시학/1부

시학1부 (1-11장)

[Part I] I propose to treat of Poetry in itself and of its various kinds, noting the essential quality of each, to inquire into the structure of the plot as requisite to a good poem; into the number and nature of the parts of which a poem is composed; and similarly into whatever else falls within the same inquiry. Following, then, the order of nature, let us begin with the principles which come first.

Epic poetry and Tragedy, Comedy also and Dithyrambic poetry, and the music of the flute and of the lyre in most of their forms, are all in their general conception modes of imitation. They differ, however, from one another in three respects- the medium, the objects, the manner or mode of imitation, being in each case distinct.

For as there are persons who, by conscious art or mere habit, imitate and represent various objects through the medium of color and form, or again by the voice; so in the arts above mentioned, taken as a whole, the imitation is produced by rhythm, language, or 'harmony,' either singly or combined. Thus in the music of the flute and of the lyre, 'harmony' and rhythm alone are employed; also in other arts, such as that of the shepherd's pipe, which are essentially similar to these. In dancing, rhythm alone is used without 'harmony'; for even dancing imitates character, emotion, and action, by rhythmical movement.

There is another art which imitates by means of language alone, and that either in prose or verse— which verse, again, may either combine different meters or consist of but one kind—but this has hitherto been without a name. For there is no common term we could apply to the mimes of Sophron and Xenarchus and the Socratic dialogues on the one hand; and, on the other, to poetic imitations in iambic, elegiac, or any similar meter. People do, indeed, add the word 'maker' or 'poet' to the name of the meter, and speak of elegiac poets, or epic (that is, hexameter) poets, as if it were not the imitation that makes the poet, but the verse that entitles them all to the name. Even when a treatise on medicine or natural science is brought out in verse, the name of poet is by custom given to the author; and yet Homer and Empedocles have nothing in common but the meter, so that it would be right to call the one poet, the other physicist rather than poet. On the same principle, even if a writer in his poetic imitation were to combine all meters, as Chaeremon did in his Centaur, which is a medley composed of metres of all kinds, we should bring him too under the general term poet. So much then for these distinctions.

There are, again, some arts which employ all the means above mentioned—namely, rhythm, tune, and metre. Such are Dithyrambic and Nomic poetry, and also Tragedy and Comedy; but between them originally the difference is, that in the first two cases these means are all employed in combination, in the latter, now one means is employed, now another. Such, then, are the differences of the arts with respect to the medium of imitation

[Part II] Since the objects of imitation are men in action, and these men must be either of a higher or a lower type (for moral character mainly answers to these divisions, goodness and badness being the distinguishing marks of moral differences), it follows that we must represent men either as better than in real life, or as worse, or as they are. It is the same in painting. Polygnotus depicted men as nobler than they are, Pauson as less noble, Dionysius drew them true to life.

Now it is evident that each of the modes of imitation above mentioned will exhibit these differences, and become a distinct kind in imitating objects that are thus distinct. Such diversities may be found even in dancing, flute-playing, and lyre-playing. So again in language, whether prose or verse unaccompanied by music. Homer, for example, makes men better than they are; Cleophon as they are; Hegemon the Thasian, the inventor of parodies, and Nicochares, the author of the Deiliad, worse than they are. The same thing holds good of Dithyrambs and Nomes; here too one may portray different types, as Timotheus and Philoxenus differed in representing their Cyclopes. The same distinction marks off Tragedy from Comedy; for Comedy aims at representing men as worse, Tragedy as better than in actual life.

[Part III] There is still a third difference—the manner in which each of these objects may be imitated. For the medium being the same, and the objects the same, the poet may imitate by narration—in which case he can either take another personality as Homer does, or speak in his own person, unchanged—or he may present all his characters as living and moving before us.

