Essay 2

Print History and Culture

            With the coming of print the world changed.  The advent of print was an incredibly important development to shaping our world.  As the few important aspects of the history of print I illustrate here will show print had major influences on the surrounding society both positive and negative.  The ways in which people interacted with books would never be the same.  There was a difference in culture surrounding manuscripts.  The spread of knowledge altered.  The way people read differed.  Print changed everything.  The ways in which people read majorly differed.  This particular difference was mostly in three parts, first in what was being read, second in who was reading and third in how many people were reading.  There are, of course, many other changes which print brought about which will not be mentioned here as if I were to talk about the entire history of print a book could easily be written about the topic, and has been.  Instead I intend to focus on some of the major changes from the advent of print.

There was a major difference in what was being read.  Technical literature began to be reproduced more frequently.  More works were being published and it mattered more whether they would make money off the books.  What mattered even more though, was personal credit, “it is worth remembering that in an age of currency debasement, money itself was by no means necessarily trustworthy---“ (Johns 114).  The importance of personal credit became a central to the lifestyles of printers and booksellers, in that, “They were strongly influenced by the need to strive for and maintain credit in their local environs, and the best way to do that was by establishing a good character.” (Johns 187).  Thus, the way people acted changed as a direct relation to print.  This was a change to culture, in the way people acted, because printers and booksellers needed to have a certain perceived persona in order to sell books.  That is only one example of how culture changed to accommodate the coming of print.

With the coming of print culture as a whole altered.  What people knew about different topics, the kinds of jobs available, etc. all changed with the advent of print technology.  Prior to print, ”learning was governed by a reliance on spoken word – producing a hybrid half-oral, half-literate culture” (Eisenstein 11) meaning there was more dependence on others for learning.  Learning then depended on those who were able to read and could afford expensive manuscripts, reading to those who could not, and those who were allowed to learn learning.  This was all limited to a small portion of the population.  Prior to the advent of print, “Outside certain special transitory centers , moreover, the texture of scribal culture was so thin that heavy reliance was placed on oral transmission even by literate elites.” (Eisenstein 11).  This also speaks to the change in how people read.  Reading went from an oral group event, to more of an individualized task.

            The ways in which people interacted with their reading also changed.  More information was widely dispersed, allowing knowledge to take a leap forward.  An understanding of different topics began to increase as editions of text were printed, as did the reader’s knowledge of the books origins.  Eisenstein properly describes the phenomena of knowing more about a manuscript with each proceeding edition, knowing more, “about how a given manuscript was composed and copied” (Eisenstein 9).  However, at the same time Eisenstein mentions that the same thing that makes it easier to understand the origins of a manuscript with each additional edition, “makes it more difficult to envisage how a given manuscript appeared to a scribal scholar who had only one hand-copied version to consult and no certain guidance as to its place or date of composition, its title or author.” (Eisenstein 9-10).  The advent of printing allowed general knowledge which today we take for granted, such as knowing the tile or author of a book, to be more widely spread. 

Print was also utilized in the academic world as a tool to spread knowledge.  An example of how print allowed a more widespread and complete collection of knowledge was that of Tycho Brahe.  Brahe managed to compile, with the help of many years and assistants, a “systematic corpus or recorded heavenly bodies, using not only Tycho’s own careful observations but those sent to him by astronomers across central Europe.” (Johns 11).  Once compiled Brahe proceeded to print this work, on his own printing press, under his own watchful eye, using his own paper, to ensure no mistake came to his important work.  After the printing was completed he distributed the copies so that others could add their own observations and return them to his island of Hven, “In doing so, he pioneered a practice central to the development of modern science.” (Johns 13).  Brahe served as a prime example of what print could do for knowledge.  Print allowed him to spread his knowledge and that of others in one comprised work which allowed many an understanding of astronomy they may never have previously had the opportunity to enjoy.  One individual could only have observed so much but print allowed shared and spread knowledge to exist more freely.

