Aristotle On What Is Inside and Outside a Work of the Poetic Art. (Papers In Poetics 4)

7/29/2019 Aristotle On What Is Inside and Outside a Work of the Poetic Art. (Papers In Poetics 4)

1/21

ARISTOTLE ON WHAT IS INSIDE AND WHAT ISOUTSIDE A WORK OF THE POETIC ART

Bart A. Mazzetti

Introduction

IN thePoetics, we find Aristotle speaking about what is inside and what is outside a workof the poetic art in the following terms:

In Chapter 14 (1453b 3034), with reference to the agents in tragedy, he says:

Or they may do some dreadful deed, but unknowingly, and then discover thekinship afterward, like the Oedipus of Sophocles. That indeed lies outside thedrama, but in the tragedy itself are such instances as the Alcmaeon of Astydamasor Telegonus in the Wounded Odysseus.1

And again in Chapter 15 (1454a 331454b 8) he says:

But it is necessary in the characters exactly as in the makeup of the incidents al-ways to seek what is either necessary or likely, so that [35] it be either necessary orlikely that such and such a man say or do such and such a thing, and that it beeither necessary or likely that this happen after that. It is clear, then, that theresolution of plots should come from the plot itself and not ,[1454b] as in theMedea, by a contrivance [], and in the ,2thethings surrounding the departure of the ships. Rather, a contrivance should be usedfor things outside the drama, either for whatever has happened be-fore and which itis beyond the power of men to know, or such things as are to come and requireforetelling and reporting; for the power to see all things we grant to the gods as

their due.

But there should be nothing irrational in the incidents; but if there is, it should beoutside the tragedy, like that in the Oedipus of Sophocles.

And again in Chapter 17 (1455b 7-92, tr. H. G. Apostle), speaking about Orestes coming tothe shrine in EuripidesIphigeneia at Taurus, he states:

the fact that the god for some reason commanded him to go there is outside theuniversal, and his purpose (sc. for going there) is outside the plot.

But in Chapter 24 (1460a 29-32), speaking of irrationalities belonging to the plot, he saysthat they should not be composed in the first place, but

1 Unless otherwise noted, all translations of Aristotle are my own.2 My translation follows the emendation proposed by Gerald F. Else (Aristotles Poetics: The Argument.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967, pp. 470-473), where he gives decisive reasons for readinge)n t$ Au)li/di rather than e)n t$ )Ilia/di [= in theIliad] with the manuscripts, a reading not only

possible but preferable since, as he says, the argument requires an example from drama, as is clear from whatAristotle says next.

1


2/21

If not, at least they should be outside the plot as represented, such as Oedipus notknowing how Laius died; but not inside the drama itself, as in the Electra, the onegiving an account of the Pythian games, or in the Mysians, the man who came toMysia from Tegea without making a sound.

Additionally, in Chapter 18 (1455b 24-34) Aristotle explains that

In every tragedy there is a complication and a resolution. What is outside and

frequently some of those things inside [form] the complication, but the rest, theresolution. But by complication I mean that which is from the beginning up to thepart which is the last from which there is a change into good fortune or bad; byresolution, that which is from the beginning of the change down to the end. Forinstance, in theLynceus of Theodectes the complication consists in the things donebefore, and the seizure of the boy, and then their own [seizure]; but the resolutionis from the accusation of murder down to the end.

In order to understand Aristotles thought on this matter, it will be helpful to take his casesboth singly and in comparison with one another.

Aristotles cases taken singly

I. Outside the drama:

1. Oedipus slaying of Laius (ch. 14)2. the unspecified examples involving the use of a mechan for things requiring

narration (past or future events which can only be known by a god, etc.) (ch.15)

3. Oedipus ignorance of the way in which Laius died (ch. 15, ch. 24)

II. Outside the tragedy:

1. the unspecified examples involving the use of a mechan, etc. (ch. 15)2. Oedipus ignorance of the way in which Laius died (ch. 15, ch. 24)

III. Outside the plot (which is the same as outside the universal):

1. the unspecified examples involving the use of a mechan, etc. (ch. 15)2. the reason for the divine command and Orestes purpose in coming to the shrine

of Artemis (ch. 17)

IV. Outside the plot as represented (which is the same as outside the plot):


Hence we may take their contraries as follows:

I. Inside the drama:

1. the dreadful acts committed by the Alcmaeon of Astydamas and Telegonus inthe Wounded Odysseus (ch. 14)

2


3/21

2. the use of a mechan in theMedea and in the matters concerning the departureof the fleet in theIphigeneia at Aulis (ch. 15)

3. in the Electra, the one giving the account of the Pythian games, or in theMysians, the man who came to Mysia without making a sound (ch. 24)

II. Inside the tragedy:

1. Oedipus slaying of Laius (ch. 14)2. the dreadful acts committed by the Alcmaeon of Astydamas and Telegonus inthe Wounded Odysseus (ch. 14)


4. the unspecified examples involving the use of a mechan, etc. (ch. 15)5. the reason for the divine command and Orestes purpose in coming to the shrine

of Artemis (ch. 17)6. in the Electra, the one giving the account of the Pythian games, or in the

Mysians, the man who came to Mysia without making a sound (ch. 24)

III. Inside the plot (which is the same as inside the universal):

1. Oedipus slaying of Laius (ch. 14)2. the dreadful acts committed by the Alcmaeon of Astydamas and Telegonus in

the Wounded Odysseus (ch. 14)3. the use of a mechan in theMedea and in the matters concerning the departure

of the fleet in theIphigeneia at Aulis (ch. 15)4. Oedipus ignorance of the way in which Laius died (ch. 15. ch. 24)5. the parts belonging to the universal forms of theIphigeneia at Taurus and the

Odyssey (ch. 17)6. in theLynceus of Theodectes the part of the complication which consists in the

things done before, etc. (ch. 18)

IV. Inside the plot as represented:

1. Oedipus slaying of Laius (ch. 14)2. the dreadful acts committed by the Alcmaeon of Astydamas and Telegonus in

the Wounded Odysseus (ch. 14)3. the use of a mechan in theMedea and in the matters concerning the departure

of the fleet in theIphigeneia at Aulis (ch. 15)4. the parts belonging to the universal forms of theIphigeneia at Taurus and the

Odyssey (ch. 17)5. in theLynceus of Theodectes, some part of the complication consisting in the

things done before, etc. (ch. 18)

Aristotles cases taken in relation to one another

Next, let us take Aristotles cases in relation to one another:

3


4/21

I. Outside both the tragedy and the drama (neither enacted on the stage,3 nor narratedas having happened off-stage, but part of the plot, namely, as complication) (=outside the plot as represented):


II. Inside both the tragedy and the drama (both enacted on the stage and part of theplot):

1. the dreadful acts committed by the Alcmaeon of Astydamas or the Telegonus inthe Wounded Odysseus (ch. 14)


3. in the Electra, the one giving the account of the Pythian games, or in theMysians, the man who came to Mysia without making a sound (ch. 24)

III. Outside the drama, but not outside the tragedy (= inside the tragedy, but not insidethe drama) and also part of the plot (part of the complication narrated as havinghappened off-stage):

1. Oedipus slaying of Laius (ch. 14)

IV. Outside the drama, but not outside the tragedy (= inside the tragedy, but not insidethe drama) and not part of the plot (narrated as having happened off-stage inthe past and not possible for men to know, or to come afterward, etc.):

1. the unspecified examples involving the use of a mechan for things requiringnarration (past or future events which can only be known by a god, etc.) (ch.15)

V. Outside the tragedy, but not outside the drama:

(impossible because what is inside the drama is enacted on the stage and therefore apart of the tragedythat is, it occurs during one of the tragedys quantitative parts)

VI. Outside the plot as accidental to it, but belonging to an episode that has beenworked out (neither part of the complication nor the resolution, but contributoryto such):

1. the reason for the divine command and Orestes purpose in coming to the shrineof Artemis (ch. 17)

VII. Outside the plot as antecedent or consequent to it, but belonging to a prologueor exode (neither part of the complication nor the resolution, but whollyextraneous to the action):

1. the unspecified examples involving the use of a mechan for things requiringnarration (past or future events which can only be known by a god, etc.) (ch.15)

3 For this and similar descriptive phrases I employ in theseschemata, see my conclusion.

4


5/21

VIII. Outside the plot as represented, and so outside both the drama and the tragedy(neither enacted on the stage nor narrated as having taken place off-stage, buta part of the plot as complication):

(The same as the first case outlined above.)

Comparison of possibilities within cases

Let us next consider the comparison of possibilities within cases:

I. Three kinds of thing subject to narration (= what has happened or is happening orwill happen off-stage and so is outside the drama):

The thing subject to narration may be:

1. something which has taken place before the parts of the plot which are enactedon the stage, such as Oedipus slaying of Laius in Sophocles Oedipus; or

2. something which has taken place before the parts of the plot which are enactedon the stage and is impossible for men to know, or is to come afterward and re-quires foretelling and reporting, namely, by the gods, to whom men grant astheir due the power to see all things (= something antecedent or consequent tothe plot and hence requiring narration by the gods, etc.); or

3. something which has taken place, or which is taking place, off-stage duringthe parts of the plot which are enacted on the stage (not mentioned by Aristotle,but a case that is quite obvious; cfr. the soldier who recounts the escape ofIphigeneia and Orestes at the end of Euripides Iphigeneia at Taurus; thisepisode has begun during the course of the enacted part of the plot and is stillgoing on at the time this narrative is delivered).

II. Two kinds of thing outside the plot:

The thing outside the plot is either:

1. something which has taken place before the parts of the plot which are enactedon the stage and is impossible for men to know, or is to come afterward and re-quires foretelling and reporting, namely, by the gods, to whom men grant astheir due the power to see all things (= something antecedent or consequent tothe plot and hence requiring narration by the gods, etc.); or

2. something which is included in the episodes when they have been worked outbut is not proper (idion) to the plot as such (= something accidental andcontributory to the plot, such as the reason for the divine command andOrestes purpose in coming to the shrine of Artemis, etc.).

III. Two kinds of thing not set before the eyes (= what is irrational in the incidents of adramatic work or of an epic poem):

The thing not set before the eyes is either:

5


6/21

1. something outside the plot as represented and hence neither enacted on thestage nor narrated, such as Oedipus ignorance of the way in which Laius died(= something irrational in the incidents of a dramatic work, like a tragedy); or

2. something which is narrated, but in such a way that its irrationality is disguisedfrom the listener, such as the setting ashore of Odysseus in the Odyssey (=something irrational in the incidents of a narrative work, like an epic poem).

Conclusion

Gathering up Aristotles various statements about what is outside a work of thepoetic art and what is inside, it turns out that some part of it can either be outside thedrama (e)/cw tou= dra/matoj) or inside; outside the tragedy (e)/cw th=j tragw?di/aj) orinside; outside the plot (e)/cw tou= mu/qou) or inside; and finally, either outside theplot as represented (e)/cw tou= muqeu/matoj) or inside. As for Aristotles remark inChapter 18 that part of the complication is outside (e)/cwqen), we shall see thate)/cwqen must refer either to what is outside the drama but inside the tragedy, or towhat is outside both.

Beginning with the first case given above, it is evident that since, according toAristotles account in Chapter 3, dra/mata are so called because such imitations areproduced by drw=ntaj, doers (cf. 1448a 29), drama must mean what is donethat is,enactedon the stage, so that outside the drama would mean not enacted on thestage, a conclusion borne out by the instance of something outside the drama adduced inChapter 14, namely, Oedipus slaying of Laius in the Oedipus of Sophocles, a deed whichbelongs to the complication of the plot but is not enacted on the stage. In contrast to this,Aristotle adduces two further instances where such a dreadful deed is inside the tragedy,implying that what is outside the drama can only be inside the tragedy if it is narrated.4

Again, according to Chapter 15, where Aristotle restricts the use of a mechan toeither whatever has happened before and which it is beyond the power of men to know, orsuch things as are to come afterward and require foretelling and reportingthat is, tosuch things that, as antecedent or consequent to the plot, depend upon the omniscience ofthe gods in order to be narratedit is evident that outside the drama here must mean suchthings as are inside the tragedy in the manner stated, and therefore belong either to aprologue or an exode or to a part of such a part, which are quantitative parts of the tragedyso that what is outside the tragedy would mean the opposite of this, being somethingneither enacted on the stage nor narrated.

Again, according to Chapter 17, where Aristotle discusses the way in which plotsare to be set out in universal form, it is evident that what is outside the plot means thoseparts which belong to the episodes when they have been worked out, but are not proper(i)/dion) to the plot as such (rather they are accidental and contributory to it, as I haveexpressed it above), as, for instance, the circumstances of Orestes arrival at the shrine ofArtemis in the Iphigeneia at Taurusfor the fact that the god for some reasoncommanded him to go there is outside the universal (e)/cw tou= kaqo/lou), and hispurpose (sc. for going there) is outside the plot (e)/cw tou= mu/qou).

