mistake precisely parallel to the moral error of asceticism.
In treating of Aristotle’s ethics we saw that, although the
activity of reason is held in highest esteem, the attempt to
uproot the passions was censured as erroneous. So here,
though philosophy is the crown of man’s spiritual activity,
art has its rights, and is an absolute end in itself, a point
which Plato failed to see. In the human organism, the head
is the {330} chief of the members. But one does not cut off
the hand because it is not the head.
Coming now to Aristotle’s special treatment of the art of
poetry, we may note that he concentrates his attention
almost exclusively upon the drama. It does not matter
whether the plot of a drama is historical or fictitious. For
the object of art, the exhibition of the universal, is just as
well attained in an imaginary as in a real series of events.
Its aim is not correctness, but truth, not facts, but the Idea.
Drama is of two kinds, tragedy and comedy. Tragedy ex-
hibits the nobler specimens of humanity, comedy the worse.
This remark should be carefully understood. It does not
mean that the hero of a tragedy is necessarily a good man
in the ordinary sense. He may even be a wicked man. But
the point is that, in some sense, he must be a great per-
sonality. He cannot be an insignificant person. He cannot
be a nonentity. Be he good or bad, he must be conceived
in the grand manner. Milton’s Satan is not good, but he is
great, and would be a fit subject for a tragedy. The sound-
ness of Aristotle’s thought here is very noteworthy. What is
mean and sordid can never form the basis of tragedy. Mod-
ern newspapers have done their best to debauch this word
tragedy. Some wretched noteless human being is crushed to
death by a train, and the newspapers head their paragraph
“Fearful Tragedy at Peckham Rye.” Now such an incident
may be sad, it may be dreadful, it may be horrible, but it
is not tragic. Tragedy no doubt deals with suffering. But
there is nothing great and ennobling about this suffering,
and tragedy is concerned with the sufferings of greatness.
In the same way, Aristotle does not mean that the comic
{331} hero is necessarily a wicked man, but that he is, on
the whole, a poor creature, an insignificant being. He may
be very worthy, but there is something low and ignoble
about him which makes us laugh.Tragedy brings about a purification of the soul through pity
and terror. Mean, sordid, or dreadful things do not ennoble
us. But the representation of truly great and tragic suffer-
ings arouses in the beholder pity and terror which purge his
spirit, and render it serene and pure. This is the thought of
a great and penetrating critic. The theory of certain schol-
ars, based upon etymological grounds, that it means that
the soul is purged, notthrough, butofpity and terror, that
by means of a diarrhoea of these unpleasant emotions we
get rid of them and are left happy, is the thought of men
whose scholarship may be great, but whose understanding
of art is limited. Such a theory would reduce Aristotle’s
great and illuminating criticism to the meaningless babble
of a philistine.- Critical Estimate of Aristotle’s Philosophy.
It is not necessary to spend so much time upon criticising
Aristotle as we spent upon doing the same for Plato, and
that for two reasons. In the first place, Plato with his obvi-