THE PLOT WITHIN: ΜΈΓΕΘΟΣ AND ΜῆΚΟΣ

IN ARISTOTLE’S POETICS

Loren D. Marsh


Abstract. There are two related problems in the Poetics: Aristotle’s contradictory
statements about size, and Aristotle’s confusing use of two terms for size, μέγεθος
and μῆκος. I argue that both problems can be solved if we understand that Ar-
istotle only uses μέγεθος to refer to the size of the plot in relation to the size of
the larger whole, and μῆκος to refer to absolute size (number of lines, run-time,
fictional time, or number of plot parts), unrelated to any larger whole.

1. INTRODUCTION

Size is essential to Aristotle’s aesthetic theory.1 In the

Politics, beauty is said to lie in size and number (1326a33), and in the
Metaphysics, a limitation in terms of size is one of the three forms of
beauty (1078a36). In the Poetics, Aristotle cites size as one of only two
criteria of beauty (1450b36). Further, tragedy is defined in the Poetics as
an imitation of an action that has a certain size (1449b24), and one of the
crucial differences between tragedy and epic is size (1449b12).
Yet commentators trying to make sense of Aristotle’s various state-
ments about size in the Poetics have without exception found them con-
tradictory.2 There is no way, for example, that Aristotle can claim bigger
is always better (1451a10–11), they say, and then later praise tragedy for
being shorter than epic (1462a18–b3) without being inconsistent. What
does Aristotle mean by “size” when referring to a narrative work in the
Poetics anyway? Does he mean the length of the work in terms of lines?
Or the time a recitation, reading, or performance of the work takes?
Or the length of fictional time covered in the story? Or the extent of
the plot? Or the amount of plot parts? The open question of how size
is defined in the Poetics means we have only an incomplete and at best

1
 See, e.g., Butcher 1902, 276–77; Else 1957, 207, 289; Ross 1995, 178.
2
 For a detailed summary of the contradictions found, see Lucas 1968 on 1449b12–16,
93; Heath 1989, 43–44; Belfiore 2001, 25–27.

American Journal of Philology 136 (2015) 577–606 © 2015 by Johns Hopkins University Press
578 LOREN D. MARSH

highly paradoxical understanding of Aristotle’s views on one of the most

important elements of his theory of poetry.
The problem is aggravated by Aristotle’s choice of vocabulary. He
uses two words for size in the Poetics: μέγεθος or “magnitude” and μῆκος
or “length.” When applied to a narrative work, neither word is precise.3
Nor does Aristotle’s use of the two words in the text reveal an obvious
distinction between them. As a result, many scholars have concluded
μέγεθος and μῆκος are used interchangeably4 in the Poetics.
Other commentators argue that μέγεθος in some passages conveys
an additional sense of “grandeur.” This view is controversial,5 but even if
it is accepted, the scholars who believe μέγεθος can sometimes indicate
grandeur in the Poetics only argue that the sense is a connotation. This
means that even for these scholars, μέγεθος still refers to size as well,
and if μέγεθος still refers to size, then the contradictions in Aristotle’s
statements about size remain.
But there is another way in which Aristotle’s use of the word μέγεθος
differs. When discussing poetry, Aristotle only applies μέγεθος to the plot
or its parts, never to the entire work such as the tragedy or epic.6 Scholars
have been surprisingly careless with making this distinction when analyz-
ing Aristotle’s statements about size. The confusion began as far back as
Vahlen in the nineteenth century and has continued virtually unnoticed
since then. For example, Vahlen glosses Aristotle’s statement at 1451a5
concerning the maximum size of the μῦθος with the words “die Tragödie
(oder ihr μῦθος),”7 explicitly confounding poem and plot. More recently,
Else comments on 1451a11–15 that “the length of the action . . . is the
length of the play,” and “we can read off the length of the action from the
length of the poem: from that point of view, they are interchangeable.”8
This casualness with the distinction between plot and poem reveals a

3
 For an investigation of the inconsistent use of everyday words as terminology in
the Poetics, see Köhnken 1990, 129–49. Unfortunately, the terms for size are not discussed.
4
 E.g., Bignami 1932, 199, n. 1; Janko 1987 on 1451a5, 89; Belfiore 2001, 26.
5
 For a good summary of the arguments for and especially against the connotation
of “grandeur,” see Belfiore 2001, 26 and n. 7.
6
 The following is a complete list of all the passages where μέγεθος occurs in the
Poetics: 1449a19, 1449b25, 1450b26, 1450b36–37, 1451a4, 1451a11–15, 1456a14, 1456b1,
1459a34, 1459b23, 1462b10. These passages will be discussed in detail below, but the only
clear exceptions to the rule that μέγεθος applies exclusively to plot or its parts occur in
1450b36–37 and 1451a4, where the subject is bodies or animals, and 1456b1, where the
subject is stylistic elevation in diction.
7
 Vahlen 1865, 27.
8
 Else 1957, 294. Else first correctly identifies the action with the plot on p. 291.
 THE PLOT WITHIN 579

general assumption among commentators that no part of a play or epic

could be without plot, that the two are commensurate in this respect.
Yet there have been critics past and present who disagreed with that
assumption. Heath has shown that the dominant view in sixteenth-century
scholarship drew a distinction between “the structure of the plot and the
structure of the text in which that plot is realised. It was not thought that
the text ought to be restricted to the realisation of its unified plot; on the
contrary, it was thought to be an advantage if a narrative or dramatic text
is ‘amplified’ or ‘dilated’ by the insertion of extraneous material.”9 Heath
himself has argued that Aristotle thought “a tragedy may be essentially
without being solely the exposition of its praxis,”10 and that the action and
the plot are “abstractions from the dramatic text in which they are real-
ized.”11 This means that Aristotle is not saying that “a play must contain
only the dramatisation of such a plot.”12 In addition, as will be discussed
in more detail below, it is generally accepted that Aristotle viewed the
narrative work as containing both what he calls episodes and the plot
proper, suggesting again that the plot is not everywhere in the work.
But even those critics who recognize that the text may not be entirely
plot have not fully considered whether what Aristotle calls μῦθος may be
entirely within the text. There is still an assumption that Aristotle cannot
reasonably have thought that the text contains the entire plot, even if it
is accepted that the part of the plot in the text could be smaller than the
whole text. Here, the passages in the Poetics where Aristotle refers to
elements outside the play, drama, or plot are presented as proof that the
plot extends beyond the text. But careful examination of those passages
below will show that in fact Aristotle never explicitly says any element of
the plot lies outside the text. On the other hand, he does explicitly refer to
things in the text that are not part of the plot. It is therefore possible that
Aristotle made an entirely different assumption—that what he calls plot
must be smaller than the narrative work and entirely contained within it.
If that were the case, he would need two words to describe size: one word
to refer to the size of the plot in relation to the size of the larger whole,
and one word to refer to absolute size unrelated to any larger whole. I
will argue here that this is precisely the distinction between μέγεθος and
μῆκος in the Poetics.

9
 Heath 2003, 225.
10 
Heath 1989, 46.
11 
Heath 1989, 39.
12
 Heath 1987, 52.
580 LOREN D. MARSH

2. STARTING AFTER THE BEGINNING,

FINISHING BEFORE THE END

If the entire plot is contained in the text, then it follows that there must
be no plot outside the narrative work and that the plot must either start
after the work begins, finish before it ends, or both.13 I will first discuss
the evidence in the Poetics that the plot can start after the beginning and
that it can finish before the end. Then I will discuss the passages where
Aristotle describes elements outside the narrative work to determine if
they must be part of the plot too, meaning the plot can start or end before
or after the beginning or ending of the narrative work.
This idea is not as exotic as it may sound at first. Halliwell has
already recognized that the entire plot as described by Aristotle could be
contained in the narrative work: “it is possible to argue that the dramatic
framework of beginning-middle-end can be superimposed on the particu-
lar sequence of events which falls wholly within the play, even if these
have important antecedents.”14 But he rejects this possibility because he
believes that there is no way to determine what is in the play or not, and
that everything referred to within the play must in some sense be within
it.15 That may be true for some narrative theories, but Halliwell presents
no evidence that it is true by Aristotle’s definition of plot, except to state
efforts to distinguish “his use of the phrase ‘outside the play’ from ‘outside
the plot’ are not convincing.” I will return to this point below, but for now
it is enough to point out that even Halliwell’s own argument allows that
the Poetics at the very least leaves open the possibility that the entire
plot falls within the play and is possibly smaller in size.
Halliwell also concludes that viewing the plot as starting at the
beginning of the play does not defy logic or contradict Aristotle’s earlier
definition of a beginning (1450b27) as something without a necessary
connection to a preceding event: “the definition of a dramatic ‘beginning’
need not in fact rule out a prior set of events, but it stipulates that the
opening of a play should not compel us to look backwards in the myth
for a proper understanding of it.” Here, Halliwell makes the typical slide
from plot to play, apparently ignoring that Aristotle’s definition of a
dramatic beginning applied to the opening of the plot, not the “opening

