In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

111 APPENDIX: TEXTUAL EVIDENCE The question what is to count as textual evidence and what as counterevidence is complicated by the fact that a number of Aristotle’s key terms are ambiguous and so could be taken either way. They can be taken as having either an intrinsic or an extrinsic reference. If taken intrinsically, they could refer either to the action (object-centering) or to the protagonist (agent-centering) of the tragedy. If taken extrinsically, they refer to the audience (patient-centering). All three modes of centering could therefore be, and indeed have been, ascribed to some of the same terms. The occurrence of such a term is thus in itself neither evidence nor counterevidence. What makes it so is its context, both direct and indirect. As Nehamas notes: “Gould’s discussion shows that the words themselves seldom settle the issue of what—an event or an experience—is being referred to in the text . . . understanding of each of their occurrences in context is crucial.1 Context is many-faceted both in its direct and indirect aspects. Direct aspects comprise such things as location in the Poetics. The evidential weight to be placed on a term is greater if it occurs in the wording or explication of the formal definition of a tragedy than if it occurs in a less crucial place. It is greater if it occurs as part of the argument or in the resolution of aporiai than if it occurs as part of the subsequent (eita, pros toutois, semeion) empirical confirmation of the argument. Other direct aspects are, e.g., the technical use of terms, which lends them greater precision and weight than nontechnical or colloquial use; the polemical use of terms, when Aristotle sets his own understanding off against the mistaken beliefs (hamartemata) of others, often citing Homer as his ally; the use of terms in explicit mutually exclusive contrasts such as “in its own right” versus “in relation to” (kath hauten versus pros ti) or “focused on one person” versus “focused on one action” (peri hena versus peri mian praxin), which gives them both sharpness and authority, since contrastive thinking is an Aristotelian hallmark. 112 APPENDIX Indirect aspects comprise such intangibles as the mood or tone of the text, since the evidential weight of terms is affected by whether Aristotle is prescriptive (dei, chre, ananke, etc.), argumentative (epei, ara, etc.), didactic , polemical, ironic, or tentative. But more importantly, they comprise all the implications of the terms as they occur in their direct contexts. It is these implications that link the Poetics with Aristotle’s philosophy as a whole. Unless textual evidence to the contrary is present, these implications should be the normal Aristotelian ones. This seems prima facie demanded by one’s taking the Poetics to be an Aristotelian treatise. The principle of charity demands that these Aristotelian implications be held to be consistent throughout the Poetics and indeed the corpus, barring textual counterevidence. In the case of Aristotle, an unusually consistent and systematic thinker, the principle of charity is a fundamental exegetical device. It is this device that underlies the approach of the present study. I have argued that the Poetics is Aristotelian in the sense that it is philosophy of being in terms of his distinctive understanding of being. I have therefore taken the terminology of the Poetics in the context of that understanding , by gradual adumbration of its subject matter and by letting the technical terms carry their normal Aristotelian implications. This approach makes the Poetics appear consistent, technical, and well structured as well as integrated into the whole of Aristotelian philosophy . It also makes it appear radical (e.g., vis-à-vis Plato), innovative, and very subtle, but also in some respects dated. What is to me the most surprising discovery is the pivotal importance of the “focused on one person/focused on one action” (peri hena/peri mian praxin) contrast of Poetics 8, well expressed by Cooper: “The plot is that synthesis of incidents which gives form or being to the play as a whole.”2 My approach makes the Poetics appear in a certain way, and that may well be the problem with it. For any approach, mine or any other, may be something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Given the ambiguity of some of the key terms, what counts as textual evidence can also be taken as counterevidence. Take katharsis as an example. It can be taken, and has indeed been taken, in all three modes of centering...

Share