Again, according to both Chapters 15 and 24, where Aristotle brings forward theirrationality of Sophocles Oedipus not knowing the way in which Laius died, it is evident4 Note here that the deed narrated has taken place before what is enacted on the stage; but somethinghappening off-stage during such an action could also be the subject of a narrative and hence in the tragedy,a case I incorporate into myschema on things subject to narration above.

6


7/21

that what he calls in the former place outside the tragedy is part of the complication butneither enacted on the stage, and so is outside the drama, nor even narrated as havingtaken place off-stage, and so is in no way set before the eyes of the spectator, so thatthis is what must be meant by outside the plot as represented (e)/cw tou= muqeu/matoj)in Chapter 24.

Finally, the aforementioned ways of being outside and in are ordered amongthemselves as follows:

What is inside the tragedy may either be inside the drama or outside: it will beinside the drama if it is enacted on the stage, outside if only narrated. If it is inside thedrama, it may either be inside the plot or outside: it will be inside the plot if it is part of thecom-plication or resolution, outside if it is accidental and contributory, or antecedent orcon-sequent to either part. If it is inside the plot, it either may be set before the eyes of thespectator or not set before his eyes: it will be set before his eyes if it is either enacted ornarrated; it will not be if neither of these is the case.

The particular case of what is outside the plot but within the drama, while notaddressed in those terms by Aristotle, is nevertheless dealt with, since it is identical to thecase of what is outside the plot as antecedent or consequent to it. As for the remainingcase, namely, what is outside the drama but within the plot as represented, this consists inthat part of the complication which is narrated as having taken place before the part of theplot enacted on the stage, and is for that reason inside the tragedy.

Note also that by beginning with what is inside or outside the tragedy and endingwith what is inside or outside the plot as represented, Aristotle moves from what has morethe character of matter to what has more the character of formthat is, he moves fromwhat pertains to the quantitative parts which are quasi-material to the principal qualitativepart, the plot and its parts, which are quasi-formal; the plot being the principle, and, as itwere, the soul of a poetic work, as is stated in Chapter 6 (1450a 38).

N.B. The reader will have noted that Scribd does not support my Greek font (SGreek), forwhich I ask his or her indulgence.

7


8/21

APPENDIX: ON THEDEUS EX MACHINA (THE GOD FROM THE MACHINE).

1. On the use ofhe mechan or a contrivance in a tragedy.

Cf. Aristotle, Poetics ch. 15 (1454a 331454b 9) (tr. B.A.M.):

But it is necessary in the characters in exactly the same way as in the construction of thethings done [pragmaton sustasei] always to seek what is either necessary or likely [35], sothat it be either necessary or likely that such and such a man say or do such and such a thing,and that it be either necessary or likely that this happen after that.

It is clear, then, that the resolution of plots should happen from the plot itself [1454b] andnot ,5 as in the Medea, by a contrivance, and in the ,6 the things surrounding the departure of the ships. Rather, a contrivance should beused for things outside the drama, either for whatever has happened before and which it isbeyond the power of men to know, or such things as are to come after [5] and requireforetelling and reporting; for the power to see all things we grant to the gods as their due.But there should be nothing irrational in the incidents; but if there is,it should be outside the tragedy, like that in the Oedipus of Sophocles.7

Cf. idem (translator unknown):

Furthermore, it is obvious that the unravelling of the plot should arise from the circumstancesof the plot itself, and not be brought about ex machina, as is done in the Medea and in theepisode of the embarkation in the Iliad. The deus ex machina should be used only for mattersoutside the play proper, either for things that happened before it and that cannot be known bythe human characters, or for things that are yet to come and that require to be foretoldprophetically for we allow to the gods the power to see all things. However, there should benothing inexplicable about what happens, or if there must be, it should be kept outside thetragedy, as is done in Sophocless Oedipus.

2. The deus ex machina in sum.

Aristotlerestricts the famous theatrical device of the deus ex machina, the godfrom the machine, from taking part in the plot itself. The gods should not intervene toresolve an impossibly complicated plot. They can, however, appear to cast judgment on thecharacters once the plot has come to its necessary conclusion. (from an Internet article)

Greek and Roman playwrights frequently created plots so complex and fatalisticthat they were hard-pressed to develop a suitable happy ending. The protagonist was oftentaken to the brink of destruction only to be rescued by a god who literally swept across thestage on a crane to cast off the evil incantations. This dramatic style [is] called deus exmachina, or god from the machine. (from an Internet article)

5 That character was mentioned here is indicated by Richard Jankos note ad loc.: The Arabic reads char-acter itself but this is clearly a mistake (Aristotles Poetics I[Indianapolis-Cambridge, 1987], p. 111).6 For this reading, see my note below. It should be noted that while it may not be possible to discover fromthe available evidence the precise incident Aristotle has in mind here, his immediate point is clear.7 Cf. the example given above of Oedipus not knowing how Laius died. Note how the foregoing argumentmoves from what is impossible in the portrayal of character, taken in reference to the resolution of plots, towhat is irrational in the makeup of the incidents , taken in reference to their complication, albeit the latterword has fallen out of the text.

8


9/21

deus ex machina Latin god from the machine: a person or thing that appears oris introduced into a situation suddenly and unexpectedly and provides an artificial or con-trived solution to an apparently insoluble difficulty.

The term was first used in ancient Greek and Roman drama, where it meant thetimely appearance of a god to unravel and resolve the plot.

The deus ex machina was named for the convention of the gods appearing in thesky, an effect achieved by means of a crane (Greek: mechane). (Encyclopedia Britannica)

Deus ex machina. (Latin, god from the machine The resolution of a plot by useof a highly improbable chance or coincidence (so named from the practice of some Greekdramatists of having a god descend from heaven in the theater by means of a stage machineto rescue the protagonist from an impossible situation at the last possible minute). (froman Internet article)

Our term *deus ex machina is Latin for the god from the mechan, used to referto the practice (common in the 4th century) of effecting a miraculous and quite unbe-lievable happy ending at the last moment by bringing in a god on the mechan. (from anInternet article)

a crane (the mechan) which was used (from the later 5th century, at least) toportray characters in flight. (from an Internet article)

3. On mechan (a device or contrivance), understood as that part of techne or skill whichproduces an effect contrary to nature for the benefit of mankind, such an effect beingsomething remarkable and difficult to attain.