13 
Another possibility is that it starts and ends where the narrative work does, but
parts of the narrative work in between lack plot. However, Aristotle does not directly refer
to plots of this sort, so I omit them here.
14 
Halliwell 1987, 149.
15
 Halliwell 1987, 150–51.
 THE PLOT WITHIN 581

of the play.” Still, the idea of a dramatic beginning with prior events that
do not themselves extend the plot backwards is useful for understanding
how Aristotle could place the beginning of the plot late in the narrative
work without violating his own definition.
Aristotle’s descriptions of specific plot beginnings also give impor-
tant indications that for him the plot in the narrative work may start after
the narrative work itself, and in some cases even closer to the middle
of it. For example, at 1455b17–23, Aristotle outlines the λόγος, which is
equivalent to the plot,16 of the Odyssey, describing it as “not long.” In
fact the λόγος appears to cover only a portion of the poem, and “the
rest is episodes” (τὰ δ᾽ ἄλλα ἐπεισόδια). Else’s analysis of the passage
concludes that “for Aristotle, the action of the Odyssey begins essentially
with Book 13.”17 In addition, at 1459b20–22, Aristotle says the length of
an epic composition would be the appropriate size if it corresponded to
the number of tragedies heard in one sitting, apparently meaning the
three commonly performed in one day. Unconvinced Aristotle meant
the length of an epic poem should be so short, Gudeman calculated the
approximate number of lines covered by Aristotle’s λόγος of the Odys-
sey and determined they were about equal to the total number of lines
in a trilogy and, therefore, that Aristotle must mean the plot of the epic
should be this length.18 As I will discuss further below, Gudeman ignores
both the possibility that Aristotle is referring to the length of the plot
of three tragedies, not the length of the tragedies themselves and, in a
more grave oversight, that Aristotle describes this recommended plot
size as smaller than the plots found in the older poets (τῶν μὲν ἀρχαίων
ἐλάττους), apparently meaning Homer and, therefore, a poem like the
Odyssey. Nevertheless, Gudeman’s general approach provides a more
plausible interpretation of the passage. It also confirms that Aristotle
believes the Odyssey’s plot starts after the beginning of the epic and that
it is significantly smaller than the entire poem.
Another example of a plot beginning within the narrative work
appears in the passage previous to the one just discussed at 1455b2–15,
where Aristotle summarizes and discusses the λόγος and what is outside
of the plot (ἔξω τοῦ μύθου) of Euripides’ Iphigenia in Tauris. Aristotle
specifically describes Orestes’ madness and his being sent by Apollo as
episodes or outside the plot. This seems to suggest that the plot of this
play begins around line 466 when Iphigenia first meets Orestes, since

16 
See Vahlen 1865, 34; Gudeman 1934 on 1455a34, 309; Janko 1987, 118.
17
 Else 1957, 513.
18 
Gudeman 1934, on 1459b21, 402.
582 LOREN D. MARSH

before that point in the play there are no other events besides Orestes’
arrival and his fit of madness. This is still closer to the beginning of the
play than the middle, as with the Odyssey, but it seems to illustrate how
for Aristotle a plot may begin significantly later than the narrative work
on stage as well.
Turning to endings, in the same passage at 1455b2–15, Aristotle
describes how the plot of Iphigenia in Tauris concludes. Surprisingly the
ending from the “salvation,” approximately the last third of the play, is
described as “episodes” and outside of the plot: τὰ ἐπεισόδια, οἷον ἐν τῷ
Ὀρέστῃ . . . ἡ σωτηρία διὰ τῆς καθάρσεως (“The episodes . . . in the case of
Orestes . . . the escape by means of the purification”).19 This means that
the plot for Aristotle includes the recognition and reversal in this play
but ends almost immediately afterwards. As unusual as it may seem to us
that the plot ends before the actual escape of the main characters from
danger, commentators on the passage have repeatedly confirmed that this
is Aristotle’s view. For example, Else writes that “the last third of the play
(995–1496) does not belong to the λόγος proper any more than Orestes’
Sendung by Apollo belongs to it.” He goes on that “we must conclude that
in Aristotle’s eyes the play proper is over at about line 1000.”20 Belfiore’s
study of Aristotle’s account of the play observes that “according to Aris-
totle, then, most of the entire last section of Euripides’ play (873 to the
end) is episode rather than part of the plot.”21 So this passage indicates
that Aristotle believes it is normal that the plot ends before the end of
the play, even when the last part of the play contains what we might call
important plot material (an intrigue, a salvation, and so on).
The same is illustrated by the passage summarizing the Odyssey’s
plot at 1455b17–23. Here we find that summary does not include the last
two books of the epic, ending once Odysseus reclaims his home: ἐσώθη
τοὺς δ᾽ ἐχθροὺς διέφθειρε (“He survives and destroys his enemies”). Else
again concludes, “for Aristotle the λόγος ends with book 22, the slaying
of the suitors.”22 This is less surprising, because after this point in the epic
there are few of what we would call major events. But it still indicates
that the narrative work continues well after the end of the plot, here for
a full two books.
But in the plot summary of the Iphigenia at 1455b2–7, Aristotle also
includes events that precede the action of the play entirely: τυθείσης τινὸς

19
 All translations of the Poetics are from Heath 1996.
20
 Else 1957, 511.
21 
Belfiore 1992, 373.
22 
Else 1957, 512–13, n. 85.
 THE PLOT WITHIN 583

κόρης καὶ ἀφανισθείσης ἀδήλως τοῖς θύσασιν, ἱδρυνθείσης δὲ εἰς ἄλλην χώραν,
ἐν ᾗ νόμος ἦν τοὺς ξένους θύειν τῇ θεῷ, ταύτην ἔσχε τὴν ἱερωσύνην (“A girl
has been sacrificed and has disappeared without those who performed
the sacrifice being aware of it. Set down in in another country, where
it was the custom to sacrifice foreigners to the goddess, she becomes
the priestess of this rite”). And in the plot summary of the Odyssey, at
1455b17–21, he includes circumstances that are not directly narrated in
the epic itself: ἀποδημοῦντός τινος ἔτη πολλὰ καὶ παραφυλαττομένου ὑπὸ
τοῦ Ποσειδῶνος καὶ μόνου ὄντος, ἔτι δὲ τῶν οἴκοι οὕτως ἐχόντων ὥστε τὰ
χρήματα ὑπὸ μνηστήρων ἀναλίσκεσθαι καὶ τὸν υἱὸν ἐπιβουλεύεσθαι, αὐτὸς
δὲ ἀφικνεῖται χειμασθείς (“A man has been away from home for many
years; he is kept under close observation by Poseidon, and is alone; at
home affairs are in such a state that his property is being squandered
by the suitors, and plots are being laid against his son. Despite being
shipwrecked he reaches home”). These are elements that are outside the
narrative work, but are they still in the plot? If so, it means the plot is
not necessarily smaller than the whole narrative work, even if the plot
material within the narrative work starts after the beginning or finishes
before the end. In fact, if the plot includes all the antecedents to the story,
there is no real way to talk about the relationship of its size to that of
the narrative work. That would mean everything referred to in the play
in any way is potentially part of the plot. Not only would it be hard to
judge the size of these elements outside the play, it would be difficult to
determine which of them actually belong to the plot proper. It would be
somewhat surprising that Aristotle even discusses the size of the plot if
it is so loosely defined.
This is why Halliwell’s notion of “important antecedents” outside
the plot itself is so attractive. The antecedent elements that Aristotle
includes in the play’s plot description belong to what I would term its
premise. In the case of the Iphigenia, Aristotle defines the premise as the
sacrifice of Iphigenia, her disappearance, her arrival in Tauris, and the
details of her priesthood. But the plot begins only once Orestes meets
Iphigenia. In the Odyssey, it includes the circumstances and repercussions
of Odysseus’ absence, but the plot essentially begins with his arrival in
Ithaca. It is impossible to summarize these plots without describing their
premises (as is quite possibly the case for any plot). Aristotle, therefore,
has to include them in his summary, but that does not necessarily mean he
intends them to be understood as part of the plot proper. Yet if it is true
they are not part of the plot, we would expect him to somehow indicate
what is premise and what is plot. And in fact his choice of phrasing in
both summaries does clearly demarcate the premises from the plots. In
584 LOREN D. MARSH

both cases, the elements I identified as premises are formulated as geni-

tive absolutes or as participles. The parts that I identified as plot are in
the finite part of the sentence. Else has also noted this, commenting that
“in each case the ‘prologue’ details are given mainly in genitive absolutes;
the finite verbs . . . are reserved for the action proper.”23
The idea of important antecedents is in fact one that Aristotle him-
self develops in the Poetics in his discussion of elements that are outside
the plot or narrative work. Antecedents are directly referred to in his
description of the complication and resolution of plots (1455b24–32):
Ἔστι δὲ πάσης τραγῳδίας τὸ μὲν δέσις τὸ δὲ λύσις, τὰ μὲν ἔξωθεν καὶ ἔνια
τῶν ἔσωθεν πολλάκις ἡ δέσις, τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν ἡ λύσις· λέγω δὲ δέσιν μὲν εἶναι
τὴν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς μέχρι τούτου τοῦ μέρους ὃ ἔσχατόν ἐστιν ἐξ οὗ μεταβαίνει εἰς
εὐτυχίαν ἢ εἰς ἀτυχίαν, λύσιν δὲ τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς ἀρχῆς τῆς μεταβάσεως μέχρι
τέλους· ὥσπερ ἐν τῷ Λυγκεῖ τῷ Θεοδέκτου δέσις μὲν τά τε προπεπραγμένα
καὶ ἡ τοῦ παιδίου λῆψις καὶ πάλιν ἡ αὐτῶν <λύσις> δ᾽ ἡ ἀπὸ τῆς αἰτιάσεως τοῦ
θανάτου μέχρι τοῦ τέλους (“Every tragedy consists of a complication and
a resolution. What is outside the play, and often some of what is inside,
comprises the complication; the resolution is the rest. By complication
I mean everything from the beginning up to and including the section
which immediately precedes the change to good fortune or bad fortune;
by resolution I mean everything from the beginning of the change of
fortune to the end. Thus in Theodectes’ Lynceus the complication consists
of events before the play, the seizure of the child and the disclosure of
the parents; the resolution is everything from the capital charge to the
end”). The προπεπραγμένα are the events of the premise that Halliwell
calls antecedents, and here Aristotle is simply pointing out that many of
them are outside, probably meaning outside the tragedy since it was just
referred to.24 Yet these antecedents outside the play as they are described
here could still be within the plot.
Then in another instance where he is discussing the types of actions
that elicit pity and fear, Aristotle gives a specific example of an antecedent
event (1453b29–34): ἔστιν δὲ πρᾶξαι μέν, ἀγνοοῦντας δὲ πρᾶξαι τὸ δεινόν, εἶθ᾽
ὕστερον ἀναγνωρίσαι τὴν φιλίαν, ὥσπερ ὁ Σοφοκλέους Οἰδίπους· τοῦτο μὲν οὖν
ἔξω τοῦ δράματος, ἐν δ᾽ αὐτῇ τῇ τραγῳδίᾳ οἷον ὁ Ἀλκμέων ὁ Ἀστυδάμαντος ἢ
ὁ Τηλέγονος ὁ ἐν τῷ τραυματίᾳ Ὀδυσσεῖ (“It is also possible for the action
to be performed, but for the agents to do the terrible deed in ignorance

Else 1957, 513, n. 86

23 

The passage also states that usually some of these antecedents are in the tragedy,
24 

but there is still a possibility even these events in the tragedy are not in the plot if it is
accepted that the tragedy is not necessarily all plot.
 THE PLOT WITHIN 585

and only then to recognize the close connection, as in Sophocles’ Oedipus.

