18.2 F'appelle le nœud toute cette partie de la Tragedie, de-puis le commencement jusqu'à l'endroit où les choses changent de face.] ¹

18.2 Et j'appelle le denoiement tout ce qui est depuis l'endroit, où ce changement a commencé, juſqu'à la fin.] ²

18.2 I CALL COMPLICATION, ALL THAT IS BETWEEN THE BEGINNING OF THE PIECE, AND THE LAST PART, &c.

Aristotle is here, as usual, very short and dry in the information he bestows upon us concerning this and . I wish he had given us a definition of their meanings, instead of a mere designation of their places. One would suspect, on the first view, from the mention of a change only, (in which reading all the MSS. I think, agree,) from his instance, (if it be the same Tragedy as he before cited, cap. xi.) and from the common acceptation of the word itself, that he was speaking only of those Tragedies in which the principal characters are extricated from the difficulties they were involved in, and the end is happy.

And, indeed, the way in which Le Bossu, and others after him, explain this and , leads naturally to this idea, and seems hardly consistent with their allowing, as they do, that the denouement may be either calamitous or prosperous ¹ . For they explain the , or , by — — "Les obstacles présentés s'appellent nœuds, et la maniere dont on les force, se nomme, denouement." —This will do very well for Æneas, or Ulysses. But when Oedipus finds himself guilty of parricide and incest, and, from a state of regal dignity and happiness, becomes a wretched, blind, and banished vagabond—this is but a strange way of surmounting obstacles.

The truth is, that the obstacles of the , or the knot, are those which are presented to the mind of the spectator; the difficulty overcome is that of seeing how the piece will terminate. And thus, indeed, the Abbé Batteux more accurately expresses himself elsewhere:— &c. ² The is, to the spectator, the solution of the problem, "How will all this end?" And we may add, the more difficult the problem, the greater the pleasure of the solution.

It may be objected, that this is applicable only to those Tragedies, the subjects of which are totally unknown to the spectator; and it may be asked, "Where is the problem to be solved, in those dramas, which we have repeatedly seen and read, and of which we are perfectly acquainted with the catastrophe, and every incident that leads to it?" To this I can only answer, that it is a fact, and certainly a curious fact, that it makes little difference, or none at all, in the sympathetic interest which a spectator feels during the course of the action, whether he knows, or does not know, beforehand, how the piece will end. "Quelque prévenu que l'on soit de la maniere dont tout va se réfoudre, la marche de l'action en écarte la reminiscence: l'impression de ce que l'on voit empêche de réfléchir à ce que l'on sçait; et c'est par ce prestige que les spectateurs qui se laissent toucher, pleurent vingt fois au même spectacle."

The term , therefore, is as applicable to the calamitous catastrophe of the Oedipus, as to the satisfactory conclusion of the Iphigenia in Tauris. For Aristotle expressly gives these parts, as parts of every Tragedy.

