The first would be, as it

following Similitude. An animal no bigger than a Mite cannot appear perfect to the Eye, because the Sight takes it in at once, and has only a confused Idea of the Whole, and not a distinct Idea of all its Parts; if on the contrary you should suppose an Animal of ten thousand Furlongs in length, the Eye would be so filled with a single Part of it, that it could not give the Mind an Idea of the Whole. What these Animals are to the Eye, a very short or a very long Action would be to the Memory. were, lost and swallowed up by it, and the other difficult to be contained in it. Homer and Virgil have shown their principal Art in this Particular; the Action of the Iliad, and that of the Æneid, were in themselves exceeding short, but are so beautifully extended and diversified by the Invention of Episodes, and the Machinery of Gods, with the like poetical Ornaments, that they make up an agreeable Story, sufficient to employ the Memory without overcharging it. Milton's action is enriched with such a Variety of Circumstances, that I have taken as much pleasure in reading the Contents of his Books, as in the best invented Story I ever met with.'

Again, in speaking of Epic, Aristotle says,' that 'among the many reasons we have for admiring Homer, none is stronger than the fact that he is the only poet who knows his business.' He then enunciates a general principle:

'The poet ought himself to say very little for when he does he is not an imitator. Other poets strive to appear in their own persons throughout, while they imitate little and seldom. But Homer, after a few words of prelude, at once leads on a man or a woman, or some other character,

1 1460°.

introducing no person without character, but always a characterization.'

On this Addison remarks:1

'It is finely observed by Aristotle, that the author of an Heroick Poem should seldom speak himself, but throw as much of his Work as he can into the Mouths of those who are his Principal Actors.' He proceeds, 'Aristotle has given no reason for this precept; but I presume it is because the Mind of the Reader is more awed and elevated when he hears Æneas or Achilles speak, than when Virgil or Homer talk in their own Persons. Besides that assuming the character of an eminent Man, is apt to fire the Imagination and raise the Ideas of the Author.'

Here, at first sight, Addison appears to have been guilty of an omission; for the Poetics give a reason, namely, that the poet when he speaks in his own person is no longer an imitator.' But this reason after all only amounts to a statement that an Epic poem should be thrown as much as possible into a dramatic form. It does not explain why this should be so. Addison gives two reasons, both of which are pertinent. The change from the third to the first person suggests the actual presence of the character represented to the mind of the reader-it is Æneas, not Virgil, who speaks. And in the second place, the author's realization of the character becomes more intense. That is to say, he adopts the principle which Aristotle himself advises in another part of the Poetics, where the dramatic 1 Spectator, 297.

artist is told to visualize the scenes in constructing his plot.1

One more instance. Under the head of 'diction' Aristotle says: 'The diction should be elaborated in the idle parts of the poem which do not reveal either character or sentiment: for an over-brilliant diction obscures instead of heightening the effect produced by both character and sentiment.''

Addison points out how Milton has applied the principle in his description of Paradise :

'In the Description of Paradise, the Poet has observed Aristotle's Rule of lavishing all the Ornaments of Diction on the weak unactive Parts of the Fable, which are not supported by the Beauty of Sentiments and Characters. Accordingly the Reader may observe that the Expressions are more florid and elaborate in these Descriptions than in most other Parts of the Poem. I must further add that tho' the Drawings of Gardens, Rivers, Rainbows, and the like Dead Pieces of Nature, are justly censured in an Heroick Poem, when they run out into an unnecessary length; the Description of Paradise would have been faulty, had not the Poet been very particular in it, not only as it is the Scene of the Principal Action, but as it is requisite to give us an Idea of that Happiness from which our first Parents fell.'

1 1455".

2 1460b.

3 Spectator, 321.

CHAPTER IV

POETIC JUSTICE AND OTHER OPINIONS OF

ADDISON-OF COMEDY

IN the Poetics Aristotle insists upon the importance of the plot as the supreme element in tragedy. The doctrine is enforced in two ways: first, by a general application of the philosophic doctrine of the 'final aim' (réλoç); and secondly, by a reference to the nature of the final aim of that human life of which tragedy is a representation. Just as the sum of effort in man has a final aim or purposewell-being or happiness-to which all particular effort is subservient, so tragedy has a final aim— the representation of human action-to which all lesser aims must be subordinated. Again, the facts of life tell us that from this standpoint of happiness, men are measured not by their capacity to act, but by the acts which they have performed factis non verbis. In the delineation of character there is only a promise of action; the plot is itself the representation of action, and therefore the performance of that which is the final aim of tragedy. And so while the plot is the central principle and soul, so to speak, of tragedy, character is second in import

ance?'' It is the feeling which produced this doctrine or rather which produced the forms of poetic composition upon which the doctrine is itself based-which, according to Matthew Arnold, makes the difference between Greek and modern poetry.

'The radical difference,' he writes," 'between their poetical theory and ours consists, as it appears to me, in this: that, with them, the poetical character of an action in itself and the conduct of it was the first consideration; with us attention is fixed mainly on the value of the separate thoughts and images which occur in the treatment of an action. They regarded the whole; we regard the parts.'

I have already suggested3 that the overwhelming importance assigned to the plot in Aristotle's theory of poetry is to be referred to another cause; namely, that he has neglected to distinguish between the importance of the plot as an element of tragedy, and its importance as an element of poetic composition in general. If this suggestion be correct—if, that it is to say, Aristotle has applied to other forms of poetry a principle which is only applicable to tragedy; and if, further, we had a criticism of Epic and other forms of Greek poetry as full as Aristotle's criticism of tragedy, we should then find that the attention of the Greeks was in the case of these other poems directed to the 'separate thoughts and images which occur in the treatment of an action.' In short we must look for some deeper

2 Irish Essays, p. 288.

1

1450* (and passim).

3 Chapter ii. p. 53.