            There were, as with anything, downsides to the coming of print as well.  One of the major downsides early in print history was that it was new.  Tycho Brahe is as prime of an example of the downside of the undeveloped technology of print as the upside of expanded knowledge in relation to print culture.  Even though Brahe possessed his own printing house and paper mill, which he created with the purpose of having acceptable materials available to him, much of his work was never printed in his time.  When his own printing press could not handle his prize work Brahe searched for one that could and even after being taken to the Holy Roman Emperor, and visiting the city that was the center of the empire, Prague, “no printer able to undertake his prized star catalogue could be found.” (Johns 18).  Brahe also had an incident with another of the downsides of print in that at one point he accused a man of plagiarism.

            Another downside to early printing was that of piracy.  An early custom in print culture was to give free copies of a book to its printers.  However this custom led to a, “wide circulation of unauthorized copies, and the manufacturing of piracies based on them.” (Johns 94).  As piracy spread people began to become more demanding of the standards of printing houses.  If there had been a universal adherence to copy there would be no need for more demanding standards as there would, hypothetically, be no piracy and thus no doubt of the legitimacy of printed works.  As it stood there was doubt, and the doubt of those concerned with printing practices took the form of an apparition of a culture of plagiarism and counterfeits (Johns 187).  This concern led to readers judging the apparent authenticity of a book by what they knew of its surroundings; the people, places, and practices which produced it.  This in turn caused printers and booksellers to put in place “elaborate mechanisms to deal with all the problems of piracy, and they prized these mechanisms for their role in securing their own credit.” (Johns 188).  Essentially, the concern of the readers led to the printers and booksellers attempts to deal with the problems of piracy because of issues of credit which was discussed earlier.  However, even with the occurrence of piracy printed works were more reliable than their predecessors in that, “all texts in manuscript were liable to get corrupted after being copied over the course of time.” (Eisenstein 10).  In short, before print small changes by copyists built up over time to corrupt works in a way comparable to the modern day telephone game.  Both before and after the advent of print there were questions of legitimacy surrounding texts, before due to changes through copying and after due to issues of piracy.

          All the changes print brought about applied to rhetoric as well.  An increased literacy and spread of knowledge would have increased the number of people able to learn about rhetoric.  The ability to by a text rather than copy it oneself would have completely changed the way a person interacted with any form of rhetoric as it would have with any other form of writing, they may have been more likely to question.  Though, as mentioned, print brought increased piracy it decreased discrepancies between volumes which would have allowed any who wanted to learn about rhetoric less concerned about potential discrepancies in what they were reading as compared to a different version.  These are just a few examples I have thought of which relates the importance of print to the spread of rhetoric.  Without print rhetoric, along with a lot of other knowledge, would not have had the opportunity to spread in the way it has or to the expanse it has.

            Print as a whole was a major phenomenon.  It changed culture, history, knowledge and the search thereof, and the way people interacted with their texts.  With the coming of print, the world changed.  Without the advent of print our world would not be what it is today.  We would still have unreliable, expensive copies of books produced either by copyists or ourselves.  We would not sit in class learning through lectures and textbooks but would instead spend our time copying the few books in our collections or working for lack of literacy or funds to be capable of reading.  We would not know as much about our world, our place in it, or any other topics, but rather would have an incredibly limited knowledge base.  Print made us who we are today.

Works Cited

Eisenstein, Elizabeth L. The Printing Press as an Agent of Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.

Johns, Adrian. The Nature of the Book: Print and Knowledge in the Making. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1998.

October 25 After Class

Being that I did not actually attend class because I was sick I do not have much to say here.  So, I'm going to talk a little about my post and what I could change for the better in this and future posts.  I may have talked a little more about the other sections of the chapter, gone into further detail about the conclusion and narrative and included something on the partition.  Also, I might want to start including some kind of comparison to the Rhetorical Traditions readings as I have not done much inclusion of those readings in my blog posts since I tend to stop writing when the post seems long enough to be acceptable.  I also should probably go back to mentioning the text I am writing about and what page number I get my information on since I have gotten lazy with that and it is good to practice making sure to use no information without a clear source.

