tragedy is 'imitation by action,' Epic is 'narrative poetry, or imitation by verse.' The effect of this✓ difference is seen in two ways. In the first place, the length of the episodes, and the importance of the subsidiary action, is increased; and in the second, the element of the marvellous can be more freely introduced. On the first point Aristotle remarks that, ‘in epic poetry the fact that the imitation is effected by narrative makes it possible to represent the simultaneous progress of several divisions of the story, and by these divisions, provided they are relevant, the grandeur of the poem is increased. This is a quality which gives Epic a greater breadth of effect than Tragedy, for it provides variety by introducing contrast into the episodes.' The second point is one which affects the selection of materials. In this respect the epic poet has greater scope than the tragic:

'Tragedies should have an element of marvel, but in Epic there is more room for that improbability which forms so large an element in the marvellous, because the action is not ✓ before our eyes. The pursuit of Hector would appear absurd upon the stage-a crowd of Greek soldiers standing without attempting to pursue, and Achilles shaking his head—but in the poem the absurdity is not noticed.'2

On the question of the relative merits of Epic and tragedy as forms of poetry, he decides in favour of the latter:

'for it has all that Epic has-it can use the metre of Epic—. and a very considerable addition in music and scenic accessories; and it is music which gives the greatest vividness to the combination of pleasurable emotions produced by Tragedy."1

The above sentence, which characteristically expresses the Greek view of poetry as a composite art, will suitably conclude this brief outline of the argument of the Poetics; and we may pause for a moment to consider what Aristotle has done.

By the Poetics, Aristotle placed art upon the dual ✔ foundation, sense and reason. He distinguished the method of creative literature-whether with or without metre-from the method of history and other branches of literature, which are mere transcripts of reality; and so separated the truth of art from the truth of logic. He showed that the appeal to the emotions, which Plato blamed, is an essential element in the dominant form of poetry, and proved by a medical analogy and by philosophic analysis that the effect of this appeal was not hurtful but beneficial to the moral nature of man. And lastly, he sketched with masterly precision the outlines of the structure which forms, in a greater or less degree, the external manifestation of every species of poetic composition.

And yet, if we review this criticism-and to enable the reader to do this has been the object of the

preceding account of the Poetics-we can scarcely fail to see that the conception of poetry which is here presented is less in harmony with the modern conception of poetry than Plato's ideal of an actual ✓ identity between it and philosophy. For, by thus considering poetry in close relationship to a form which was capable in the highest degree of external

realization by the senses, Aristotle has gradually in- 小

vested all forms of poetry with the objective reality of the drama; and the central test by which it is proposed to measure the merit of poetry is one which is primarily applicable to the work of the painter and the sculptor-symmetry or structural perfection. As we survey the wide field of creative literature which now lies before our mental vision, with all its variety of growth and development, we ask ourselves in dismay, 'How can these rules guide us to that which is the object of criticism-the comprehension of what is best and most permanent in the works of great writers?' For how could Aristotle's tragic measure contain the fulness of the poetic harvest which includes (to omit all lesser names) the works of Virgil, Dante, Milton, and Shakespeare? If he had been charged with neglecting this aspect of criticism, he would have found a ready answer: 'It belongs to another inquiry-ethics, politics, or

religion, as the case may be.'

Here we touch the line which divides modern criticism from Greek criticism as formulated by Aristotle. When we criticize we ask first, 'What is the

thought?' When the Greeks criticized, they asked. first, 'What is the form?' In other words, we have adopted the standpoint of poetry itself; and so long as we find in it 'the finer spirit of all knowledge,' we are content to believe that Nature herself will provide an appropriate vehicle for its utterances.

CHAPTER III

FORMAL

CRITICISM-APPLICATION

REVIVAL OF

OF

ARISTOTLE'S PRINCIPLES BY ADDISON TO 'PARA-
DISE LOST '

INCOMPLETE and partial, however, as was this formal criticism of Aristotle, it was nevertheless the last word of the ancient world. In all departments of intellectual activity, with the sole exception of the science of law, Rome was the child of Greece; and no addition was made to this last word of Hellenism until the intellect of Europe had first been stirred to productiveness by the Renaissance, and this period of productiveness had in turn been succeeded by a period of reflection. Then, when men began to take stock of the new literature, which had been added to the recovered literature of Greece and Rome, it was upon the foundation of Aristotle's treatise that criticism was reconstructed. During the seventeenth and the earlier part of the eighteenth century, its canons were accepted as supreme. At this time France was the leader of European thought, and Greece was the schoolmistress of France. Following, or thinking they followed the ancients,'