Poetics by Aristotle (reading rainbow books .TXT) 📕

succeeded by Tragedians, since the drama was a larger and higher form of

art.

Whether Tragedy has as yet perfected its proper types or not; and whether

it is to be judged in itself, or in relation also to the audience,—this

raises another question. Be that as it may, Tragedy—as also Comedy –

was at first mere improvisation. The one originated with the authors of

the Dithyramb, the other with those of the phallic songs, which are still

in use in many of our cities. Tragedy advanced by slow degrees; each new

element that showed itself was in turn developed. Having passed through

many changes, it found its natural form, and there it stopped.

Aeschylus first introduced a second actor; he diminished the importance

of the Chorus, and assigned the leading part to the dialogue. Sophocles

raised the number of actors to three, and added scene-painting. Moreover,

it was not till late that the short plot was discarded for one of greater

compass, and the grotesque diction of the earlier satyric form for the

stately manner of Tragedy. The iambic measure then replaced the trochaic

tetrameter, which was originally employed when the poetry was of the

Satyric order, and had greater affinities with dancing. Once dialogue had

come in, Nature herself discovered the appropriate measure. For the

iambic is, of all measures, the most colloquial: we see it in the fact

that conversational speech runs into iambic lines more frequently than

into any other kind of verse; rarely into hexameters, and only when we

drop the colloquial intonation. The additions to the number of ‘episodes’

or acts, and the other accessories of which tradition; tells, must be

taken as already described; for to discuss them in detail would,

doubtless, be a large undertaking.

Comedy is, as we have said, an imitation of characters of a lower type,

not, however, in the full sense of the word bad, the Ludicrous being

merely a subdivision of the ugly. It consists in some defect or ugliness

which is not painful or destructive. To take an obvious example, the

comic mask is ugly and distorted, but does not imply pain.

The successive changes through which Tragedy passed, and the authors of

these changes, are well known, whereas Comedy has had no history, because

it was not at first treated seriously. It was late before the Archon

granted a comic chorus to a poet; the performers were till then

voluntary. Comedy had already taken definite shape when comic poets,

distinctively so called, are heard of. Who furnished it with masks, or

prologues, or increased the number of actors,—these and other similar

details remain unknown. As for the plot, it came originally from Sicily;

but of Athenian writers Crates was the first who, abandoning the ‘iambic’

or lampooning form, generalised his themes and plots.

Epic poetry agrees with Tragedy in so far as it is an imitation in verse

of characters of a higher type. They differ, in that Epic poetry admits

but one kind of metre, and is narrative in form. They differ, again, in

their length: for Tragedy endeavours, as far as possible, to confine

itself to a single revolution of the sun, or but slightly to exceed this

limit; whereas the Epic action has no limits of time. This, then, is a

second point of difference; though at first the same freedom was admitted

in Tragedy as in Epic poetry.

Of their constituent parts some are common to both, some peculiar to

Tragedy, whoever, therefore, knows what is good or bad Tragedy, knows

also about Epic poetry. All the elements of an Epic poem are found in

Tragedy, but the elements of a Tragedy are not all found in the Epic

poem.

Of the poetry which imitates in hexameter verse, and of Comedy, we will

speak hereafter. Let us now discuss Tragedy, resuming its formal

definition, as resulting from what has been already said.

Tragedy, then, is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete,

and of a certain magnitude; in language embellished with each kind of

artistic ornament, the several kinds being found in separate parts of the

play; in the form of action, not of narrative; through pity and fear

effecting the proper purgation of these emotions. By ‘language

embellished,’ I mean language into which rhythm, ‘harmony,’ and song

enter. By ‘the several kinds in separate parts,’ I mean, that some parts

are rendered through the medium of verse alone, others again with the aid

of song.

Now as tragic imitation implies persons acting, it necessarily follows,

in the first place, that Spectacular equipment will be a part of Tragedy.

Next, Song and Diction, for these are the medium of imitation. By

‘Diction’ I mean the mere metrical arrangement of the words: as for

‘Song,’ it is a term whose sense every one understands.

Again, Tragedy is the imitation of an action; and an action implies

personal agents, who necessarily possess certain distinctive qualities

both of character and thought; for it is by these that we qualify actions

themselves, and these—thought and character—are the two natural causes

from which actions spring, and on actions again all success or failure

depends. Hence, the Plot is the imitation of the action: for by plot I

here mean the arrangement of the incidents. By Character I mean that in

virtue of which we ascribe certain qualities to the agents. Thought is

required wherever a statement is proved, or, it may be, a general truth

enunciated. Every Tragedy, therefore, must have six parts, which parts

determine its quality—namely, Plot, Character, Diction, Thought,

Spectacle, Song. Two of the parts constitute the medium of imitation, one

the manner, and three the objects of imitation. And these complete the

list. These elements have been employed, we may say, by the poets to a

man; in fact, every play contains Spectacular elements as well as

Character, Plot, Diction, Song, and Thought.

