A plot does not have unity, as some people think, simply because it deals with a single hero. Many and indeed innumerable things happen to an individual, some of which do not go to make up any unity, and similarly an individual is concerned in many actions which do not combine into a single piece of action.

20 It seems therefore that all those poets are wrong who have written a Heracleid or Theseid or other such poems. ¹ They think that because Heracles was a single individual the plot must for that reason have unity.

But Homer, supreme also in all other respects, was apparently well aware of this truth either by instinct or from knowledge of his art. For in writing an Odyssey he did not put in all that ever happened to Odysseus, his being wounded on Parnassus , for instance, or his feigned madness when the host was gathered(these being events neither of which necessarily or probably led to the other), but he constructed his Odyssey round a single action in our sense of the phrase. And the Iliad the same.

As then in the other arts of representation a single representation means a representation of a single object, so too the plot being a representation of a piece of action must represent a single piece of action and the whole of it; and the component incidents must be so arranged that if one of them be transposed or removed, the unity of the whole is dislocated and destroyed. For if the presence or absence of a thing makes no visible difference, then it is not an integral part of the whole.

The Unity of a Plot does not consist, as some suppose,
in its having one man as its subject. An infinity of things
befall that one man, some of which it is impossible to reduce
to unity; and in like manner there are many actions of one
man which cannot be made to form one action.

One sees,
therefore, the mistake of all the poets who have written
a Heracleid, a Theseid, or similar poems; they suppose that,
because Heracles was one man, the story also of Heracles
must be one story.

Homer, however, evidently understood
this point quite well, whether by art or instinct, just in the
same way as he excels the rest in every other respect. In
writing an Odyssey, he did not make the poem cover all that
ever befell his hero-it befell him, for instance, to get wounded
on Parnassus and also to feign madness at the time of the call
to arms, but the two incidents had no probable or necessary
connexion with one another-instead of doing that, he took
an action with a Unity of the kind we are describing as the
subject of the Odyssey, as also of the Iliad.

The truth is
that, just as in the other imitative arts one imitation is always
of one thing, so in poetry the story, as an imitation of action,
must represent one action, a complete whole, with its several
incidents so closely connected that the transposal or with-
drawal of any one of them will disjoin and dislocate the
whole. For that which makes no perceptible difference by
its presence or absence is no real part of the whole.

[1] ¹ THE fable, however, is one, not as some suppose, if one person is the subject of it; 8.1 for many things which are infinite in kind happen [to one man], from a certain number of which no one event arises. Thus, also, there are many actions of one man, from which no one action is produced. ² Hence all those poets appear to have erred who have written the Heracleid, and Theseid, 8.2 and such like poems. For they suppose that because Hercules was one person, it was fit that the fable should be one. ³ Homer, however, as he excelled in other things, appears likewise to have seen this clearly, whether from art, or from nature. For in composing the Odyssey, he has not related every thing which happened to Ulysses; such as the being wounded in Parnassus 1, and pretending to be insane at .-the muster of the Greeks; one of which taking place, it was not necessary or probable that the other should happen; 8.3 but he composed the Odyssey, as also his Iliad, upon one action. ⁴ It is requisite, therefore, that as in other imitative arts one imitation is the imitation of one thing, thus, ^{5 6 7 8} also, [in tragedy,] the fable, since it is an imitation of action, should be the imitation of one action, and of the whole of this, 8.4 and that the parts of the transactions should be so arranged, that any one of them being transposed, or taken away, the whole would become different and changed. For that which when present or not present produces no sensible [difference], is not a part of the fable 5.

Fabula autem est una, non ut nonnulli opinantur, si circa unum aliquem yersatur: multa enim et infinita genere contingunt, ex quorum nonnullis nihil est unum. sic etiam actiones unius cuiusdam multae sunt, ex quibus una nulla fit actio.

quapropter omnes videntur crrare, quicumque poetarum Herculeidem et Theseidem et eiusmodi pocmata fecerunt: opinantur enim quoniam unus erat Hercules, unam etiam fabulam esse convenire.

