Scan barcode
bibliophage's review against another edition
What can I say about Aristotle that hasn't already been said? Well, nothing really except that I very much appreciate all his thought work here. I also happen to like this edition.
octoberdad's review against another edition
4.0
It probably is a black mark on my character that I have not read this before. The impetus for reading it now is preparation for my thesis as an MA student at Signum University. In particular, I had started reading [b: The Anatomy of Criticism|318116|Anatomy of Criticism Four Essays|Northrop Frye|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1349129234s/318116.jpg|1050194] by Northrop Frye, and discovered that his first essay is premised on some of Aristotle's comments here. Seeing that the Poetics was not very long, I decided it was high time (okay, well past high time) to read this seminal work.
As far as it relates directly to my thesis, which is a praxeological study of literary theory, I didn't necessarily expect to find anything — which makes the discovery of unexpected connections all the more swell. Here are a couple passages that relate:
p. 25: Again, Tragedy is the imitation of an action; and implies personal agents, who necessarily possess certain distinctive qualities both of character and thought; for it is by these that we qualify actions themselves, and these—thought and character—are the two natural causes from which action spring, and on actions again all success or failure depends. Hence, the Plot is the imitation of the action:—for by plot I mean the arrangement of the incidents. By Character I mean that in virtue of which we ascribe certain qualities to the agents. Thought is required wherever a statement is proved, or, it may be, a general truth enunciated.…
But most important of all [the parts of a tragedy] is the structure of the incidents. For Tragedy is an imitation, not of men, but of an action and of life, and life consists in action, and its end is a mode of action, not a quality. Now character determines men's qualities, but it is by their actions that they are happy or the reverse. Dramatic action, therefore, is not with a view to the representation of character: character comes in as subsidiary to the actions. Hence the incidents and the plot are the end of a tragedy; and the end is the chief thing of all. Again, without action there cannot be a tragedy; there may be without character.
p. 35: It is, moreover, evident from what has been said, that it is not the function of the poet to relate what has happened, but what may happen—what is possible according to the law of probability or necessity…. The true difference [between the poet and the historian] is that one relates what has happened, the other what may happen.
p. 39: But again, Tragedy is an imitation not only of a complete action, but of events inspiring fear or pity. Such an effect is best produced when the events come on us by surprise; and the effect is heightened when, at the same time, they follow as cause and effect. The tragic wonder will then be greater than if they happened of themselves or by accident; for even coincidences are most striking when they have an air of design.
As far as it relates directly to my thesis, which is a praxeological study of literary theory, I didn't necessarily expect to find anything — which makes the discovery of unexpected connections all the more swell. Here are a couple passages that relate:
p. 25: Again, Tragedy is the imitation of an action; and implies personal agents, who necessarily possess certain distinctive qualities both of character and thought; for it is by these that we qualify actions themselves, and these—thought and character—are the two natural causes from which action spring, and on actions again all success or failure depends. Hence, the Plot is the imitation of the action:—for by plot I mean the arrangement of the incidents. By Character I mean that in virtue of which we ascribe certain qualities to the agents. Thought is required wherever a statement is proved, or, it may be, a general truth enunciated.…
But most important of all [the parts of a tragedy] is the structure of the incidents. For Tragedy is an imitation, not of men, but of an action and of life, and life consists in action, and its end is a mode of action, not a quality. Now character determines men's qualities, but it is by their actions that they are happy or the reverse. Dramatic action, therefore, is not with a view to the representation of character: character comes in as subsidiary to the actions. Hence the incidents and the plot are the end of a tragedy; and the end is the chief thing of all. Again, without action there cannot be a tragedy; there may be without character.
p. 35: It is, moreover, evident from what has been said, that it is not the function of the poet to relate what has happened, but what may happen—what is possible according to the law of probability or necessity…. The true difference [between the poet and the historian] is that one relates what has happened, the other what may happen.
p. 39: But again, Tragedy is an imitation not only of a complete action, but of events inspiring fear or pity. Such an effect is best produced when the events come on us by surprise; and the effect is heightened when, at the same time, they follow as cause and effect. The tragic wonder will then be greater than if they happened of themselves or by accident; for even coincidences are most striking when they have an air of design.
skepticalsatan's review against another edition
Did not hate it as much as I thought I would, but still not looking forward to hacking my way through the Greek
More...