writings of Herodotus could be put into metre without being any the less a history, whether in metre or not-but the difference lies in this fact, that the one tells what has happened and the other what could happen. And, therefore, poetry has a wider truth and a higher aim than history; for poetry deals rather with the universal, history with the particular.'' And in distinguishing between the effects of the incidents and of the dialogue in tragedy, he remarks that 'the effects produced by the incidents should be plain without argument, those produced by speech should be the work of the speaker and arise out of his speech.' These latter effects, therefore, belong more properly to the art of rhetoric.2

Moreover, there are two passages in which it is possible to discern a direct reply to the first of the charges that of 'unreality'-which Plato brought against poetry. In speaking of the complaints of critics he says: Since the poet is an imitator just as much as a painter or any other image-maker, he must in all cases reproduce things in one of three aspects as they were or are, as men say they are and they seem to be, or as they ought to be.' And he adds: 'It should also be remembered that the standard of correctness differs in politics and poetry as much as it does in any other art and poetry.'3 The other passage contains the statement that, ' according to the method of poetry, an impossi2 1456b. 3 1460b.

1 1451b.

bility which is credible is preferable to a possibility which is incredible.' And this is supported by an illustration from the sister art of painting. The characters of Zeuxis were impossible, but their impossibility made them the more correct, 'for the type should be more perfect than the individual.’1

He also finds a reply to the second charge— that poetry pleased and fostered the irrational and emotional part of man's nature to the detriment of the nobler intellectual element—in a dry illustration from the science of medicine which he attached to his definition of tragedy. Tragedy. Tragedy. . . is an imitation of a serious and complete action which has magnitude. The imitation is effected by embellished language, each kind of embellishment varying in the constituent parts. It is acted not narrated; and it uses the agency of pity and fear to effect a purging of these and the like emotions.' 2 That is to say, just as humours are carried out of the physical system by medical treatment, so the moral system of the spectator is relieved of an excess of emotion, when emotion is artificially excited in the performance of the tragedy. To work upon the emotional element in man was, therefore, part of the proper function of the art of poetry, and the effect of this appeal to the emotions was equally beneficial and not hurtful.

But these replies to Plato occur incidentally, and in the form of comments upon certain aspects of

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 important, 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.'1 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 command 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.