This is outside the play: examples in the tragedy itself are Astydamas’
Alcmeon or Telegonus in the Odysseus Wounded”). The antecedent event
referred to here is Oedipus’ murder of his father Laius. But again in this
passage, the event is only said to be outside the drama (ἔξω τοῦ δράματος),
not outside the plot, and it is uncertain whether the word for drama
refers to the plot or to the play. The same is true of a second mention
of the murder of Laius in Aristotle’s discussion of the use of the deus ex
machina and the irrational at 1454a37–b8: Φανερὸν οὖν ὅτι καὶ τὰς λύσεις
τῶν μύθων ἐξ αὐτοῦ δεῖ τοῦ μύθου συμβαίνειν, καὶ μὴ ὥσπερ ἐν τῇ Μηδείᾳ ἀπὸ
μηχανῆς καὶ ἐν τῇ Ἰλιάδι τὰ περὶ τὸν ἀπόπλουν. Ἀλλὰ μηχανῇ χρηστέον ἐπὶ τὰ
ἔξω τοῦ δράματος, ἢ ὅσα πρὸ τοῦ γέγονεν ἃ οὐχ οἷόν τε ἄνθρωπον εἰδέναι, ἢ
ὅσα ὕστερον, ἃ δεῖται προαγορεύσεως καὶ ἀγγελίας· ἅπαντα γὰρ ἀποδίδομεν
τοῖς θεοῖς ὁρᾶν. Ἄλογον δὲ μηδὲν εἶναι ἐν τοῖς πράγμασιν, εἰ δὲ μή, ἔξω τῆς
τραγῳδίας, οἷον τὸ ἐν τῷ Οἰδίποδι τῷ Σοφοκλέους (“Clearly, therefore, the
resolutions of plots should also come about from the plot itself, and not
by means of a theatrical device, as in the Medea, or the events concerned
with the launching of the ships in the lliad. A theatrical device may be
used for things outside the play—whether prior events which are beyond
human knowledge, or subsequent events which need prediction and
narration—since we grant that the gods can see everything. But there
should be nothing irrational in the events themselves; or, failing that, it
should be outside the play, as for example in Sophocles’ Oedipus”). The
deus ex machina should only be employed for things outside the drama
(before or after), Aristotle says, adding that in general nothing irrational
should be in the events unless those events are outside the play (ἔξω τῆς
τραγῳδίας), referring to Oedipus’ ignorance of how Laius has died and
therefore again to Laius’ murder. This only confirms that the murder of
Laius is outside the play, as was indicated by the first passage discussed
above concerning the complication and resolution of plots, still leaving
open its relationship to the plot proper.
But in a last passage about the irrational at 1460a27–32, Aristotle
decisively indicates that the murder of Laius is not only outside the play
but also outside the plot: τούς τε λόγους μὴ συνίστασθαι ἐκ μερῶν ἀλόγων,
ἀλλὰ μάλιστα μὲν μηδὲν ἔχειν ἄλογον, εἰ δὲ μή, ἔξω τοῦ μυθεύματος, ὥσπερ
Οἰδίπους τὸ μὴ εἰδέναι πῶς ὁ Λάιος ἀπέθανεν, ἀλλὰ μὴ ἐν τῷ δράματι, ὥσπερ
ἐν Ἠλέκτρᾳ οἱ τὰ Πύθια ἀπαγγέλλοντες ἢ ἐν Μυσοῖς ὁ ἄφωνος ἐκ Τεγέας
εἰς τὴν Μυσίαν ἥκων (“Stories should not be constructed from irrational
parts; so far as possible they should contain nothing irrational—or, fail-
ing that, it should be outside the narration, like Oedipus’ ignorance of
the manner of Laius’ death, and not in the play itself, like the report of
586 LOREN D. MARSH

the Pythian Games in the Electra, or the man who comes from Tegea to
Mysia without speaking in the Mysians”). Here, Aristotle first establishes
that there should be nothing irrational in the parts of plots (λόγους). He
continues that it is even better if there is nothing irrational in the play’s
events in general. But if there must be something irrational in the play’s
events, he emphasizes that those events must be outside the plot (ἔξω
τοῦ μυθεύματος)25 and then once again refers to the murder of Laius as
one of these events.26
So it seems that Aristotle never explicitly states that anything out-
side the narrative work is within the plot. But he does clarify that his
favorite example of something outside the drama or tragedy, the murder
of Laius, is also outside the plot. I would argue this is because Aristotle
assumes that everything in the plot must be within the narrative work,
and all events that come after it or precede it are outside the plot. Roberts
has also carefully studied all the passages where anything “outside” is
referred to in the Poetics and came to almost the same conclusion, with
one crucial difference. Roberts believes that virtually all of these passages
describe elements outside the play as performed, arguing that “drama”
for Aristotle is always equivalent to “tragedy,” relying on the question-
able claim that ἔξω τοῦ μυθεύματος also means outside the narrative work
as performed. The only exception is the passage summarizing the plot
of the Iphigenia, because there Aristotle “appears to include in the plot
Iphigenia’s past history.”27 Although for Roberts there are no other clear
indications in the Poetics that the plot can include events outside the play,
she still concludes from this single passage that “muthos must be then
distinct from (and more inclusive than) drama.” But as I pointed out
above, Iphigenia’s past history may be formulated in the genitive absolute
because it is part of the premise, not the plot. So if the Iphigenia passage
is the only indication that Aristotle believes plot events can be outside

According to Lucas 1968 on 1460a29, 230, this word, which only appears once in
25 

the Poetics, is “not to be distinguished from μύθου.” Janko 1987, 144, speculates it may mean
“plot-structure” but accepts it may also be “a synonym for plot (muthos).”
The last clause referring to such events in the Electra and the lost Mysians raises
26 

the interesting possibility that Aristotle here is drawing a distinction between events outside
the plot that are inside the play, and events that are both outside the plot and outside the
play. I cannot explore this question in detail here, but closer examination of this and the
other passages discussed above could in fact reveal that Aristotle is always differentiating
between these two types of events outside the plot by alternating his use of the terms for
drama and for tragedy. His point may be that there are different rules for events in the plot,
events outside the plot but in the play, and events outside the plot that are outside the play.
27 
Roberts 1992, 136.
 THE PLOT WITHIN 587

the narrative work, it provides at best debatable evidence that this is his
view. In addition, her argument would be severely weakened if, as many
commentators agree it could, ἔξω τοῦ μυθεύματος means outside the plot,
because then that passage strongly suggests that the προπεπραγμένα are
not just outside the play as performed, but also outside the plot.
In conclusion, I have found no convincing evidence that Aristotle
believes the plot extends beyond the narrative work. Instead, the evidence
suggests his repeated references to important antecedents are always
references to events outside the plot. I therefore believe that Aristotle
views all events outside the narrative work as outside the plot. This view
is corroborated by the other references in the text to plots beginning
after the narrative work opens, and ending before it closes. But of course
these are not the only reasons I believe the μῦθος is always smaller than
the narrative work. The primary reason is the topic of this paper: that
Aristotle’s use of μῆκος and μέγεθος in the Poetics seems to indicate he
clearly distinguishes between the size of the narrative work and the size
of the plot entirely contained within it.

3. ΜΈΓΕΘΟΣ FOR RELATIVE SIZE,

ΜῆΚΟΣ FOR ABSOLUTE SIZE

Despite the consensus that these two terms are used “interchangeably”
in the Poetics, commentators have identified some areas where they can
draw a distinction between them. For example, how episodes are described
in the Poetics has led scholars to conclude that in those passages, μέγεθος
refers to the size of the plot in relation to the whole. Paraphrasing Aris-
totle’s discussion of Homer’s gift in constructing plots at 1459a30–37,
Vahlen writes “es muss der Umfang (μέγεθος) des Sujets in dem richti-
gen ­Verhältniss zu dem zulässigen Umfang des Gedichtes stehen” (my
emphasis), adding Homer dealt with the relatively low proportion of plot
to poem in an epic by “expanding” (the apparent meaning of the unusual
word “erbreitet” Vahlen uses here) the episodes.28 On Aristotle’s statement
that a tragedy cannot contain all the material from an epic at 1456a10–15,
Else writes that “τὸ πρέπον μέγεθος here (a14) and τὰ ἐπεισόδια σύντομα
in 1455b15 both refer to an implied proportion between central action
and episodes” (my emphasis again) not the absolute length of an episode
or all the episodes.29 So here is additional evidence both that plot can be

