(1) The poet being an imitator just like the
painter or other maker of likenesses, he must necessarily in all
instances represent things in one or other of three aspects, either as
they were or are, or as they are said or thought to be or to have
been, or as they ought to be. (2) All this he does in language, with
an admixture, it may be, of strange words and metaphors, as also of
the various modified forms of words, since the use of these is
conceded in poetry. (3) It is to be remembered, too, that there is not
the same kind of correctness in poetry as in politics, or indeed any
other art. There is, however, within the limits of poetry itself a
possibility of two kinds of error, the one directly, the other only
accidentally connected with the art. If the poet meant to describe the
thing correctly, and failed through lack of power of expression, his
art itself is at fault. But if it was through his having meant to
describe it in some incorrect way (e.g. to make the horse in movement
have both right legs thrown forward) that the technical error (one in
a matter of, say, medicine or some other special science), or
impossibilities of whatever kind they may be, have got into his
description, hi.
Pages:
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92