poetics- 第4部分

Prologue；　Episode；　Exode；　Choric　song；　this　last　being　divided　into



Parode　and　Stasimon。　These　are　common　to　all　plays：　peculiar　to　some



are　the　songs　of　actors　from　the　stage　and　the　Commoi。



　　The　Prologue　is　that　entire　part　of　a　tragedy　which　precedes　the



Parode　of　the　Chorus。　The　Episode　is　that　entire　part　of　a　tragedy



which　is　between　complete　choric　songs。　The　Exode　is　that　entire



part　of　a　tragedy　which　has　no　choric　song　after　it。　Of　the　Choric



part　the　Parode　is　the　first　undivided　utterance　of　the　Chorus：　the



Stasimon　is　a　Choric　ode　without　anapaests　or　trochaic　tetrameters：



the　Commos　is　a　joint　lamentation　of　Chorus　and　actors。　The　parts　of



Tragedy　which　must　be　treated　as　elements　of　the　whole　have　been



already　mentioned。　The　quantitative　parts…　the　separate　parts　into



which　it　is　divided…　are　here　enumerated。



POETICS｜13



　　XIII







　　As　the　sequel　to　what　has　already　been　said；　we　must　proceed　to



consider　what　the　poet　should　aim　at；　and　what　he　should　avoid；　in



constructing　his　plots；　and　by　what　means　the　specific　effect　of



Tragedy　will　be　produced。



　　A　perfect　tragedy　should；　as　we　have　seen；　be　arranged　not　on　the



simple　but　on　the　complex　plan。　It　should；　moreover；　imitate　actions



which　excite　pity　and　fear；　this　being　the　distinctive　mark　of



tragic　imitation。　It　follows　plainly；　in　the　first　place；　that　the



change　of　fortune　presented　must　not　be　the　spectacle　of　a　virtuous



man　brought　from　prosperity　to　adversity：　for　this　moves　neither



pity　nor　fear；　it　merely　shocks　us。　Nor；　again；　that　of　a　bad　man



passing　from　adversity　to　prosperity：　for　nothing　can　be　more　alien　to



the　spirit　of　Tragedy；　it　possesses　no　single　tragic　quality；　it



neither　satisfies　the　moral　sense　nor　calls　forth　pity　or　fear。　Nor；



again；　should　the　downfall　of　the　utter　villain　be　exhibited。　A　plot



of　this　kind　would；　doubtless；　satisfy　the　moral　sense；　but　it　would



inspire　neither　pity　nor　fear；　for　pity　is　aroused　by　unmerited



misfortune；　fear　by　the　misfortune　of　a　man　like　ourselves。　Such　an



event；　therefore；　will　be　neither　pitiful　nor　terrible。　There　remains；



then；　the　character　between　these　two　extremes…　that　of　a　man　who　is



not　eminently　good　and　just；　yet　whose　misfortune　is　brought　about　not



by　vice　or　depravity；　but　by　some　error　or　frailty。　He　must　be　one　who



is　highly　renowned　and　prosperous…　a　personage　like　Oedipus；　Thyestes；



or　other　illustrious　men　of　such　families。



　　A　well…constructed　plot　should；　therefore；　be　single　in　its　issue；



rather　than　double　as　some　maintain。　The　change　of　fortune　should　be



not　from　bad　to　good；　but；　reversely；　from　good　to　bad。　It　should　come



about　as　the　result　not　of　vice；　but　of　some　great　error　or　frailty；



in　a　character　either　such　as　we　have　described；　or　better　rather　than



worse。　The　practice　of　the　stage　bears　out　our　view。　At　first　the



poets　recounted　any　legend　that　came　in　their　way。　Now；　the　best



tragedies　are　founded　on　the　story　of　a　few　houses…　on　the　fortunes　of



Alcmaeon；　Oedipus；　Orestes；　Meleager；　Thyestes；　Telephus；　and　those



others　who　have　done　　or　suffered　something　terrible。　A　tragedy；　then；



to　be　perfect　according　to　the　rules　of　art　should　be　of　this