28 
Vahlen 1865, 277–78.
29
 Else 1957, 543, n. 84.
588 LOREN D. MARSH

viewed as a portion of the play, and that μέγεθος is the word Aristotle
uses to refer to plot size in these contexts. By carefully examining all of
the passages where μέγεθος is used in the Poetics, I will show below that
there are no instances where μέγεθος cannot refer to the size of the plot
in relation to the larger whole, and that understanding the word in this
way has the advantage of resolving the supposed contradictions among
Aristotle’s statements about μέγεθος.
If μέγεθος refers to size related to a larger whole, Aristotle still
needs a word to refer to size in an absolute sense. I will argue here that
Aristotle uses μῆκος exclusively for this purpose. Several commentators
have also already studied this word’s use in the Poetics and concluded it
refers to the “external length of the poem,”30 what I will call “run-time.”
Teichmüller was the first to make this argument, writing μῆκος should
be understood as “die Masse der Verse und überhaupt das Quantitative
und Körperliche an dem Gedicht.”31 While it seems that Teichmüller was
correct in concluding that μῆκος always indicates absolute quantity, the
external length definition fails to explain some passages where μῆκος
probably must refer to the quantity of fictional time such as the celebrated
“one revolution of the sun” passage at 1449b12–14. In addition, there are
two key passages discussed below where the term is applied explicitly to
the plot and it does not make good sense to argue μῆκος refers to either
run-time or fictional time.32
If μῆκος refers to absolute size, there is no reason it cannot also
describe quantity of fictional time in the “one revolution of the sun”
passage. But for the two passages where neither run-time nor fictional
time makes sense, it must have another reference. Aristotle frequently
discusses the τοῦ μύθου μέρη (e.g., at 1452b9), the parts of the plot.33 Plot
parts in Aristotle’s view seem to be entire sections of the plot—such as
the reversal and recognition or the complication and denouement—or

30
 Butcher 1902, 289, n. 2. See also Überweg 1869, 57: “Anderseits ist . . . anzunehmen,
dass die Länge (das μῆκος) der Umfang der Stücke selbst ist; denn Aristoteles redet von
derselben stets nur in diesem Sinne.”
31
 Teichmüller 1867, 175.
32
 The following is a complete list of all the passages where μῆκος and its cognates
occur in the Poetics: 1449b12, 1451a5–6, 1455b16, 1456a14, 1456b32, 1459b17–18, 1462a18,
1462b7. In most passages, there is no difficulty in translating it as run-time or alternatively
as absolute length of fictional time. But at 1451a5 (but not a6) and at 1459b17–18, neither
definition of μῆκος seems to apply. 1456b32 refers to the length of vocal sounds. Interest-
ingly, even in the context of vocal sound length, the use of μῆκος is not obvious: an alternate
reading found in the Riccardianus manuscript at 1456b32 is “μεγέθει μήκει.”
33
 I devote an entire section below to investigating the meaning of this term.
 THE PLOT WITHIN 589

even entire “actions,” rather than specific incidents.34 I will try below to
roughly count how many plot parts Aristotle seems to assume a typical
tragedy contains, but regardless of the size of the plot parts, a plot viewed
as a number of discrete parts has an absolute quantitative size in parts. So
besides referring to absolute length in terms of run-time, fictional time,
or verses, I will argue μῆκος, when applied to the plot, can also refer to
the absolute quantity of plot parts. Understood in this way, μῆκος in these
two passages points to an entire theory in the Poetics of how many plot
parts a narrative work should have and why more or less plot parts are
appropriate for different works. These passages also suggest that the
concept of plot parts plays a much more important role in Aristotle’s
guidelines for plot construction than may appear at first glance.
In addition, the pair μέγεθος/μῆκος occurs in the Rhetoric in passages
that closely parallel those found in the Poetics. But in the Rhetoric, there
is no question that μέγεθος refers to the size of a portion of the speech
(that also obviously cannot extend outside of the speech), and μῆκος
to the size of the entire speech. In defining a period, Aristotle writes at
1409a35–37: λέγω δὲ περίοδον λέξιν ἔχουσαν ἀρχὴν καὶ τελευτὴν αὐτὴν καθ᾽
αὑτὴν καὶ μέγεθος εὐσύνοπτον (“By a period I mean a portion of speech
that has in itself a beginning and an end, being at the same time not too
big to be taken in at a glance”).35 This shows that in a similar context of
a performative work, μέγεθος is the term Aristotle uses to refer to the
size of a portion of that performance, in this case a period in a speech.
The use of ἀρχὴν, τελευτὴν, and εὐσύνοπτον are also telling parallels with
Aristotle’s statements in the Poetics about plot. But μέγεθος is never
used in the Rhetoric to describe the size of the entire speech (ὁ λόγος),
while μῆκος is, for example, at 1414b4–7: ἀλλ᾽ὁ ἐπίλογος ἔτι οὐδὲ δικανικοῦ
παντός, οἷον ἐὰν μικρὸς ὁ λόγος ἢ τὸ πρᾶγμα εὐμνημόνευτον. συμβαίνει γὰρ
τοῦ μήκους ἀφαιρεῖσθαι (“Even forensic speeches do not always need
epilogues; not, for instance, a short speech, nor one in which the facts are
easy to remember, the effect of an epilogue being always a reduction in
the apparent length”).
If the pair μῆκος/μέγεθος is used to differentiate absolute size and
size in relation to a larger whole, what else does that mean for Aristotle’s
aesthetic theory in the Poetics? Ricoeur wrote that in the Poetics, “la
notion d’amplitude (μέγεθος) suscite le problème de clôture”36 and that

34 
For reversal and recognition, see 1450a34–35 and 1452b9–10. For complication and
denouement, see 1455b26–29. For entire actions, see 1462b8–10.
35
 All translations of the Rhetoric are from Roberts 1954.
36
 Ricoeur 1992, 314.
590 LOREN D. MARSH

Aristotle’s requirement that an action or plot be “whole and complete”

(for example, 1450b24) evokes the “aporie de la clôture.”37 He goes on
to observe that the problem was concealed in the nineteenth-century
novel by ending the plot at the same point as the novel itself. The prob-
lem Ricoeur refers to, then, is the possibility that the story could go on
after the end of the work itself: we can always ask, “and then?” But the
understanding of μέγεθος proposed here suggests that Aristotle went
one step farther. For him the plot often ends before the end of the work,
effectively figuring closure in the narrative work itself. And it is precisely
this doubling of the gesture of ending—once at the end of the plot, a
second time at the end of the work—that is reflected in the doubling of
Aristotle’s terms for size in the Poetics.
But on a more concrete level of craft, understanding μῆκος and
μέγεθος in this way also reveals an implicit set of guidelines for makers
of plots, guidelines which until now have gone almost completely unno-
ticed. These detail how much of the total play should consist of plot and
the correct composition of the plot. To illustrate these guidelines, I will
go through and comment on all the relevant passages where the two
words are used.

4. PLOT SIZE

I will now discuss the specific passages where μέγεθος and μῆκος appear
in the Poetics, applying the understanding of the terms I propose. I will
first analyze the passages that I argue demonstrate Aristotle’s requirement
that the size of the plot have a certain relation to the size of the whole,
and the rules for the plot’s size in relation to the whole. I will then show
how the remaining passages reveal precise instructions for plot construc-
tion within the narrative work.
Aristotle first establishes that the tragic action or plot must be
complete, serious, and have a certain size in relation to the larger whole
of the poem: ἔστιν οὖν τραγῳδία μίμησις πράξεως σπουδαίας καὶ τελείας
μέγεθος ἐχούσης (“Tragedy is an imitation of an action that is admirable,
complete, and possesses magnitude,” 1449b24). He makes the same point
again in almost exactly the same words a bit farther on, adding the action
should also be whole: κεῖται δὴ ἡμῖν τὴν τραγῳδίαν τελείας καὶ ὅλης πράξεως
εἶναι μίμησιν ἐχούσης τι μέγεθος (“We have laid down that tragedy is an
imitation of a complete, i.e., whole, action, possessing a certain magni-
tude,” 1450b23–25). But the second passage is followed by a comment

37
 Ricoeur 1992, 318.
 THE PLOT WITHIN 591

on what he means by a μέγεθος that is whole: ἔστιν γὰρ ὅλον καὶ μηδὲν
ἔχον μέγεθος. ὅλον δέ ἐστιν τὸ ἔχον ἀρχὴν καὶ μέσον καὶ τελευτήν (“There
is such a thing as a whole which possesses no magnitude. A whole is that
which has a beginning, a middle and an end,” 1450b25–27). In the first
sentence here, Aristotle established that in principle something (though
not necessarily a plot) could be whole but still have no μέγεθος. But in the
second sentence, he comments a plot is only whole if it has a beginning,
middle, and an end. Schmitt, who has a particularly good grasp of the
importance of plot parts in the Poetics, comments that this means that
“diese Handlung . . . in ihren Teilen entfaltet ist, d. h. eine angemessene
Grösse hat.”38 He continues that a plot is “immer eine zeitliche Folge von
einzelnen (Teil-)Handlungen.” So a plot with μέγεθος is a plot with parts,
and these parts are at least three: a beginning, middle, and an end. If there
could be a plot with a single, indivisible part, it would still be whole and
complete. But wholeness for a plot is not enough. It must have a certain
magnitude in relation to the whole, and that for Aristotle means having
at least three plot parts.
Aristotle also establishes what size plot in relation to the larger
whole is desirable. In discussing the limit (ὅρος) of the plot, Aristotle
establishes the maximum limit for the size of the plot: ἀεὶ μὲν ὁ μείζων
μέχρι τοῦ σύνδηλος εἶναι καλλίων ἐστὶ κατὰ τὸ μέγεθος (“Invariably the
greater the plot is, up to the limit of simultaneous perspicuity, the more
beautiful it is with respect to magnitude,” 1451a10–11). To Aristotle it is
best that the plot be as large as possible in terms of its size within the play
(κατὰ τὸ μέγεθος), as long as the whole does not escape perception (μέχρι
τοῦ σύνδηλος εἶναι). In this context, σύνδηλος may at first appear to be a
general term describing what does not overwhelm the mind’s capacities
for memory or perception—which, therefore, relates to absolute size, not
size relative to the whole. But in the next section on plot construction, I
will show that, if μῆκος refers to absolute size, then Aristotle also defines
σύνδηλος in terms of a rough number of plot parts, and that this number
of plot parts is quite low in relation to the whole. Therefore, Aristotle
does not even consider the possibility that a plot that is σύνδηλος could
constitute the entire play. For Aristotle, σύνδηλος is an upper limit for
plot size that, even if significantly exceeded, will still result in a plot size
well within the boundaries of the narrative work itself. Aristotle’s view,
then, is that the size of the plot within the play should only be limited
by the requirement that it not escape perception, and that this plot size
within the play should be pushed as close to the upper limit as possible.

