시학/2부

시학2부 (12-20장)

[Part XII] The parts of Tragedy which must be treated as elements of the whole have been already mentioned. We now come to the quantitative parts- the separate parts into which Tragedy is divided- namely, 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.

[Part 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.

[Part 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.

[Part 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 always aim either at the necessary or the probable. Thus a person of a given character should speak or act in a given way, by the rule either of necessity or of probability; just as this event should follow that by necessary or probable sequence. It is therefore evident that the unraveling of the plot, no less than the complication, must arise out of the plot itself, it must not be brought about by the Deus ex Machina—as in the Medea, or in the return of the Greeks in the Iliad. The Deus ex Machina should be employed only for events external to the drama—for antecedent or subsequent events, which lie beyond the range of human knowledge, and which require to be reported or foretold; for to the gods we ascribe the power of seeing all things. Within the action there must be nothing irrational. If the irrational cannot be excluded, it should be outside the scope of the tragedy. Such is the irrational element the Oedipus of Sophocles.

Again, since Tragedy is an imitation of persons who are above the common level, the example of good portrait painters should be followed. They, while reproducing the distinctive form of the original, make a likeness which is true to life and yet more beautiful. So too the poet, in representing men who are irascible or indolent, or have other defects of character, should preserve the type and yet ennoble it. In this way Achilles is portrayed by Agathon and Homer.

These then are rules the poet should observe. Nor should he neglect those appeals to the senses, which, though not among the essentials, are the concomitants of poetry; for here too there is much room for error. But of this enough has been said in our published treatises.

[Part XVI] What Recognition is has been already explained. We will now enumerate its kinds.

First, the least artistic form, which, from poverty of wit, is most commonly employed—recognition by signs. Of these some are congenital—such as 'the spear which the earth-born race bear on their bodies,' or the stars introduced by Carcinus in his Thyestes. Others are acquired after birth; and of these some are bodily marks, as scars; some external tokens, as necklaces, or the little ark in the Tyro by which the discovery is effected. Even these admit of more or less skilful treatment. Thus in the recognition of Odysseus by his scar, the discovery is made in one way by the nurse, in another by the swineherds. The use of tokens for the express purpose of proof—and, indeed, any formal proof with or without tokens—is a less artistic mode of recognition. A better kind is that which comes about by a turn of incident, as in the Bath Scene in the Odyssey.

Next come the recognitions invented at will by the poet, and on that account wanting in art. For example, Orestes in the Iphigenia reveals the fact that he is Orestes. She, indeed, makes herself known by the letter; but he, by speaking himself, and saying what the poet, not what the plot requires. This, therefore, is nearly allied to the fault above mentioned—for Orestes might as well have brought tokens with him. Another similar instance is the 'voice of the shuttle' in the Tereus of Sophocles.

The third kind depends on memory when the sight of some object awakens a feeling: as in the Cyprians of Dicaeogenes, where the hero breaks into tears on seeing the picture; or again in the Lay of Alcinous, where Odysseus, hearing the minstrel play the lyre, recalls the past and weeps; and hence the recognition.

The fourth kind is by process of reasoning. Thus in the Choephori: 'Some one resembling me has come: no one resembles me but Orestes: therefore Orestes has come.' Such too is the discovery made by Iphigenia in the play of Polyidus the Sophist. It was a natural reflection for Orestes to make, 'So I too must die at the altar like my sister.' So, again, in the Tydeus of Theodectes, the father says, 'I came to find my son, and I lose my own life.' So too in the Phineidae: the women, on seeing the place, inferred their fate—'Here we are doomed to die, for here we were cast forth.' Again, there is a composite kind of recognition involving false inference on the part of one of the characters, as in the Odysseus Disguised as a Messenger. A said [that no one else was able to bend the bow; ... hence B (the disguised Odysseus) imagined that A would] recognize the bow which, in fact, he had not seen; and to bring about a recognition by this means—the expectation that A would recognize the bow—is false inference.

But, of all recognitions, the best is that which arises from the incidents themselves, where the startling discovery is made by natural means. Such is that in the Oedipus of Sophocles, and in the Iphigenia; for it was natural that Iphigenia should wish to dispatch a letter. These recognitions alone dispense with the artificial aid of tokens or amulets. Next come the recognitions by process of reasoning.

[Part XVII] In constructing the plot and working it out with the proper diction, the poet should place the scene, as far as possible, before his eyes. In this way, seeing everything with the utmost vividness, as if he were a spectator of the action, he will discover what is in keeping with it, and be most unlikely to overlook inconsistencies. The need of such a rule is shown by the fault found in Carcinus. Amphiaraus was on his way from the temple. This fact escaped the observation of one who did not see the situation. On the stage, however, the Piece failed, the audience being offended at the oversight.

Again, the poet should work out his play, to the best of his power, with appropriate gestures; for those who feel emotion are most convincing through natural sympathy with the characters they represent; and one who is agitated storms, one who is angry rages, with the most lifelike reality. Hence poetry implies either a happy gift of nature or a strain of madness. In the one case a man can take the mould of any character; in the other, he is lifted out of his proper self.

As for the story, whether the poet takes it ready made or constructs it for himself, he should first sketch its general outline, and then fill in the episodes and amplify in detail. The general plan may be illustrated by the Iphigenia. A young girl is sacrificed; she disappears mysteriously from the eyes of those who sacrificed her; she is transported to another country, where the custom is to offer up an strangers to the goddess. To this ministry she is appointed. Some time later her own brother chances to arrive. The fact that the oracle for some reason ordered him to go there, is outside the general plan of the play. The purpose, again, of his coming is outside the action proper. However, he comes, he is seized, and, when on the point of being sacrificed, reveals who he is. The mode of recognition may be either that of Euripides or of Polyidus, in whose play he exclaims very naturally: 'So it was not my sister only, but I too, who was doomed to be sacrificed'; and by that remark he is saved.

