As regards Problems and their Solutions, one may see
the number and nature of the assumptions on which they
proceed by viewing the matter in the following way.
(1) The
poet being an imitator just like the painter or other maker
of likenesses, he must necessarily in all instances represent
things in one or other of three aspects, either as they were
or are, or as they are said or thought to be or to have
been, or as they ought to be.
(2) All this he does in
language, with an admixture, it may be, of strange words
and metaphors, as also of the various modified forms of
words,
since the use of these is conceded in poetry.
(3) It is to be remembered, too, that there is not the same kind
of correctness in poetry as in politics, or indeed any other
art.
There is, however, within the limits of poetry itself
a possibility of two kinds of error, the one directly, the
other only accidentally connected with the art.
If the poet meant to describe the thing correctly, and failed through
lack of power of expression, his art itself is at fault. But
if it was through his having meant to describe it in some
incorrect way (e.g. to make the horse in movement have
both right legs thrown forward) that the technical error
(one in a matter of, say, medicine or some other special
science), or impossibilities of whatever kind they may be,
have got into his description, his error in that case is not
in the essentials of the poetic art.
These, therefore, must
be the premisses of the Solutions in answer to the criticisms
involved in the Problems.
I. As to the criticisms relating to the poet's art itself.
Any impossibilities there may be in his descriptions of things
are faults.
But from another point of view they are justifiable,
if they serve the end of poetry itself—if (to assume what we
have said of that end) they make the effect of some portion
of the work more astounding. The Pursuit of Hector is
an instance in point.
If, however, the poetic end might
have been as well or better attained without sacrifice of
technical correctness in such matters, the impossibility is
not to be justified, since the description should be, if it can,
entirely free from error.
One may ask, too, whether the
error is in a matter directly or only accidentally connected
with the poetic art; since it is a lesser error in an artist
not to know, for instance, that the hind has no horns, than
to produce an unrecognizable picture of one.
II. If the poet's description be criticized as not true to
fact, one may urge perhaps that the object ought to be as
described—an answer like that of Sophocles, who said that
he drew men as they ought to be, and Euripides as they
were.
If the description, however, be neither true nor of the
thing as it ought to be, the answer must be then, that it is
in accordance with opinion.
The tales about Gods, for
instance, may be as wrong
true nor the better thing to say; but they are certainly in
accordance with opinion.
Of other statements in poetry
one may perhaps say, not that they are better than the
truth, but that the fact was so at the time; e.g. the descrip-
tion of the arms: ‘their spears stood upright, butt-end upon
the ground’; for that was the usual way of fixing them then,
as it is still with the Illyrians.
As for the question whether
something said or done in a poem is morally right or not,
in dealing with that one should consider not only the intrinsic
quality of the actual word or deed, but also the person who
says or does it, the person to whom he says or does it,
the time, the means, and the motive of the agent—whether
he does it to attain a greater good, or to avoid a greater
evil.
III. Other criticisms one must meet by considering the
language of the poet: (1) by the assumption of a strange
word in a passage like
Homer may perhaps mean not mules but sentinels. And
in saying of Dolon,
may perhaps be, not that Dolon's body was deformed, but
that his face was ugly, as
handsome-faced. So, too,
‘mix the wine stronger,’ as though for topers, but ‘mix it
quicker.’
(2) Other expressions in Homer may be explained
as metaphorical; e.g. in
παννύχιοι
same time,
συρίγγων τε ὁμαδόν
put for ‘many,’ since ‘all’ is a species of ‘many.’ So also
his
‘alone.’
(3) A change, as Hippias suggested, in the mode
of reading a word will solve the difficulty in
and
(4) Other difficulties may
be solved by another punctuation; e.g. in Empedocles,
δὲ θνήτ᾽ ἐφύοντο, τὰ πρὶν μάθον ἀθάνατα ζωρά τε πρὶν κέκρητο
(5) Or by the assumption of an equivocal term, as in
χηκεν δὲ πλέω νύξ
(6) Or by an
appeal to the custom of language. Wine-and-water we
call ‘wine’; and it is on the same principle that Homer
speaks of a
wrought tin.’ A worker in iron we call a ‘brazier’;
and it is on the same principle that Ganymede is de-
scribed as the ‘wine-server’ of Zeus, though the Gods do
not drink wine. This latter, however, may be an instance of
metaphor.
But whenever also a word seems to imply some
contradiction, it is necessary to reflect how many ways there
may be of understanding it in the passage in question; e.g.
in Homer's
the possible senses of ‘was stopped there’—
whether by
taking it in this sense
of which Glaucon speaks:
‘They start with some improbable
presumption; and having so decreed it themselves, proceed
to draw inferences, and censure the poet as though he
had actually said whatever they happen to believe, if his
statement conflicts with their own notion of things.’
This
is how Homer's silence about Icarius has been treated.
Starting with the notion of his having been a Lacedaemonian,
the critics think it strange for Telemachus not to have met
him when he went to Lacedaemon. Whereas the fact may
have been as the Cephallenians say, that the wife of Ulysses
was of a Cephallenian family, and that her father's name
was Icadius, not Icarius. So that it is probably a mistake
of the critics that has given rise to the Problem.
Speaking generally, one has to justify (1) the Impossible
by reference to the requirements of poetry, or to the better,
or to opinion.
For the purposes of poetry a convincing
impossibility is preferable to an unconvincing possibility;
and if men such as Zeuxis depicted be impossible, the
answer is that it is better they should be like that, as the
artist ought to improve on his model.
(2) The Improbable
one has to justify either by showing it to be in accordance
with opinion, or by urging that at times it is not im-
probable; for there is a probability of things happening
also against probability.
(3) The contradictions found in
the poet's language one should first test as one does
an opponent's confutation in a dialectical argument, so as
to see whether he means the same thing, in the same rela-
tion, and in the same sense, before admitting that he has
contradicted either something he has said himself or what
a man of sound sense assumes as true.
But there is no
possible apology for improbability of Plot or depravity of
character, when they are not necessary and no use is made
of them, like the improbability in the appearance of Aegeus
in Medea and the baseness of Menelaus in Orestes.
The objections, then, of critics start with faults of five
kinds: the allegation is always that something is either (1)
impossible, (2) improbable, (3) corrupting, (4) contradictory,
or (5) against technical correctness. The answers to these
objections must be sought under one or other of the above-
mentioned heads, which are twelve in number.
Poetics. Aristotle. Ingram Bywater (Translator), ed. Gilbert Murray. Oxford. 1909.