As for my response to another classmate's post, for some reason when I went to the course blog it would not show me the list of followers even though a reopened the window and refreshed the page several times, so I was unable to complete this section.

October 25

I find the differences between the ancient and modern views on arrangement of rhetoric interesting.  I thought it was particularly interesting how today there are formulas for writing different types of works, different ways to arrange dependent on purpose.  On the other hand the book mentions that the composition of an introduction could be altered dependent on the author's perception of the audience which is similar to what writer's do today, altering how they form their argument to best convince their audience; although today we base this on the best way to convince the audience while in the book it talks about changing an argument so the audience best accepts the author's ethos.

The four parts, introduction, narration, proof, and conclusion, was also interesting as was the six parts, introduction, statement of the issue, division of the issue into its constituent parts, where the rhetor's strongest arguments are made, where arguments that can damage a rhetor's case are anticipated and refuted, and a conclusion.  Whether the four part model or the six part model wither of these two could be very useful even in modern day rhetoric to make ones argument stronger.  I agree that the introduction is incredibly important in order to prepare the audience for the rest of the argument.  Also, I most definitely agree that the introduction should be written after the rest of the argument.

The five kinds of cases also somewhat interested me.  I found myself thinking about the honorable and difficult like any major argument today, for example politics, the honorable would be the political party of the audience while the difficult would be the other political party, a democrat speaking to other democrats for example would have immediate support from the audience while a democrat speaking to republicans would have an unsympathetic audience.  The other three I could not think of as good of examples for but mean seems to kind of be an argument the audience doesn't care about while ambiguous might be about a topic the audience wants to learn more about and obscure is when someone is arguing something outside the audience's skill set using terms the audience is unfamiliar with.  I do however disagree that honorable cases need no introduction, just because the audience is already on one's side does not mean they should not be properly informed and I think an introduction can be an important part of that.

The topics for making audiences attentive seems like it would be quite useful to any rhetoric being comprised today.  First to show the importance of the issue, to show how the issue affects the audience, show how the issues effects everyone, show how the issue affect the general good of the community; essentially they are the so what question, why is this important, why does it matter, so what?  On the other hand the topics for making audiences receptive I somewhat question.  To strengthen your ethos makes sense but if taken to far could make the author seem conceited and the audience less receptive.  The same issues applies to weakening the ethos of an opponent if taken too far is makes the author seem mean and unapproachable.  Showing respect for the audience can also be taken too far and seem like sucking up to the audience.  The safest suggestion is to "praise [the] issue or position while denigrating [the] position of opponents" but even that is a bit of a balance.

The other points about sections of an argument were also considerably interesting.  For example the three types of narrative, definitive, values, and procedural, could most definitely apply to my own writing and could be something to keep in mind.  As is the three options for the conclusion and the parts therein; summary, appeal to the emotions, and enhancing ethos.

October 18 After Class

Today I thought it was interesting, and related to my post somewhat, when we talked about the concept of it used to be 'Filter then Publish' and now it is 'Publish then Filter.'  This relates to what I was saying about us being mistrusting in our approach to extrinsic proofs and how further information is just a few clicks away.  This relates to the idea of publishing then filtering because once something is online it is published in its own medium it is up to the reader to filter through and find out what information is worthwhile either, like I just said, by determining the credibility of the author, or like I mentioned in my previous post by doing further research and watching for discrepancies.

This reading's response to a classmate will look at Lexiengl360's blog post.  She did a really good job summarizing but did not include much of her own opinion so there was not really anything to respond to other than saying she did a really good job summarizing.  Also, since she wrote it in one big block of text it was a little difficult to read.