These, then, as we said at the beginning, are the three differences which distinguish artistic imitation—the medium, the objects, and the manner. So that from one point of view, Sophocles is an imitator of the same kind as Homer—for both imitate higher types of character; from another point of view, of the same kind as Aristophanes—for both imitate persons acting and doing. Hence, some say, the name of 'drama' is given to such poems, as representing action. For the same reason the Dorians claim the invention both of Tragedy and Comedy. The claim to Comedy is put forward by the Megarians—not only by those of Greece proper, who allege that it originated under their democracy, but also by the Megarians of Sicily, for the poet Epicharmus, who is much earlier than Chionides and Magnes, belonged to that country. Tragedy too is claimed by certain Dorians of the Peloponnese. In each case they appeal to the evidence of language. The outlying villages, they say, are by them called κῶμαι (komai), by the Athenians δῆμοι (demoi) : and they assume that comedians were so named not from κωμάζειν (komazein), 'to revel,' but because they wandered from village to village (κατὰ κώμας, kata komas), being excluded contemptuously from the city. They add also that the Dorian word for 'doing' is δρᾶν (dran), and the Athenian, πράττειν (prattein).

This may suffice as to the number and nature of the various modes of imitation.

[Part 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 coloring, or some such other cause.

Imitation, then, is one instinct of our nature. Next, there is the instinct for 'harmony' and rhythm, meters 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 meter 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 dramatizing 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 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.

[Part 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, generalized 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 endeavors, 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.

[Part VI] 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 media of imitation. By 'Diction' 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 colors, 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.

[Part VII] 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 sequence of events, according to the law of probability or necessity, will admit of a change from bad fortune to good, or from good fortune to bad.

[Part VIII] Unity of plot does not, as some persons think, consist in the unity of the hero. For infinitely various are the incidents in one man's life which cannot be reduced to unity; and so, too, there are many actions of one man out of which we cannot make one action. Hence the error, as it appears, of all poets who have composed a Heracleid, a Theseid, or other poems of the kind. They imagine that as Heracles was one man, the story of Heracles must also be a unity. But Homer, as in all else he is of surpassing merit, here too—whether from art or natural genius—seems to have happily discerned the truth. In composing the Odyssey he did not include all the adventures of Odysseus—such as his wound on Parnassus, or his feigned madness at the mustering of the host—incidents between which there was no necessary or probable connection: but he made the Odyssey, and likewise the Iliad, to center round an action that in our sense of the word is one. As therefore, in the other imitative arts, the imitation is one when the object imitated is one, so the plot, being an imitation of an action, must imitate one action and that a whole, the structural union of the parts being such that, if any one of them is displaced or removed, the whole will be disjointed and disturbed. For a thing whose presence or absence makes no visible difference, is not an organic part of the whole.

[Part IX] It is, moreover, evident from what has been said, that it is not the function of the poet to relate what has happened, but what may happen—what is possible according to the law of probability or necessity. The poet and the historian differ not by writing in verse or in prose. The work of Herodotus might be put into verse, and it would still be a species of history, with meter no less than without it. The true difference is that one relates what has happened, the other what may happen. Poetry, therefore, is a more philosophical and a higher thing than history: for poetry tends to express the universal, history the particular. By the universal I mean how a person of a certain type on occasion speak or act, according to the law of probability or necessity; and it is this universality at which poetry aims in the names she attaches to the personages. The particular is—for example—what Alcibiades did or suffered. In Comedy this is already apparent: for here the poet first constructs the plot on the lines of probability, and then inserts characteristic names—unlike the lampooners who write about particular individuals. But tragedians still keep to real names, the reason being that what is possible is credible: what has not happened we do not at once feel sure to be possible; but what has happened is manifestly possible: otherwise it would not have happened. Still there are even some tragedies in which there are only one or two well-known names, the rest being fictitious. In others, none are well known—as in Agathon's Antheus, where incidents and names alike are fictitious, and yet they give none the less pleasure. We must not, therefore, at all costs keep to the received legends, which are the usual subjects of Tragedy. Indeed, it would be absurd to attempt it; for even subjects that are known are known only to a few, and yet give pleasure to all. It clearly follows that the poet or 'maker' should be the maker of plots rather than of verses; since he is a poet because he imitates, and what he imitates are actions. And even if he chances to take a historical subject, he is none the less a poet; for there is no reason why some events that have actually happened should not conform to the law of the probable and possible, and in virtue of that quality in them he is their poet or maker.

Of all plots and actions the episodic are the worst. I call a plot 'episodic' in which the episodes or acts succeed one another without probable or necessary sequence. Bad poets compose such pieces by their own fault, good poets, to please the players; for, as they write show pieces for competition, they stretch the plot beyond its capacity, and are often forced to break the natural continuity.

