speechless. The plea that otherwise the plot would
have been ruined, is ridiculous; such a plot should
not in the first instance be constructed. But
once the irrational has been introduced and an air
of likelihood imparted to it, we must accept it in
spite of the absurdity. Take even the irrational
incidents in the Odyssey, where Odysseus is left upon
the shore of Ithaca. How intolerable even these
might have been would be apparent if an inferior poet
were to treat the subject. As it is, the absurdity
is veiled by the poetic charm with which the poet
invests it.
The diction should be elaborated in the pauses of
the action, where there is no expression of character
or thought. For, conversely, character and thought
are merely obscured by a diction that is over brilliant.
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.
