Homer；　admirable　in　all　respects；　has　the　special　merit　of　being　the
  only　poet　who　rightly　appreciates　the　part　he　should　take　himself。　The
  poet　should　speak　as　little　as　possible　in　his　own　person；　for　it　is
  not　this　that　makes　him　an　imitator。　Other　poets　appear　themselves
  upon　the　scene　throughout；　and　imitate　but　little　and　rarely。　Homer；
  after　a　few　prefatory　words；　at　once　brings　in　a　man；　or　woman；　or
  other　personage；　none　of　them　wanting　in　characteristic　qualities；　but
  each　with　a　character　of　his　own。
  The　element　of　the　wonderful　is　required　in　Tragedy。　The　irrational；
  on　which　the　wonderful　depends　for　its　chief　effects；　has　wider
  scope　in　Epic　poetry；　because　there　the　person　acting　is　not　seen。
  Thus；　the　pursuit　of　Hector　would　be　ludicrous　if　placed　upon　the
  stage…　the　Greeks　standing　still　and　not　joining　in　the　pursuit；　and
  Achilles　waving　them　back。　But　in　the　Epic　poem　the　absurdity　passes
  unnoticed。　Now　the　wonderful　is　pleasing；　as　may　be　inferred　from
  the　fact　that　every　one　tells　a　story　with　some　addition　of　his
  knowing　that　his　hearers　like　it。　It　is　Homer　who　has　chiefly　taught
  other　poets　the　art　of　telling　lies　skilfully。　The　secret　of　it　lies
  in　a　fallacy　For；　assuming　that　if　one　thing　is　or　becomes；　a　second
  is　or　becomes；　men　imagine　that；　if　the　second　is；　the　first
  likewise　is　or　becomes。　But　this　is　a　false　inference。　Hence；　where
  the　first　thing　is　untrue；　it　is　quite　unnecessary；　provided　the
  second　be　true；　to　add　that　the　first　is　or　has　become。　For　the
  mind；　knowing　the　second　to　be　true；　falsely　infers　the　truth　of　the
  first。　There　is　an　example　of　this　in　the　Bath　Scene　of　the　Odyssey。
  Accordingly；　the　poet　should　prefer　probable　impossibilities　to
  improbable　possibilities。　The　tragic　plot　must　not　be　composed　of
  irrational　parts。　Everything　irrational　should；　if　possible；　be
  excluded；　or；　at　all　events；　it　should　lie　outside　the　action　of　the
  play　（as；　in　the　Oedipus；　the　hero's　ignorance　as　to　the　manner　of
  Laius'　death）；　not　within　the　drama…　as　in　the　Electra；　the
  messenger's　account　of　the　Pythian　games；　or；　as　in　the　Mysians；　the
  man　who　has　come　from　Tegea　to　Mysia　and　is　still　speechless。　The　plea
  that　otherwise　the　plot　would　have　been　ruined；　is　ridiculous；　such
  a　plot　should　not　in　the　first　instance　be　constructed。　But　once　the
  irrational　has　been　introduced　and　an　air　of　likelihood　imparted　to
  it；　we　must　accept　it　in　spite　of　the　absurdity。　Take　even　the
  irrational　incidents　in　the　Odyssey；　where　Odysseus　is　left　upon　the
  shore　of　Ithaca。　How　intolerable　even　these　might　have　been　would　be
  apparent　if　an　inferior　poet　were　to　treat　the　subject。　As　it　is；
  the　absurdity　is　veiled　by　the　poetic　charm　with　which　the　poet
  invests　it。
  The　diction　should　be　elaborated　in　the　pauses　of　the　action；
  where　there　is　no　expression　of　character　or　thought。　For；　conversely；
  character　and　thought　are　merely　obscured　by　a　diction　that　is
  over…brilliant
  POETICS｜25
  XXV
  With　respect　to　critical　difficulties　and　their　solutions；　the
  number　and　nature　of　the　sources　from　which　they　may　be　drawn　may　be
  thus　exhibited。
  The　poet　being　an　imitator；　like　a　painter　or　any　other　artist；　must
  of　necessity　imitate　one　of　three　objects…　things　as　they　were　or　are；
  things　as　they　are　said　or　thought　to　be；　or　things　as　they　ought　to
  be。　The　vehicle　of　expression　is　language…　either　current　terms　or；　it
  may　be；　rare　words　or　metaphors。　There　are　also　many　modifications
  of　language；　which　we　concede　to　the　poets。　Add　to　this；　that　the
  standard　of　correctness　is　not　the　same　in　poetry　and　politics；　any
  more　than　in　poetry　and　any　other　art。　Within　the　art　of　poetry　itself
  there　are　two　kinds　of　faults…　those　which　touch　its　essence；　and
  those　which　are　accidental。　If　a　poet　has　chosen　to　imitate　something；
  ＇but　has　imitated　it　incorrectly＇　through　want　of　capacity；　the
  error　is　inherent　in　the　poetry。　But　if　the　failure　is　due　to　a
  wrong　choice…　if　he　has　represented　a　horse　as　throwing　out　both　his
  off　legs　at　once；　or　introduced　technical　inaccuracies　in　medicine；
  for　example；　or　in　any　other　art…　the　error　is　not　essential　to　the
  poetry。　These　are　the　points　of　view　from　which　we　should　consider　and
  answer　the　objections　raised　by　the　critics。
  First　as　to　matters　which　concern　the　poet's　own　art。　If　he