But again, Tragedy is an imitation not only of a complete action, but of events inspiring fear or pity. Such an effect is best produced when the events come on us by surprise; and the effect is heightened when, at the same time, they follows as cause and effect. The tragic wonder will then be greater than if they happened of themselves or by accident; for even coincidences are most striking when they have an air of design. We may instance the statue of Mitys at Argos, which fell upon his murderer while he was a spectator at a festival, and killed him. Such events seem not to be due to mere chance. Plots, therefore, constructed on these principles are necessarily the best.

[Part X] Plots are either Simple or Complex, for the actions in real life, of which the plots are an imitation, obviously show a similar distinction. An action which is one and continuous in the sense above defined, I call Simple, when the change of fortune takes place without Reversal of the Situation and without Recognition

A Complex action is one in which the change is accompanied by such Reversal, or by Recognition, or by both. These last should arise from the internal structure of the plot, so that what follows should be the necessary or probable result of the preceding action. It makes all the difference whether any given event is a case of propter hoc or post hoc.

[Part XI] Reversal of the Situation is a change by which the action veers round to its opposite, subject always to our rule of probability or necessity. Thus in the Oedipus, the messenger comes to cheer Oedipus and free him from his alarms about his mother, but by revealing who he is, he produces the opposite effect. Again in the Lynceus, Lynceus is being led away to his death, and Danaus goes with him, meaning to slay him; but the outcome of the preceding incidents is that Danaus is killed and Lynceus saved.

Recognition, as the name indicates, is a change from ignorance to knowledge, producing love or hate between the persons destined by the poet for good or bad fortune. The best form of recognition is coincident with a Reversal of the Situation, as in the Oedipus. There are indeed other forms. Even inanimate things of the most trivial kind may in a sense be objects of recognition. Again, we may recognize or discover whether a person has done a thing or not. But the recognition which is most intimately connected with the plot and action is, as we have said, the recognition of persons. This recognition, combined with Reversal, will produce either pity or fear; and actions producing these effects are those which, by our definition, Tragedy represents. Moreover, it is upon such situations that the issues of good or bad fortune will depend. Recognition, then, being between persons, it may happen that one person only is recognized by the other—when the latter is already known—or it may be necessary that the recognition should be on both sides. Thus Iphigenia is revealed to Orestes by the sending of the letter; but another act of recognition is required to make Orestes known to Iphigenia.

Two parts, then, of the Plot—Reversal of the Situation and Recognition—turn upon surprises. A third part is the Scene of Suffering. The Scene of Suffering is a destructive or painful action, such as death on the stage, bodily agony, wounds, and the like.

[1장] 나는 시 자체와 다양한 종류의 시를 각각의 본질적인 특성에 주목하면서 좋은 시의 필수 조건으로서 줄거리의 구조를 조사할 것을 제안합니다. 시가 구성되는 부분의 수와 성격; 그리고 같은 조사에 속하는 다른 것들에 대해서도 유사하게. 그러면 자연의 질서에 따라 우선 원칙부터 시작하겠습니다. 서사시와 비극, 희극과 주신찬가 시, 그리고 대부분의 형식에 있는 플루트와 수금의 음악은 모두 모방의 일반적인 개념 모드에 있습니다. 그러나 그것들은 세 가지 면에서 서로 다릅니다. 매체, 대상, 모방 방식 또는 방법은 각각의 경우에 구별됩니다. 의식적인 예술이나 단순화한(정형화된 반복적) 습관으로 색채와 형태의 매체를 통해 혹은 또는 목소리로 다양한 대상을 모방하고 표현하는 사람들이 있기 때문입니다. 따라서 위에서 언급한 예술에서 전체적으로 볼 때 모방은 리듬(율동), 언어 또는 '화음'에 의해 단독으로 또는 결합되어 생성됩니다. 따라서 플루트와 거문고의 음악에서는 '하모니'와 리듬만이 사용됩니다. 본질적으로 이들과 유사한 양치기의 파이프와 같은 다른 예술에서도 마찬가지입니다. 춤에서는 '하모니' 없이 리듬만 사용합니다. 춤도 리드미컬한 움직임으로 성격, 감정, 행동을 모방하기 때문입니다.