Homerus autem, sicut etiam in aliis eminet, hoc quoque videtur bene perspexisse, sive propter artem sive propter ingenium: Odysseam enim dum pangit, non omnia panxit quae illi acciderunt, veluti hinc morsu ictum esse in Parnasso, insaniam inde simulasse in delectu, quorum neutrum, si alterum factum esset, neces sarium erat vel probabile fieri alterum, sed circa unam actionem, qualem dicimus, Odysscam panxit, itemque Iliadem.

oportet igitur, quemadmodum etiam in aliis artibus una imitatio unius rei est, sic etiam fabulam, quoniam actionis imitatio est, et unius esse et huius totius, partesque factorum ita coniunctas esse, ut translata aliqua parte vel sublata totum quoque differatur moveaturque: nam quod additum aut non additum nihil reddit notabile, ne pars quidem totius est.

1. 8.1 LE ſujet doit être un, & non pas, comme pluſieurs penſent, tiré d'une ſeule perſonne. Car, comme on voit tous les jours une infinité d'accidens de la plupart deſquels on ne peut rien faire qui ſoit un, il arrive de même que les actions d'un même homme, ſont en ſi grand nombre & ſi differentes entre elles, qu'on ne ſçauroit jamais les reduire à cette Unité, & en faire une ſeule & même action.

2. 8.2 C'eſt pourquoy il me ſemble que tous les Poëtes, qui ont fait l'Heracleide, ou la Theſeide, ou pluſieurs autres Poëmes ſemblables, ſe ſont fort trompez, car ils ont crû mal à propos que parce que Theſée eſt un, & qu'Hercule eſt un, toute leur vie ne devoit faire qu'un ſeul ſujet, une ſeule fable, & que l'unité du Héros faiſoit l'unité d'action.

3. 8.3 Homere, qui a excellé en tout ſur les autres Poëtes, me paroît avoir parfaitement connu ce défaut, ou par les lumiéres naturelles d'un heureux génie, ou par les regles de l'art, car en compoſant ſon Odyſſée, il n'y a pas fait entrer toutes les avantures d'Ulyſſe, par exemple, il n'a pas mêlé la bleſſure qu'il receut ſur le Parnaſſe, avec la folie qu'il feignit, lorſque les Grecs aſſembloient leur Armée, car de ce que l'une eſt ariſtee, il ne s'enſuit, ny neceſſairement ny vray-ſemblablement, que l'autre doive arriver auſſi; mais il a employé tout ce qui pouvoit avoir raport à une ſeule & même action comme eſt celle de l'Odyſſée. Il en a uſé de même dans ſon Iliade.

4. 8.4 Comme donc dans toutes les autres imitations, ce que l'on imite eſt un, de même dans la Tragedie, puiſque la fable eſt l'imitation d'une action, il faut que cette action ſoit une & toute entiere, & que ſes parties differentes ſoient tellement liées les unes avec les autres, que ſi on en tranſpoſe, ou que l'on en ôte une ſeule, le tout ſoit entierement ou changé, ou détruit. Car tout ce qui peut être mis ou omis, ſans faire un changement ſenſible, ne peut être partie d'une action.

A Rahola fi dice eſſere vna, non in quel modo che certiaffermano, cioè ſe ella tratta d'un ſolo, perche e' fi dan molte coſe, & differenti di ſpetie: di certè delle quali non maine rifulta vna fola coſa. Et parimen te fi dan molte attioni d'un ſolo huomo, delle quali nó mai ne riſulta attione, che ſi poſſa dire vnica. ¹

Diqui' nafce, che tutti pare che habbino errato quei Poeti, che P'Hercoleide, & la Thefeide, & altri Poemi fimili han no finto; penſando, che cofi come e fu vno ſolo Her cole:medefimamente ch'una fola Fauola di lui ſtia ben farfi.

