Aristotle's Poetics

THE

BOOK

WAS

DRENCHED

DO

^

Osmania

_{University Library}

Accession

No

HA

Author

Title

This book shouldbereturnedon or before the date last

By

theSameAuthor

THE

DICKENS

WORLD

COLERIDGE

ALL

IN

DUE

TIME

(Edited)

THE NOTE-BOOKS

AND

PAPERS

ARISTOTLE'S

POETICS

A

Course

_ofEigkt

_l/cftav^by^^

HUMPHRY

HOUSE

SENIORLECTURERINENGLISHLITERATURE

AND FELLOWOF

WADHAM

COLLEGE,OXFORD

revised, with apreface, by

COLIN HARDIE

FELLOW ANDCLASSICALTUTOROF

MAGDALENCOLLEGE.OXFORD

RUPERT

HART-DAVIS

36

SOHO

SQUARE

LONDON

WI

1956

PrintedinGreatBritain

_by

_{Richard Clay}

_{and Company,}

Ltd.,

CONTENTS

PREFACE

BY

COLIN

HARDIE

₇

I. Introduction 11

i. Pitfalls. 2. Rewards,3. Aristotle'slife: thefirststage. II. Aristotle's _Development

22

i. Plato.2.

The

secondstage. 3.

The

third stage.

*

III. _Plot(i)

₄₃

i. Construction. 2._Unity

and

_{Length. 3. Episodes.}

IV.

Plot ₍₂₎

₅₈

i.

Probability

and

Necessity. 2. Conviction _(TO mOavov).

3.

The

Unities of

Time

and

Place.

V.

The

Relation_ofCharacter

and

Plot

68

VI.

The

_TragicAction

and

Character

82

i."Goodness" of Character. 2. _{Appropriateness} of

Character. 3."Likeness" of Character. 4. Consis-tency. 5. Hamartia. 6. Peripety. 7. Discovery.

VII.

Catharsis

and

theEmotions

100

i. _Pity

and

Fear. 2.Catharsis.

*

VIII.

Pleasure

and

Imitation 1 12

*

PREFACE

IN

the_spring

and

summer

_{of 1952}

_Humphry

House and

I

were

fellow

examiners

in the_Preliminary

Examination

of the

Honours

_{School of English}at_Oxford,

and

both of

us

had

toset

and

_{read papers}

on

Aristotle'sPoetics.

We

were

_{not impressed}

_by

the standard of

_knowledge

and

understanding that candidates

_showed,

and

House

de-cidedtowrite a course ofeightlectures,

which he

delivered

in

Michaelmas

Term

1952

and

again, after revision, in 1953. Before the

war

I

had

lectured

on

the Poetics for Classical Moderations,

and

I

_gave

House

_{such papers}

asI

had

then writtenforclassical societiesor

more

formal

lectures,

and

such

advice

on

books

and

articles as

my

now

rather out-of-date _{experience could suggest.}

For

this

House

in his lectures

_gave

me

more

than

_enough

credit.

At

one

time

we

_contemplated

a_joint

book

on

the

Poetics,

but

this

posthumous

issue ofhis lectures

was

to

be our

only further collaboration.

When

his literary

executor asked

me

what

should

be

done

with the_lectures,

Ireread

them and

felt, not, I _hope,

_merely

out of

parti-alityfor theauthor orfor

some

of theideas that

he

had

taken

from

me

and

_developed, that_they

were

well

worth

publishing as

a

sensitive

and

level-headed explanation

and

defence ofAristotle;

and

I willingly

undertook

to

prepare

them

forthepress. I

had

readhislectures as

he

rewrote

them

in

October

and

November

_1953,

and

made

a

_{few marginal}

_notes,

some

of

which

I

have

now

incorpor-atedinthetext

where

House

seemed

to_{accept them.}

As

a

classicalscholar

House was

qualified

by

a

first in

"Greats"

and

a

lectureship in Classics at University

College, Exeter, to tacklethe Poetics,

and

as

an

English

scholar

and

critic to_give it_actuality

and

life before

an

audience

ofstudents _{of English} literature.

One

_might

hesitate to _publish lectures

which

were

not

meant

for

publication

and

had

no

revisionwiththat

end

inview,if there

were

availableto_{English readers of}thePoetics

_any

satisfactory introductiontoit

and

discussionofits

prob-lems

and

value. I

need

add

little to

what

House

himselfin the course of these lectures _{says, e.g.}

about

Hamilton

_Fyfe'sbook, or L._{J. Potts'}sAristotleon theArt_of

Fiction,

on

which

House

wrote

a longletterto the Times Literary Supplement in

February

1954. A. S.

Owen's

AristotleontheArt_ofPoetryis_veryslight

and

_dry,

and

A.

O.

Prickard'sAristotleonthe_{Art ofPoetry}is

no

more

than

one

lecture with

two

_appendices. F. L. Lucas's _Tragedy in Relation to Aristotle's Poetics is brilliant

and

_stimulating,

but

_hardlysitsclose

_enough

tothe textfor_beginners

and

examinees,

and

is, in

my

opinion, misleading

about

catharsis. Butcher'sAristotle's _{TheoryofPoetry}andFineArt

uses Aristotle asa

_{peg on which}

to

_hang

rather

_vague

and

un-Aristotelian speculations. Bywater's standardedition

of the

Greek

text is a

work

of meticulous textual

and

linguisticscholarship,

but

it isnot illuminated

_by

a_lively

interestin_{the philosophical}

and

historical_significanceof

Aristotle's _thought. Since Jaeger's

book

_appeared

in 1923, therehas

been

arevolution in Aristotelianstudies, in the

_attempt

to reconstruct

and

date the

_fragmentary

earlyworks,to_analyse

and

relatethe

_complete

_surviving

works

as stages in the evolution ofAristotle's _thought,

and

_{generally to} conceiveAristotle'slifeas _the

develop-ment

of

an

_independent

_philosophy

under

the

over-whelming shadow

of Plato(see

D.

J.Allan, ThePhilosophy

ofAristotle, fora recent

account

ofthis).

The

application

ofthis

new

and

fruitful _{point of}

view

to the Poetics

was

undertaken

by

theItalian scholar

_Augusto

_Rostagni,first in

two

articles_{reconstructing the}lost_dialogue

On

thePoets,

and

then in

an

edition ofthe Poetics, of

which

House

made

considerable use.

Of

_general

works

on

Aristotle

one

_may

here

be mentioned,

W.