construction。　Hence　they　are　in　error　who　censure　Euripides　just



because　he　follows　this　principle　in　his　plays；　many　of　which　end



unhappily。　It　is；　as　we　have　said；　the　right　ending。　The　best　proof　is



that　on　the　stage　and　in　dramatic　competition；　such　plays；　if　well



worked　out；　are　the　most　tragic　in　effect；　and　Euripides；　faulty



though　he　may　be　in　the　general　management　of　his　subject；　yet　is　felt



to　be　the　most　tragic　of　the　poets。



　　In　the　second　rank　comes　the　kind　of　tragedy　which　some　place　first。



Like　the　Odyssey；　it　has　a　double　thread　of　plot；　and　also　an　opposite



catastrophe　for　the　good　and　for　the　bad。　It　is　accounted　the　best



because　of　the　weakness　of　the　spectators；　for　the　poet　is　guided　in



what　he　writes　by　the　wishes　of　his　audience。　The　pleasure；　however；



thence　derived　is　not　the　true　tragic　pleasure。　It　is　proper　rather　to



Comedy；　where　those　who；　in　the　piece；　are　the　deadliest　enemies…　like



Orestes　and　Aegisthus…　quit　the　stage　as　friends　at　the　close；　and



no　one　slays　or　is　slain。



POETICS｜14



　　XIV







　　Fear　and　pity　may　be　aroused　by　spectacular　means；　but　they　may　also



result　from　the　inner　structure　of　the　piece；　which　is　the　better　way；



and　indicates　a　superior　poet。　For　the　plot　ought　to　be　so　constructed



that；　even　without　the　aid　of　the　eye；　he　who　hears　the　tale　told　will



thrill　with　horror　and　melt　to　pity　at　what　takes　Place。　This　is　the



impression　we　should　receive　from　hearing　the　story　of　the　Oedipus。



But　to　produce　this　effect　by　the　mere　spectacle　is　a　less　artistic



method；　and　dependent　on　extraneous　aids。　Those　who　employ　spectacular



means　to　create　a　sense　not　of　the　terrible　but　only　of　the　monstrous；



are　strangers　to　the　purpose　of　Tragedy；　for　we　must　not　demand　of



Tragedy　any　and　every　kind　of　pleasure；　but　only　that　which　is



proper　to　it。　And　since　the　pleasure　which　the　poet　should　afford　is



that　which　comes　from　pity　and　fear　through　imitation；　it　is　evident



that　this　quality　must　be　impressed　upon　the　incidents。



　　Let　us　then　determine　what　are　the　circumstances　which　strike　us



as　terrible　or　pitiful。



　　Actions　capable　of　this　effect　must　happen　between　persons　who　are



either　friends　or　enemies　or　indifferent　to　one　another。　If　an　enemy



kills　an　enemy；　there　is　nothing　to　excite　pity　either　in　the　act　or



the　intention…　except　so　far　as　the　suffering　in　itself　is　pitiful。　So



again　with　indifferent　persons。　But　when　the　tragic　incident　occurs



between　those　who　are　near　or　dear　to　one　another…　if；　for　example；



a　brother　kills；　or　intends　to　kill；　a　brother；　a　son　his　father；　a



mother　her　son；　a　son　his　mother；　or　any　other　deed　of　the　kind　is



done…　these　are　the　situations　to　be　looked　for　by　the　poet。　He　may



not　indeed　destroy　the　framework　of　the　received　legends…　the　fact；



for　instance；　that　Clytemnestra　was　slain　by　Orestes　and　Eriphyle　by



Alcmaeon…　but　he　ought　to　show　of　his　own；　and　skilfully　handle　the



traditional。　material。　Let　us　explain　more　clearly　what　is　meant　by



skilful　handling。



　　The　action　may　be　done　consciously　and　with　knowledge　of　the



persons；　in　the　manner　of　the　older　poets。　It　is　thus　too　that



Euripides　makes　Medea　slay　her　children。　Or；　again；　the　deed　of　horror



