ARISTOTLE'S TREATISE ON POETRY, (TWINING'S TRANSLATION.) My design is to treat of Poetry in general, and of its several species to inquire, what is the proper effect of each—what construction of a fable, or plan, is essential to a good poem-of what, and how many, parts, each species consists; with whatever else belongs to the same subject; which I shall consider in the order that most naturally presents itself. Epic poetry, tragedy, comedy, dithyrambics, as also, for the most part, the music of the flute, and of the lyre-all these are, in the most general view of them, Imitations (ovσai piunois TÒ Gúvoλov); differing, however, from each other in three respects, according to the different means, the different objects, or the different manner, of their imitation. For as men, some through art, and some through habit, imitate various objects, by means of colour and figure, and others again, by voice; so with respect to the arts above-mentioned, rhythm, words, and melody (pvlμòs, Xóyos, åpμovía), are the different means by which, either single, or variously combined, they all produce their imitation. For example in the imitations of the flute, and the lyre, and of any other instruments capable of producing a similar effect as the syrinx, or pipe-melody and rhythm only are employed. In those of dance, rhythm alone, without melody; for there are dancers who, by rhythm applied to gesture, express manners, passions, and actions. Cap. 11. The Epopoeia imitates by words alone, or by verse; and that verse may be either composed of various metres, or confined, according to the practice hitherto established, to a single species. For we should otherwise have no general name, which would comprehend the Mimes of Sophron and Xenarchus, and the Socratic dialogues; or poems in iambic, elegiac, or other metres, in which the epic species of imitation may be conveyed. Custom, indeed, connecting the poetry or making with the metre, has denominated some elegiac poets, i. e. makers of elegiac verse; others, epic poets, i. e. makers of hexameter verse; thus distinguishing poets, not according to the nature of their imitation, but according to that of their metre only. For even they who compose treatises of medicine, or natural philosophy, in verse, are denominated Poets: yet Homer and Empedocles have nothing in common, except their metre; the former, therefore, justly merits the name of Poet; while the other should rather be called a Physiologist than a Poet. So, also, though any one should chuse to convey his imitation in every kind of metre, promiscuously, as Chæremon has done in his Centaur, which is a medley of all sorts of verse, it would not immediately follow, that, on that account merely, he was entitled to the name of Poet. But of this enough. There are, again, other species of poetry, which make use of all the means of imitation, rhythm, melody, and verse. Such are the dithyrambic, that of nomes, tragedy, and comedy: with this difference, however, that, in some of these, they are employed all together, in others, separately. And such are the differences of these arts, with respect to the means by which they imitate. But, as the objects of imitation are the actions of men (étei δὲ μιμοῦνται οἱ μιμούμενοι πράττοντας), and these men must of necessity be either good or bad (for on this does character principally depend; the manners being in all men most strongly marked by virtue and vice), it follows, that we can only represent men, either as better than they actually are, or worse, or exactly as they are: just as, in painting, the pictures of Polygnotus were above the common level of nature; those of Pauson, below it; those of Dionysius, faithful likenesses. Now it is evident that each of the imitations above-mentioned will admit of these differences, and become a different kind of imitation, as it imitates objects that differ in this respect. This may be the case with dancing; with the music of the flute, and of the lyre; and also, with the poetry which employs words, or verse, only, without melody or rhythm: thus, Homer has drawn men superior to what they are; Cleophon, as they are; Hegemon the Thasian, the inventor of parodies, and Nicochares, the author of the Deliad, worse than they are. So, again, with respect to dithyrambics and nomes: in these, too, the imitation may be as different as that of the Persians by Timotheus, and the Cyclops by Philoxenus. Tragedy also, and Comedy, are distinguished in the same manner; the aim of Comedy being to exhibit men worse than we find them, that of Tragedy, better. There remains the third difference that of the manner in Cap. 111. which each of these objects may be imitated. For the poet, imitating the same object, and by the same means, may do it either in narration—and that, again, either personating other characters, as Homer does, or, in his own person throughout, without change:-or, he may imitate by representing all his characters as real, and employed in the very action itself. These, then, are the three differences by which all imitation is distinguished; those of the means, the object, and the manner (ἐν οἷς τε, καὶ ἃ, καὶ ὡς): so that Sophocles is, in one respect an imitator of the same kind with Homer, as elevated characters are the objects of both; in another respect, of the same kind with Aristophanes, as both imitate in the way of action; whence, according to some, the application of the term drama [i.e. action] to such poems. Upon this it is, that the Dorians ground their claim to the invention both of Tragedy and Comedy. For Comedy is claimed by the Megarians; both by those of Greece, who contend that it took its rise in their popular government; and by those of Sicily, among whom the poet Epicharmus flourished long before Chionides and Magnes; and Tragedy, also, is claimed by some of the Dorians of Peloponnesus.-In support of these claims they argue from the words themselves. They allege, that the Doric word for a village is Kun, the Attic Anuos; and that Comedians were so called, not from Kwuάew-to revel—but |