D.

_(now

Sir

_David)

Ross'sAristotle,

which

gives fifteen pages (276-290) to

a

very concise

and

clear

account

of thePoetics.

House

tried to see thePoeticsinthecontext ofAristotle's

other works, theEthics

and

_{Rhetoric especially,}

but

it

was

no

_{part of}his _plan

_(and

I could not

_{supplement him,}

having

turned

away

from

Aristotle toother_{studies) to get}

abreast of all the

new

work on

Plato's discussions of

poetry

and

on

thePoetics.

He

wished

to discussas_seriously

and

_thoroughlyas eight lecturespermitted, but without

a

minute

technical _scholarship, the

main

_problems,

keeping close to the text. In a letter to

me

he

listed

some

of_{the topics that}

he

would

have

liked to _develop,

but

had

to

omit

_{or passover summarily,}

_namely

_diction,

happy and unhappy

endings,"paralogism";

and

he

pro-posed

to

'

'abbreviate

and

_clarify" theintroduction

and

the lecture

on

the relation

between

_plot

and

character, in

order to find

room.

In

hissoberenthusiasm_{for Aristotle,}

House

is_perhaps

alittle

_{unsympathetic}

_{to Plato,} oratleasttothe

formula-tions of the _Republic; I

have

_occasionally

added

a

qualification or reference at such points,

and

I

have

here

and

thereventuredto

add

a

few

briefnotes

where

it

seemed

desirable: that _{they are mine,} not _his, is

indicated

_by

their _squarebrackets. I

have

alsomodified

to

some

extent thelecturingtone

and

the directaddress

to the audience of

freshmen

as

_"you",

_especially

where

Oxford

undergraduates

and

the

Oxford

syllabus

were

aimed

at.

But

_they

remain

lectures.

The

_frequent references to

_Dryden's

_{Essay of Dramatic Poesy,} Milton's

Samson Agonistes, Sophocles's Oedipus at Colonusare to

be

explained

by

the fact that in ₁₉₅₃ these

works

formed

part of the

same

Oxford

syllabus as the. Poetics (along

with KingLear,

Dryden's

All forLove, Corneille's_Polyeucte

and

_{Racine's Andromaque). Bywater's} translationis used

throughout

because it is the text used in the

Oxford

examination.

Where

Plato's Republicis

_quoted

_{in English,}

I

have

substituted

H.

D.

P.Lee's

_Penguin

translationfor

A.

D.

_Lindsay's,

which House

used. All theitalicsinthe extracts

from

translations are House's.

Grateful

acknowledgment

is

made

to the

Clarendon

Press for_permission to _{use Bywater's} translation ofthe Poetics, Sir

David

Ross's ofthe Nicomachean Ethics

and

theFragments,

W.

Rhys

Roberts'softheRhetoric, thelast three _being

volumes

in the series of The

Works

of

per-missionto

_{quote from}

A. E._Taylor'stranslationofPlato's

Laws;to

_{Penguin Books from}

_{Plato,Republic,}translated

_by

H.

D.

P. _{Lee, 1955,}

and

_Sophocles,

The

Theban _Plays,

translated

_by

E. F. _{Watling, 1947;} to Messrs.

_Kegan

Paul,

Trench

from

E.

Rohde's

Psyche, 1925; toMessrs.

Methuen

from

T. S. Eliot's, TheSacredWood, 1920. I

have

added on

_{p. 127 a}list ofthe

works concerned

with Plato

and

Aristotle that

House

mentioned

in the

lectures or I

mention

in this _preface

and

in

_my

_notes,

excludingthose thatare referred toonlyin passing.

COLIN

HARDIE

LECTURE

I

INTRODUCTION

i. _Pitfalls

IN teaching

and

_examining

for_{several yearspast,} I

have

been

struck

_by

thefact thata

number

ofthe

more

sensi-tive

and

_{intelligentpeople,reading}thePoeticsforthefirst

time,

have

saidthat tobegin with they

were

repelled

by

its

method and

_style

and by

its_apparently countless de-ficiencies

and

_omissions,

but

_that, as _they

went

on

with

the_{study of}it,they

came more and more

toseeitsvalue

and

_wisdom,

and

to _appreciate

how

often

some

small, rather

_dry

_phrase held, or implied,

much

that

was

of critical value. I

_hope

this

_may

be

true of

_many

of

_you

also. _Indeed, I thinkit

_{might be counted}

as a

_symptom

ofinsensitivity,almost,

and

lackof_{intelligence,}if

_anyone

were

to claim that

he

had

fallenin love with the Poetics

(even in Bywater's translation) at first sight. It

would

imply,Ithink,

some

snobbery,

an

exaggerated deference

to _prestige,

and

a

_{none-too-healthy desire to align} his affections _{prematurely with} his _duty.

But

aftera_time, I_hope,

_you

_may

_grow

into

_a

sympa-thetic_{understanding of}it.

This

will

come

about

_only

by

detailed

and

careful

hard

work.

Itis

a

common

fault to

_approach

this

work

with

un-sympathetic grousing

about

what

are

thought

to

be

Aristotle's omissions;

and you

may

indeed

be

_honestly

puzzled

by

these _{if so,}

_{you must go}

elsewhere. I

do

not

proposeto lecturehere

about

what

Aristotledidnot say,

or

about

what

_{he might have}

meant

if

he

had

said

something

else.

And

it is

_dangerous

to

_jump

to conclusions

about

what

Aristotle omits.

Hamilton

_{Fyfe, in}hislittleedition

ofthePoetics

,

a

bookletagainst

which

I

must once

and

for

all

warn

_you

as _{being shallow}

and

_{misleading, giving}

By

water's translation _{slightly modified, says:}

"Of

'in-spiration',

which

for Plato is the essence of _poetry,

Aristotlenever_says a

word."

Now,

the typical Platonic

language

for_{"inspiration"} is to_{speak of}the

"madness"

of_{the poet.}

And

there is

a

_quite

explicit recognition of thisin ch.xvii of thePoetics:

Asfar as

_may

be,too,thepoet should evenacthisstorywith the _very gestures ofhis _personages. Given the same natural qualifications,he

who

feelstheemotionstobe describedwillbe themostconvincing; distress

and

_anger, for_{instance, are} por-trayed most truthfully by one

who

is _feeling

them

at the

moment.

