Page:The Theatre of the Greeks, a Treatise on the History and Exhibition of the Greek Drama, with Various Supplements.djvu/352

326 Aristotle's treatise on poetry. Now as Tragerly imitates by acting, the decoration, in the first place, must necessarily be one of its parts : then the melopceia (or cnaaTLKOLs]. It is a fact that the passions by which one person is strongly affected are naturally inherent in all, the difference being one of degree only. Such are pzi!?/ and fear; and enthusiasm too, for some are under the swa,y of this emotion. And we see that these, when they employ the songs that excite the soul to religious fervour, are calmed and settled by sacred strains, as though they had found some remedy and pur- gation [wcTTre/) larpeias rvx^vra^ kol KaOdpcrecos]. The same must happen also to those liable to the emotions of pity and fear [tovs iXe^iuovas kol rovs (po^rjTtKoiJs], and those who are generally impressionable [rot's 6ws 7raOi]TiKo6s], and others so far as each of these circumstances occurs ; and all have a sort of p>urgation and a sense of lightening not unaccompanied hy pleasure [/cat Tracn yiyvecrdai nva KdOaptjLV kol Kovcpl'^eadai /xe9' ijdouTJs]. In like manner the songs which jyroduce a sense of purgation [rd fxeXir] ra. KadapTiKo] cause an innocuous gratification to men. Wherefore we should direct the attention of the competitors who practise music for the theatres to liarmonies and songs which produce this effect.' "After all this I have no hesitation in supposing that there is an omission in our passage of the Poetic, before the words €7rct 6e irpdrTovTes, of some lines in which that KdOapaii tQv iroi'qixa.Twv was discussed ; and, to strengthen the probability of this con- jecture, I add the following confirmation from internal evidence. Aristotle, in his Poetic, was the less likely to liave evaded a defence of poetry against the attacks of Plato in his Pepuhlic (ill. pp. 124 — 29, and x. pp. 466 — 491, Ekk.), because Plato himself wishes it, because he invites poets and prose-writers to hasten to the help of poetry, and declares his willingness to give it a place in liis polity, if it ca,n be proved that epic and tragic poetry do not produce any effects prejudicial to life and truth (p. 489). Aristotle is not accustomed to leave unemployed a suitable opportunity of setting his teacher right, and cither qualifying his views by taking a different side or refuting them altogether. Are we then to imagine that in his Hhetoric he has con- futed the judgment and opinion of Plato respecting what is pernicious in that art, with few but sufficient words, without mentioning his name indeed, but with a distinct and manifest reference to his Gorgias, and has so re-established the credit of rhetoric ; but that in the case of poetry, which he prizes so highly, which he prefers to history, and places nearer to philosophy, he would not endeavour to secure ii,s acquittal from the incriminations of his great predecessor? Now we find in Aristotle's Poetic, besides 0. XXV., which removes by explanation certain difficulties found in the poets, and meets various objections, only one passage in Vv^hich we can recognize, and clearly too, a distinct allusion to Plato, and this is found in our words: 8l iXeov Kal cf)6^ou Trepcii- vovcra ttju twv tolovtcov iraBrijidTuv KaOapjiv. That indeed is the grea,test reproach which Plato alleges against tragic poetry, that instead of making men strong and hard, it weakens and softens them by the pity which it excites ; that what we should in common life regard as unrnanl}'^ and unbecoming to do in the presence of others — namely, to lament and utter loud wailings on account of our misfortunes — we permit to the art of imitation, to that 7}8vapihri fxova-rj : we take pleasure in it, we become more and more unnerved by it, and so pleasure and sorrow get the mastery in our polity instead of law and reason. This is Plato's view {Respuhl. x. p. 485, Bkk. p. 605, Steph.). Aristotle, on the contrary, maintains that the tragic art, by means of the fear and pity which it excites in the human soul, purifies it from such passions, — a thought which requires to be established for its own sake, and which is doubly worthy of explanation as standing in open opposition and contradiction to Plato," Since Spengel wrote these Vv'ords there has been a lively discussicm of Aristotle's celebrated definition by J, Bernays {Grundzilge der verlorn. Abhandl. des Aristotcles iiber die Wirkung der Tragodie, Ahh. Hist. Phil. Gesell. in Breslau, Breslau, 1857), whose views have been sharply criticized by Adolf Stahr {Aristotcles und die WirJcung der Tragodie, Berlin; 1859). Bernays insists on the distinction between iraO-qfjiaTa, as denoting inherent affections, and wdOr}, as denoting incidental conditions (Bernays, p. 194), and maintains that as Aristotle used the former word, the Kadapais, which lie attributes to Tragedy, refers only to those spectators who are chronically and habitu- ally affected with pity and fear. And the uddapats operates as a kind of disburdenment of the overruling sentiment, an diripacns, or drawing away of the morbid influences (Bernays, p. 200). But although Aristotle does distinguish between Tra^Tj^uara and