to the example of Hector, Ford brings in Aristotle’s longer discussion of it
in chapter 24, where Aristotle (a) commends the incident for adding to the
marvelous effects of the Iliad and (b) notes that the impossibility of the scene,
which would be “ludicrous” on the stage, is less conspicuous in epic narra-
tion (24.8). On the stage, the audience would see Achilles waving the Greek
soldiers away, an impossible scenario given the norms of military combat (the
scenario would be akin to an American football player on defense waving
away his teammates so that he would be the only one who could tackle the
ball carrier).
I find that this commentary is good as far as it goes but that it under-
estimates the consequences of Aristotle’s discussion in chapter 25.^3 First, it’s
worth pausing over the terms probable impossibilities and improbable possi-
bilities: they make sense only if there are two systems of probability at work:
(a) the law of probability and necessity referred to in chapter 9, which exists
external to the work, and (b) the system of probability internal to the work,
a system that arises from the poet’s selection and arrangement of events and
their leading to certain expectations in the audience. In the term probable
impossibilities, the adjective refers to the text-internal system and the noun
to the text-external system. And so too with the term improbable possibilities.
Second, when Aristotle stipulates that the poet should follow the law of prob-
ability and necessity, he indicates that the two systems are interrelated but that
the external should govern the internal.
Third—and here’s where things get fascinating—by expressing his prefer-
ence for probable impossibilities and by claiming that they can be justified,
Aristotle indicates that sometimes the text-internal system can override the
text-external system. At that point, he has introduced a loophole in his chap-
ter 9 dictum large enough for the Greek army to march through. Fourth, Aris-
totle’s choosing the pursuit of Hector as his case in point takes Aristotle to the
brink of reversing the hierarchy of the two systems. To put this point another
way, the choice of example takes Aristotle to the brink of subordinating poet-
ics, with its focus on textual structures, to rhetoric, with its focus on authors
and audiences. My reading of the Poetics takes him over that brink.
If Aristotle wanted just to qualify what he says about probability and
necessity in chapter 9, he could have cited an example of a justifiable prob-
able impossibility by referring to an event that plays a minor but necessary
- Classicists believe that Poetics 25 is a digest of Aristotle’s lost book on Homeric Prob-
lems, and that in discussing the pursuit of Hector he is addressing a problem identified by some
commentator who regards Achilles’ keeping his fellow Greeks at bay with a nod of his head or
a wave of his hand as a violation of probability. My main interest is in how Aristotle’s handling
of this problem complicates the overall view of probability in the Poetics. I am indebted to
Genevieve Lively for sharing her expertise about Aristotle with me.
AUDIENCES AND PROBABLE IMPOSSIBILITIES • 35