Hence

it isthatpoetry

demands

a

man

with aspecial gift forit,orelseonewith a touch ofmadnessinhim;theformer

can easily assume the required mood,

and

thelatter

_may

be

actually besidehimselfwith emotion.

No

equivalent, admittedly, occurs here of the English

word

"inspiration";

but

thatis itselfa

word

which

_begs

a

_great

_many

_questions: it _implies

an

_{"inbreathing"}

_by

an

external_{agency, asuperior}

power

: it_impliesa

meta-physically or theologically direct source ofpoetic crea-tiveness.

But

Aristotle, very wisely, does not,

and

does

not

want

to,

commit

himselfto this.

He

speaks at the

psychological level,

and

uses

a term

taken over

from

Plato, his master, for _{the mysterious element,} like

mad-ness,

which

_may

be

involved.

It is essential to see that

he

does in_{passing recognise}

this _exceedingly

_important

_aspect of _poetic creation.

Otherwise one

_may,

_unfairly,think

him

a

dullard

and

a

fool.

Hamilton

_Fyfe

blames

him

_quitewithout_justice.

Itisalso

most

_{interesting to see}

how,

inthisalmost in-cidental passage, Aristotle slipsin

a

valuabledistinction

between two

classes _{of poet dealing with}

_imagined

char-acters the

man

whom

_Bywater

calls the

"man

with

a

specialgift for it"

and

the

man

with

"a

touch of

mad-ness". This

_{was put}

_by

_{Twining, a}

translator

and

editor

in the late _{eighteenth century, as "either great} natural

quickness ofparts, or

an

enthusiasm alliedto

madness".

Here

is

adumbrated

a most

_important distinction be-12

twecn two

_types of_{poetic character.}

But

it is

no

_part of

Aristotle's_plan to _develop it.

Aristotle

mentions

this _aspect of _poetic creation in passing,

and

merely adumbrates

this distinction, not

be-cause

he

isa dullard

and

a

fool, but because

he

is_writing

primarily

about

theformal aspects ofpoetry, not

about

the _{psychology of}creation.

He

is _instructinghis _pupils

how

towrite

_Tragedy

or _{Epic, so}faras it

can be

_taught:

inspiration

cannot be

taught,

and

by

the"art" _{of poetry}

is

meant

aconsistent

_body

of_principles

and

rules for its

compositionrather

than

the capacityto apply them. It

is

remarkable

_that,ashis_subjectis_poeticform,

he

should

have

made

thisdistinction

between

_typesof_poetic

char-acter atall,

and

so carefully.

I

mention

this at the _{very beginning} to

warn

_you

against theeasyassumptionthat Aristotlehas omittedall

the matters that in a

modern

critical treatise

_{might be}

regarded asessential.

He

mentioned

thismatter of

"madness"

_{onlyin passing,}

because his

_primary

_purpose

was

to deal with _poetic

forms, toclassify

and

distinguish

one

kind of poetry

from

another,

one

species

from

another, within the general de-scription ofthe genus: this

was

entirely consistent with

his _{general philosophical}

_method;

and

he

claimed

no

more.

2. Rewards

The

first claim of the Poetics

on

our

_{attention, long} before

we come

to the_{problematic passages,} is thatit is

the earliest _surviving treatise to record

and

distinguish systematically

one

poetic

"kind"

from

another. In doing this, Aristotle

was

describing literature as

he

knew

it in

Greece

where

_{poets usually}

_competed

for _{prizes in} this

or that class or "kind".

We

know

that his Politics

was

founded on

the study, in detail, of thehistory

and

con-stitutions_{of 158}

Greek

states,

and

thereis

_good

reasonto believe that thePoetics

was

_preceded

_by

a

similar

exam-inationof

Greek

plays;

we

have

to

remember

the

num-ber, richness

and

variety of the plays available to Aristotle,

compared

with the

minute

proportion of

Greek

plays that

have

survived to us.

He

took over the kinds of literature as

_{he found them;}

_{and by}

_perpetuating

them

left

a framework

of reference for all

_European

criticismsince.

For

it is _largely

_through

the Poetics,

though

not

be-cause ofit, that the

main

poetic "kinds" are still

dis-tinguished,

even

in their very

names, through

all the literatures of

_Europe,

as

_Tragedy,

_Comedy,

_Epic

and

Lyric.

In

the

main European

languages these

words

are

takenover

from

_{Greek merely}

transliterated

and

_adapted

to the _appropriate

_grammatical

_shape.

Whatever

later

forms, or kinds,

may

have

been

since developed, these

have

_persisted,

and

_(what

is

_more)

these

names

are still

inconstant useinthecritical

_judgment

even

of kinds of

literature that

were

unknown

to Aristotle.

_Thus,

a

medieval

verse

Romance

can

_hardly

be

discussed at all

withoutreferenceto,

and

comparison

with,Epic;

even

if

the reasonfor

_mentioning

_Epicisto_pointthedifferences.

A

modern

fictional _{narrative in prose, usually in} this

country called

a

"novel" (from the Italian),

but

in

French

called

a

_{roman (with}

a throwback

to

medieval

Romance)

even

a

novel

can

_hardly

be

discussed

with-out usingtheterms

_Tragedy,

_Comedy,

_Epic

and

_Lyric

or _{the adjectives} derived

from

them

as the quickest

means

of_suggestingits character, orcertain_qualitiesin

its various_parts, or

some

_aspect ofits_purposes or

treat-ment.

Even

in a state of

_European

literature in

which

the "kinds" are not strictly

adhered

to, the traditional

kinds as distinguished

by

Aristotle still

have

_vitality in

helping

an

author to define his

own

purposes

and

methods,

and

inhelping

a

critic_{to interpret}

them.

Also, quite apart

from

these words,

which have been

transliterated intothe

_European

_{languages,nearly}allthe

leading critical ideas

and

distinctionsused

_by

Aristotle

have been

translated

and

still

have a

vital _currency.

Confiningourselves to

dramatic

criticism only,consider

merely

the terms plot,character, complication,

denoue-ment,

episode, chorus,unity ofaction (to

go

no

further),

and

ask

how

criticismcould

_proceed

without them.

One

ofthe

main

reasons

why

I believeit

_good

thatthePoetics

should

be

read at the _{very beginning of}

a

_university

course inliteratureisthatit

shows

theseessentialcurrent

termsin theirearliest formal_{context, related to}

a

litera-ture that

you

can

read, atleastin translation.