38
 Schmitt 2008, 325.
592 LOREN D. MARSH

Besides the requirement that the plot remain σύνδηλος, there are
other maximum limits to how much plot a work can accommodate: χρὴ δὲ
ὅπερ εἴρηται πολλάκις μεμνῆσθαι καὶ μὴ ποιεῖν ἐποποιικὸν σύστημα τραγῳδίαν
(ἐποποιικὸν δὲ λέγω τὸ πολύμυθον) οἷον εἴ τις τὸν τῆς Ἰλιάδος ὅλον ποιοῖ
μῦθον. ἐκεῖ μὲν γὰρ διὰ τὸ μῆκος λαμβάνει τὰ μέρη τὸ πρέπον μέγεθος, ἐν δὲ
τοῖς δράμασι πολὺ παρὰ τὴν ὑπόληψιν ἀποβαίνει (“Bearing in mind what I
have already said several times, one should not compose a tragedy out of
a body of material which would serve for an epic—by which I mean one
that contains a multiplicity of stories (for example, if one were to use the
whole plot of the Iliad). In epic, because of its length, every part is given
the appropriate magnitude; but in plays the result is quite contrary to
one’s expectation,” 1456a10–15). The question here is why the entire plot
of an epic cannot be handled by a single tragedy. If the two terms μῆκος
and μέγεθος are equivalent, the meaning of this passage is: “because of
the length of epic, the parts of the plot can have the appropriate length,”
which verges on a tautology. But if we translate “because of the length
of epic, the parts of the plot can take up the appropriate size within the
poem, but in drama the result is far from what was intended,” the point
is altogether different. This means that, by constructing a tragedy from
the plot of the Iliad, the problem is not necessarily that the plot parts
are too short. Rather, the problem is that there would be almost nothing
but plot, and so the size of the plot in relation to the whole would be
proportionally too great. The epic, on the other hand, has enough room
for a larger plot and the other elements appropriate to the genre.
Aristotle makes the same point again in his guidelines for plot size
in epic: διὸ ὥσπερ εἴπομεν ἤδη καὶ ταύτῃ θεσπέσιος ἂν φανείη Ὅμηρος παρὰ
τοὺς ἄλλους, τῷ μηδὲ τὸν πόλεμον καίπερ ἔχοντα ἀρχὴν καὶ τέλος ἐπιχειρῆσαι
ποιεῖν ὅλον. λίαν γὰρ ἂν μέγας καὶ οὐκ εὐσύνοπτος ἔμελλεν ἔσεσθαι ὁ μῦθος,
ἢ τῷ μεγέθει μετριάζοντα καταπεπλεγμένον τῇ ποικιλίᾳ (“So—as we have
already said—Homer’s brilliance is evident in this respect as well, in
comparison with other poets. He did not even try to treat the war as a
whole, although it does have a beginning and an end. Had he done so,
the plot would have been excessively large and difficult to take in at one
view—or, if it had been moderate in magnitude, it would have been over-
complicated in its variety,” 1459a30–34). The words τῷ μεγέθει μετριάζοντα
in the concluding phrase of the passage are commonly understood to
refer to the length of the epic. For example, Lucas comments, “the whole
story of the Trojan War told in the compass of the Iliad would have been
as excessively compressed as the whole story of the Iliad put into the
length of a play (56a13),”39 referring back to the previous passage I just

39
 Lucas 1968 on 1459a34, 216.
 THE PLOT WITHIN 593

discussed. But a closer look at the passage shows it is not possible that
the length of the poem is the subject of the last phrase. Aristotle writes
that either the plot would be too big or it would be too compressed.
Lucas interprets the passage as if Aristotle wrote either the poem would
be too big or, if the poem was of a moderate length, the plot too com-
pressed. Lucas' interpretation therefore ignores that in the first phrase of
Aristotle's either/or proposition, the plot is explicitly the subject, not the
poem. Furthermore, if the subject of the second phrase of the either/or
proposition were the poem itself as Lucas suggests, then the either/
or proposition as a whole makes no sense: it would say that either the
plot is too big (but the poem is the normal length), or the poem is the
normal length and the plot too compressed.
If, however, we understand the passage to be about the size of the
plot in relation to the size of the entire poem, as we would expect since
Aristotle writes μεγέθει, these difficulties disappear. The passage then
states that either the plot is too big, that is, that it takes up far too great
a portion of the poem, or, if it takes up only a moderate portion of the
poem, then it is too compressed. This was the same problem Aristotle
found above at 1456a13 with using an entire epic plot for a tragedy, that
its portion of the play would be too great. So Aristotle assumes it is pos-
sible to tell the entire story of the Trojan War over the standard length
of an epic, but then there would be no room for the other required ele-
ments of an epic.
Yet epic has an advantage over drama when it comes to packing
in as much plot as possible without squeezing out other elements: ἔχει δὲ
πρὸς τὸ ἐπεκτείνεσθαι τὸ μέγεθος πολύ τι ἡ ἐποποιία ἴδιον διὰ τὸ ἐν μὲν τῇ
τραγῳδίᾳ μὴ ἐνδέχεσθαι ἅμα πραττόμενα πολλὰ μέρη μιμεῖσθαι ἀλλὰ τὸ ἐπὶ
τῆς σκηνῆς καὶ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν μέρος μόνον. ἐν δὲ τῇ ἐποποιίᾳ διὰ τὸ διήγησιν
εἶναι ἔστι πολλὰ μέρη ἅμα ποιεῖν περαινόμενα, ὑφ᾽ ὧν οἰκείων ὄντων αὔξεται
ὁ τοῦ ποιήματος ὄγκος (“Epic has an important distinctive resource for
extending its length. In tragedy it is not possible to imitate many parts
of the action being carried on simultaneously, but only the one on stage
involving the actors. But in epic, because it is narrative, it is possible to
treat many parts being carried on simultaneously; and these—provided
that they are germane—make the poem more impressive,” 1459b22–28).
This passage has been typically understood to mean epic can “include
incidents occurring at one and the same time in other places and in con-
nexion with other personages,” as, for example, Bywater comments.40

 Bywater 1909, 314. Else 1957 is the exception, making the novel proposal that Aris-
40

totle means epic has the advantage of allowing the author to directly narrate “the central
action and the ‘episodes’” (608) as the main action, not different incidents at the same time.
594 LOREN D. MARSH

But Bywater’s reading would mean Aristotle is saying only that epic
can narrate different parts, not necessarily more parts. The assumption is
apparently that since a greater variety of parts can be narrated, more are
narrated. But the other parts of the passage suggest Aristotle is directly
emphasizing that epic is capable of narrating not just different parts, but
more parts, such as the words ἐπεκτείνεσθαι, πολλὰ μέρη, and αὔξεται ὁ τοῦ
ποιήματος ὄγκος. Even if μέγεθος does not refer to the size of the plot
within the poem, the connection between size and how the plot parts are
narrated is, by this analysis, at best indirect.
There is another interpretation that, as far as I can see, has never
been suggested. Aristotle may mean that διήγησις can use language to refer
to aggregate actions in a way that is impossible on stage where every action
must be physically played out. To take an example at random from the
Iliad, here are the first two lines of Book 3: “ Now when the men of both
sides were set in order by their leaders, / the Trojans came on with clamor
and shouting, like wildfowl.”41 The action of the entire Trojan and Greek
armies assembling and the Trojans charging would take many minutes
at a minimum on stage (if that were possible) or, for example, in a film.
These actions must actually be shown; there is no way to gloss them over
when the actors are physically in front of you. But in an epic that action
can be passed over in two lines and the rest left to the imagination. To
the objection that the plot of a tragedy can contain aggregate actions not
performed on stage by having them reported in a messenger speech, for
example, I would answer that it is possible Aristotle never views these
actions as part of the plot proper. If the more limited definition of plot
I have argued for here is accepted, then the definition may also exclude
from the μῦθος anything reported. For example, in the Iphigenia plot
summary discussed above, the episodes outside the plot specifically cited
by Aristotle are, as Else has also noted, “both reported by messengers,
not represented on stage.”42 Else comes to a similar conclusion about
many of the episodes Aristotle mentions in the Odyssey, observing that
they are “reported by character in the poem, not by the poet.”43 It is not
possible from the evidence to definitively determine if Aristotle would
believe that any part that is indirectly narrated is excluded from the plot
proper. But my interpretation of the passage in question certainly does
have the advantage of directly linking size, in this case number of parts,
to what Aristotle means by simultaneous action.