Partes tragoediae sunt convinctio et solutio; eiusdem species quattuor, una implexa, alia pathetica, alia moralis, quarta qualis Prometheus cet. ut tragici argumenti unitas conservetur, cavere decet complexum fabularum, neque choro tribuere licet nisi quae proposito conducant et apte cohaereant. -3. ἔστι δὲ πάσης τραγῳδίας - δεῖ δὲ ἄμφω ἀεὶ κροτεῖσθαι: primum signum ac magnum quo haec ab Aristotelis explicatione segreganda esse colligo hoc est, quod quae in capitis 17. fine et inde a c. 18, 4. docentur his illatis mire divelluntur. nam extremo c. 17. cum expositum esset propter diversam argumenti condicionem poesin dramaticam brevibus episodiis distingui, epicam longioribus dilatari, iam consentaneum est ut tragoediarum scriptori commendetur, ne materiam epopoeiae aptam in tragoedia pertractare velit. id vero ipsum monetur demum c. 18, 4. quo facto praecipitur, ne chori cantica a fabulae argumento aliena sint, ac tum totum illud disputationis caput (c. 17 et 18, 4-7), in quo tragoedias scripturum respexit et praeceptis instruxit Aristoteles, finitur. num forte hisce illa c. 18, 1-3. apte inseri possunt? non possunt: quippe non solum aliena sunt, sed etiam futilia. nam quaedam inania de iis tragoediae partibus explicantur quas technici δέσιν et λύσιν appellant, deinde quattuor tragoediarum genera non explicantur sed nude enumerantur et ridiculo praecepto clauduntur. alterum signum hoc est, quod simpliciter ponit cuiusque tragoediae partim esse implicationem partim solutionem, porro tragoediae quattuor species, et hoc ita narrat ut nullo suo iudicio utatur sed totus ab exemplis pendeat. hoc vero indignum est Aristotelis ingenio. accedunt alia de quibus ad singulos locos disputabimus. esse §. 1. τὰ μὲν ἔξωθεν καὶ ἔνια τῶν ἔσωθεν πολλάκις ἡ δέσις, τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν ἡ λύσις: praeclara vero et loquendi et definiendi ratio. τὰ ἔξωθεν sunt quae c. 15, 7. ἔξω τῆς τραγῳδίας vocantur; sed quae extra sunt nullam fabulae partem efficiunt; immo implicatio fit per eam actionem quae in tragoedia ostenditur, et haec ipsa ut tota sit ab initio proficisci debet. illud πολλάκις adeo significare videtur interdum ἔνια τῶν ἔσωθεν ne requiri quidem ad instituendam implicationem. τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν ἡ λύσις quod relicuum solutio. nomine λοιπὸς Graeci et relicuus Latini utuntur, cum quae restant certa sunt et definita; alioqui Latini cetera et Graeci τὰ δὲ ἄλλα ponunt. at vero hic plane deest eiusmodi definitio, quoniam nonnisi vage dictum est ad δέσιν pertinere ἔνια τῶν ἔσωθεν πολλάκις, unde consequitur interdum totam fabulam solutione contineri, quod absurdum est falsumque. λέγω δὲ δέσιν - εἰς εὐτυχίαν: cum modo λύσιν ita descripsisset interpolator, ut λύσει maior tragoediae pars contineri videretur, continuo tamen δέσιν longe maximam esse pronuntiavit: λέγω δὲ δέσιν μὲν εἶναι τὴν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς μέχρι τούτου τοῦ μέρους ὁ ἔσχατόν ἐστιν cet. vide, non quid sit δέσις vel quo modo instituatur exposuit, sed digitis pro norma usus quousque pertineat indicavit; eadem ratione λύσιν statim definire voluit. ἐξ οὗ μεταβαίνει εἰς εὐτυχίαν: quid est hoc? nihil est nisi vitium manifestum. qui haec scripsit tragoedias cogitavit, qualis est Sophoclis Philocteta, Euripidis Iphigenia utraque, etiam Medea eiusdem: nam ea tragoedia quamvis satis luctuosa sit et atrox, ipsa tamen Medea feliciter evasit, quod igitur in paucis tragoediis factum sciebat, id temere ad omnes transtulit. quapropter non bene fecerunt qui verborum contextu immutato hoc vitium tollere aut obscurare conati sunt. alii enim ἀτυχίαν dederunt (Goulstonus), alii εὐτυχίαν ἢ δυστυχίαν (Tyrwhittus), alii δυστυχίαν ἢ εἰς εὐτυχίαν (Reizius), Graefenhanius denique persuasissimum sibi habet verbo εὐτυχία breviter fortunae mutationes notatas esse. λύσιν δὲ τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς ἀρχῆς τῆς μεταβάσεως μέχρι τέλους: quemadmodum ἀπὸ τῆς ἀρχῆς scripsit, ita μέχρι τοῦ τέλους scribere debuit, quod ipsum paulo post subsequitur. non solum ex hac inconstantia agnoscas serioris aetatis scriptorem, sed etiam ex loquendi infantia quae perspicitur ex illis μέχρι τούτου τοῦ μέρους, μέχρι τέλους, μέχρι τοῦ τέλους.