Cf. Aristotle,Mechanical Problems (847a 11-28) (ed. and trans. W. S. Hett; rev. B.A.M.):

Remarkable things [or things to be wondered at, thaumazetai] happen in accordance with

nature, the cause of which is unknown, and others occur contrary to nature, which areproduced by skill for the benefit of mankind. For in many cases nature produces effectsagainst [15] our advantage; for nature is always disposed in the same way and simply, butour advantage changes in many ways.

When, then, we have to produce an effect contrary to nature, we are at a loss, because ofthe difficulty, and stand in need of skill. Therefore we call that part of skill which assistssuch difficulties, a device. [20] For as the poet Antiphon wrote, this is true:

We by skill gain mastery over things in which we are conquered by nature.

Of this kind are those in which the lesser master the greater, and things possessing littlemoment move great weights, and all similar devices which we name mechanical problems.

Division of remarkable things (= things to be wondered at):

a. Things which happen according to nature, but whose causes remain hiddenb. Things which happen contrary to nature, but are the result of skill (caused by

man for his own benefit)

5. Definitions.

9


10/21

DEUS EX MACHINA (THE GOD FROM THE MACHINE). (1) Properlyspeaking, that part of poetic atechnia, or incapacity in the poetic art, which makes use of amechan in the form of a crane in order to lower a god to the stage, thereby resolving a plotin a way that is not possible according to what is likely or necessary, and hence producingan effect contrary to the nature of the poetic art; doing so for the benefit of the poet; suchan effect being something remarkable and otherwise impossible to attain (B.A.M., afterAristotles Poetics and Mechanics); (2) commonly speaking, that part of poetic atechnia

which achieves this end by any means whatsoever (in which case it is also found in narra-tive works like epopoiia).

In the poetic art, a contrivance is a means of resolving a situation (i.e. the pro-ducing of an outcome of a concatenation or sequence of incidents) such that it is either (1)impossible, or (2) if possible, then (a) either unlikely or (b) unnecessary, being made tohappen that way because the poet wants it to.

Such a device may either involve the gods or not. When it does, one has a deus exmachina. An example of a contrivance that does not involve the gods is Oedipus ignor-ance of the way in which Laius died in Sophocles Oedipus Rex.

10


11/21

6. Additional primary sources.

Cf. Plato, Cratylyus 425c-d (tr. Harold North Fowler):

[425d] Swkra/thj

geloi=a me\n oi)=mai fanei=sqai, w)=(Ermo/genej, gra/mmasi kai\ sullabai=j ta\

pra/gmata memimhme/na kata/dhlagigno/mena: o(/mwj de\ a)na/gkh.

ou) ga\r e)/xomen tou/tou be/ltion ei)j o(/tie)panene/gkwmen peri\ a)lhqei/aj tw=nprw/twn o)noma/twn,

[425d] Socrates

It will, I imagine, seem ridiculous that things aremade manifest through imitation in letters and

syllables; nevertheless it cannot be otherwise.

For there is no better theory upon which we canbase the truth of the earliest names,

ei) mh\ a)/ra lei, w(/sper oi( tragw?dopoioi\ e)peida/n ti a)porw=sin e)pi\ ta\jmhxana\j katafeu/gousi qeou\j ai)/rontej,

kai\ h(mei=j ou(/twj ei)po/nteja)pallagw=men, o(/ti ta\ prw=tao)no/mata oi( qeoi\ e)/qesan kai\ dia\tau=ta o)rqw=j e)/xei.

unless you think we had better follow the ex-ample of the tragic poets, who, when they are ina dilemma, have recourse to the introduction ofgods on machines.

So we may get out of trouble by saying that thegods gave the earliest names, and therefore theyare right.

a)=ra [425e] kai\ h(mi=n kra/tistoj ou(=tojtw=n lo/gwn;

h)\ e)kei=noj, o(/ti para\ barba/rwn tinw=nau)ta\ pareilh/famen, ei)si\ de\ h(mw=na)rxaio/teroi ba/rbaroi;

h)\ o(/ti u(po\ palaio/thtoj a)du/naton au)ta[426a] e)piske/yasqai, w(/sper kai\ ta\barbarika/;

[425e] Is that the best theory for us?

Or perhaps this one, that we got the earliestnames from some foreign folk and the for-eigners are more ancient than we are?

Or that it is impossible to investigate them be-cause of their antiquity, as is also the case withthe foreign words?

au(=tai ga\r a)\n pa=sai e)kdu/seij ei)=enkai\ ma/la komyai\ tw=? mh\ e)qe/lontilo/gon dido/nai peri\ tw=n prw/twno)noma/twn w(j o)rqw=j kei=tai.

kai/toi o(/tw? tij tro/pw? tw=n prw/twno)noma/twn th\n o)rqo/thta mh\ oi)=den,a)du/nato/n pou tw=n ge u(ste/rwnei)de/nai, a(\ e)c e)kei/nwn a)na/gkhdhlou=sqai w(=n tij pe/ri mhde\n oi)=den:

[426a] All these are merely very clever evasionson the part of those who refuse to offer any ra-tional theory of the correctness of the earliestnames.

And yet if anyone is, no matter why, ignorant ofthe correctness of the earliest names, he cannotknow about that of the later, since they can beexplained only by means of the earliest, aboutwhich he is ignorant.

Cf. Plato, Cratylus 425b-d (tr. B. Jowett):

And now, I think that we may consider the names about which you were asking. The way toanalyze them will be by going back to the letters, or primary elements of which they arecomposed.

11


12/21

First, we separate the alphabet into classes of letters, distinguishing the consonants, mutes,vowels, and semivowels; and when we have learnt them singly, we shall learn to know themin their various combinations of two or more letters; just as the painter knows how to useeither a single colour, or a combination of colours. And like the painter, we may apply lettersto the expression of objects, and form them into syllables; and these again into words, untilthe picture or figurethat is, languageis completed. Not that I am literally speaking ofourselves, but I mean to say that this was the way in which the ancients framed language.

And this leads me to consider whether the primary as well as the secondary elements are

rightly given. I may remark, as I was saying about the Gods, that we can only attain toconjecture of them. But still we insist that ours is the true and only method of discovery;otherwise we must have recourse, like the tragic poets, to a Deus ex machina, and say thatGod gave the first names, and therefore they are right; or that the barbarians are older thanwe are, and that we learnt of them; or that antiquity has cast a veil over the truth.