may　be　done；　but　done　　in　ignorance；　and　the　tie　of　kinship　or



friendship　be　discovered　afterwards。　The　Oedipus　of　Sophocles　is　an



example。　Here；　indeed；　the　incident　is　outside　the　drama　proper；　but



cases　occur　where　it　falls　within　the　action　of　the　play：　one　may　cite



the　Alcmaeon　of　Astydamas；　or　Telegonus　in　the　Wounded　Odysseus。



Again；　there　is　a　third　case…　＇to　be　about　to　act　with　knowledge　of



the　persons　and　then　not　to　act。　The　fourth　case＇　is　when　some　one



is　about　to　do　an　irreparable　deed　through　ignorance；　and　makes　the



discovery　before　it　is　done。　These　are　the　only　possible　ways。　For　the



deed　must　either　be　done　　or　not　done…　and　that　wittingly　or



unwittingly。　But　of　all　these　ways；　to　be　about　to　act　knowing　the



persons；　and　then　not　to　act；　is　the　worst。　It　is　shocking　without



being　tragic；　for　no　disaster　follows　It　is；　therefore；　never；　or　very



rarely；　found　in　poetry。　One　instance；　however；　is　in　the　Antigone；



where　Haemon　threatens　to　kill　Creon。　The　next　and　better　way　is



that　the　deed　should　be　perpetrated。　Still　better；　that　it　should　be



perpetrated　in　ignorance；　and　the　discovery　made　afterwards。　There



is　then　nothing　to　shock　us；　while　the　discovery　produces　a



startling　effect。　The　last　case　is　the　best；　as　when　in　the



Cresphontes　Merope　is　about　to　slay　her　son；　but；　recognizing　who　he



is；　spares　his　life。　So　in　the　Iphigenia；　the　sister　recognizes　the



brother　just　in　time。　Again　in　the　Helle；　the　son　recognizes　the



mother　when　on　the　point　of　giving　her　up。　This；　then；　is　why　a　few



families　only；　as　has　been　already　observed；　furnish　the　subjects　of



tragedy。　It　was　not　art；　but　happy　chance；　that　led　the　poets　in



search　of　subjects　to　impress　the　tragic　quality　upon　their　plots。



They　are　compelled；　therefore；　to　have　recourse　to　those　houses



whose　history　contains　moving　incidents　like　these。



　　Enough　has　now　been　said　concerning　the　structure　of　the



incidents；　and　the　right　kind　of　plot。



POETICS｜15



　　XV







　　In　respect　of　Character　there　are　four　things　to　be　aimed　at。　First；



and　most　important；　it　must　be　good。　Now　any　speech　or　action　that



manifests　moral　purpose　of　any　kind　will　be　expressive　of　character：



the　character　will　be　good　if　the　purpose　is　good。　This　rule　is



relative　to　each　class。　Even　a　woman　may　be　good；　and　also　a　slave；



though　the　woman　may　be　said　to　be　an　inferior　being；　and　the　slave



quite　worthless。　The　second　thing　to　aim　at　is　propriety。　There　is　a



type　of　manly　valor；　but　valor　in　a　woman；　or　unscrupulous



cleverness　is　inappropriate。　Thirdly；　character　must　be　true　to



life：　for　this　is　a　distinct　thing　from　goodness　and　propriety；　as



here　described。　The　fourth　point　is　consistency：　for　though　the



subject　of　the　imitation；　who　suggested　the　type；　be　inconsistent；



still　he　must　be　consistently　inconsistent。　As　an　example　of



motiveless　degradation　of　character；　we　have　Menelaus　in　the



Orestes；　of　character　indecorous　and　inappropriate；　the　lament　of



Odysseus　in　the　Scylla；　and　the　speech　of　Melanippe；　of　inconsistency；



the　Iphigenia　at　Aulis…　for　Iphigenia　the　suppliant　in　no　way



resembles　her　later　self。



　　As　in　the　structure　of　the　plot；　so　too　in　the　portraiture　of



character；　the　poet　should