That

word

"related",

which

I

have

_{just used,}is _very

important,

and

leads

me

to

mention

anothergreatvalue

which

the _{reading of}thePoetics at this _stage

_may

have.

Itis

a

means

of

_accustoming

oneself

from

the_beginning to thefact that critical terms arerelative, not absolute; that _they

need examination

(not only in Aristotle but

always,everywhere)inthelightoftheliteratureto

which

theyrefer

and

ofthe specialpurposesfor

which

thecritic

himself is _using

them.

This is _{just as true} of

modern

criticism

now

even

ofbook-reviews in the

_weekly

_press asit isofAristotle himself,or, say,of

Sidney

or

Dryden.

Even

_though

the

words

_may

remain

inconstantuse in the

same

_language,

_unchanged

in _{form, yet} their exact

reference to the _literature,

and

the

nuance

which

_they

imply

to the

mind

of the critic

who

uses

them,

may

change,

and

frequently

do

change.

The

language

of

criticismis not

a permanent,

_{fixed, scientific vocabulary}

which,

when

once

learnt, has

merely

to

be

correctly

applied. Itis_{constantlyshifting;}

and

it isthe businessof atrained

mind,

in_{writing orthinking ofliterature,} to

be

alerttoitsshifts

when

_they

_appear

inthe

works

of_others,

and

tousetheterms themselves_carefully

and

_studiously,

inorder_that,sofaras

_may

_{be, the resulting criticism}

_may

make

_apparent

the sense in

which

its

own

_terminologyis

to

be

understood.

That

istheideal;

even

ifit is

an

ideal

which

_scarcely

_any

critichas everattained.

At any

period ofliteraryhistoryit is_easyto_pick

_up

a

currentcritical_jargon,

and

to

_employ

it_fluentlywith

an

air_{of mastery}

and

conviction,without penetratingatall

to the centre of the

_problems

with

which

it is

meant

to deal.

_{Anybody who}

writes_{or speaks} atall

about

litera-ture is _{constantly finding} himself_{(experto credite) falling}

back

_{upon some}

specious,apparentlyrich

and

preferably resonant, pieceof currentcritical_jargon,justbecause

he

hasfailedtothinkout_resolutely

what

he

is_{trying tosay.}

make

_you

alert to this _{danger, should}

be

a _critique of

terminology, so as to

make

habitual a concern

about

termsin this

_way.

_{Nothing, unfortunately,} is

commoner

than

tofind in

_{undergraduate}

_essaysthe useoftechnical critical

_language

inafamiliar

_{and knowing}

_way

asifthe

mere

useofitsolved the

_problem

and

_gave

a

_triumphant

irrefutable answer.

_{In examining}

I _{have, over}

and

over

again, read essays

about Tragedy,

or

some

particular tragedy,

which end

up by

justsaying, asifthe

mere

term

clinched the _matter, ". . .

and

thus is achieved that

catharsis _{which, as Aristotle so rightly says,} is the effect

of tragedy

on

theemotions".

One

ofthe reasonsfor_readingthePoeticsisto_prevent the_possibilityof suchwriting.

And

I believethatit is

_by

no

means

a

drawback

that

_{you have}

toread this

work

in

atranslation

from

a

_language

of

which most

of

_you

know

little _{or nothing.}

For

the

_knowledge

thatit is a transla-tion necessarily focuses the

mind upon

theseverbal

ques-tions;

upon

the fact that

words

shift in

_meaning

from

language

to _language,

and

within

_{one language from}

time to time. In his Introduction to _Bywater's transla-tionofthePoetics,Professor Gilbert

Murray

callsattention to certaindifficultiesinterms

which

a_{translation presents}

to _English readers.

One

ofthe

_{examples he}

takesis the

word

fJivOoS)

which

istranslated

normally

as "plot". This

word,

myihoS)isthesource of

our

word "myth"

: Professor

Murray

thinks that in this instance Aristotle

had

not

analysedhis

own

terms clearly;

he

says (pp. 12-13) that

Aristotle

had

noted as a fact

about

Greek

_Tragedy

of the fifth _century that it

had

always takenitsmaterialfromthe _{sacred myths, or}heroic sagas,whichtotheclassicalGreekconstitutedhistory. Butthe

New

Comedy

was in the _{habit of inventing} its _plots.

Con-sequemlyAristotle fallsinto _using the

word

_{mythos practically}

in the senseof_"plot", and_writingotherwisein a

_way

that is

unsuitedtothetragedy ofthefifth_century.

Now,

this is in

a

sense a _{"difficulty";}

but

_surely it is

not

a

_difficulty inthe sense_{of being}

a

distraction or

an

obstacle;it israther

one

ofthosefruitful difficulties

which

bringto light the

way

in

which

criticalterms

have

to

be

stabilisedin

each

context

_by

thecare

and

_precisionwith

which

_theyare used.

There

is

no

doubt

that the

term

mythos

had

been

used in

Greek

writing earlier

than

Aristotle to

mean

such various_{things as}

a

word

; speech;

a

_myth

in the senseof

a

_{legend; a story,especially}

a

fic-titious story;

and

so on. _Equally, there

seems

to

me

no

doubt

that,

by

theexact

_way

in

which

Aristotle describes thatfor

which he

is _{using the}

word

in the Poetics,

he

is

re-defining the

word

for his

own

purposes within the

contextofhis treatise,

and making

ofit

a

technical

term

of

an

exact kind, intendingto distinguish

most

_carefully

"plot"

from both

"myth" and

"story".

In

ch. ix,

where

he

_{chiefly discusses the question,}

he

uses the

word

_mythos qualified

by

a _{participle in the phrase}

_{which Bywater}

translates "the traditional stories",

but

when

he

uses mythos absolutely, without qualification,

he

uses it for

what

thepoet makes of

a

story,

and

thatisbest translated

asPlot.

The

sentence

_{which opens}

the

_paragraph

atthe

bottom

of_p.

₄₄

_{of Bywater's} translation could well

be

translated _(to

_{adapt one}

of Professor

_Murray's

own

suggestions):

Itisclearfromthis that the

"maker"

oughttobe

more

the

maker

ofthe plotsthanoftheverses.

I find it

hard

to_{agree with} Professor

_Murray

that

Aris-totle has

been

"deceived"

_by

his terms_{here; rather,} it

seems

to

_{me, he}

is_consciously

and

_{carefullyadapting}

an

existing

and

familiar

word,

mythos, so thatit

becomes a

"term",inhis

own

context,of aspecial kind.