  describes　the　impossible；　he　is　guilty　of　an　error；　but　the　error
  may　be　justified；　if　the　end　of　the　art　be　thereby　attained　（the　end
  being　that　already　mentioned）…　if；　that　is；　the　effect　of　this　or
  any　other　part　of　the　poem　is　thus　rendered　more　striking。　A　case　in
  point　is　the　pursuit　of　Hector。　if；　however；　the　end　might　have　been
  as　well；　or　better；　attained　without　violating　the　special　rules　of
  the　poetic　art；　the　error　is　not　justified：　for　every　kind　of　error
  should；　if　possible；　be　avoided。
  Again；　does　the　error　touch　the　essentials　of　the　poetic　art；　or
  some　accident　of　it？　For　example；　not　to　know　that　a　hind　has　no　horns
  is　a　less　serious　matter　than　to　paint　it　inartistically。
  Further；　if　it　be　objected　that　the　description　is　not　true　to　fact；
  the　poet　may　perhaps　reply；　'But　the　objects　are　as　they　ought　to　be'；
  just　as　Sophocles　said　that　he　drew　men　as　they　ought　to　be；
  Euripides；　as　they　are。　In　this　way　the　objection　may　be　met。　If；
  however；　the　representation　be　of　neither　kind；　the　poet　may　answer；
  'This　is　how　men　say　the　thing　is。'　applies　to　tales　about　the　gods。
  It　may　well　be　that　these　stories　are　not　higher　than　fact　nor　yet
  true　to　fact：　they　are；　very　possibly；　what　Xenophanes　says　of　them。
  But　anyhow；　'this　is　what　is　said。'　Again；　a　description　may　be　no
  better　than　the　fact：　'Still；　it　was　the　fact'；　as　in　the　passage
  about　the　arms：　'Upright　upon　their　butt…ends　stood　the　spears。'
  This　was　the　custom　then；　as　it　now　is　among　the　Illyrians。
  Again；　in　examining　whether　what　has　been　said　or　done　　by　some
  one　is　poetically　right　or　not；　we　must　not　look　merely　to　the
  particular　act　or　saying；　and　ask　whether　it　is　poetically　good　or
  bad。　We　must　also　consider　by　whom　it　is　said　or　done；　to　whom；
  when；　by　what　means；　or　for　what　end；　whether；　for　instance；　it　be
  to　secure　a　greater　good；　or　avert　a　greater　evil。
  Other　difficulties　may　be　resolved　by　due　regard　to　the　usage　of
  language。　We　may　note　a　rare　word；　as　in　oureas　men　proton；　'the　mules
  first　＇he　killed＇；'　where　the　poet　perhaps　employs　oureas　not　in　the
  sense　of　mules；　but　of　sentinels。　So；　again；　of　Dolon：　'ill…favored
  indeed　he　was　to　look　upon。'　It　is　not　meant　that　his　body　was
  ill…shaped　but　that　his　face　was　ugly；　for　the　Cretans　use　the　word
  eueides；　'well…flavored'　to　denote　a　fair　face。　Again；　zoroteron　de
  keraie；　'mix　the　drink　livelier'　does　not　mean　'mix　it　stronger'　as
  for　hard　drinkers；　but　'mix　it　quicker。'
  Sometimes　an　expression　is　metaphorical；　as　'Now　all　gods　and　men
  were　sleeping　through　the　night；'　while　at　the　same　time　the　poet
  says：　'Often　indeed　as　he　turned　his　gaze　to　the　Trojan　plain；　he
  marveled　at　the　sound　of　flutes　and　pipes。'　'All'　is　here　used
  metaphorically　for　'many；'　all　being　a　species　of　many。　So　in　the
  verse；　'alone　she　hath　no　part。。。　；　oie；　'alone'　is　metaphorical；
  for　the　best　known　may　be　called　the　only　one。
  Again；　the　solution　may　depend　upon　accent　or　breathing。　Thus
  Hippias　of　Thasos　solved　the　difficulties　in　the　lines；　didomen
  （didomen）　de　hoi；　and　to　men　hou　（ou）　kataputhetai　ombro。
  Or　again；　the　question　may　be　solved　by　punctuation；　as　in
  Empedocles：　'Of　a　sudden　things　became　mortal　that　before　had　learnt
  to　be　immortal；　and　things　unmixed　before　mixed。'
  Or　again；　by　ambiguity　of　meaning；　as　parocheken　de　pleo　nux；
  where　the　word　pleo　is　ambiguous。
  Or　by　the　usage　of　language。　Thus　any　mixed　drink　is　called　oinos；
  'wine'。　Hence　Ganymede　is　said　'to　pour　the　wine　to　Zeus；'　though
  the　gods　do　not　drink　wine。　So　too　workers　in　iron　are　called
  chalkeas；　or　'workers　in　bronze。'　This；　however；　may　also　be　taken
  as　a　metaphor。
  Again；　when　a　word　seems　to　involve　some　inconsistency　of　meaning；
  we　should　consider　how　many　senses　it　may　bear　in　the　particular
  passage。　For　example：　'there　was　stayed　the　spear　of　bronze'…　we
  should　ask　in　how　many　ways　we　may　take　'being　checked　there。'　The
  true　mode　of　interpretation　is　the　precise　opposite　of　what　Glaucon
  mentions。　Critics；　he　says；　jump　at　certain　groundless　conclusions；
  they　pass　adverse　judgement　and　then　proceed　to　reason　on　it；　and；
  assuming　that　the　poet　has　said　whatever　they　happen　to　think；　find
  fault　if　a　thing　is　inconsistent　with　their　own　fancy。
  The　question　about　Icarius　has　been　treated　in　this　fashion。　T