Yet all these are not reasons; they are only ingenious excuses for having no reasons.

Cf. Plato, Cratylus:

Soc. And mine, too, Hermogenes. But do not be too much of a precisian, or you willunnerve me of my strength. When you have allowed me to add mechane (contrivance) totechne (art) I shall be at the top of my bent, for I conceive mechane to be a sign of great

accomplishment- anein; for mekos the meaning of greatness, and these two, mekos andanein, make up the word mechane.

Cf. Pseudo-Plato, Clitophon 407 a 8 (tr. Perseus website):

Cli. Audi igitur. Equidem tecum versatus, saepenumero, Socrates, vehementer obstupui, dumte loquentem audirem, mihique visus es praeclarissime omnium dicere, quoties obiurganshomines, veluti e machina tragica deus, subito exclamares, Quoniam ruitis, homines?

Cleitophon. Listen, then. When I was attending your lectures, Socrates, I was oftentimesamazed at what I heard, and you seemed to me to surpass all other men in the nobleness ofyour discourse, when you rebuked mankind and chanted these words like a God on the tragic

stage [like a god from a tragic machina]: [407b] Whither haste ye, O men? Yea, verily yeknow not that ye are doing none of the things ye ought, seeing that ye spend your wholeenergy on wealth and the acquiring of it; while as to your sons to whom ye will bequeath it,ye neglect to ensure that they shall understand how to use it justly, and ye find for them noteachers of justice, if so be that it is teachable1or if it be a matter of training and practice,instructors who can efficiently practice and train themnor have ye even begun byreforming yourselves in this respect. Yet when ye perceive that ye yourselves and yourchildren, though adequately instructed in letters and music and gymnastic.

Cf. Aristotle,Metaphys. I. 4 (985a 10-24):

These thinkers...evidently grasped two of the causes... vaguelyhowever, and with noclearness, but as untrained men behave in fight; for they go round their opponents and oftenstrike fine blows, but they do not fight on scientific principles, and so too these thinkers donot seem to know what they say; for it is evident that, as a rule, they make no use of theircauses except to a small extent. For Anaxagoras uses reason as a deus ex machina for themaking of the world, and when he is at a loss to tell from what cause something necessarilyis, then he drags reason in, but in all other cases ascribes events to anything rather than toreason. And Empedocles, though he uses the causes to a greater extent than this, neither doesso sufficiently nor attains consistency in their use.

12


13/21

Cf. Cicero,De Natura Deorum Lib. I, nn. 53-54 (ed. The Latin Library, tr. unknown):

[53] Nos autem beatam vitam in animisecuritate et in omnium vacatione munerumponimus.

docuit enim nos idem, qui cetera, natura ef-fectum esse mundum, nihil opus fuisse fabrica,

tamque eam rem esse facilem, quam vos efficinegetis sine divina posse sollertia, ut innu-merabiles natura mundos effectura sit, efficiat,effecerit.

Quod quia, quem ad modum natura efficere sinealiqua mente possit, non videtis,

ut tragici poetae cum explicare argumenti exi-

tum non potestis, confugitis ad deum.

[54] Cuius operam profecto non desideraretis, siinmensam et interminatam in omnis partismagnitudinem regionum videretis, in quam seiniciens animus

et intendens ita late longeque peregrinatur, utnullam tamen oram ultimi videat, in qua possitinsistere.

In hac igitur inmensitate latitudinum,longitudinum, altitudinum infinita vis innumer-abilium volitat atomorum, quae interiecto inanicohaerescunt tamen inter se et aliae alias ad-prehendentes continuantur;

ex quo efficiuntur eae rerum formae et figurae,quas vos effici posse sine follibus et incudibusnon putatis.

Itaque inposuistis in cervicibus nostris sempi-ternum dominum, quem dies et noctestimeremus.

Quis enim non timeat omnia providentem etcogitantem et animadvertentem et omnia ad sepertinere putantem curiosum et plenum negotiideum?

We for our part deem happiness to consist intranquillity of mind and entire exemption fromall duties.

For he who taught us all the rest has also taughtus that the world was made by nature, without

needing an artificer to construct it,

and that the act of creation, which according toyou cannot be performed without divine skill, isso easy, that nature will create, is creating, andhas created worlds without number.

You on the contrary cannot see how nature canachieve all this without the aid of some intel-ligence,

and so, like the tragic poets, being unable to

bring the plot of your drama to a dnouement,you have recourse to a god;

whose intervention you assuredly would notrequire if you would but contemplate the mea-sureless and boundless extent of space thatstretches in every direction, into which when themind projects and propels itself,

it journeys onward far and wide without eversighting any margin or ultimate point where itcan stop.

Well then, in this immensity of length andbreadth and height there flits an infinite quantityof atoms innumerable, which though separatedby void yet cohere together,

and taking hold each of another form unionswherefrom are created those shapes and formsof things which you think cannot be createdwithout the aid of bellows and anvils,

and so have saddled us with an eternal master,whom day and night we are to fear;

for who would not fear a prying busybody of agod, who foresees and thinks of and notices allthings, and deems that everything is his con-cern?

13


14/21

Cf. Cicero,De Natura Deorum Lib. I, nn. 53-54 (ed. The Latin Library, tr. C. D. Yonge):

[53] Nos autem beatam vitam in animi secure-tate et in omnium vacatione munerum ponimus.

docuit enim nos idem, qui cetera, naturaeffectum esse mundum, nihil opus fuisse fa-

brica,

tamque eam rem esse facilem, quam vos efficinegetis sine divina posse sollertia, ut innumera-biles natura mundos effectura sit, efficiat, effe-cerit.

We make a happy life to consist in a tranquillityof mind, a perfect freedom from care, and an ex-emption from all employment.

The philosopher, from whom we received allour knowledge, has taught us that the world was

made by nature;

that there was no occasion for a work-house toframe it in; and that, though you deny the possi-bility of such a work without divine skill, it is soeasy to her, that she has made, does make, andwill make innumerable worlds.

Quod quia, quem ad modum natura efficere sineali-qua mente possit, non videtis,

ut tragici poetae cum explicare argumenti exi-tum non potestis, confugitis ad deum.

[54] Cuius operam profecto non desideraretis, siinmensam et interminatam in omnis partismagnitudinem regionum videretis,

in quam se iniciens animus et intendens ita latelongeque peregrinatur, ut nullam tamen oram ul-timi videat, in qua possit insistere.