He

is

think-ing out

a

distinction

between

"stories",which, are

narra-tives of events in

a

_{broadly chronological sequence}

(whether theyare traditional legends,orpiecesofhistory,

or fictional _constructs),

and

"plots",

which

are stories after _they

have been

made

_by

_{the poet} into _organised unities with necessary connections

between

their _parts. I shall

come

back

later in these lectures to discuss Aris-totle's _{treatment of "plot"}

more

fully: it is

most

im-portant;

and

I

_hope

_you

will then

understand

better

what

I

am

_{saying here}:

but

the_pointI

now

want

to

make

is _that,

even

without

_knowing

Greek, the discussion of

the

words

chosen

_by

a

translator

can

_{(with slight help}

from

someone

who

knows

a little _{Greek) provide not} obstacles, but

an

analysis oftheuse ofterms,

which

is

a

useful trainingforcriticism of

_any

kind.1

You may

think thisisa _perverse

and

_slightly

sophisti-cal defence ofthe factthat a

work

which you can

read

onlyin translation is setin the_syllabus.

But

an

almost

parallel situation

would

arise

even

ifa short classical treatiseof

_comparable

_originality

and

_scope

were

extant

and

available _{with English} asitsinitial _language.

The

terms

would

there also

be

_acquiring their

more

limited

and

special

meaning

only in the context in

which

the critic

was

_{using them,}

and

_you

would

be

under

the

neces-sity of analysing

a

process of adaptation

which

almost

needed

"translation" intoother English termsto solveit.

Problems

ofthiskindarisewith

_Dryden's

_{Essay of}

Drama-tic_{Poesy (theEnglish}criticaltextsetat_Oxford).

But

_suppose

_your

_generalsubject

were

not

"Tragedy",

and

_{you were}

set, e.g., selectedchapters

from

Coleridge's BiographiaLiteraria:

you would

have

todealwith a highly

developed distinction

between

Fancy and

Imagination;

the distinction

between

the

_{Primary Imagination}

and

Secondary

Imagination; thedistinction

between

volition

and

will;

and

words

like

"coadunating"

and

"esemplas-tic"

would

come

in _{course along the}

_way.

These

are

no

easier

than

translated terms.

Or

_suppose,again,thesubject

were

not

Tragedy,

and

you were

set

some

of the Critical _{Essays of}the

most

in-fluential _living critic _{in English,}

Mr.

T.

S. Eliot:

_you

would

have

to _analyse his exact use of _{"sensibility",}

especially"thedissociationofsensibility"

and

the phrase "objective correlative",

and

much

elseofasemi-technical nature.

And

if

_{you were}

set

a

selection

from

Mr.

Eliot's essays,

what

else

would

you

find?

You

would

findthat in

one

of the best ofall _{his essays,} the

one

called

"The

Perfect Critic"

which

first

_appeared

in

The

Sacred

Wood

in ₁₉₂₀

an

_essay

which

should

be

_{hovering always}in the

_background

of

_your

_memory

as

a

statement of the

1_Cf.E.

_M.

_Forster'suse

of "story"and"plot"in Aspects oftheNovel (London,1927).

critic'sstandards

and

ideals

_{you would}

find _{that here,}

searchingforthe _perfectcritic, thebest

examples

ofthe

bestcritical

_method,

Mr.

Eliothimself sends

_you

_straight

back

to _Aristotle;

and

_{you might}

_justly

_complain

that

you

had

not

been

sent to Aristotle in thefirst_place.

Aristotleisa person

who

hassufferedfromtheadherence of persons

who

mustbe regardedless as his disciplesthanashis sectaries.

One

must be_firmlydistrustful_{of accepting}Aristotle ina canonicalspirit; thisistolosethewholeliving forceofhim.

He

wasprimarily a

man

ofnot onlyremarkablebutuniversal intelligence;

and

universal intelligence

means

that he could applyhis_intelligenceto_anything.

The

_{ordinaryintelligence}is

good only for certain classes of _objects; a brilliant

man

of science,ifhe is interested in _poetryat _all,

_may

conceive gro-tesque judgments: like one poet because he reminds

him

of himself, or another because he _expresses emotions which he

admires;he

may

use art, infact, as the outlet for theegotism

which is _suppressed in his

own

_speciality. But Aristotle

had

noneofthese _impure desires tosatisfy; in whateversphere of interest, he looked solelyandsteadfastly at the object; in his shortand brokentreatisehe_providesaneternal_example not of laws, oreven ofmethod,forthereisno

method

_exceptto_{be very} intelligent,but ofintelligenceitself_{swiftlyoperatingthe analysis}

ofsensation to the_{point ofprinciple}

and

definition.1

^

3. Aristotle

9

s life: thefast stage

With

so

much

as_{generalintroduction,} I

want

now

to

describethe circumstances

and

character ofthe book.

'Aristotle's active life falls clearly into three

main

parts:*he

was

born

in

384

B.C._{at Stagira,}

modern

Stavro,

a

small

town on

thenorth-east coast _{of the peninsula of}

Chalcidice near

Macedonia.

It is

from

his _birthplace

that

he

_gothis_ghastly

_nickname,

"the _Stagirite",

which

you

will _{find used, e.g.,}

_{by Pope}

several times in the

Essayon Criticism:

As

if_{the Stagirite o'erlook'd}each line _{(1. 138).}

His

stepfather

was

domestic doctorto

King Amyntas

II

of

_Macedonia,

and

Aristotle

_may

have

picked

up

much

1_{TheSacredWood}

(1928)pp.ioff. London, Methuen. (Istedition, 1_{920,pp. 9if.)}

information

about medical

work

in

_boyhood.

To

this is

often attributed his intense interest _{in physical science,} especially in biology

and

physiology;

and

from

it,

ulti-mately

perhaps,

was

derivedthe systematicthoroughness ofhis

method.

The

first

main

_{period of} his life

was

from 367-347

B.C.,

when

he

was

aged from

17 to37, allof

which

time

he

spent in Plato's

_Academy

at_{Athens, partly as pupil,}

partly as teacher

and

writer.

His

writings

from

this

period

have

not survived, except in fragments

though

there will

_{be something}

to _{say of}

them

later. _{But, the} writings apart, the

importance

ofhis _twentyyears' asso-ciation with Plato

cannot be

_exaggerated.