41
 Translation from Lattimore 1951.
42
 Else 1957, 511.
43 
Else 1957, 513.
 THE PLOT WITHIN 595

If simultaneous action is understood in this way, then taking μέγεθος

as referring to plot size within the narrative work results in a different
interpretation of the entire passage. Aristotle’s point here is that epic has
a special tool for including more parts in the plot even while still leaving
so much room for the other elements of the poem. The size of the plot in
relation to the whole can sometimes be increased in epic because it can
narrate more parts at once, that is, more efficiently in terms of parts per
line or per minute. This, therefore, allows the epic to partially compensate
for its tendency to devote fewer lines to plot parts by narrating more
plot parts in some of those lines. Aristotle’s use of ὄγκος in this passage,
then, is revealing. Although one meaning of the word is “impressive”
and is certainly a correct translation, another more literal meaning is
“volume” in the sense of heaviness or concentration.44 This word is then
particularly appropriate if Aristotle is talking about how much plot is
filling the vessel of the play or epic.
This passage also shows that Aristotle calculates relative size by
counting parts. If the relative size of the plot to the whole can be increased
in epic by narrating more parts in fewer lines or minutes, then plot size
is not necessarily measured in time passed or number of lines. Golden
and Hardison comment the magnitude of the plot is “determined by the
number of incidents, not the number of words in the text. Aristotle’s idea
of size cannot, therefore, be separated from the idea of complexity.”45 This
does not mean that any number of parts can be crammed into an epic of
normal length, or that there is no correlation between parts and run-time.
It only means that relative size is defined by counting the numbers of
parts for the plot and for the rest of the poem, which in turn indirectly
also effects the amount of time or number of lines required for the plot
and the rest as well.
As with tragedy, Aristotle also offers some pointers for the minimum
size of the plot within the epic. He begins by criticizing epic for achiev-
ing its effect over a longer run-time or larger number of lines: ἔτι τῷ ἐν
ἐλάττονι μήκει τὸ τέλος τῆς μιμήσεως εἶναι (τὸ γὰρ ἀθροώτερον ἥδιον ἢ πολλῷ
κεκραμένον τῷ χρόνῳ, λέγω δ᾽ οἷον εἴ τις τὸν Οἰδίπουν θείη τὸν Σοφοκλέους
ἐν ἔπεσιν ὅσοις ἡ Ἰλιάς) (“Also, the end of imitation is attained in shorter
length; what is more concentrated is more pleasant than what is watered

44 
Else 1957, 612, n. 56, even goes so far as to say regarding ὄγκος: “it is clear here at
least it means only ‘weight, massiveness,’ and not necessarily ‘grandeur.’” See also Gudeman
1934, 404, for the meaning of the word in other contexts.
45
 Golden and Hardison 1981, 143.
596 LOREN D. MARSH

down by being extended in time. I mean, for example, if one were to turn
Sophocles’ Oedipus into as many lines as the Iliad has,” 1462a19–b3).
In the beginning of the passage, μῆκος clearly means run-time. Aristotle
explicitly tells us that by referring to the number of lines (ἐν ἔπεσιν ὅσοις)
and directly to time (χρόνῳ). He then describes the problem for those
poets who try to achieve more unity in an epic: ἐὰν μὲν ἕνα μῦθον ποιῶσιν,
ἢ βραχέως δεικνύμενον μύουρον φαίνεσθαι, ἢ ἀκολουθοῦντα τῷ τοῦ μέτρου
μήκει ὑδαρῆ. λέγω δὲ οἷον ἐὰν ἐκ πλειόνων πράξεων ᾖ συγκειμένη, ὥσπερ ἡ
Ἰλιὰς ἔχει πολλὰ τοιαῦτα μέρη καὶ ἡ Ὀδύσσεια <ἃ> καὶ καθ᾽ ἑαυτὰ ἔχει μέγεθος
(“So if they treat a unified plot, either the exposition is brief and appears
curtailed, or else it adheres to the length of that verse-form and is diluted.
I mean, for example, if it comprises a number of actions. The Iliad and
Odyssey have many parts of this kind, which possess magnitude in their
own right,” 1462b6–10). The reason an epic with a unified plot would be
diluted or too short is a question of relative size: apparently, a unified
plot has too few plot parts in relation to the whole. In an epic, the result
is that either the relative size of the plot is correct and the epic too short
(μύουρον φαίνεσθαι), or the epic is the correct length (ἀκολουθοῦντα τῷ τοῦ
μέτρου μήκει) and the relative size of the plot too small, meaning it is too
diluted (ὑδαρῆ). Again, μῆκος is used to show that Aristotle is discussing
how long the entire poem is and how that relates to a smaller plot within
it. The use of the word ὑδαρῆ (literally “watery,” a metaphor derived from
the Greek custom of mixing wine with water in certain proportions) is
strikingly similar to the use of the word for volume (ὄγκος) above, in
that it clearly shows proportion in the most literal sense is Aristotle’s
concern. The conclusion of the passage simply establishes that an epic
can achieve the correct relative plot size by adding plot sections, each of
some smaller size but still constituting a meaningful portion of the whole
(καθ᾽ ἑαυτὰ ἔχει μέγεθος). These correspond to the “(Teil-)Handlungen”
described by Schmitt.
Finally, understanding μέγεθος as referring to relative plot size
offers a new perspective on a much-debated passage: ἔτι δὲ τὸ μέγεθος.
ἐκ μικρῶν μύθων καὶ λέξεως γελοίας διὰ τὸ ἐκ σατυρικοῦ μεταβαλεῖν ὀψὲ
ἀπεσεμνύνθη, τό τε μέτρον ἐκ τετραμέτρου ἰαμβεῖον ἐγένετο (“In addition,
the magnitude increased from short plots; and in place of comic diction,
as a consequence of a change from the satyric style, tragedy acquired
dignity at a late stage, and the iambic verse-form was adopted instead
of the trochaic tetrameter,” 1449a19–21). Some have translated μέγεθος
as “grandeur” here, because the sentence continues to compare tragedy
with the “comic” early “satyric” play, which could also be early satyr
plays. Other commentators such as Schmitt conclude that, since we know
 THE PLOT WITHIN 597

the satyr play had a “durchgeführte Handlungskomposition,” Aristotle

must be referring to “die Vorformen des Dramas,”46 and interpret μικρῶν
μύθων to mean plots that are so small that they are not fully developed.
Schmitt also speculates Aristotle must then be referring to dithyramb or
phallic songs. But since Aristotle introduces his thought on this subject
with a reference to τὸ μέγεθος, it could also mean these early satyric plays
had plots that were smaller in size relative to the whole, not just smaller
plots.47 This in fact matches the best evidence we have of Greek comic
stage practice quite closely. The second half of comedies by Aristophanes
typically consist of “revue-like scenes which do not advance the plot,
which is often effectively concluded before the parabasis,” as Henderson
writes.48 This has also been observed by other commentators, for example,
Whittaker and Zimmermann.49 The comedies of Aristophanes could never
be described as not having a developed plot, but they regularly featured
a plot whose relative size within the play was smaller than was the case
with tragedy. Aristotle could be here assigning that feature to the early
satyric play as well, instead of referring to the seriousness or absolute
size of their plots. This also means he could still be referring to early satyr
plays, since there is no reason to assume he means that these early plays
did not have developed plots.

5. PLOT COMPOSITION

I argued above (1450b26–27) that Aristotle’s minimum requirement for

the size of a plot is that it have at least three parts: a beginning, middle,
and an end. This is then also one of his initial guidelines for plot compo-
sition. After his comment about the recommended maximum size of the
plot in relation to the whole (1451a10–11), he establishes another rule
for plot composition: ἐν ὅσῳ μεγέθει κατὰ τὸ εἰκὸς ἢ τὸ ἀναγκαῖον ἐφεξῆς
γιγνομένων συμβαίνει εἰς εὐτυχίαν ἐκ δυστυχίας ἢ ἐξ εὐτυχίας εἰς δυστυχίαν
μεταβάλλειν, ἱκανὸς ὅρος ἐστὶν τοῦ μεγέθους (“‘The magnitude in which

46
 Schmitt 2008, 299.
47
 I do not want to suggest, however, that the interpretation of μέγεθος here as having
a connotation of “grandeur” or importance is without merit. The parallel contrast of μέγεθος
καὶ μικρότητας at 1456b1–2 is almost certainly a reference to the degree of importance. I
would only point out that at 1456b1–2, the topic is not the plot but “thought,” something
that cannot really have a magnitude, and for that reason the reference in the passage under
discussion may differ.
48 
Henderson 1998, 25.
49
 Whittaker 1935, 181; Zimmermann 2006, 42–43.
598 LOREN D. MARSH

a series of events occurring sequentially in accordance with probability

or necessity gives rise to a change from good to bad fortune, or from
bad fortune to good fortune,’ is an adequate definition of magnitude,”
1451a12–15). If μέγεθος refers to the size of the plot in relation to the
whole, the passage means the minimum plot size (ὅρος . . . τοῦ μεγέθους)
must also narrate a change in fortune in accordance with probability or
necessity. If there is not a change in fortune, the size of the plot in rela-
tion to the whole is not large enough. Aristotle mentions only a change
of fortune here, but this must add to the minimum of beginning, middle,
and end described above: the beginning and the end must also provide
a contrast in fortunes.
Aristotle also provides guidelines for the composition of plots at the
maximum limit of size. I argued that at 1451a9–11, Aristotle stated the
bigger the size of the plot in relation to the whole the better, provided
the entire plot can be kept in mind at once. If μῆκος is defined as number
of plot parts in the passage that precedes this one (1450b34–51a6), then
it can be shown that Aristotle also believes the entire plot can be kept
in mind at once only if it does not have too many parts. This is then the
main rule of composition for plots at the upper end of the scale. Aris-
totle begins the earlier passage with a comparison of the parts (τινῶν)
of plots to the parts of animals: ἔτι δ᾽ ἐπεὶ τὸ καλὸν καὶ ζῷον καὶ ἅπαν
πρᾶγμα ὃ συνέστηκεν ἐκ τινῶν οὐ μόνον ταῦτα τεταγμένα δεῖ ἔχειν ἀλλὰ καὶ
μέγεθος ὑπάρχειν μὴ τὸ τυχόν. τὸ γὰρ καλὸν ἐν μεγέθει καὶ τάξει ἐστίν, διὸ
οὔτε πάμμικρον ἄν τι γένοιτο καλὸν ζῷον (συγχεῖται γὰρ ἡ θεωρία ἐγγὺς τοῦ
ἀναισθήτου χρόνου γινομένη) οὔτε παμμέγεθες (οὐ γὰρ ἅμα ἡ θεωρία γίνεται
ἀλλ᾽ οἴχεται τοῖς θεωροῦσι τὸ ἓν καὶ τὸ ὅλον ἐκ τῆς θεωρίας) οἷον εἰ μυρίων
σταδίων εἴη ζῷον (“Any beautiful object, whether a living organism or
any other entity composed of parts, must not only possess those parts
in proper order, but its magnitude also should not be arbitrary; beauty
consists in magnitude as well as order. For this reason no organism could
be beautiful if it is excessively small, since observation becomes confused
as it comes close to having no perceptible duration in time, or excessively
large, since the observation is then not simultaneous, and the observers
find that the sense of unity and wholeness is lost from their observation,
e.g., if there were an animal a thousand miles long,” 1450b34–51a3). In
these instances, μέγεθος is referring to the size of anything made of parts,
and then specifically to animals. Here the word cannot refer to a size in
relation to a whole; it must mean magnitude in the general sense familiar
from everyday speech.
Then Aristotle turns to the size of plots: ὥστε δεῖ καθάπερ ἐπὶ τῶν
 THE PLOT WITHIN 599

