IV

Poetry in general seems to have sprung from two causes, each of them

lying deep in our nature. First, the instinct of imitation is implanted

in man from childhood, one difference between him and other animals

being that he is the most imitative of living creatures, and through

imitation learns his earliest lessons; and no less universal is the

pleasure felt in things imitated. We have evidence of this in the facts

of experience. Objects which in themselves we view with pain, we delight

to contemplate when reproduced with minute fidelity: such as the forms

of the most ignoble animals and of dead bodies. The cause of this again

is, that to learn gives the liveliest pleasure, not only to philosophers

but to men in general; whose capacity, however, of learning is more

limited. Thus the reason why men enjoy seeing a likeness is, that in

contemplating it they find themselves learning or inferring, and saying

perhaps, 'Ah, that is he.' For if you happen not to have seen the

original, the pleasure will be due not to the imitation as such, but to

the execution, the colouring, or some such other cause.

Imitation, then, is one instinct of our nature. Next, there is the

instinct for 'harmony' and rhythm, metres being manifestly sections of

rhythm. Persons, therefore, starting with this natural gift developed

by degrees their special aptitudes, till their rude improvisations gave

birth to Poetry.

Poetry now diverged in two directions, according to the individual

character of the writers. The graver spirits imitated noble actions, and

the actions of good men. The more trivial sort imitated the actions of

meaner persons, at first composing satires, as the former did hymns to

the gods and the praises of famous men. A poem of the satirical kind

cannot indeed be put down to any author earlier than Homer; though many

such writers probably there were. But from Homer onward, instances

can be cited,--his own Margites, for example, and other similar

compositions. The appropriate metre was also here introduced; hence the

measure is still called the iambic or lampooning measure, being that

in which people lampooned one another. Thus the older poets were

distinguished as writers of heroic or of lampooning verse.

As, in the serious style, Homer is pre-eminent among poets, for he alone

combined dramatic form with excellence of imitation, so he too first

laid down the main lines of Comedy, by dramatising the ludicrous instead

of writing personal satire. His Margites bears the same relation to

Comedy that the Iliad and Odyssey do to Tragedy. But when Tragedy and

Comedy came to light, the two classes of poets still followed their

natural bent: the lampooners became writers of Comedy, and the Epic

poets were 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.

V

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.

The Poetics of Aristotle · 第 9 / 29 题