Ma Homero coſi come egli è in tutte l'altre coſe eccellente, in queſto anchora pare, ch'egli habbia conofciuto l'ottimo, ò per arte,ò per natura che ciò accaduto gli ſia; perchè egli nell'Odiſſea non finge tutte le coſe, che à Vliſſe incontrarono : come è l'eſſere ſtato fe rito nel monte Parnaſo; & l'hauer' finto la pazzia nella ragtınanza de' Capitani. Delle quali due coſe l'una che fufſe ſtatay non era verifimile, nè neceſſario che e fuffe l'altra; ma meſſeui tutte quelle, che poteſsin' conſtituire vna ſola attione : quale noi chiamiamo l'Odif ſea.

Et il ſimile fe nell' Iliade. Debbe adunche, ficome nelle altre artı imitatrici interuiene, doue vna ſola imi tatione ui fi fa per vna fola coſa, parimente dico La Fa D'ARISTO TILE. uola, douendo imitare vna attione, debbe imitarne vna fola & intera; & debbono le parti d'effe faccéde, che vi fi contengono, di tal maniera ſtare inſieme accozzate, che qual ft voglia d'eſſe tramutata dal ſuo luogo, ò tole ta via, faccia variare, & rouinare quel tutto. Perchè quella cofa, che aggiuntagli, ò toltagli nó lo fa diuerfo, non ſi può di lui chiamar parte.

Fabula autem est una non ut aliqui putant, si circa unum sit: multa enim et infinita genere contingunt, ex quibus nonnullis nihil est unum. sed et actiones unius multae sunt, ex quibus nulla actio est una.

quare omnes videntur peccare, quicunque ex poetis Herculeidem Theseidem et talia poemata fecerunt: putant enim, quoniam unus erat Hercules, unam etiam fabulam convenire.

at Homerus ut et in aliis excellit, sic etiam hoc videtur pulchre vidisse, sive propter artem sive propter naturam. Odysseam enim faciens non descripsit omnia quaecunque ipsi contigerunt, ut eum accepisse vulnus in Parnasso, et simulasse insaniam in coitione exercitus, ex quibus non erat necessarium, altero facto, alterum factum esse; sed circa unam actionem, qualem dicimus esse Odysseam, invasit.

similiter et Iliadem. oportet igitur, ut in aliis imitatricibus una imitatio unius est, sic et fabulam, quoniam actionis imitatio est, et unius esse et huius totius, et partes constare rerum sić ut transposita aliqua aut ablata diversum reddatur et moveatur totum: quod enim cum adest aut non adest, nihil facit quod appareat, id ne pars quidem est.

Fabula autem est una non, sicut quidam putant, si circa unum sit; multa enim et infinita genere accidunt, ex quibus aliquibus nullum est unum.

Sic autem et actiones unius multe sunt, ex quibus una nulla fit actio. Propter quod omnes videntur peccare quicumque poetarum Eracleidem, Theseidem et talia poemata poetizaverunt; putant enim, quoniam unus erat Eraclees, unam et fabulam esse convenire.

Homerus autem, sicut et secundum alia differt, et hoc videtur bene nosse aut propter artem aut propter naturam ; Odysseiam enim faciens non poetizavit omnia quecumque ipsi acciderunt, puta vulneratum quidem fuisse in Parnaso, finxisse autem insanum esse in agermo, quorum nullum, altero facto, necessarium aut verisimile alterum fieri, sed circa unam actionem qualem dicimus Odysseiam constitit ; similiter autem et Iliadem. —

Oportet igitur, sicut et in aliis imitativis una imitatio unius est, sic et fabulam, quoniam actionis imitatio est, uniusque esse et huius totius et partes consistere rerum sic, ut transposita aliqua parte aut delata differre et moveri totum ; quod enim adiunctum aut non adiunctum nichil facit notabile, nulla pars totius est. —