σωμάτων καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ζῴων ἔχειν μὲν μέγεθος, τοῦτο δὲ εὐσύνοπτον εἶναι, οὕτω
καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν μύθων ἔχειν μὲν μῆκος, τοῦτο δὲ εὐμνημόνευτον εἶναι (“So just as
in the case of physical objects and living organisms, they should possess a
certain magnitude, and this should be such as can readily be taken in at
one view, so in the case of plots: they should have a certain length, and
this should be such as can readily held in memory,” 1451a3–6). Aristotle
here makes a direct comparison between the μέγεθος of animals and
the μῆκος of plots, suggesting that each is the key factor in determining
whether these objects can be perceived all at once by the mind. This is
one of the instances in the text where Aristotle applies the word μῆκος
to plots (ἐπὶ τῶν μύθων), so it cannot possibly refer to the narrative work
as a whole. I argue that μῆκος here could refer to the total number of
parts in the plot. The number of parts in the plot is an absolute quantity,
and, therefore, Aristotle uses μῆκος to refer to its size in this context. If
we understand μῆκος here to refer to the absolute number of plot parts,
then the passage states that for animals, overall size is the issue, and for
plots, the number of plot parts is the issue. This would mean that deter-
mining whether a plot is εὐμνημόνευτος or σύνδηλος has little relation to
its size in relation to the whole (though I will show below that Aristotle
assumes such a plot would in any case be much smaller than the whole),
to the run-time of the play, or to the fictional time the plot covers. It is
determined by how many parts it has. If it has too many parts, it becomes
impossible to keep them all in mind at once.
If this reading is correct, then a later passage can also be interpreted
to show exactly how many plot parts Aristotle believes can be kept in
mind at once. Aristotle begins this passage by drawing a distinction of size
between epic and tragedy: Διαφέρει δὲ κατά τε τῆς συστάσεως τὸ μῆκος ἡ
ἐποποιία καὶ τὸ μέτρον. τοῦ μὲν οὖν μήκους ὅρος ἱκανὸς ὁ εἰρημένος. δύνασθαι
γὰρ δεῖ συνορᾶσθαι τὴν ἀρχὴν καὶ τὸ τέλος (“Epic is differentiated in the
length of its plot-structure and in its verse-form. The stated definition of
length is adequate; one must be able to take in the beginning and the
end in one view,” 1459b17–20). The word σύστασις is frequently modified
by τῶν πραγμάτων in the Poetics, meaning the construction of the actions,
that is, the plot. So in the first sentence, we can conclude the topic is the
plot, not the length of the poem, as has often been assumed by commen-
tators. In addition, Aristotle refers back to the μήκους ὅρος defined above
in 1451a6 (not to be confused with the ὅρος of the μέγεθος mentioned
shortly after at 1451a15), where I argued μῆκος refers to the total number
of plot parts. Therefore, this is the second instance where μῆκος would
be referring to the total number of plot parts, and Aristotle is simply
600 LOREN D. MARSH

establishing that epic has more plot parts than tragedy, but that as with
tragedy the maximum acceptable number of plot parts from beginning
to end is determined by how many can be kept in mind at once.
Aristotle goes on to define a rough general maximum for plot
parts: εἴη δ᾽ ἂν τοῦτο, εἰ τῶν μὲν ἀρχαίων ἐλάττους αἱ συστάσεις εἶεν, πρὸς
δὲ τὸ πλῆθος τραγῳδιῶν τῶν εἰς μίαν ἀκρόασιν τιθεμένων παρήκοιεν (“This
would be the case if the structures were shorter than those of the ancient
epics, and matched the number of tragedies presented at one sitting,”
1459b20–22). Here again, Aristotle writes συστάσεις, so it is clear he is
referring to plots, not entire poems. He states that the maximum amount
of plot parts would be less than those in the old epics (apparently refer-
ring to Homer), and approximately the quantity (τὸ πλῆθος) of parts that
are contained in the number of tragedies viewed in one sitting (εἰς μίαν
ἀκρόασιν), presumably meaning the three tragedies usually performed
in one day. So if it were possible to take an average of the number of
plot parts in a typical tragedy and multiply that number by three, then
that would very closely approximate the number of plot parts Aristotle
believes can be kept in mind at once.
Instead, τὸ πλῆθος is commonly interpreted to refer to the actual
run-time or number of lines of three tragedies, as we saw Gudeman did
in his comparison of the λόγος of the Odyssey with the length of three
tragedies. But in fact the passage would make less sense if it referred to
either of these. That would mean Aristotle is directly measuring plot size
by number of lines or run-time, something he never does elsewhere. It
would also mean that any epic plot that had a run-time or number of
lines about equal to the length of three tragedies would be within the
limit for plot. But just after this at 1459b22–28, I have shown that Aris-
totle measures plot length by plot parts, not number of lines. In addition,
Aristotle has already clearly stated at 1451a6–9 that run-time is not a
decisive factor in correct plot length: τοῦ δὲ μήκους ὅρος <ὁ> μὲν πρὸς τοὺς
ἀγῶνας καὶ τὴν αἴσθησιν οὐ τῆς τέχνης ἐστίν. εἰ γὰρ ἔδει ἑκατὸν τραγῳδίας
ἀγωνίζεσθαι, πρὸς κλεψύδρας ἂν ἠγωνίζοντο (“The definition of length which
is determined by theatrical performances and perception is not relevant
to the art of poetry; if it were necessary to perform a hundred tragedies
they would time the performances by the clock, as they say used to be
done on other occasions”). Aristotle is reminding the reader here that
run-time limits (μήκους ὅρος),50 dictated by contests (πρὸς τοὺς ἀγῶνας)

50
 If it seems confusing Aristotle mentions a “μήκους ὅρος” here that refers to run-time
and not absolute number of plot parts as I have argued virtually the same phrase does at
1459b18, that is because his purpose now seems to be to distinguish between the two. He
 THE PLOT WITHIN 601

or the audience’s patience, do not change the demands on the writer’s

craft (τῆς τέχνης), which is first and foremost concerned with plot con-
struction. His comment that plays could even be timed by a water-clock
(πρὸς κλεψύδρας) emphasizes he is contrasting his previous statements
about plot parts with a reminder about the limited relevance of run-time
specifically. His point is then that run-times can vary widely, but the limits
for the number of plot parts and the size of the plot in relation to the
whole remain the same. They are determined by the craft of storytelling,
not external conditions.

6. WHAT IS A PLOT PART?

If the concept of the plot part is so central in Aristotle’s narrative theory,

what exactly is one? As I have shown, it makes little sense to define a plot
part in terms of lines, words, or sections in the text. Any part of the text
that includes plot, no matter how small, would also necessarily include
other dramatic elements such as character, diction, thought, etc. As Vahlen
remarks, “die μέρη der Tragödie liegen nicht aus- und nebeneinander,
sondern in einander.”51 In addition, I have argued above that the number
of plot parts is necessarily governed by the idea of complexity, that is, by
how much is narrated per line or even per word. So isolating a plot part
may very well be impossible.
Yet it would still be useful to try to identify in a general way what
a plot part looks like and the approximate number of plot parts Aristotle
believes a tragedy or epic contains. As Gudeman (1934) has shown, Aris-
totle’s comparison between epic plots and the length of three tragedies
provides a starting point. Gudeman’s observation that the number of lines
of three tragedies is approximately equal to the number of lines covered
by the λόγος of the Odyssey was an attempt to determine the actual length
of a plot that does not escape perception. But Gudeman compares an
epic plot length in lines with the total length in lines of three tragedies,
which I have argued is inconsistent. Would it be possible to compare the
plot length of an epic with the plot length of three tragedies? Clearly, we
would have to approximate the number of plot parts in either a tragedy
or an epic to have a quantitative basis to work with, since line numbers

has just described the limit of the number of plot parts in the directly preceding passage
concerning the size of animals. Now he explicitly reminds the reader that limits of run-time
defined by the external conditions of the contest are not a factor there.
51
 Vahlen 1865, 215.
602 LOREN D. MARSH

alone are not a guide to plot parts. And we would need a line count for
the λόγος of a tragedy for the purposes of comparison.
Aristotle often refers to the Iphigenia, so I will take that play as
an example. If it is accepted that the plot starts when Iphigenia meets
Orestes, then the plot parts begin on line 467. From line 467 to 642 and
then from 725 to 826, Orestes and Iphigenia discuss their pasts and the
letter Iphigenia wants brought back to Argos, leading to the recognition.
The recognition and the decision to escape span from line 827 to line
995. This means that the total number of lines where plot parts may be
contained is 445 out of a total of 1489 lines, almost exactly a third. The
total number of lines containing plot parts in a typical trilogy then would
be about 1,500 lines. These 1,500 lines are not equivalent to plot parts,
since some or even most of these lines may contain no plot parts. Yet we
might argue there is a certain average number of plot parts per line, and
that this average is higher for tragedy than for epic, as Aristotle tells us at
1462b1 and following. So if we assume that the epic narrates, for example,
half as many plot parts per line on average, the number of lines in an
epic that should contain plot parts according to Aristotle’s limit would
be roughly 3,000. Gudeman (1934) estimates that the number of lines
covered by Aristotle’s λόγος of the Odyssey at 4,000, but he neglected to
take into account that Aristotle also states that the older poets such as
Homer made plots that were too large. So we should expect the plot of
the Odyssey to exceed this limit by a certain amount, and that is exactly
what these rough calculations indicate: the number of lines of the Homeric
plot exceeds the limit by about 1,000, or one quarter.
This estimate is based, however, on an assumption about the aver-
age number of plot parts per line in tragedy versus epic. To test this
assumption, I would like to take two 100-line sections of the Iphigenia
and of the Odyssey and show in which lines I believe plot parts are to
be found, and then count those lines. The section from the Iphigenia I
have selected is from 467 to 567, Orestes and Iphigenia’s first meeting.
The section from the Odyssey I have selected are the first hundred lines
of Book 14, Odysseus’ meeting with the swineherd Eumaeus. I have
chosen these particular sections because they have certain things in
common: both are at the beginning of the plot as Aristotle describes it,
both narrate a first meeting, and both are preludes to a recognition. In
the Iphigenia, I would locate the plot parts in lines 467 to 471, where
Iphigenia orders preparations be made for the sacrifice of Orestes and
Pylades (since Aristotle’s description at 1455b9 of the plot apparently
includes that Orestes is about to be sacrificed, θύεσθαι μέλλων); 508 to
510, where Orestes tells Iphigenia that he is from Argos; and line 541,
 THE PLOT WITHIN 603