But, because you do not conceive that nature isable to produce such effects without some ra-tional aid,

you are forced, like the tragic poets, when youcannot wind up your argument in any other way,to have recourse to a Deity,

whose assistance you would not seek, if youcould view that vast and unbounded magnitudeof regions in all parts;

where the mind, extending and spreading itself,travels so far and wide that it can find no end,no extremity to stop at.

Comparison of translations.

(tr. unknown)

You on the contrary cannot see how nature canachieve all this without the aid of some intelli-gence,

and so, like the tragic poets, being unable tobring the plot of your drama to a dnouement,you have recourse to a god;

whose intervention you assuredly would notrequire if you would but contemplate the mea-sureless and boundless extent of space thatstretches in every direction, into which when themind projects and propels itself, it journeys on-ward far and wide without ever sighting anymargin or ultimate point where it can stop.

(tr. C. D. Yonge)

But, because you do not conceive that nature isable to produce such effects without somerational aid,

you are forced, like the tragic poets, when youcannot wind up your argument in any other way,to have recourse to a Deity,

whose assistance you would not seek, if youcould view that vast and unbounded magnitudeof regions in all parts; where the mind, exten-ding and spreading itself, travels so far and widethat it can find no end, no extremity to stop at.

14


15/21

Cf. Marcus Tullius Cicero, The Nature of the Gods and On Divination, translated by C. D.Yonge, Sec. XX, pp. 19-20:

We make a happy life to consist in a tranquillity of mind, a perfect freedom from care, andan exemption from all employment. The philosopher, from whom we / received all ourknowledge, has taught us that the world was made by nature; that there was no occasion fora work-house to frame it in; and that, though you deny the possibility of such a work withoutdivine skill, it is so easy to her, that she has made, does make, and will make innumerable

worlds. But, because you do not conceive that nature is able to produce such effects withoutsome rational aid, you are forced, like the tragic poets, when you cannot wind up your argu-ment in any other way, to have recourse to a Deity, whose assistance you would not seek, ifyou could view that vast and unbounded magnitude of regions in all parts; where the mind,extending and spreading itself, travels so far and wide that it can find no end, no extremity tostop at.

We for our part deem happiness to consist in tranquillity of mind and entire exemption from allduties. For he who taught us all the rest has also taught us that the world was made by nature, withoutneeding an artificer to construct it, and that the act of creation, which according to you cannot be per-formed without divine skill, is so easy, that nature will create, is creating, and has created worldswithout number.

You on the contrary cannot see how nature can achieve all this without the aid of some intelligence,and so, like the tragic poets, being unable to bring the plot of your drama to a dnouement, you haverecourse to a god; whose intervention you assuredly would not require if you would but contemplatethe measureless and boundless extent of space that stretches in every direction, into which when themind projects and propels itself, it journeys onward far and wide without ever sighting any margin orultimate point where it can stop.

Well then, in this immensity of length and breadth and height there flits an infinite quantity of atomsinnumerable, which though separated by void yet cohere together, and taking hold each of anotherform unions wherefrom are created those shapes and forms of things which you think cannot becreated without the aid of bellows and anvils, and so have saddled us with an eternal master, whomday and night we are to fear; for who would not fear a prying busybody of a god, who foresees andthinks of and notices all things, and deems that everything is his concern?

[53] Nos autem beatam vitam in animi securitate et in omnium vacatione munerum ponimus. docuitenim nos idem, qui cetera, natura effectum esse mundum, nihil opus fuisse fabrica, tamque eam remesse facilem, quam vos effici negetis sine divina posse sollertia, ut innumerabiles natura mundoseffectura sit, efficiat, effecerit. Quod quia, quem ad modum natura efficere sine aliqua mente possit,non videtis, ut tragici poetae cum explicare argumenti exitum non potestis, confugitis ad deum. [54]Cuius operam profecto non desideraretis, si inmensam et interminatam in omnis partis magnitudinemregionum videretis, in quam se iniciens animus et intendens ita late longeque peregrinatur, ut nullamtamen oram ultimi videat, in qua possit insistere.

In hac igitur inmensitate latitudinum, longitudinum, altitudinum infinita vis innumerabilium volitatatomorum, quae interiecto inani cohaerescunt tamen inter se et aliae alias adprehendentescontinuantur; ex quo efficiuntur eae rerum formae et figurae, quas vos effici posse sine follibus et

incudibus non putatis. Itaque inposuistis in cervicibus nostris sempiternum dominum, quem dies etnoctes timeremus. Quis enim non timeat omnia providentem et cogitantem et animadvertentem etomnia ad se pertinere putantem curiosum et plenum negotii deum?(SEC. 8-20, EXCERPT)

15


16/21

7. Secondary sources.

(1)

Aristotle is concerned with preserving the identification of the audience with the actionsdepicted in the tragedy. Any of us who have read novels or seen plays or films in whichsomething doesnt ring true can understand how flaws in plotting and characterization

can interfere with our capacity to get caught up in the story. Both character and plot mustbe consistent and develop in ways that conform to the laws of probability, Aristotle argues.He restricts the famous theatrical device of the deus ex machina, the god from themachine, from taking part in the plot itself. The gods should not intervene to resolve animpossibly complicated plot. They can, however, appear to cast judgment on the charactersonce the plot has come to its necessary conclusion. (DEUS EX MACHINA)

(2)

Deus ex machina refers to the intervention of a divinity in the action of a drama to resolvea conflict and, often, to bring the action to a conclusion. Its literal sense, god from themachine, comes from ancient stagecraft, in which an actor playing the deity would bephysically lowered by a crane-like mechanism into the stage area. We sometimes use theterm to refer to a miraculous (or just improbable) external influence that brings about theresolution of a problem or conflict. Aristotle recommends against using this technique toresolve the plots of tragedies, suggesting that its proper place is for staging commentariesby the gods that lie outside the actual action of the drama. (From an internet article atwww2.hawaii.edu:)

(3)

At 22:44 Uhr +0100 on 15.01.1999, Francesco Stellacci wrote:

Dear list, I need your help: Im studying the stagecraft in Euripides, but I cant find wherethe expression deus ex machina comes from. Is there a Latin source for it? And if yes, is itbasedon Platos comment about the use of the crane in the Cratylus 425d or maybe onAristotlesPoetics?

I understand the source of the expression deus ex machina is Marsilio Ficinos translationof *epi tragikEs mEkhanEs theos* in the Ps.-Platonic Clitopho 407a. I havent controlledthis, but I am sure you can find Ficinos works in La Cattolica.