‏والحرافة وحكاية الحديث فليست كما ظن قوم انها ان كانت الى الواحد وذلك ان اشيا كثيرة بلا نهاية تعرض لواحد وهذه للبعض والافراد وليس شى واحد وكذلك قد تكن اعمال كثيرة هى لواحد وهذه لا يكون ولا واحد منها عمل واحد

‏ولذلك قد يشبه ان يكون ان جميع الشعرا الايرقليدا والمعروفين بثسيدا والذين عملوا مثل هذه الاشعار وذلك انهم يظنون انه كان ايرقلس قد كان واحدا ان يكون الخرافة حكاية الحديث قد كانت واحدة

‏واما اوميروس فانه كما انه بينه وبينهم فرق فى اشيا اخر وهذا يشبه ان يكون فى نظره نظرا جيدا اما بسبب الصناعة واما من اجل الطبيعة وذلك انه لما دون امر اودوسيا لم يثبت كل ما عرض لاودوسوس بمنزلة الضربة وهذه [و]الشرور والغير التى كانت فى فارناوسوس والسخط الذى سخطوا عليه فى الحرب الذى كان عند اغارومس ولا ايضا كل واحد واحد من الاشيا عرضت مما كانت الضرورة تدعوا الى ان يثبت فى المٮال لكن ما دونه بان قصد به نحو عمل واحد وهو المسمى اودوسيا المنسوب الى اودوسوس وكذلك فعل فى ما دونه من امر ايليادا

‏فقد يجب اذا ان التشبهات والمحاكات الاخر ان يكون التشبيه والحماكاة الواحدة لواحد وكذلك الخرافة فى العمل هى تشبيه ومحاكاة واحدة لواحد وهذا كله الاجزا ايضا تقوم الامور هكذى حتى اذا نقل الانسان جزو ما او دفع يفسد ويتشوش ويضطرب كله باسره وذلك ان ما هو قريب ان لم يقرب لم يفعل شيا ويبلغ ان يكون كله نحو لا شى هو جزو للكل نفسه

‏والحرافة وحكاية الحديث فليست كما ظن قوم انها ان كانت الى الواحد وذلك ان اشيا كثيرة بلا نهاية تعرض لواحد وهذه للبعض والافراد وليس شى واحد

‏وكذلك قد تكن اعمال كثيرة هى لواحد وهذه لا يكون ولا واحد منها عمل واحد

‏ولذلك قد يشبه ان يكون ان جميع الشعرا الايرقليدا والمعروفين بثسيدا والذين عملوا مثل هذه الاشعار وذلك انهم يظنون انه كان ايرقلس قد كان واحدا ان يكون الخرافة حكاية الحديث قد كانت واحدة

‏واما اوميروس فانه كما انه بينه وبينهم فرق فى اشيا اخر وهذا يشبه ان يكون فى نظره نظرا جيدا اما بسبب الصناعة واما من اجل الطبيعة وذلك انه لما دون امر اودوسيا لم يثبت كل ما عرض لاودوسوس بمنزلة الضربة وهذه [و]الشرور والغير التى كانت فى فارناوسوس والسخط الذى سخطوا عليه فى الحرب الذى كان عند اغارومس ولا ايضا كل واحد واحد من الاشيا عرضت مما كانت الضرورة تدعوا الى ان يثبت فى المٮال لكن ما دونه بان قصد به نحو عمل واحد وهو المسمى اودوسيا المنسوب الى اودوسوس وكذلك فعل فى ما دونه من امر ايليادا

‏فقد يجب اذا ان التشبهات والمحاكات الاخر ان يكون التشبيه والحماكاة الواحدة لواحد وكذلك الخرافة فى العمل هى تشبيه ومحاكاة واحدة لواحد وهذا كله الاجزا ايضا تقوم الامور هكذى حتى اذا نقل الانسان جزو ما او دفع يفسد ويتشوش ويضطرب كله باسره وذلك ان ما هو قريب ان لم يقرب لم يفعل شيا ويبلغ ان يكون كله نحو لا شى هو جزو للكل نفسه