where Iphigenia tells Orestes she is also from there. The total number
of lines containing plot parts is therefore seven. In the first 100 lines of
Book 14 of the Odyssey, I would argue there can only be plot parts in
the first three lines and perhaps in line 6, where it is established Odys-
seus leaves the harbor and meets Eumaeus, and so a total of 4 lines. In
both these cases, the rest of the lines either give background information
or serve to heighten the emotional effect of the scenes in general, but
do not contribute to moving forward the plot as Aristotle describes it.
So at least in these two 100-line sections, as I estimated above, there
are nearly twice as many lines that contain plot parts in the tragedy as
in the epic.52 I would also note here how low the proportion of lines
that contain plot parts is to those that do not in these two passages. This
demonstrates why I argued above regarding Aristotle’s instructions for
the upper limit for plot size that he does not even consider the possibility
that a plot could constitute the entire play. If my calculations are basi-
cally correct, the amount of lines that contain plot parts in the Odyssey
is approximately 4 lines for every 100 lines across the epic’s 4,000 lines
of plot, or about 160 lines with plot parts. The plot of the Iphigenia, on
the other hand, would have about 7 lines per 100 across the play’s 445
lines of plot, or about 32 lines with plot parts. A plot with parts distrib-
uted across all of the lines of an average tragedy of 1,500 lines would
therefore be some fifty times the size of the plot of the Iphigenia, and
over nine times the size of the plot of the Odyssey. It is no surprise then
that Aristotle does not see any need to first establish that a σύνδηλος plot
would be smaller than the narrative work itself when using σύνδηλος as
the criterion for the maximum size limit of the plot.
These conclusions also suggest that there are a very large number
of lines, words, and sections in the text that include no plot parts at all
according to Aristotle. Just as the plot can never be the only element
present in the text at any point, the plot is also not spread indifferently
throughout the text. This means that there is a limited, discrete number of
plot parts unevenly distributed in the text in a certain proportion overall
to other elements. It seems logical, therefore, that the sections of the
text that contain no plot parts (such as the episodes Aristotle ­explicitly
­distinguishes from the plot) still include what I would call plot units,

52
 This analysis also assumes that in the passage I selected, epic is not using its unique
capacity to pack in more plot parts per line than a tragedy can as described by Aristotle at
1459b22–28. This seems plausible since here the action is very simple and could be played
out on stage: one character leaves one location (the harbor) and walks to another to meet
a second character (the swineherd).
604 LOREN D. MARSH

meaning plot material that is not integrated into the plot. To determine
what a plot part is, then, it would first be helpful to understand what
Aristotle considers a plot unit.
Aristotle consistently describes what appear to be the smallest
units of plot as the πράγματα, for example, when he defines plot: λέγω
γὰρ μῦθον τοῦτον τὴν σύνθεσιν τῶν πραγμάτων (“By ‘plot’ here I mean the
organization of events,” 1450a4–5). We can roughly translate πράγματα
here as “occurrences.” But even if it is accepted that an occurrence is the
smallest plot unit, this still cannot be defined as a plot part. An occur-
rence must first undergo the organizing (σύνθεσιν) operation of being
integrated into the plot before becoming a plot part. Ricoeur focuses on
this aspect as well, viewing the plot “as mediating between events and
a narrated story. As a consequence, an event must be more than just a
singular occurrence. It is qualified as an event by its contribution to the
progression of the plot.”53
This definition of an event (which I would consider equivalent
to a plot part) still leaves much room for debate. It remains a matter
of opinion what contributes to the progress of the plot, for example.
But if the definition is accepted, it means every incident can at least be
carefully examined for its role in moving the plot forward and whether
“it contributes to its beginning and its end”54 before determining if it
qualifies as an event. Ricoeur’s definition has another feature that may
be useful: plot parts are contrasted to “singular occurrences.” This was
not meant by Ricoeur to refer to two different sets of incidents in the
narrative work as a whole. Instead, he seems to view all the occurrences
in the narrative work as transformed through the mediating function
of the plot into story events. But the concept of a plot smaller than the
narrative work in the Poetics would suggest that for Aristotle some of
Ricoeur’s singular occurrences that are not mediated by the plot are also
found within the narrative work itself. Indeed these singular occurrences
permitted by Aristotle may even significantly exceed in number the plot
events that actually contribute to closure in the work.
For Aristotle, then, singular occurrences within the narrative work
act as a kind of screen on which the plot events characterized by integra-
tion and culmination are projected. I would also remark in conclusion that
if this was the common ancient narrative practice, it could be described
as a more honest form of storytelling. Instead of trying to trick us into

53 
Ricoeur 1990, 65.
54
 Ricoeur 1991, 426.
 THE PLOT WITHIN 605

believing a story could have the closure of a discrete beginning and end
by beginning and ending the narrative work at the same time as the plot,
Aristotle’s narrative model acknowledges the almost unavoidable pres-
ence of singular occurrences in the narrative work. These then become
the background of the events presented in the plot, just as the narrative
work itself has a discrete beginning and end that in practice is set against
the background of the sequence of singular occurrences that defines the
readers’ or spectators’ lives.55

Humboldt University of Berlin

e-mail: lorendmarsh@yahoo.com

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Belfiore, Elizabeth. 1992. “Aristotle and Iphigenia.” In Essays on Aristotle’s Poetics,

ed. Amélie Rorty, 359–77. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
———. 2001. “Dramatic and Epic Time: ‘Magnitude’ and ‘Length’ in Aristotle’s
Poetics.” In Making Sense of Aristotle: Essays in Poetics, ed. Øivind Andersen
and Jon Haarberg, 25–49. London: Duckworth.
Bignami, Ernesto. 1932. La Poetica de Aristotele e il concetto dell’arte presso gli
anti chi. Florence: Le Monnier.
Butcher, S. H. 1902. Aristotle’s Theory of Poetry and Fine Art. 3d ed. London:
Macmillan.
Bywater, Ingram. 1909. Aristotle on the Art of Poetry. Oxford: Clarendon.
Else, Gerald. 1957. Aristotle’s Poetics: The Argument. Leiden: Brill.
Golden, Leon, and O. B. Hardison. 1981. Aristotle’s Poetics: A Translation and
Commentary for Students of Literature. Tallahassee: University Presses of
Florida.
Gudeman, Alfred. 1934. Poetik. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Halliwell, Stephen. 1987. The Poetics of Aristotle: Translation and Commentary.
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Heath, Malcolm. 1987. Political Comedy in Aristophanes. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
and Ruprecht.
———.1989. Unity in Greek Poetics. Oxford: Clarendon.
———, trans. 1996. Aristotle: Poetics. London: Penguin.
———. 2003. “‘Jure Principem Locum Tenet’: Euripides’ Hecuba.” In Euripides,
ed. Judith Mossman, 218–60. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Henderson, Jeffrey, ed. 1998. Aristophanes: Acharnians, Knights. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.

55
 For their support and helpful feedback, my warm thanks to Giulia Maria Chesi,
Anna-Maria Kanthak, and, above all, Markus Asper.
606 LOREN D. MARSH

Janko, Richard. 1987. Poetics I. Indianapolis: Hackett.

Köhnken, Adolf. 1990. “Terminologische Probleme in der “Poetik” des Aristo-
teles.” Hermes 118:129–49.
Lattimore, Richmond, trans. 1951. The Iliad of Homer. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Lucas, D. W. 1968. Aristotle: Poetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ricoeur, Paul. 1990. Time and Narrative. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
———.1991. “Life: A Story in Search of a Narrator.” In A Ricoeur Reader:
Reflection and Imagination, ed. Mario Valdés, 425–37. Hemel Hempstead:
Harvester Wheatsheaf.
———. 1992. “Une reprise de la Poétique d’Aristote.” In Nos Grecs et leurs
modernes: Les stratégies contemporaines d’appropriation de l’Antiquité, ed.
Barbara Cassin, 303–20. Paris: du Seuil.
Roberts, Deborah. 1992. “Outside the Drama.” In Essays on Aristotle’s Poetics,
ed. Amélie Rorty, 133–53. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Roberts, W. R., trans. 1954. Aristotle: Rhetoric. New York: Modern Library.
Ross, William. 1995. Aristotle. London: Routledge.
Schmitt, Arbogast. 2008. Aristoteles: Poetik. Berlin: Akademie.
Teichmüller, Gustav. 1867. Aristotelische Forschungen. Halle: Barthel.
Überweg, Friedrich. 1869. Über die Dichtkunst. Berlin: Heinmann.
Vahlen, Johannes. 1865. Beiträge zu Aristoteles Poetik. Vienna: Gerold.
Whittaker, M. 1935. “The Comic Fragments in Their Relation to the Structure of
Old Attic Comedy.” CQ 29:181–91.
Zimmermann, Bernhard. 2006. Die griechische Komödie. Frankfurt: Verlag Antike.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.