Best regards,

Rainer Thiel

June 2000 VENTILATIONS

(4)

Deus Ex Machina (Presumed)

16


17/21

Greek and Roman playwrights frequently created plots so complex and fatalisticthat they were hard-pressed to develop a suitable happy ending. The protagonist was oftentaken to the brink of destruction only to be rescued by a god who literally swept across thestage on a crane to cast off the evil incantations. This dramatic style, called deus ex17achine, or god from the machine, is reflected in many fairy-tales.

Scholars of Greco-Roman literature interpret deus ex 17achine as representing agreater philosophical concept, one of hierarchical manipulation of humans by whimsical

gods and humankinds inability to rise above their control. Conversely, cultures ascribingto this predestination concept turned to another commonly known practice of carpediem, or seize the day, live life to its fullest each day, for one cannot change fate.

(5)

deus ex machina Latin god from the machinea person or thing that appears or is introduced into a situation suddenly and unexpectedlyand provides an artificial or contrived solution to an apparently insoluble difficulty.

The term was first used in ancient Greek and Roman drama, where it meant thetimely appearance of a god to unravel and resolve the plot. The deus ex machina wasnamed for the convention of the gods appearing in the sky, an effect achieved by means ofa crane (Greek: mechane). The dramatic device dates from the 5th century BC; a godappears in SophoclesPhiloctetes and in most of the plays of Euripides to solve a crisis bydivine intervention.

Since ancient times, the phrase has also been applied to an unexpected saviour or toan improbable event that brings order out of chaos (e.g., the arrival, in time to averttragedy, of the U.S. cavalry in a western film). (Encyc. Brit. 11 th ed.)

(6)

TheatrumArticle by Leonhard Schmitz, Ph.D, F.R.S.E, Rector of the High School of Edinburgh, onpp 1120-1125 of William Smith, D.C.L., LL.D.: A Dictionary of Greek and RomanAntiquities, John Murray, London, 1875.

The mechane, kraede or ekkyklema, a machine by which gods or heroes were representedpassing through or floating in the air: hence the proverb, deus ex machina (Pollux, iv.126,128, 131; Suidas, s.v. Ejwvphma; Hesych. s.v. Kravdh).

Deus ex machina. (Latin, god from the machine The resolution of a plot by use of ahighly improbable chance or coincidence (so named from the practice of some Greekdramatists of having a god descend from heaven in the theater by means of a stage machineto rescue the protagonist from an impossible situation at the last possible minute).

a crane (the mechan) which was used (from the later 5th century, at least) toportray characters in flight.

[Our term *deus ex machina is Latin for the god from the mechan, used to refer to thepractice (common in the 4th century) of effecting a miraculous and quite unbelievable

17


18/21

happy ending at the last moment by bringing in a god on the mechan. The comic poetAntiphanes, complaining of how easy tragedians have it compared to writers of comedy,notes that whenever tragedians run into difficulty they have only to raise up the mechanlike a finger to the audience (the Greeks used their middle finger much as we do today)and, presto!, their plot is resolved.) Today the term refers to any artificial or unbelievabledevice used to resolve a plot.]

(7)If Nietzsches work cannot be regarded as an outright rejection of religion it is not

because there are some parallels between his work and episodes in the New Testament(one finds such a suggestion in papers by Thomas J.J. Altizer and Paul Valadier who areconcerned to find the Christian in Nietzsche). Rather the sense of religion which Nietzscheaffirms is that found in the Greek world before the rise of reason. In particular it is thepractice of religion manifested in the great tragedies which is the source of the Nietzscheannotion of the divine. Now, of course Nietzsches concern with these Dionysian festivals iswell known but what has not been so well explored is the extent to which the practice oftragedy is repeated in Nietzsches own practice of philosophy. In this paper I wish topropose that Nietzsches own philosophical writings, in particular Zarathustra and the thirdessay of Genealogy of Morals, are tragedies. If we can speak of Nietzsches philosophy ashaving a method then it is the method of tragedy.

In addition I shall explore the further possibility that it is by taking the Nietzscheanpractice of philosophy as a repetition of the practice of tragedy that we can gain a betterunderstanding of the role played by nihilism in the writings and in particular its relation tothe divine: nihilism ... might be a divine way of thinking (Will to Power, 15). In thetragedies we are brought to the catastrophe, an event often presented as the collapse ofmeaning; but this break-down does not paralyse the action, it serves to call forth the gods.For the rational eye of Aristotle this deus ex machina was too much of a contrivance: itbears no relation to what has gone before, it does not follow. The performance does notjustify the appearance of the gods. But Nietzsche has seen something else there which itseems Aristotle is unable to comprehend. It is this that Nietzsche is trying to recapture inthe practice of his philosophy especially in its concern with nihilism and the relation ofnihilism to the divine, a relation which does not follow and which is not justified. Hence ifwe do speak of Nietzsches writing as having a method then it seems that we must also saythat it is not one that Aristotle would have recognised.

Finally, the issue of the divine must not be regarded as of only minor concern forNietzsche; in many respects it lies at the heart of his later philosophy. After all he speaks ofthe divine vicious circle (circulus vitiosus deus, Beyond Good and Evil, 56). Hence afurther suggestion which will be considered in the paper is that the invocation of a deus exmachina can help us to come closer to the riddle of the eternal recurrence.Dr. Mick Bowles, University of Greenwich (NIETZSCHES DEUS EX MACHINA)

(8)

Shaws response to the deus ex machina: From The Quintessence of Ibsenism toHeartbreak House

Miriam Handley, University of Sheffield, England

18


19/21

The term deus ex machina, literally, the god from the machine, has been used inscholarly and colloquial discourse to describe everything from divine intervention to asudden and surprising turn of events. The critic Francis Dunn notes that in ancient theatre,and most particularly in the tragedies of Euripides, the significance of the spectaculararrival of a god would be marked by the characters looking up and exclaiming withwonder.[8] The use of such a device to resolve the complications of plot, however, hasbeen the subject of a large body of criticism.[9] In Tragedys End. Closure and Innovation

in Euripidean Drama (1996), Dunn sets out the critical disapprobation of the deus exmachina by depicting the fourth century B.C. comic poet, Antiphanes, as one of thedevices earliest detractors. As Antiphanes writes and Dunn translates:

when they dont know what to sayand have completely given up on the playjust like a finger they lift the machineand the spectators are satisfied.[10]

Antiphaness disapproval of the deus ex machina was echoed by classical scholars workingat the time that Shaw started to write his plays. In The Attic Theatre (1889) for example,A.E. Haigh described the use of the device by writing that, The most ordinary occasionfor its employment was [...] when affairs had reached such a complicated condition thatonly divine interference could put them right again.[11] (my italics). Like Antiphanes,Haigh implies in this comment that the appearance of the deus ex machina at the end of aplay indicated the playwrights negligence in managing the complications of plot.