His

whole

type of thought

was modelled

on

Plato's,

and

even

where

he most

_{disagreed with} his master his doctrine

about

Poetry

was

an

instance

he

was

taking

up

problems

which

Plato

had

_propounded.

There

will

be

more

to_say later

about

the Platonic doctrine _{of poetry} in its

treat-ment

ofthe_emotions,

and

about

how

Aristotle differed

from

it

;

but

I

want

hereto

emphasise

the

broad

common

ground

which

Plato

and

Aristotleshared.

_{Their thought}

about

all_subjects

was

directed

towards

practical ends,1

and

_{their speculation}

was

never far

removed

from

the business of _teaching.

The

_overriding

concern

of the

Academy

was

the discussion ofthe

_"good

life

5

', as it is

livable

_{by man, on}

earth, in

a

societyofhisfellow-men.

All sub-divisions of

human

thought

and

activity

were

related tothis

_primary

ethical_purpose,

and

all

had

their

bearing

on

thepoliticalcontextin

which

ethicalpurposes

were

_necessarilyrealised.

The

visionof

human

life as

a

whole

was

never lost _{sight of,}

and

all _{special subjects}

were

related to it.

The

individual

was

seen _{ideally as}

a

balanced mature

person exercising all his

_powers

har-moniously

and

atfull _stretch,

and

suchexercise

was

im-possibleexceptina_{politicalorganisation of}thestatethat

allowed

and

fostered it.

The

main

business of the

Academy

was

toteach

men

to

be

_good

men

inthefullest

sense,

and good

citizens.

This

factunderliestheattitude

1

[This needsatleast_{qualification.]}

ofbothPlato

and

Aristotle_{towards poetry};it isthesource

ofallthe

_{remarks you}

willfind in Introductions to the Poetics

and

elsewhere,totheeffectthat the

Greek

attitude

to _poetry

was

more

"ethical**,

more

"moralistic",

and

less "aesthetic",

than

the typical

modern

attitude.

But

such

remarks

_{are misleading}unlessit isrealised thatthe

reason is that _poetry

was

_{never thought of}in _isolation;

it

was

_something

in

which

all

men

_shared,

an

_activity

of public importance, to

be

interpreted as part ofthe

means

_{by which}

the

whole

human

personality

was

both

educated

and

controlled.

If

_you

_putyourself

a

_questiontheother

_way

_round,

and

ask"Isitafactthat

when

a

man

iseither_{writing or}

en-joying poetry

he

has, in sofaras

he

isa poet or

a

reader

of _{poetry, abrogated} all other

human

characteristics, duties, claims

and

feelings?";if

you

ask yourself

a

ques-tion in

some

such

form

as _that,

and

_{find yourself} neces-sarilytending towards the

answer "No", you

aretending

towards_{the starting-point}

which

bothPlato

and

Aristotle

took for_granted.

I confess I

am

_{impatient with} the

view

that tries to suggest

some

primitive insufficiency in Aristotle because

he

"moralised aesthetics".

LECTURE

II

ARISTOTLE'S

DEVELOPMENT

i. Plato

I

HAVE

_already said that the!

work

ofPlato's

_Academy,

where

Aristotle_spent

_twenty

_years,

was

_largely

concerned

with_teaching, with the

methods

ofeducation bestfitted to

_{produce good men,}

_good

citizens

and

_(aboveall)

_good

rulers. It

was

in this context of education that Plato

made

his

famous

*

'attack'*

on

the _poets.

The

study of

poetry especially of the

works

of

Homer

was

the

traditional

Greek

mode

ofeducationfor_boys

_{and young}

men

before _they

were

considered _{intellectually}

mature

enough

to_beginthe _{study of philosophy;}

and

it isinthis

context

we

_might

_say in the context of_{discussing the}

school syllabus that thefirst _{critique (in Republic,}

Book

II) of the effects of poetry occurs,

and

the decree of

banishment from

theidealstateis

made

_againstthe_poets.

It

was

not

_through

_{insensitivityor ignorance}thatPlato

did this.

At

the_{beginning of}

Book

X

of_{the Republic}

he

makes

Socrates_{speak of}

Homer

with_{the highest}

honour

and

love as "the master

and

leader ofall _{those tragic}

poets" (595b-c),

and

laterin the

Book

₍₆₀₇c)

he

speaks

ofthe

_"enchanting"

_power

of_{poetry, especially}

Homer's.

It_was,in fact,because

he

feltthis

_power

so_acutely

and

keenlythatPlatoreluctantlyfelthimself

bound

todecide

as

he

did.

In

Book

III

when

the _perfectly skilful_poet

comes

tothe idealcity,

he

is to

be honoured

as

a

sacred,

wonderful

and

_{delightful person;}

he

is to

be

anointed with

_{myrrh and}

crowned

with a wreath: buthe is to be sent_away.

Plato _{attacked poetry broadly}

on

two

_grounds,

one

intellectual, the otherethical.

On

theintellectual side, allart is

a copy

ofthe

world

ofthe _senses,

which

isitself

an

illusion

_{beyond which}

the

wise

man

must be

_{trained to penetrate;}

works

ofartare

removed

into the third _place

from

the truth. I

do

not

want

to _amplify thisside of_{the Platonic objection}

_now,

because it _belongs

more

_{properly with} the discussion of

the_general aesthetic_{theory of"imitation",}

which

I

am

deliberatelypostponing.

But

I

do

want

to discuss the second ofPlato's

broad

grounds

ofobjection, the ethical, because it is

_{upon an}

answer

to this that

much

of the central

_argument

of

Aristotle's Poetics_depends,

and

_because,after_{leaving the}

Academy,

Aristotle's

own

educational practice

per-petuated

and

reinforced the old traditional

Greek

system

of bringing

up young

men

inthe_{study ofpoetry,}

and

the

writingofthePoetics

was

a

_consequence

ofthis_experience.

The

first ofPlato's ethical objections to poetry is the

comparatively straightforward

one

that poets "tell lies

about

thegods" (Rep. II, 377 if.),

and

that

many

ofthe

stories _they tell

about

_gods

and

heroes

and

_{giants are}

immoral.

For both

these reasons,poetry especially that

of

Hesiod

and

Homer

is

bad

forthe_{young. Allegorical} interpretation,

he

says, is

no

_help; for children

cannot

distinguish

between

what

is _allegorical

and what

is

literal: _they

both

get a

wrong

idea ofthe nature ofthe

gods

and

alsoacceptas

worthy

ofimitation, in their

own

lives, thetalesof treachery

and

lust

and

so on,of

which

mythological poetryisfull.