언어만으로 모방하는 또 다른 예술이 있는데, 산문이든 운문이든, 다시 말하지만 이 구절은 다른 운율을 결합하거나 한 종류로만 구성될 수 있지만 이것은 지금까지 이름이 없었습니다. 소프론(Sophron)과 크세나르쿠스(Xenarchus)의 마임과 한편으로는 소크라테스같은(Socratic) 대화에 적용할 수 있는 일반적인 용어가 없기 때문입니다. 그리고 다른 한편으로, 약어, 애가 또는 유사한 운율로 된 시적 모방. 실제로 사람들은 운율의 이름에 '제작자' 또는 '시인'이라는 단어를 추가하고, 시인을 만드는 것은 모방이 아닌 것처럼, 애가 시인 또는 서사시(즉, 6박자) 시인에 대해 이야기합니다. 그러나 그들 모두에게 그 이름을 부여하는 구절. 의술이나 자연과학에 관한 논문이 운문으로 나올 때에도 시인의 이름은 관례에 따라 저자에게 주어진다. 그러나 호메로스와 엠페도클레스는 미터 외에는 공통점이 없기 때문에 시인이라기보다는 한 시인, 다른 한 시인을 물리학자라고 부르는 것이 옳을 것입니다. 같은 원리로, 시적 모방의 작가가 카이레몬(Chaeremon)이 모든 종류의 미터로 구성된 메들리인 센타우르Centaur,혼합시)에서 했던 것처럼 모든 미터를 결합한다고 해도 우리는 그를 시인이라는 일반 용어로 가져와야 합니다. 그런 다음 이러한 구분에 대해.위에서 언급한 모든 수단, 즉 리듬, 선율, 박자를 사용하는 예술도 있습니다. 주신찬가 및 격언시와 비극 및 희극이 있습니다. 그러나 그들 사이의 차이점은 처음 두 경우에는 이러한 수단이 모두 조합되어 사용되며, 후자에서는 이제 하나의 수단이 사용되고 ,(마지막은)이제는 다른 수단이 사용된다는 것입니다. 그렇다면 모방이라는 매체에 대한 예술의 차이점은 바로 이런것입니다.

[2장] 모방의 대상은 행동하는 사람들이고, 이 사람들은 더 높거나 낮은 유형이어야 하기 때문에(도덕적 성격은 주로 이러한 구분에 대한 대답이며, 선과 악은 도덕적 차이의 구별되는 표시임) 다음과 같이 해야 합니다. 실제 삶보다 더 나은 사람, 또는 더 나쁜 사람, 또는 남자를 나타냅니다. 회화에서도 마찬가지입니다. 폴리그노투스(Polygnotus)는 인간을 자신보다 더 고귀한 것으로 묘사하고, 파우송은 덜 고귀한 것으로 묘사하고, 디오니시우스(Dionysius)는 삶에 충실하게 그렸습니다.

이제 위에서 언급한 각각의 모방 방식은 이러한 차이점을 나타내고, 그렇게 구별되는 대상을 모방하는 데 있어서 구별되는 종류가 될 것이 분명합니다. 그러한 다양성은 춤, 피리 연주, 수금 연주에서도 찾아볼 수 있습니다. 음악이 반주되지 않은 산문이든 운문이든 언어로 다시 말입니다. 예를 들어 호머는 인간을 실제보다 낫게 만듭니다. 있는 그대로의 클레오폰; 패러디의 창시자인 타시안 헤게몬과 데일리아드의 작가 니코카레스는 그들보다 더 나쁩니다. 주신찬양과 격언시도 마찬가지입니다. 여기에서도 티모테우스와 필록세누스가 키클롭스를 대표하는 방식이 다르기 때문에 서로 다른 유형을 묘사할 수 있습니다. 코미디의 비극도 같은 구분으로 표시됩니다. 코미디는 인간을 실제보다 더 나쁘게, 비극을 더 나은 존재로 표현하는 것을 목표로 합니다.