October 18

I found the differences between ancient and modern rhetoric in the ways that today we hold extrinsic proofs with a higher regard than intrinsic proof while ancient rhetoricians did the opposite interesting.  Particularly interesting was the way they saw extrinsic proofs as compared to today, then the were seen as unreliable and requiring careful interpretation while being skeptical of authority and accuracy.  Today we see many extrinsic proofs as reliable and accurate and usually they are written by an authority on the subject, that could, however, have something to do with the types of documents we use today.  Much of the time when we use extrinsic proofs they are data or studies, typically we do not find just anything in a book or on the internet without confirming wither its accuracy or the credibility of the author. 

In our suspicion we are the most like the ancient rhetoricians in our approach to extrinsic proofs.  We do not have to worry about who the author is because their info is almost always just a few clicks away; if not provided in the material where we found the extrinsic proof than through a quick internet search.  The book further mentions ways we can tell if a work is worthwhile, such as checking what else the author has written, or looking at reviews on the piece.  The possibility of one person have a slight inaccuracy or ignorance to relative information, or a bias can be fixed by doing exactly what we usually do when working on something, using multiple sources, not all sources will have the same bias, inaccuracy, etc. and by using multiple sources we are more likely to have an accurate and more rounded view of the topic. 

Another worry ancient rhetoricians had which we no longer have to deal with is how documents have changed, before print things changed commonly through countless translations and copying but today we are basically guaranteed to have the same copy of the text as anyone in any part of the world which speaks the same language as us.

One commonality we have with ancient rhetoricians is to generally distrust the testimony of ordinary persons, at least to distrust it as an authority on the subject.  We only use the voices of people in some way attached to the topic.  Whenever we look at the people we think about biases they may have and how that may affect their comments.  The use and effect of testimony also depends greatly on what is being looked into.  Today we put a high emphasis on what would be called Community authorities.

October 13 After Class

After class I found myself expanding upon my idea of how ancient rhetoric influenced renaissance rhetoric in the advent of print.  Before I mentioned renaissance rhetoricians trying to incorporate ways of ancient rhetoricians while coming up with an independent style and after class I better understood that this could because before print they basically could not have an independent style.  After committing so long to literally copying and reproducing other's works it would be hard not to be thoroughly influenced by them, but with the coming of print during the renaissance they did not have to copy works for themselves and thus had more free-reign to think for themselves.

For my response to classmate I ended up reading a blogpost on a blog entitled "First Time Blog/Kairos."  I thought it was pretty interesting.  I liked how she connected the ideas to herself and things in her life rather than simply summarizing.

October 13

The unclear nature of Renaissance Rhetoric was rather interesting to me.  Renaissance rhetoric is unclear in that it has a lack of a clear beginning and lack of a comprehensive history.

I also found the Italian city-states taking advantage of political opportunity interesting.  This point was especially interesting because in their attempts to become "more vigorous, independent, and fiercely competitive" they emphasized rhetoric and trained people in the professions of such.

The inability of some being unable to be properly appreciated because of inability to read in the original language was also interesting.  The book specifically mentions Aristotle and how his "original eloquence could not be appreciated because no one could read him in Greek."  I wonder if the language really makes that much different?  We read Aristotle today, we have even read him in this class, in English though, and I wonder if we are really missing much by reading in English rather than Greek?  Is it an issue with translation, in that it was improperly translated back then, or is it that certain ideas cannot be properly communicated in any but the original language?  .

Another portion of the reading which stood out somewhat was the idea that Renaissance rhetoricians used classical rhetoric in order to better understand and improve their own rhetoric.  Originally it mentions that they used certain works for training.  It then mentioned that a deeper thinking was later introduced which lead to Renaissance rhetoricians to further explore their own creative powers.  It seems that rhetoric began to be a challenge of understanding the past and how their own work should reflect the influence of their predecessors. 

