The perfection of Diction is for it to be at once clear
and not mean.
The clearest indeed is that made up of
the ordinary words for things, but it is mean, as is shown
by the poetry of Cleophon and Sthenelus.
On the other
hand the Diction becomes distinguished and non-prosaic
by the use of unfamiliar terms, i. e. strange words, metaphors,
lengthened forms, and everything that deviates from the
ordinary modes of speech.
But a whole statement in such
terms will be either a riddle or a barbarism, a riddle, if made
up of metaphors, a barbarism, if made up of strange words.
The very nature indeed of a riddle is this, to describe a
fact in an impossible combination of words (which cannot
be done with the real names for things, but can be with
their metaphorical substitutes); e.g. 'I saw a man glue brass
on another with fire,' and the like.
The corresponding
use of strange words results in a barbarism.
A certain
admixture, accordingly, of unfamiliar terms is necessary.
These, the strange word, the metaphor, the ornamental
equivalent, etc., will save the language from seeming mean
and prosaic, while the ordinary words in it will secure the
requisite clearness.
What helps most, however, to render
the Diction at once clear and non-prosaic is the use of the
lengthened, curtailed, and altered forms of words.
It is not right, then, to condemn these modes of speech,
and ridicule the poet for using them, as some have done;
e. g. the elder Euclid, who said it was easy to make poetry
if one were to be allowed to lengthen the words in the
statement itself as much as one likes—a procedure he
caricatured by reading
and
A too
apparent use of these licences has certainly a ludicrous
effect,
but they are not alone in that; the rule of moderation
applies to all the constituents of the poetic vocabulary;
even with metaphors, strange words, and the rest, the effect
will be the same, if one uses them improperly and with a view
to provoking laughter.
The proper use of them is a very
different thing.
To realize the difference one should take
an epic verse and see how it reads when the normal words
are introduced. The same should be done too with the
strange word, the metaphor, and the rest; for one has
only to put the ordinary words in their place to see the
truth of what we are saying. The same iambic, for instance,
is found in Aeschylus and Euripides, and as it stands in
the former it is a poor line; whereas Euripides, by the
change of a single word, the substitution of a strange for
what is by usage the ordinary word, has made it seem a fine
one. Aeschylus having said in his Philoctetes:
Euripides has merely altered the ἐσθίει here into θοινᾶται.
Or suppose
to be altered by the substitution of the ordinary words into
Or the line
into
Or
Add to this that
Ariphrades used to ridicule the tragedians for introducing ex-
pressions unknown in the language of common life,
ἄπο
Ἀχιλλέως
The mere fact of their not being in
ordinary speech gives the Diction a non-prosaic character;
but Ariphrades was unaware of that.
indeed, to make a proper use of these poetical forms, as
also of compounds and strange words.
But the greatest
thing by far is to be a master of metaphor.
thing that cannot be learnt from others; and it is also
a sign of genius, since a good metaphor implies an intuitive
perception of the similarity in dissimilars.
Of the kinds of words we have enumerated it may be
observed that compounds are most in place in the dithyramb,
strange words in heroic, and metaphors in iambic poetry.
Heroic poetry, indeed, may avail itself of them all. But in
iambic verse, which models itself as far as possible on the
spoken language, only those kinds of words are in place
which are allowable also in an oration, i. e. the ordinary
word, the metaphor, and the ornamental equivalent.
Let this, then, suffice as an account of Tragedy, the art
imitating by means of action on the stage.
Poetics. Aristotle. Ingram Bywater (Translator), ed. Gilbert Murray. Oxford. 1909.