things as they are said or thought to be, or things as they ought to be.
The vehicle of expression is language,--either current terms or, it may
be, rare words or metaphors. There are also many modifications of
language, which we concede to the poets. Add to this, that the standard
of correctness is not the same in poetry and politics, any more than in
poetry and any other art. Within the art of poetry itself there are two
kinds of faults, those which touch its essence, and those which are
accidental. If a poet has chosen to imitate something, it incorrectly> through want of capacity, the error is inherent in the
poetry. But if the failure is due to a wrong choice if he has represented
a horse as throwing out both his off legs at once, or introduced
technical inaccuracies in medicine, for example, or in any other art the
error is not essential to the poetry. These are the points of view from
which we should consider and answer the objections raised by the critics.

First as to matters which concern the poet's own art. If he describes the
impossible, he is guilty of an error; but the error may be justified, if
the end of the art be thereby attained (the end being that already
mentioned), if, that is, the effect of this or any other part of the poem
is thus rendered more striking. A case in point is the pursuit of Hector.
If, however, the end might have been as well, or better, attained without
violating the special rules of the poetic art, the error is not
justified: for every kind of error should, if possible, be avoided.

Again, does the error touch the essentials of the poetic art, or some
accident of it? For example,--not to know that a hind has no horns is a
less serious matter than to paint it inartistically.

Further, if it be objected that the description is not true to fact, the
poet may perhaps reply,--'But the objects are as they ought to be': just