Imitatio Reflection/ Imitatio/ Work Imitated

Imitatio Reflection

This assignment was an interesting way to look at speeches by ancient rhetors throughout which there were both positive and negative aspects involved in the work required in an effort to properly complete all parts of the assignment.  By analyzing and imitating a speech I found that I was forced to pay much more attention to the methods used in the formation of rhetoric.  After participating in this assignment I also found that certain methods of ancient rhetors could most definitely be applied to modern times in that they make more well thought out quality writing because of the attention to detail required to use some techniques employed by ancient rhetors.  There were some portions of this assignment which I had a little difficulty with, but overall it was a good experience.

From this experience I learned that the ways of ancient rhetors can most definitely translate into modern times.  Both in constructing my own speech and listening to others I found them considerably more well constructed than I am typically used to when listening to presentations in class.  The phenomena of more well constructed speeches was probably due to our focus on what tools the rhetors we were imitating used in their original speeches.  By analyzing then imitating another’s speech it forced us to be hyper aware of the construction and what was being used to construct a solid discussion of the topic. 

Through this exercise of really looking into how ancient rhetors constructed their speeches I realized how little attention modern students may pay to the underlying rhetorical devices which could potentially make any writing or presentation considerably more worthwhile.  The work of ancient rhetors applies to today simply in that they carefully constructed their work, paying attention to every minute detail in a way that has since fallen to the wayside and potentially should be revived, at least to some extent.  On the other hand, through close imitation some of the speeches turned out a little drier and long winded than they necessarily needed to be, so maybe a balance of newer methods and older techniques could be the best approach.  One example of a device I found in the original work and then imitated in my speech was a rhetorical question which was at the end of the section.

One thing that I had trouble with during this assignment was the imitation and knowing how close to the original was too close; so to be safe I imitated the construction as much as possible while trying to use different words.  There were some portions of the speech where I found it would be possible for me to simply use the same words as the ancient rhetor, in that they would fit the purposes of my speech as well, but instead I tried to find the best possible way to formulate the speech for my purpose using a similar construction; such as comparing two things as a positive and negative, but in different terms.  I wanted my work to be my own not simply a copy of an ancient rhetoric.  While working on my imitation I found there seems to be a fine line between copying and imitating another’s work, of course I stayed on the imitating side, but it took focus.  Even now with the imitation written and performed there are some sections I am worried are a little too close to the original.

When finding the work to imitate I also ended up changing my choice a number of times in order to find a speech which I could both imitate effectively and create a new speech in that imitation which would hopefully be interesting to the class.  In the end I chose a work by Aristotle which was already broken into sections so that I could choose a section, or in actuality two sections, to imitate; rather than trying to choose a piece randomly out of an entire speech.  By choosing a work already broken into sections I was able to choose three potential sections of the work to really look at and from there I decided which I thought I would be most comfortable and successful imitating.  The work that I ended up choosing was a section, or rather two sections, from Aristotle’s Poetics, the two sections were headed “Practical Rules for the Tragic Poet” and “Further Rules for the Tragic Poet.”  In my attempt to make my speech somewhat interesting for the class I chose the topic of procrastination and wrote my speech with the idea of Practical Rules for the Modern Procrastinator as a working title in my head; overall my speech was somewhat meant to be more humorous than serious.  To support my speech I thought about the ways I and those around me procrastinate and what makes it take more or less time to actually complete homework and used these things as support.  One thing I am sure of with my speech is I used what many see as typical procrastination techniques, I know this because I was not the only to give a speech on procrastination and sections of our speeches were quite similar. 

Another difficulty I had with this assignment was in the presentation.  I have some trouble talking in front of others and the more invested my ideas or thoughts are in the assignment the more trouble I have.  In the presentation I had trouble not hiding behind my speech through reading it straight off the paper, and was further distracted by the people in the classroom who were talking to each other while I was speaking.  It was a further good experience to present this in front of the class but not one that came easily.

Overall this assignment was a rather interesting one.  In some aspects the assignment could be seen as difficult while being not so.  For example, though it was difficult to know if I was missing anything important in my analysis, or how much was enough of an imitation or analysis, I found that neither of the steps of imitation of analysis were particularly difficult on their own.  This assignment allowed me to really look in depth at the way works were constructed by ancient rhetors and really get a sense of the minute detail that went into their work.  I gained a deeper understanding of ancient rhetors through this assignment and recognize the learning potential that was involved, though the assignment itself did not always particularly appeal to me.

