Bs«ys on Aristotle's hefics ed. f.0. Rory Qrince ton (992) ppelee ~ + s Ethos and Dianoia Reconsidered Mary Whitlock Blundell ‘Alas, int shall [ Jo?” This question ceverbertes through the pages of tragedy. The action contemplatod i rarely a tivial ane, and usualy calls fr 9 serious moral choice with far-reaching concoquences forthe self and others. fn situations ofthis kind, a éecision to act is seldom reached without extensive deliberation or debate, The prominence of such purpose choice and action in the drama doubtless influenced Aristotle's defhition of tragedy as an “imitation of action (praxis) (Posies 1449624). Aristottian prasi I not just my so of ction, but the kind of purposeflly choscn deed that it o offen central to tregedy.' The moral and Intellectual gualtes that give rise to such action ate aspects of a person's thos and dizia, “charaxter" and “intellect.” and as nich fall within the purview of Acsttl's Fils. Bat éthes and dinoia also form two of the essentiat “parts” of tragedy. following only plot in significance. Tele presence and importance feiow drezly from the definition of tragedy as the ititation of exis For an adequate represectation of praxis must include the characteristics that give rise to such action ~ the tragic actors mist “incivde characters on account ofthe actions” (1450a21~22), The necessity for denmatic ios and dienoia is accoréingly derived fom the nature of human aetion a8 such (144ga1-4, 1449036-38). The inereelation betwoen és, dianola and praxis to the Poetics can oly be understood against the background ofthe Hic. Tragedy, however. is ol jot the imitation of action, but the inital af actlon, using speech a its most prominent medium (the others are rhythn and melody) (1447021-22. 1447624-27). The poet must not only know what 9 good or bad person is ike but be able to portray this nersuasively. employing the resources of language to reveal (whether explicit or by inference) the presumed personal qualities of the agent. We may therefore expect Aristotle's Rhetoric, as well as his ethical writings. to iluminate his theory of tragedy! Indeed. if we are to sacceed in 155156 MW. iundll ‘elucidating the relationssip between ~ragie ithas and diaroia, we have litle choice but to turn to these other works for help. since the Portis itself offers ietually no guidance.’ The interconnection between these three areas of AAdstotle’ thought Is confrmed by tae way he treats tragic characters as lndlstinguishoble a important respects rom living people. Inthe Pacts he often speaks of dramatic Fgures as if they were real persons. who must have appeo- priate qualities of character and intellec:in order to undertake purposeful action. Conversely to the ethical and rhotorcal works he regularly illustrates is argument with characters from literature, especially epic and trogey In the Momachean Ethics (NE), the distinction Betieen éthes and dlanoia is central to Aristotle's theory and plays a structural role nis elaboration. At the fend of Book I, human excellence is divided between the excollences cf character {ouch as courage and self-control) and those of intellect (such as wisdom and cleverness) and the bulk of the work isarganized around tis dichotomy.’ thos in thie sense is said to belong to the irrational part of the soul. whose only Participation in ntllet is passive abiy to heed the commands areas. But complete excslence of character aso turns out to involve the intellectual excel lence of practical wisdom (phranéss).” Phronésis guides the process of detibera- tion (1141812), and hence plays an essential role in purposeful choice (pro- hairess) which in turn is the moving cause of praxis (1139a31~32) Prohairesis requires both dunate and aos (in the narrow sense) (1139433-35). and is involved In the definition of excellence of éthos (1106036, 1139a22-23). tis prohatress sat makes us "of acetain knd” (11 12a1~2). and by proiresis that ‘we judge a person's fos (11115-6)" Correct prafalesis and complete (as opposed to “natural excellence of Fins require the cooperation of presi with excellence of dos (inthe narrow sense}. So in addition to the narrow usage most characteristic ofthe Edics. there i a broader sense of thas which lnvoives the intellectual excellence of phronéls, Theoretical wisdom. the other rain branch of intellectual excellence, plays no part in deliberation and choice and hence isnot associated with hes "To these two conceptions of ether in the Buhiés we may add a third, Athos and related words are used not only forthe fall developed excellences of character land thelr opposites, but also more loosely fora variety of related states and capacities.” These include the uodeveloped character of tho. young (NE 1179b7-10, 29-31: ef. Ewlemien Ldies (BE) 1236040), and the irationat “natural exceliences which are presen: om birth and may be found in chikiren and even animals (NE 1144b4-17), ln mature adults, ios may be used in connection with such conditions as self-control (or its absence) (NF 1145a16— 17), and a sense of shame (BE 1233616-18, 22-25), neither of which issticly speaking an excellence (NE 112810-11. 