And

mothers

usetalesofthe

gods

changing

shape

and

going

about

in_disguise,

which

frighten children

and

make

them

cowardly.

This

must

not detain us _long; but I

cannot

leave it

altogether without

comment.

There

are, as Aristotle

would

_certainly

have

seen,

two

separate questions at issue.

The

truth of

what

is said

about

the gods is

one

thing: the _possible effect ofstories

on young

children's

minds

is _another, not all _poetrybeingwritten _virginibus puerisque.

Now

the first ofthese

two

_questions is

touched

on

in

the Poetics in _{that short telegraphic style,}

which

at first

may

madden

you, but

which

I

_hope

_may

seem

more

sympathetic as time goes on. In Poetics, ch.

xxv

the

chapter

on

some

miscellaneous

problems

(Bywater,p.88) Aristotle says that

though

the tales

about

the_gods

_may,

as

_Xenophanes

_thinks,

be

untrue,

and

though

they

may

not

be

"thebetter_thingto_say";yettheyare"in

accord-ance

_{with opinion".}

This

is

"what

_{people say";}it isthe

traditional view.1

Here

Aristotle is

_making

a note-like reference in the Poeticsto matter

which he

had

discussed elsewhere.

The

Italianscholar_{Rostagni has}

_argued

that

Plutarch _(de And. Poet, II, 17

d-e

2) has preserved the

substance _{of a passage}

from

Aristotle's lost _dialogue,

On

the Poets,

on

this _matter, in

which

he

says that

a

literal _acceptance of

what

the _{poets say}

about

the gods

would

be

corrupting;

but

that poetry is not

concerned

with truth inthis

_way.

He

_{says that}thetruth

about

the_gods is

hard enough

_game

(SvcrOrjpaTos) even

for _philosophers to catch, let alone _poets; so

we

willnot

listen to

them

about

it.

He

mentions Xenophanes,

in

this _{context, just} as the Poetics _does, as

one

of those

who

had

first attacked the traditional _mythological

view

of _{the gods. Aristotle}

would

_certainly

have

said

thatthe _{question of}

what

is

and what

is _nottrue

about

the gods is

a

matterfor _{philosophers,}

_among

whom

he

would

include

what

we

now

call _theologians.

He

_{says in}

khe Poetics, ch.

xxv

(Bywater, p. 86):

"There

isnot thd feamekind ofcorrectness in_poetryas in_politics,or indeed

any

other art" ₍₁₄₆₀

_{b 13-14}

; the

word

isopOorrjs); the

theological sideof philosophy

would

be

such another"art".

In addition to _this, Aristotle

had

_{advanced beyond}

Plato in another _respect, in that

_{he began}

to

view

such

mattershistorically.

Book

Iof thePolitics

shows

clearly

how

he

saw

_parallels

between

the less _developed

com-munities of his

own

time _(e.g., the

_nomadic)

and

the

earlier condition of

communities which

had

since

deve-1

Gf.Wordsworth'snoteonthe "ImmortalityOde", where hesays thathe_thoughttheuseof the_{belief in the pre-existence}oftheSoulwas

justifiedfor poeticpurposes becauseithad"enteredintothe_popular creeds of

_many

nations"andhad"sufficientfoundationin_humanity"

(ed.deSelincourt,IV,464).

a

Ilcas Setrov v4ov voirjiMTowOLKOVCLV

_Quomodo

_{adulescens poetas}

audire debeat,formingpart ofHep!rratScuvaywyfj?

De

liberis edu-candis.

loped a high civilisation.

And

about

the _gods

he

_says

that

Homer

called

Zeus

"the father _{of gods}

_{and men",}

by

analogy

from

the relation of a king to his _people,

which

itselfreflected the relationof afather tohis_family.

In other words, the

_Olympian

_system in

_Homer,

he

realised,

was

the kind ofreligion

which grew

out of

an

earlystateofsociety.

A

poet usingthe traditionalsystem

was

_making

no

claimforits _{theological truth,}

and

Aris-totle_{did not take veryseriously the}

_danger

Plato

saw

init.

Itis a _separate matterto consider

what

_{might be}

the effect of the stories

_unexpurgated

_{on young}

children's

minds.

_(A

similar situation _{has alwaysexisted,}

and

still

exists,withthe useofthe

Old

Testament

in

Christendom;

and

_many

_{parents, practising Christians}

and

others,take Plato's view.)

We

do

not

know

what

Aristotle_thought

about

the use

of

Homer

and

Hesiod

in_{educatingreally}

_young

children;

but

we

do

know,

as I shall _explainlater, that inspite of Plato,

he

perpetuated the traditional

Greek

method

of

education in _using

_{Homer, and making}

a

_special

com-mentary on

Homer

forthe _purpose,

when

he

was

tutor toa

boy

of

what would

now

becalled

_13+;

the

_boy

who

became

Alexander

the Great.

The

_{next part of}Plato's_objectionhasitsclearest

state-ment

in the_Republic,

Book

X

_(606d) that _poetryfeeds

and

waters the desires

and

_{passions, instead of drying}

them

_up.

Poetry has thesameeffectonus

when

it_{represents sex}and

anger, and theotherdesiresand_{feelings of pleasure}andpain

which _normally

_accompany

ouractions. Itfeeds

them

when

theyoughttobestarved,and makes

them

controlus

when

we

ought, in theinterests ofour

own

welfare and _{happiness, to}

control them.

(H. D. P. _{Lee's translation, in thePenguinClassics)}

Now

Plato

was

a_{rigorousintellectualist,}

and

his

view

of

human

natureas_givenin _{the Republic (IV,}

₄₄₀

_{6-441 a)}

was

based

on

adivisionof_{the soul into three parts} the

rational _{part (AoyicmKoV),} the _{spirited part}1

(IV,

1_Concerned

withhonour andpower: "itis_bynature_{the auxiliary} ofthe rational part". (441 a.)

44OC-44

1 a

) (flvjKoctScs),

and

the desirousor appetitive

part(eTnOvfJLrjTLKOv).

The

_good

lifeforPlatoisthefullest exercise ofthe rational _{part of}the soul; its _{lowest part,}

the emotional

and

desirous part, is

concerned

with the

things ofsense

and

with desiresfor things of sense

and

with the emotions attending those desires: it "forms the

greater part of

each man's

make-up and

is _naturally

insatiable" (442 a).