Other late- nineteenth-century criticisms of the deus ex machina are surveyed at theoutset of A.W. Verralls chapter onIphigenia inEuripides the Rationalist(1895). Verrallrecorded that the deus ex machina was considered to be nothing better than burlesque,and he added that for many critics, The final scenes [of Euripidess plays], in particularthe coup de thtre with which the action is wound up or cut short, have almost always aconventionality of manner, a perfunctory style.[12] Verrall also noted a preponderance ofdismissive responses to the authors who had adopted the device. The appearance of thedeus ex machina prompted many critics to wonder, sarcastically and sorrowfully, at such asuicide of genius.[13] Completing his survey of critical response to the device, Verrallcame to the conclusion that for many critics, the deus ex machina indicated the authorsattempt to do his utmost to ruin the whole, and to prevent us from attaching any seriousimportance to his representations.[14]

Verralls survey of the adverse critical response to the deus ex machina suggests inits use of the terms burlesque, coup de thtre and catastrophe an elision of thedistinction between divine and mortal intervention, and between the tragedies of the fifthcentury B.C. and the dramatic work of the nineteenth century. By adopting a vocabularymore commonly associated with melodrama and the well-made-play,[15] Verralls textreveals that the deus ex machina was being interpreted outside its own dramatic context.

[16] Although Verrall went on to demonstrate the specific and, he asserts, ironic functionof the deus ex machina in Euripidess work, the criticisms of the device set out in hischapter indicate the concern of candid and reasonable judges[17] over the manner inwhich plays were ended.

8] Francis M. Dunn, Tragedys End. Closure and Innovation in Euripidean Drama (OxfordUniversity Press, 1996) pp. 27-33.

19


20/21

[9] Discussions of the deus ex machina include Gilbert Norwoods Greek Tragedy, 4th ed.repr. (Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1948) pp. 164-165, 313-314; H. D. F. Kittos Greek Tragedy.A Literary Study , repr. (Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1966) pp. 285, 302; Peter Arnott, GreekScenic Conventions in the Fifth Century B.C. (The Clarendon Press, 1962) pp. 72-78;Christopher Gill, Bow, Oracle and Epiphany in Sophocless Philoctetes, Greek Tragedy,eds Ian McAuslan & Peter Walcott, vol. 2 (University Press, 1993) 95-103, especially 95,101; Peter Burian, Myth into muthos: the shaping of tragic plot, The Cambridge

Companion to Greek Tragedy, ed. P. E. Easterling (Cambridge University Press, 1977)178-208, especially 180-192, 198-201.[10] Antiphanes translated by Dunn, Tragedys End, p. 27. Patrice Pavis adds that, Thedeus ex machina is sometimes an ironic means of finishing a play [...] It provides a meansof casting doubt on the efficacy of divine or political solutions. Patrice Pavis, LeDictionnaire du Thtre (Paris: ditions Sociales, 1980) p. 110 (my translation). Pavissexamples include Molires Tartuffe and Brechts Threepenny Opera.[11] A. E. Haigh, The Attic Theatre, vol. 4 (The Clarendon Press, 1889) pp. 190-191. ForGilbert Murrays defence of the use of deus ex machina see the notes to his translation ofIphigenia in Tauris (George Allen & Son, 1910) pp. 104-105.[12] A. W . Verrall, Euripides the Rationalist (Cambridge University Press 1895) p. 166.[13] Verrall, Euripides the Rationalist, p. 166.[14] Verrall, Euripides the Rationalist, p. 167.[15] A strictly regulated dramatic form associated with the French dramatist Sardou. Shawdismisses this type of play throughout his career, referring to it as a commercial productin The Quintessence of Ibsenism, p. 149 and as a clockwork cat in a letter to WilliamArcher, 22nd June 1923, Bernard Shaw. Collected Letters 1911-1925, ed. Dan H.Lawrence (Viking Penguin Inc., 1985) pp. 836-837.[16] This elision of terms helps explain the ease with which critics and audiences of thelater nineteenth century equated the action and characters of modern drama with Greektragedy. In a letter to Gilbert Murray about the casting of Medea for the 1907 Savoytheatre production for example, Shaw suggested a comparison between Euripides andIbsen by arguing that in playing Rita in the 1896 production of Little Eyolf, Janet Achurchwas Medea. George Bernard Shaw, Letter to Gilbert Murray, 22 June 1907, BernardShaw. Collected Letters 1898-1910, ed. Dan H. Laurence (Max Reinhardt Ltd., 1972) 694.See also Arnheims argument, in which the social constraints and dead ideas operating inIbsens Ghosts are identified as a deus ex machina. Rudolf Arnheim, Deus ex Machina,British Journal of Aesthetics 32.3 (1992): pp. 221-226, especially 224.[17] Verrall, Euripides the Rationalist, p. 166.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

Francis M. Dunn, Tragedys End. Closure and Innovation in Euripidean Drama (OxfordUniversity Press, 1996) pp. 27-33.

Discussions of the deus ex machina include:

Gilbert Norwoods Greek Tragedy, 4th ed. repr. (Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1948) pp. 164-165,313-314;

H. D. F. Kittos Greek Tragedy. A Literary Study, repr. (Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1966) pp.285, 302;

20


21/21

Peter Arnott, Greek Scenic Conventions in the Fifth Century B.C. (The Clarendon Press,1962) pp. 72-78;

Christopher Gill, Bow, Oracle and Epiphany in Sophocless Philoctetes, Greek Tragedy,eds. Ian McAuslan & Peter Walcott, vol. 2 (University Press, 1993) 95-103, especially 95,101;

Peter Burian, Myth into muthos: the shaping of tragic plot, The Cambridge Companionto Greek Tragedy, ed. P. E. Easterling (Cambridge University Press, 1977) 178-208,especially 180-192, 198-201.

(c) 2013 Bart A. Mazzetti. All rights reserved.

Aristotle On What Is Inside and Outside a Work of the Poetic Art. (Papers In Poetics 4)

Documents

Transcript of Aristotle On What Is Inside and Outside a Work of the Poetic Art. (Papers In Poetics 4)