But most important of all is the structure of the incidents. For Tragedy

is an imitation, not of men, but of an action and of life, and life

consists in action, and its end is a mode of action, not a quality. Now

character determines men’s qualities, but it is by their actions that

they are happy or the reverse. Dramatic action, therefore, is not with a

view to the representation of character: character comes in as subsidiary

to the actions. Hence the incidents and the plot are the end of a

tragedy; and the end is the chief thing of all. Again, without action

there cannot be a tragedy; there may be without character. The tragedies

of most of our modern poets fail in the rendering of character; and of

poets in general this is often true. It is the same in painting; and here

lies the difference between Zeuxis and Polygnotus. Polygnotus delineates

character well: the style of Zeuxis is devoid of ethical quality. Again,

if you string together a set of speeches expressive of character, and

well finished in point of diction and thought, you will not produce the

essential tragic effect nearly so well as with a play which, however

deficient in these respects, yet has a plot and artistically constructed

incidents. Besides which, the most powerful elements of emotional:

interest in Tragedy Peripeteia or Reversal of the Situation, and

Recognition scenes—are parts of the plot. A further proof is, that

novices in the art attain to finish: of diction and precision of

portraiture before they can construct the plot. It is the same with

almost all the early poets.

The Plot, then, is the first principle, and, as it were, the soul of a

tragedy: Character holds the second place. A similar fact is seen in

painting. The most beautiful colours, laid on confusedly, will not give

as much pleasure as the chalk outline of a portrait. Thus Tragedy is the

imitation of an action, and of the agents mainly with a view to the

action.

Third in order is Thought,—that is, the faculty of saying what is

possible and pertinent in given circumstances. In the case of oratory,

this is the function of the Political art and of the art of rhetoric: and

so indeed the older poets make their characters speak the language of

civic life; the poets of our time, the language of the rhetoricians.

Character is that which reveals moral purpose, showing what kind of

things a man chooses or avoids. Speeches, therefore, which do not make

this manifest, or in which the speaker does not choose or avoid anything

whatever, are not expressive of character. Thought, on the other hand, is

found where something is proved to be. or not to be, or a general maxim

is enunciated.

Fourth among the elements enumerated comes Diction; by which I mean, as

has been already said, the expression of the meaning in words; and its

essence is the same both in verse and prose.

Of the remaining elements Song holds the chief place among the

embellishments.

The Spectacle has, indeed, an emotional attraction of its own, but, of

all the parts, it is the least artistic, and connected least with the art

of poetry. For the power of Tragedy, we may be sure, is felt even apart

from representation and actors. Besides, the production of spectacular

effects depends more on the art of the stage machinist than on that of

the poet.

These principles being established, let us now discuss the proper

structure of the Plot, since this is the first and most important thing

in Tragedy.

Now, according to our definition, Tragedy is an imitation of an action

that is complete, and whole, and of a certain magnitude; for there may be

a whole that is wanting in magnitude. A whole is that which has a

beginning, a middle, and an end. A beginning is that which does not

itself follow anything by causal necessity, but after which something

naturally is or comes to be. An end, on the contrary, is that which

itself naturally follows some other thing, either by necessity, or as a

rule, but has nothing following it. A middle is that which follows

something as some other thing follows it. A well constructed plot,

therefore, must neither begin nor end at haphazard, but conform to these

principles.

Again, a beautiful object, whether it be a living organism or any whole

composed of parts, must not only have an orderly arrangement of parts,

but must also be of a certain magnitude; for beauty depends on magnitude

and order. Hence a very small animal organism cannot be beautiful; for

the view of it is confused, the object being seen in an almost

imperceptible moment of time. Nor, again, can one of vast size be

beautiful; for as the eye cannot take it all in at once, the unity and

sense of the whole is lost for the spectator; as for instance if there

were one a thousand miles long. As, therefore, in the case of animate

bodies and organisms a certain magnitude is necessary, and a magnitude

which may be easily embraced in one view; so in the plot, a certain

length is necessary, and a length which can be easily embraced by the

memory. The limit of length in relation to dramatic competition and

sensuous presentment, is no part of artistic theory. For had it been the

rule for a hundred tragedies to compete together, the performance would

have been regulated by the water-clock,—as indeed we are told was

formerly done. But the limit as fixed by the nature of the drama itself

is this: the greater the length, the more beautiful will the piece be by

reason of its size, provided that the whole be perspicuous. And to define

the matter roughly, we may say that the proper magnitude is comprised

within such limits, that the