Our subject being Poetry, I propose to speak not only of the
art in general but also of its species and their respective
capacities; of the structure of plot required for a good poem;
of the number and nature of the constituent parts of a poem;
and likewise of any other matters in the same line of inquiry.
Let us follow the natural order and begin with the primary
facts.
Epic poetry and Tragedy, as also Comedy,
Dithyrambic poetry, and most flute-playing and lyre-playing,
are all, viewed as a whole, modes of imitation.
But at the same time they differ from one another in three ways,
either by a difference of kind in their means, or by differences
in the objects, or in the manner of their imitations.
Just as form and colour are used as means by some,
who (whether by art or constant practice) imitate and portray
many things by their aid, and the voice is used by others;
so also in the above-mentioned group of arts, the means
with them as a whole are rhythm, language, and harmony
-used, however, either singly or in certain combinations.
A combination of rhythm and harmony alone is the means in
flute-playing and lyre-playing, and any other arts there may
be of the same description, e.g. imitative piping.
Rhythm
alone, without harmony, is the means in the dancer's imitations;
for even he, by the rhythms of his attitudes, may represent
men's characters, as well as what they do and suffer.
There is further an art which imitates by language
alone, without harmony, in prose or in verse, and if in verse,
either in some one or in a plurality of metres.
This form of imitation is to this day without a name.
We have no
common name for a mime of Sophron or Xenarchus and
a Socratic Conversation;
and we should still be without one
even if the imitation in the two instances were in trimeters
or elegiacs or some other kind of verse
-though it is the way
with people to tack on 'poet' to the name of a metre, and
talk of elegiac-poets and epic-poets, thinking that they call
them poets not by reason of the imitative nature of their
work, but indiscriminately by reason of the metre they write
in.
Even if a theory of medicine or physical philosophy be
put forth in a metrical form, it is usual to describe the writer
in this way; Homer and Empedocles, however, have really
nothing in common apart from their metre; so that, if the
one is to be called a poet, the other should be termed a
physicist rather than a poet.
We should be in the same
position also, if the imitation in these instances were in all
the metres, like the Centaur (a rhapsody in a medley of all
metres) of Chaeremon; and Chaeremon one has to recognize
as a poet. So much, then, as to these arts.
There are,
lastly, certain other arts, which combine all the means
enumerated, rhythm, melody, and verse, e.g. Dithyrambic
and Nomic poetry, Tragedy and Comedy; with this difference,
however, that the three kinds of means are in some of them
all employed together, and in others brought in separately,
one after the other.
These elements of difference in the
above arts I term the means of their imitation.
Poetics. Aristotle. Ingram Bywater (Translator), ed. Gilbert Murray. Oxford. 1909.