A

leading characteristic ofPlato's thought, especially

in the Republic*isthe_{bitter hostility}

which he

assumes with

a

manichean

fierceness

between

the reason

and

the desires

and

emotions.

The

_{metaphors he}

uses to describeit are those _{of war, decapitation, cauterisation.}

There

is

no

_{question ofadapting, training, using,} direct-ing,

modifying

thislowest_{part of}the soul; ithas

every-where

to

be

opposed; the

"common

_people",in

whom

it

reigns

most

powerfully, are to

be

the lowest class inthe state; the intermediate kind of person, in

whom

the "spirited" element is _strongest, is to

become

the soldier

and

_{administrator;} therulersare to

be

theintellectualist

philosophers, with

whom

reasonis

most

_powerful.^

The

system of the state is to

be

_{authoritarian, just} as its

practical psychologyis to

be

_repressive.

Perhaps

the

most

telling part of the

argument about

the

emotions

in

Book

X

of_{the Republic}isthe discussionof

the expressionof_grief,the contrast

between

poetic

treat-ment and

the kind of behaviour

we

admire

and

aim

at in reallife.

When

Homer

_{or a tragedian}

shows

usa hero

stretchingout

a

longtale_{of woe, keening}

and

_smitinghis breast,

"even

the bestofusenjoyit",Plato says (X,

605

c-d),

"and

letourselves

be

carried

away

by

ourfeelings".

But

intimes of_griefinreallife

we

aim

to

be

restrained,

quiet

and

enduring, tryingnot to

play

a

woman's

part.

1

[The (probably) later Timaeusand*Plato'slast_{work, the Laws,}

greatlymodified the opposition ofsoul akfibody, reasonanddesire.

Butthey did notundotheeffect ofPlato'sclassic statement of the argument in themore popularand famous RepublicandPhaedo of somethirtyyearsearlier.]

2

[Plato's ideal included intuitive contemplation as well as discursive reasoning.]

It_{gives uspleasureto pity thehero;}

but

in

_doing

so_very

few

ofus reflect that other

men's

sorrows contribute to

our

own.

I _saythatthisisa_{particularlytellingpart of}the

argu-ment

because the

emotion

under

discussion is _not, like

anger, liable to

be

anti-social

and

wasteful in real life;

nor is it _{dealing with a} fierce desire like uncontrolled

sexual passion. Pityforanother_{sufferinggrief,}

and

_grief

at sufferings of

_{our own,}

are gentle

humane

emotions, not _necessarily anti-social or _{culpably self-regarding.} This _brings into

_prominence

the fact that Plato

was

opposed

not only to the _{indulgence of}certain emotions

and

desires,

but

to the_{indulgence of}

emotion

as such. It

is _always

and

_everywhere

bad

forthe reason torelaxits

control

even

over such a _relatively harmless _part of

human

natureas"the naturalinstinctfor tears".

It is also _{a passage} to

remember

most

_carefully

when

we

come

to Aristotle'sdiscussionof_pity

and

fear as_being specifically the tragic emotions.

Without

question Aris-totle

had

this _passage in

mind when

_writing;

and

he

acceptsalargepart ofPlato'sposition.

The

fundamental

points in

which

Aristotle agrees with Platoare:

(1)

That

poetry is

an

"imitative" art.

(2)

That

poetry rousesthe emotions.

(3)

That

poetrygives pleasure,

both

as

an

imitation

and

as_rousingtheemotions

_through

imitative

means.

(4)

That

the rousing ofthe emotions

by

poetry

has

an

effect

_upon

the

whole

_{personality (of the} spectatororreader)

and on

hisemotional

behaviour

in real life.

But he

_{does not accept}thevitalstep in the conclusion,

by

which

Plato assumes that the relation

between

emo-tion as stimulated

_by

_poetry,

and

emotion

as felt

and

expressed in real life, is a kind of cumulative infection

which

must

lead (in real life) to

dangerous

excess.

He

rejects the

whole

theory that theemotions are in

them-selvesbad.

To

this

we

shallreturn.

Tragic^

comic

and

epic poets, then,areto

be

excluded

jfromPlato's idealstate,

and

thestudy oftheir

works

isto

I

play

no

partin thesystem of education withinit. Poets

aretobe allowed onlyiftheir

work

has a_{directly didactic}

aim,linkedtothe_{purposes of}

moral

education.

In

Book

III

he

says that the poets are to

be

compelled to impress

upon

their

_poems

the

_image

ofthe

_good

characterornot

to

make

_poetryinthe_city:in

Book

X

thesekinds of

per-mitted poetryaredefinedrather

more

exactly as

"hymns

tothe_gods

and

_{the praises}of

_good

men".

And

music

and

the other arts are to

be

similarlycensored

and

compul-sorily directed.

At

the_very

end

ofhisdiscussion _{of poetry} in

Book

X

Plato throws out a _{challenge, saying} that the lovers of

poetry,

who

arenot poets, should

be

allowed to write a

defence of poetry in prose;

and

he

would

listen in a

friendlyspirit ifthe writer could

show

that poetry

was

"not onlypleasant

but

alsousefulfor political

communi-ties ₍₇₇₇₉₀s*TCLS _TToAtre/as)

and

for

human

life".

Aristotletook

_up

this_challengein

more

ways

than

one

;

the

book

called thePoetics

was

one

ofthe_{consequences of}

his_doingso:butit

was

notthe_{only consequence.}

I _give

_you

this _partial account of Plato's views of

poetry

and

it is _{only partial,} not claimingto

be

com-plete at this stage in thelectures, because it

_{shows you}

the context ofAristotle's _thoughts

and

training

about

poetryinthatvitallyimportant phase ofhislife,

between

the _{ages of} 17

and

37,

when

he

was

at the

Academy.

None

ofthe

works

he wrote

_duringthattime _they

were

mostly

works

indialogue form,designed

on

Plato's

model

have

survived, except in fragments.

And

it is

now

doubtful

whether he wrote

anything

about

poetry until

after

he

had

left_Athens;

but

there is

no doubt

that his interest in _poetry

and

his

_approach

to it

were

perman-ently affected

by what

he heard

there.

2. The_{Second Stageof}Aristotle9s_Life

On

Plato's

death

in

₃₄₇

and

the succession of his

nephew,

Speusippus, to the headship of the

Academy

(whichAristotle,not being

an

Athenian, could not

in-herit), Aristotleleft

Athens

togetherwith a