ought to be produced by speech. These effects may be distinguished as proof, refutation, the production of the emotions of pity, fear, anger, and all such like; to which must be added the art of heightening or extenuating ✔ the bare facts.' 2

Similarly, in treating of diction, he refers one branch of the subject to 'the actor's art'; and he then enters upon a discussion which is mainly grammatical. But he includes in this an analysis of metaphor' and 'analogy,' and defines the limits within which the use of uncommon words, together with other forms of poetic licence, is permissible. As the enrichment of language is one of the means by which poetry produces its special charm, all this is appropriate enough. It is also worthy of notice that he rightly insists upon the value of metaphor. He pronounces it to be the

greatest of these technical aids, and adds that it is a proof of natural ability; for to write good metaphors ✔ is to have an eye for analogies.''

Of stage representation he says little; but what he says is singularly to the point. It is enchanting, 'but it has the least artistic merit and is least closely connected with the art of poetry.' And again, he remarks that 'it is possible to produce fear and pity by sights presented on the stage,' but that the higher method is to produce such effects by 'the actual arrangement of the incidents'; for 'to do this by ✓ means of the spectacle is inartistic and requires costly appliances.'' Music, the remaining element, is 'the greatest of the embellishments.' It is not directly discussed, but in his account of the chorus he condemns the practice of introducing songs which are unconnected with the action of the tragedy."

As tragedy contains all the elements of poetry, the account of Epic is naturally brief. It resolves itself into a statement of the modifications which must be made in applying the rules already given for the construction of the plot, and an examination of the respective merits of the two chief forms of poetry. Aristotle decides that the plot of an epic poem should in general be marked by the same characteristics as the plot of a tragedy, but it has less unity, in proportion as an epic has greater length than a tragedy. Moreover, the instrument of imitation is different;