1145835-b2). This breadth is in lezping with ordinary usage, whereby thus ean cover a wide range of personal ‘walt, Including intllecval ones." The fluctuations in Aristotle's own sage depend on the purpose at hand. The Fis is Geely concerned withthe nate of “complete” excellence of characte. bat employs the sharper dichotomy Fahos end Dianoia Recmifered 157 between éthos and dianoa for the central task ofanalyzing its varlous psychotogi= cal components (cf. e.g. NE 1144a7-9, 20-22), while the broader and more casual sense of étas Is convenient when Aristotle's specialized distinctions are notin play. ‘With this background in mind, we may turn to the Postcs. Ethos is tatroduced at the beginning of Chapter 2, where Aristotle explains that the different Zhe which give rise to action may be distinguished by their areté and kaka (excellence ‘and vice) (1448914). The evaluative languagehore is indeterminate, and could extend to human excellence in the broadest sense (including all excellences of character and intellect). But the association of éthos with excellence and vice recalls the exeelience of character ofthe Ethics." The reference is presumably to “complete” excellence, since there is no obvious sign of the nacrower dichotomy between éthos and dianoia." Note, however. that the wording ako allows for degrees of aeté and kia which fall sort ofthe fully developed exceliences and vices.” Aristotle thus leaves space so necessary in tragedy for moral imperlec- tion, Indeed perfect virtue is neither necessary nor desirable in tragle ehrac a ‘This interpretation accords with Aristotle's detailed recommendations for dramatic éthos (1454316~36). First he requires rthos to be good of its kind (chréstos). Chréstos is a general word, amd does not raise the issue of character as opposed to intellect. But this requirement does implicitly embrace at least one intellectual virtue, namely practical wisdom. For it is the representation of purposeful choice (profairesis) which determines both the presence and the uality of éthosin a drama (1454a1 7-19; ef, 1450810), and as we have seen hiroutsis is indispensable to prohairesis. Moreover, when speaking of goodness according to kind. the “kinds” Aristotle mentions are women and slaves. who swe wood tn a diferent way trom men, because of their generic inferiority (1454a19-22). ut in both cases this infericty is one of Intellect (Politics 12602233), So in this way too. the passage indicates the relevance to dramvatic {has of atleast some intellectual qualities, t azo confirms that éramatle aos is not confined to the developed excellences and vices, but includes related or ‘analogous conditions. For intellectual deficiency removes the capacity for full prokziresis (ct NE 111188-9), making women and slaves ineapable of complete excellence of character (Politics 1260a2~33; cf. 1277b18-25, Rhetoric 1367a16-18), ‘The second requirement for dramatic éthos is appropriateness to type. A ‘woman, says Aristotle. should not be Inapprcpristely courageous or clever (ins) (1454a23~24), By citing a quality of ntellect alongside one of character. hae evokes the dichotomy of the Ethics (cf also 1456221-23)."" But as we would expect from the broader usage ofthe this, the intellectual attribute in question. is one that pertains to action. Cleverness (deinotd) isa close relative of rerantsis ~ itis practical intelligence without virtue to eude its ends (ME 1144a23-b1} To exemplify excessive female cleverness, Arstotle adduces the speech of Melanippe in Euripides’ Melanippe the Wise (1454031). The fact thet this speech eeeare almed at action ~ she isplay his learning, but in an attempt to convince Pentheus of the error of his ways (266-327). ‘The use of such discourse may also have signlicont iim er's practical choices in a more general sense. Dispositions af int ofa certain Kind in fe (cf. Rietrle Intellectual arguments fort persons. As Aristotle says because they have no profiaires 14508 10-1). Butassoon as such argument and the goals of a human ‘Dramatic éthos thus corresponds roughly to the broadest sense of personal in the Bthles. with the addition of theoretical w' may to choice and action. The sharp dichotomy Between evidence. This s wo works. The springs of hui (The same concer is betrayed by @ parent | thought by most recent editors to have ‘been added as an explanatory gloss composed with an eye to the Ethics. action, and determining the best kind o fs also concerned with action, but In a different way. The nature of human excellence. as scrutinized in the Ethics, is now presupgosed os part of the backgrou ysis of drama as a a. With the shift of focus from humen nature to its representation. the di hhetween character and intellect within each agent recedes before Used roadet set of human characters Henge af repees cough language and stage act therefore only to be expected the Poetics should denote character in the more general sense that usage. rmed by the one striking counterexample to un inclusive ion ofthe six ind dianoia are introduced in parallel, as the Features ‘person of action as being “of a certain kind” Rhos and Dianoia Reconsieed (1449437-38) the tngunge here cer rca the pe Ethics. But just a fes bua task of representing pet would expect from the attributes of| Acistotle is tive?” Arist ascribes to I. rom an shia! to a tetoieal pee of the pra : aspects of the “pe sions concerning lo Th tn at es gens ge spe hat fe choma mus hve to eres ar. Dl at lalate parse ron When he dramatist tent fem analging the deeaioans of pore ‘attempting to shox sont ing to credace a conning recensione prs a external point of 7 he bystander observer someone ae ane acting but anni weigh the trl dt mina ether decion or acon The quston becomes te more gee ne a how est represent the ki of person whe mould seas vey