Imitatio

In constructing the strategies to avoid work with the proper determination, the student should place their homework, as far as possible, in the future.  In this way, seeing everything as not immediate, as if they have plenty of time, they will manage to avoid it, and be unlikely to properly begin.  The need of such a rule is shown by the ability to do homework long before the deadline. 

Again, the student should work out when homework has to be done, to the best of their power, with appropriate timing; for those who may need longer to finish English; and one who needs longer for math.  Hence procrastination either produces the reward of time or the penalty of undue stress.  In one case the student can find time for their personal life; in another, it necessitates proper focus later.

As for the methods, whether the student uses others or finds new ways for themselves, they should give themselves a general timeline, and then stretch this with various time wasters. 

After this, it remains to stretch the homework schedule with time wasters.  Students must ensure they work best for their procrastination.  In the case of some, for example, there is obsession with facebook which led to their lost time, and their inclusion by means of social information.  In this method, the task is simple, but it is such simple tasks which give waste to time.

Every procrastination falls into two parts, -- that which is Productive and Unproductive.  Methods which accomplish some goal or finish some piece of the homework form the Productive; the rest is the Unproductive.  By Productive I mean all that is the least bit positive for one to do.  The Unproductive is that which is not Productive.  Thus, when a student checks their e-mail, the Productive consists of the need to check ones e-mail and sort such and then again the Unproductive extends from using e-mail to chat and so on.

There are four kinds of Procrastination, the Simple, where simple tasks are done between short bursts of homework; the Blatant (where it is clear the goal is procrastination),-- such as through watching television; Distractions (depending entirely on outside sources),-- such as opening the window Saturday nights to allow the noises of people enjoying the weekend to prevent focus.  The fourth kind is the productive, accomplished by making food and the like.  The procrastinator should try, if possible, to combine several procrastination techniques; or failing that, those which will waste their time most effectively.  For whereas there have hitherto been everyday procrastinators, each of their own style, few have managed to reach the level of an art form.

In speaking of procrastination, the best test to take is with simple homework.  Identify which is the least likely to cause stress when put off and procrastinate to the best of abilities.  Thus when more difficult homework comes along the procrastinator knows the best means.

The homework too should be regarded with utmost consideration; it should be an essential piece of the entire procrastination, and share in the time, in a manner which finishes it eventually.  As for those who do not consider the homework, their procrastination can cause more stress than that of actually doing the homework.  They are, therefore, those who look panicked and weary in class.  Yet what a difference there is in mood when procrastination is done successfully?