[3장]여전히 세 번째 차이점이 있습니다. 즉, 이러한 각각의 대상을 모방할 수 있는 방식입니다. 매체가 동일하고 대상이 동일하기 때문에 시인은 나레이션으로 모방할 수 있습니다. 이 경우 그는 호메로스가 하는 것처럼 다른 인격을 취하거나 변경 없이 자신의 인격으로 우리 앞에 살아 움직이는 것처럼 말할 수 있습니다.

서두에서 말했듯이 예술적 모방을 구별하는 세 가지 차이점은 매체(수단), 대상 및 방식입니다. 따라서 한 가지 관점에서 소포클레스는 호메로스와 같은 종류의 모방자입니다. 둘 다 더 높은 유형의 성격을 모방하기 때문입니다. 아리스토파네스와 같은 종류의 다른 관점에서 행동하고 그러한 행동하는 사람을 모방합니다. 그래서 '드라마'라는 이름을 그런 시들에 붙였다는 말이 있습니다. 같은 이유로 도리아인들(Dorians)은 비극과 희극 모두의 발명품을 주장합니다. 희극에 대한 주장은 민주주의 하에서 시작되었다고 주장하는 그리스 본토의 메가리아인들뿐만 아니라 키오니데스와 마그네스가 그 나라에 속했던것보다 훨씬 앞선 시인 에피카르모스를 위해 시칠리아의 메가리아인들에 의해 제기된 것입니다. 비극은 펠로폰네소스반도(Peloponnese그리스어: Πελοπόννησος)의 특정 도리아인들(Dorians)에 의해 주장됩니다. 각각의 경우에 그들은 언어의 증거에 호소합니다. 그들은 외곽 마을을 아테네인 δῆμοι(데모이)에 의해 κῶμαι(komai)라고 불렀다고 말합니다. 그들은 코미디언이 '흥을 돋우다'라는 뜻의 κωμάζειν(komazein)에서 유래한 것이 아니라 그들이 마을에서 떠돌아다니기 때문에 그렇게 명명되었다고 가정합니다. 마을에서 마을로 떠돌아다녔고(κατὰ κώμας, kata komas), 도시에서 경멸적으로 배제되었습니다. 그들은 또한 '하는 것'에 대한 도리아인들(Dorians)의 단어가 δρᾶν(dran)이고 아테네어, πράττειν(prattein)이라고 덧붙입니다.

이것은 다양한 모방 방식의 수와 성격에 대해 충분할 수 있습니다.

[4장] 시는 일반적으로 두 가지 원인에서 비롯된 것 같습니다. 각각은 우리 본성 깊숙이 자리 잡고 있습니다. 첫째, 모방 본능은 어릴 때부터 인간에게 심어져 있는데, 인간과 다른 동물의 한 가지 차이점은 인간이 생물을 가장 잘 모방하고 모방을 통해 초기 교훈을 배운다는 점입니다. 모방된 것에서 느끼는 즐거움도 덜 보편적입니다. 우리는 경험의 사실에서 이것에 대한 증거를 가지고 있습니다. 그 자체로 우리가 고통스럽게 바라보는 대상들, 예를 들어 가장 하찮은 동물과 시체의 형태와 같이 정밀하게 재현할 때 우리는 숙고하기를 즐깁니다. 그 이유는 배움이 철학자뿐만 아니라 일반 사람들에게 가장 생생한 즐거움을 주기 때문입니다. 그러나 학습 능력은 더 제한적입니다. 그러므로 사람들이 닮은 것을 보는 것을 즐기는 이유는 그것을 묵상하면서 배우거나 추론하고 아마도 '아, 그 사람이다'라고 말하는 자신을 발견하기 때문입니다. 당신이 원본을 본 적이 없다면 즐거움은 모방 자체가 아니라 실행, 채색 또는 기타 그러한 원인에 기인할 것이기 때문입니다.

따라서 모방은 우리 본성의 본능 중 하나입니다. 다음으로 '하모니'와 리듬에 대한 본능이 있는데, 박자는 분명히 리듬의 한 부분이다. 따라서 사람들은 이 타고난 재능으로 시작하여 그들의 특별한 소질을 점차 발전시켜 그들의 꾸임없는 즉흥 연주가 시를 탄생시켰습니다.

