With respect to critical difficulties and their solutions, the number
and nature of the sources from which they may be drawn may be thus
exhibited.
The poet being an imitator, like a painter or any other artist, must
of necessity imitate one of three objects,--things as they were or are,
things as they are said or thought to be, or things as they ought to be.
The vehicle of expression is language,--either current terms or, it
may be, rare words or metaphors. There are also many modifications of
language, which we concede to the poets. Add to this, that the standard
of correctness is not the same in poetry and politics, any more than in
poetry and any other art. Within the art of poetry itself there are
two kinds of faults, those which touch its essence, and those which are
accidental. If a poet has chosen to imitate something, <but has imitated
it incorrectly> through want of capacity, the error is inherent in
the poetry. But if the failure is due to a wrong choice if he has
represented a horse as throwing out both his off legs at once, or
introduced technical inaccuracies in medicine, for example, or in any
other art the error is not essential to the poetry. These are the points
of view from which we should consider and answer the objections raised
by the critics.
First as to matters which concern the poet's own art. If he describes
the impossible, he is guilty of an error; but the error may be
justified, if the end of the art be thereby attained (the end being that
already mentioned), if, that is, the effect of this or any other part of
the poem is thus rendered more striking. A case in point is the pursuit
of Hector. If, however, the end might have been as well, or better,
attained without violating the special rules of the poetic art, the
error is not justified: for every kind of error should, if possible, be
avoided.
Again, does the error touch the essentials of the poetic art, or some
accident of it? For example,--not to know that a hind has no horns is a
less serious matter than to paint it inartistically.
Further, if it be objected that the description is not true to fact, the
poet may perhaps reply,--'But the objects are as they ought to be': just
as Sophocles said that he drew men as they ought to be; Euripides,
as they are. In this way the objection may be met. If, however, the
representation be of neither kind, the poet may answer,--This is how men
say the thing is.' This applies to tales about the gods. It may well be
that these stories are not higher than fact nor yet true to fact: they
are, very possibly, what Xenophanes says of them. But anyhow, 'this
is what is said.' Again, a description may be no better than the fact:
'still, it was the fact'; as in the passage about the arms: 'Upright
upon their butt-ends stood the spears.' This was the custom then, as it
now is among the Illyrians.
Again, in examining whether what has been said or done by some one is
poetically right or not, we must not look merely to the particular act
or saying, and ask whether it is poetically good or bad. We must also
consider by whom it is said or done, to whom, when, by what means, or
for what end; whether, for instance, it be to secure a greater good, or
avert a greater evil.
Other difficulties may be resolved by due regard to the usage of
language. We may note a rare word, as in {omicron upsilon rho eta alpha
sigma / mu epsilon nu / pi rho omega tau omicron nu}, where the poet
perhaps employs {omicron upsilon rho eta alpha sigma} not in the sense
of mules, but of sentinels. So, again, of Dolon: 'ill-favoured indeed
he was to look upon.' It is not meant that his body was ill-shaped, but
that his face was ugly; for the Cretans use the word {epsilon upsilon
epsilon iota delta epsilon sigma}, 'well-favoured,' to denote a fair
face. Again, {zeta omega rho omicron tau epsilon rho omicron nu /
delta epsilon / kappa epsilon rho alpha iota epsilon}, 'mix the drink
livelier,' does not mean `mix it stronger' as for hard drinkers, but
'mix it quicker.'
Sometimes an expression is metaphorical, as 'Now all gods and men were
sleeping through the night,'--while at the same time the poet says:
'Often indeed as he turned his gaze to the Trojan plain, he marvelled
at the sound of flutes and pipes.' 'All' is here used metaphorically for
'many,' all being a species of many. So in the verse,--'alone she hath
no part...,' {omicron iota eta}, 'alone,' is metaphorical; for the best
known may be called the only one.
Again, the solution may depend upon accent or breathing. Thus Hippias of
Thasos solved the difficulties in the lines,--{delta iota delta omicron
mu epsilon nu (delta iota delta omicron mu epsilon nu) delta epsilon
/ omicron iota,} and { tau omicron / mu epsilon nu / omicron upsilon
(omicron upsilon) kappa alpha tau alpha pi upsilon theta epsilon tau
alpha iota / omicron mu beta rho omega}.
Or again, the question may be solved by punctuation, as in
Empedocles,--'Of a sudden things became mortal that before had learnt to
be immortal, and things unmixed before mixed.'
Or again, by ambiguity of meaning,--as {pi alpha rho omega chi eta kappa
epsilon nu / delta epsilon / pi lambda epsilon omega / nu upsilon xi},
where the word {pi lambda epsilon omega} is ambiguous.
Or by the usage of language. Thus any mixed drink is called {omicron
iota nu omicron sigma}, 'wine.' Hence Ganymede is said 'to pour the wine
to Zeus,' though the gods do not drink wine. So too workers in iron
are called {chi alpha lambda kappa epsilon alpha sigma}, or workers in
bronze. This, however, may also be taken as a metaphor.
Again, when a word seems to involve some inconsistency of meaning, we
should consider how many senses it may bear in the particular passage.
For example: 'there was stayed the spear of bronze'--we should ask
in how many ways we may take 'being checked there.' The true mode
of interpretation is the precise opposite of what Glaucon mentions.
Critics, he says, jump at certain groundless conclusions; they pass
adverse judgment and then proceed to reason on it; and, assuming that
the poet has said whatever they happen to think, find fault if a thing
is inconsistent with their own fancy. The question about Icarius
has been treated in this fashion. The critics imagine he was a
Lacedaemonian. They think it strange, therefore, that Telemachus should
not have met him when he went to Lacedaemon. But the Cephallenian story
may perhaps be the true one. They allege that Odysseus took a wife from
among themselves, and that her father was Icadius not Icarius. It is
merely a mistake, then, that gives plausibility to the objection.
In general, the impossible must be justified by reference to artistic
requirements, or to the higher reality, or to received opinion. With
respect to the requirements of art, a probable impossibility is to
be preferred to a thing improbable and yet possible. Again, it may be
impossible that there should be men such as Zeuxis painted. 'Yes,' we
say, 'but the impossible is the higher thing; for the ideal type must
surpass the reality.' To justify the irrational, we appeal to what is
commonly said to be. In addition to which, we urge that the irrational
sometimes does not violate reason; just as 'it is probable that a thing
may happen contrary to probability.'
Things that sound contradictory should be examined by the same rules as
in dialectical refutation whether the same thing is meant, in the same
relation, and in the same sense. We should therefore solve the question
by reference to what the poet says himself, or to what is tacitly
assumed by a person of intelligence.
The element of the irrational, and, similarly, depravity of character,
are justly censured when there is no inner necessity for introducing
them. Such is the irrational element in the introduction of Aegeus by
Euripides and the badness of Menelaus in the Orestes.
Thus, there are five sources from which critical objections are drawn.
Things are censured either as impossible, or irrational, or morally
hurtful, or contradictory, or contrary to artistic correctness. The
answers should be sought under the twelve heads above mentioned.