Work Imitated

From Aristotle’s Poetics
XVII Practical rules for the Tragic Poet.
In constructing the plot and working it out with the proper diction, the poet should place the scene, as far as possible, before his eyes. In this way, seeing everything with the utmost vividness, as if he were a spectator of the action, he will discover what is in keeping with it, and be most unlikely to overlook inconsistencies. The need of such a rule is shown by the fault found in Carcinus. Amphiaraus was on his way from the temple. This fact escaped the observation of one who did not see the situation. On the stage, however, the piece failed, the audience being offended at the oversight.
Again, the poet should work out his play, to the best of his power, with appropriate gestures; for those who feel emotion are most convincing through natural sympathy with the characters they represent; and one who is agitated storms, one who is angry rages, with the most life-like reality. Hence poetry implies either a happy gift of nature or a strain of madness. In the one case a man can take the mould of any character; in the other, he is lifted out of his proper self.
As for the story, whether the poet takes it ready made or constructs it for himself, he should first sketch its general outline, and then fill in the episodes and amplify in detail. The general plan may be illustrated by the Iphigenia. A young girl is sacrificed; she disappears mysteriously from the eyes of those who sacrificed her; She is transported to another country, where the custom is to offer up all strangers to the goddess. To this ministry she is appointed. Some time later her own brother chances to arrive. The fact that the oracle for some reason ordered him to go there, is outside the general plan of the play. The purpose, again, of his coming is outside the action proper. However, he comes, he is seized, and, when on the point of being sacrificed, reveals who he is. The mode of recognition may be either that of Euripides or of Polyidus, in whose play he exclaims very naturally:--'So it was not my sister only, but I too, who was doomed to be sacrificed'; and by that remark he is saved.
After this, the names being once given, it remains to fill in the episodes. We must see that they are relevant to the action. In the case of Orestes, for example, there is the madness which led to his capture, and his deliverance by means of the purificatory rite. In the drama, the episodes are short, but it is these that give extension to Epic poetry. Thus the story of the Odyssey can be stated briefly. A certain man is absent from home for many years; he is jealously watched by Poseidon, and left desolate. Meanwhile his home is in a wretched plight---suitors are wasting his substance and plotting against his son. At length, tempest-tost, he himself arrives; he makes certain persons acquainted with him; he attacks the suitors with his own hand, and is himself preserved while he destroys them. This is the essence of the plot; the rest is episode.
XVIII Further rules for the Tragic Poet.
Every tragedy falls into two parts,--Complication and Unravelling or Denouement. Incidents extraneous to the action are frequently combined with a portion of the action proper, to form the Complication; the rest is the Unravelling. By the Complication I mean all that extends from the beginning of the action to the part which marks the turning-point to good or bad fortune. The Unravelling is that which extends from the beginning of the change to the end. Thus, in the Lynceus of Theodectes, the Complication consists of the incidents presupposed in the drama, the seizure of the child, and then again * * extends from the accusation of murder to the end.
There are four kinds of Tragedy, the Complex, depending entirely on Reversal of the Situation and Recognition; the Pathetic (where the motive is passion),--such as the tragedies on Ajax and Ixion; the Ethical (where the motives are ethical),--such as the Phthiotides and the Peleus. The fourth kind is the Simple , exemplified by the Phorcides, the Prometheus, and scenes laid in Hades. The poet should endeavour, if possible, to combine all poetic elements; or failing that, the greatest number and those the most important; the more so, in face of the cavilling criticism of the day. For whereas there have hitherto been good poets, each in his own branch, the critics now expect one man to surpass all others in their several lines of excellence.
In speaking of a tragedy as the same or different, the best test to take is the plot. Identity exists where the Complication and Unravelling are the same. Many poets tie the knot well, but unravel it ill. Both arts, however, should always be mastered.
Again, the poet should remember what has been often said, and not make an Epic structure into a Tragedy--by an Epic structure I mean one with a multiplicity of plots--as if, for instance, you were to make a tragedy out of the entire story of the Iliad. In the Epic poem, owing to its length, each part assumes its proper magnitude. In the drama the result is far from answering to the poet's expectation. The proof is that the poets who have dramatised the whole story of the Fall of Troy, instead of selecting portions, like Euripides; or who have taken the whole tale of Niobe, and not a part of her story, like Aeschylus, either fail utterly or meet with poor success on the stage. Even Agathon has been known to fail from this one defect. In his Reversals of the Situation, however, he shows a marvellous skill in the effort to hit the popular taste,--to produce a tragic effect that satisfies the moral sense. This effect is produced when the clever rogue, like Sisyphus, is outwitted, or the brave villain defeated. Such an event is probable in Agathon's sense of the word: 'it is probable,' he says, 'that many things should happen contrary to probability.'
The Chorus too should be regarded as one of the actors; it should be an integral part of the whole, and share in the action, in the manner not of Euripides but of Sophocles. As for the later poets, their choral songs pertain as little to the subject of the piece as to that of any other tragedy. They are, therefore, sung as mere interludes, a practice first begun by Agathon. Yet what difference is there between introducing such choral interludes, and transferring a speech, or even a whole act, from one play to another?