시는 이제 작가의 개성에 따라 두 가지 방향으로 갈라졌다. 더 무거운 영혼은 고귀한 행동과 선한 사람의 행동을 모방했습니다. 더 사소한 부류는 천한 사람들의 행동을 모방하여 처음에는 풍자를 작곡했습니다. 풍자적인 종류의 시는 호메로스 이전의 어떤 작가에게도 내려질 수 없습니다. 그런 작가들이 많았겠지만. 그러나 호머 이후로는 예를 들어 자신의 마르기테스(Margites) 및 기타 유사한 작곡의 사례를 인용할 수 있습니다. 적절한 미터(meter)^[1]도 여기에 도입되었습니다. 따라서 이 측정은 여전히 ​​사람들이 서로를 비웃는 측정인 약어 또는 비꼬는 측정이라고 합니다. 따라서 나이든 시인들은 영웅적이거나 풍자적인 시의 작가로 구별되었습니다.

진지한 문체에서 호머는 시인들 사이에서 두각을 나타냈는데, 그 이유는 호메로스만이 극적 형식과 모방의 탁월함을 결합했기 때문입니다. 그래서 그 역시 개인적인 풍자를 쓰지 않고 터무니없는 것을 극화함으로써 희극의 주요 노선을 먼저 정립했습니다. 그의 마르기테스(Margites)는 일리아드(Iliad)와 오디세이(Odyssey)가 비극에 대해 하는 것과 동일한 관계를 희극에 적용합니다. 그러나 비극과 희극이 밝혀졌을 때, 두 부류의 시인은 여전히 ​​그들의 타고난 성향을 따랐습니다. 풍족한 사람들은 희극의 작가가 되었고, 서사시 시인들은 비극이 더 크고 더 높은 형태의 예술이었기 때문에 비극적인 사람들에 의해 계승되었습니다.

비극이 아직 적절한 유형을 완성했는지 여부. 그리고 그것이 그 자체로 판단되어야 하는지, 아니면 청중과 관련하여 판단되어야 하는지, 이것은 또 다른 질문을 제기합니다. 그렇더라도 비극-코미디이기도 하다-은 처음에는 단순한 즉흥 연주에 불과했습니다. 하나는 디튀람보스(dithyrambos)의 작가들에게서 시작되었고 다른 하나는 우리 도시의 많은 곳에서 여전히 사용되는 남근 노래의 작가들과 함께 시작되었습니다. 비극은 천천히 진행되었습니다. 자신을 보여주는 각각의 새로운 요소가 차례로 개발되었습니다. 많은 변화를 거쳐 본연의 모습을 찾았고 거기서 멈췄습니다.

아이스킬로스(Aeschylus)는 처음으로 두 번째 배우를 소개했습니다. 그는 합창의 중요성을 축소하고 대화의 선두 부분을 할당했습니다. 소포클레스는 배우의 수를 3명으로 늘리고 씬 페인팅을 추가했습니다. 더욱이, 더 큰 나침반 중 하나를 위해 짧은 줄거리가 폐기되고 비극의 위엄 있는 방식에 대한 초기 풍자 형식의 그로테스크한 ​​딕션이 폐기된 것은 늦지 않았습니다. 그 다음에는 시가 풍자적 순서일 때 사용되었고 춤과 함께 더 많이 사용되었던 강약격(trochaic)의 사보격(tetrameter)을 약강격(iambic) 율격(measure)으로 대체했습니다. 대화가 시작되자 네이처(Nature) 자신이 적절한 조치를 찾은것입니다. 약강격(iambic)은 모든 율격(measure) 중에서 가장 구어적이기 때문에 대화식 연설이 다른 종류의 구절보다 더 자주 약강격(iambic) 라인에 들어간다는 사실에서 볼 수 있습니다. 거의 육보격(hexameter)로, 그리고 구어체 억양을 떨어뜨릴 때만 가능합니다. '에피소드' 또는 막의 수에 대한 추가 및 전통이 말하는 기타 액세서리는 이미 설명한 대로 취해야 합니다. 그것들을 자세히 논의하는 것은 틀림없이 큰 일이 될 것이기 때문입니다.

[5장]

---

1. 박자,음율,보격 등을 의미할수있다.