It is clear that the general origin of poetry was due to
two causes, each of them part of human nature.
Imitation
is natural to man from childhood, one of his advantages over
the lower animals being this, that he is the most imitative
creature in the world, and learns at first by imitation. And it
is also natural for all to delight in works of imitation.
The truth of this second point is shown by experience: though
the objects themselves may be painful to see, we delight to
view the most realistic representations of them in art, the
forms for example of the lowest animals and of dead bodies.
The explanation is to be found in a further fact: to be
learning something is the greatest of pleasures not only to
the philosopher but also to the rest of mankind, however
small their capacity for it;
the reason of the delight in seeing
the picture is that one is at the same time learning—gathering
the meaning of things, e.g. that the man there is so-and-so;
for if one has not seen the thing before, one's pleasure will
not be in the picture as an imitation of it, but will be due to
the execution or colouring or some similar cause.
Imitation, then, being natural to us—as also the sense of harmony
and rhythm, the metres being obviously species of rhythms—
it was through their original aptitude, and by a series of
improvements for the most part gradual on their first efforts,
that they created poetry out of their improvisations.
Poetry, however, soon broke up into two kinds according to the
differences of character in the individual poets; for
the graver among them would represent noble actions, and
those of noble personages; and the meaner sort the actions
of the ignoble. The latter class produced invectives at first,
just as others did hymns and panegyrics.
We know of no
such poem by any of the pre-Homeric poets, though there
were probably many such writers among them;
instances,
however, may be found from Homer downwards, e.g. his
Margites, and the similar poems of others. In this poetry of
invective its natural fitness brought an iambic metre into use;
hence our present term 'iambic,' because it was the
metre of their 'iambs' or invectives against one another.
The result was that the old poets became some of them
writers of heroic and others of iambic verse.
Homer's
position, however, is peculiar: just as he was in the serious
style the poet of poets, standing alone not only through the
literary excellence, but also through the dramatic character
of his imitations, so too he was the first to outline for us the
general forms of Comedy by producing not a dramatic invec-
tive, but a dramatic picture of the Ridiculous; his Margites
in fact stands in the same relation to our comedies as the
Iliad and Odyssey to our tragedies.
As soon, however, as
Tragedy and Comedy appeared in the field, those naturally
drawn to the one line of poetry became writers of comedies
instead of iambs, and those naturally drawn to the other,
writers of tragedies instead of epics, because these new modes
of art were grander and of more esteem than the old.
If it be asked whether Tragedy is now all that it need be
in its formative elements, to consider that, and decide it
theoretically and in relation to the theatres, is a matter for
another inquiry.
also Comedy;
the one originating with
the authors of the Dithyramb, the other with those of the phallic
songs, which still survive as institutions in many of our cities.
And its advance after that was little by little, through their
improving on whatever they had before them at each stage.
And many
changes having been made, Tragedy stopped when it had
found its own nature.
increased to two by Aeschylus, who curtailed the business
of the Chorus, and made the dialogue, or spoken portion,
take the leading part in the play. A third actor and scenery
were due to Sophocles.
Further, there was the change in magnitude. From small plots
and ridiculous diction, because of its origin from satyr-drama,
it was only late that it became serious and attained dignity.
Its metre also changed from trochaic tetrameter to iambic.
The reason for their original use of the trochaic tetrameter
was that their poetry was satyric and more connected with
dancing than it now is.
As soon, however, as
a spoken part came in, nature herself found the appropriate
metre. The iambic, we know, is the most speakable of
metres,
in conversation, whereas we rarely talk hexameters, and only
when we depart from the speaking tone of voice.
Another
change was a plurality of episodes or acts. As for the remaining
matters, the superadded embellishments and the account of
their introduction, these must be taken as said.
It would
probably be a long piece of work to go through the details.
Poetics. Aristotle. Ingram Bywater (Translator), ed. Gilbert Murray. Oxford. 1909.