After this, the names being once given, it remains to fill in the episodes. We must see that they are relevant to the action. In the case of Orestes, for example, there is the madness which led to his capture, and his deliverance by means of the purificatory rite. In the drama, the episodes are short, but it is these that give extension to Epic poetry. Thus the story of the Odyssey can be stated briefly. A certain man is absent from home for many years; he is jealously watched by Poseidon, and left desolate. Meanwhile his home is in a wretched plight—suitors are wasting his substance and plotting against his son. At length, tempest-tost, he himself arrives; he makes certain persons acquainted with him; he attacks the suitors with his own hand, and is himself preserved while he destroys them. This is the essence of the plot; the rest is episode.

[Part XVIII] Every tragedy falls into two parts—Complication and Unraveling or Denouement. Incidents extraneous to the action are frequently combined with a portion of the action proper, to form the Complication; the rest is the Unraveling. By the Complication I mean all that extends from the beginning of the action to the part which marks the turning-point to good or bad fortune. The Unraveling is that which extends from the beginning of the change to the end. Thus, in the Lynceus of Theodectes, the Complication consists of the incidents presupposed in the drama, the seizure of the child, and then again ... [the Unraveling] extends from the accusation of murder to

There are four kinds of Tragedy: the Complex, depending entirely on Reversal of the Situation and Recognition; the Pathetic (where the motive is passion)—such as the tragedies on Ajax and Ixion; the Ethical (where the motives are ethical)—such as the Phthiotides and the Peleus. The fourth kind is the Simple. [We here exclude the purely spectacular element], exemplified by the Phorcides, the Prometheus, and scenes laid in Hades. The poet should endeavor, if possible, to combine all poetic elements; or failing that, the greatest number and those the most important; the more so, in face of the caviling criticism of the day. For whereas there have hitherto been good poets, each in his own branch, the critics now expect one man to surpass all others in their several lines of excellence.

In speaking of a tragedy as the same or different, the best test to take is the plot. Identity exists where the Complication and Unraveling are the same. Many poets tie the knot well, but unravel it Both arts, however, should always be mastered.

Again, the poet should remember what has been often said, and not make an Epic structure into a tragedy—by an Epic structure I mean one with a multiplicity of plots—as if, for instance, you were to make a tragedy out of the entire story of the Iliad. In the Epic poem, owing to its length, each part assumes its proper magnitude. In the drama the result is far from answering to the poet's expectation. The proof is that the poets who have dramatized the whole story of the Fall of Troy, instead of selecting portions, like Euripides; or who have taken the whole tale of Niobe, and not a part of her story, like Aeschylus, either fail utterly or meet with poor success on the stage. Even Agathon has been known to fail from this one defect. In his Reversals of the Situation, however, he shows a marvelous skill in the effort to hit the popular taste—to produce a tragic effect that satisfies the moral sense. This effect is produced when the clever rogue, like Sisyphus, is outwitted, or the brave villain defeated. Such an event is probable in Agathon's sense of the word: 'is probable,' he says, 'that many things should happen contrary to probability.'

The Chorus too should be regarded as one of the actors; it should be an integral part of the whole, and share in the action, in the manner not of Euripides but of Sophocles. As for the later poets, their choral songs pertain as little to the subject of the piece as to that of any other tragedy. They are, therefore, sung as mere interludes—a practice first begun by Agathon. Yet what difference is there between introducing such choral interludes, and transferring a speech, or even a whole act, from one play to another.

[Part XIX] It remains to speak of Diction and Thought, the other parts of Tragedy having been already discussed. concerning Thought, we may assume what is said in the Rhetoric, to which inquiry the subject more strictly belongs. Under Thought is included every effect which has to be produced by speech, the subdivisions being: proof and refutation; the excitation of the feelings, such as pity, fear, anger, and the like; the suggestion of importance or its opposite. Now, it is evident that the dramatic incidents must be treated from the same points of view as the dramatic speeches, when the object is to evoke the sense of pity, fear, importance, or probability. The only difference is that the incidents should speak for themselves without verbal exposition; while effects aimed at in should be produced by the speaker, and as a result of the speech. For what were the business of a speaker, if the Thought were revealed quite apart from what he says?

Next, as regards Diction. One branch of the inquiry treats of the Modes of Utterance. But this province of knowledge belongs to the art of Delivery and to the masters of that science. It includes, for instance—what is a command, a prayer, a statement, a threat, a question, an answer, and so forth. To know or not to know these things involves no serious censure upon the poet's art. For who can admit the fault imputed to Homer by Protagoras—that in the words, 'Sing, goddess, of the wrath, he gives a command under the idea that he utters a prayer? For to tell some one to do a thing or not to do it is, he says, a command. We may, therefore, pass this over as an inquiry that belongs to another art, not to poetry.

[Part XX] [Language in general includes the following parts: Letter, Syllable, Connecting Word, Noun, Verb, Inflection or Case, Sentence or Phrase.

A Letter is an indivisible sound, yet not every such sound, but only one which can form part of a group of sounds. For even brutes utter indivisible sounds, none of which I call a letter. The sound I mean may be either a vowel, a semivowel, or a mute. A vowel is that which without impact of tongue or lip has an audible sound. A semivowel that which with such impact has an audible sound, as S and R. A mute, that which with such impact has by itself no sound, but joined to a vowel sound becomes audible, as G and D. These are distinguished according to the form assumed by the mouth and the place where they are produced; according as they are aspirated or smooth, long or short; as they are acute, grave, or of an intermediate tone; which inquiry belongs in detail to the writers on meter.

A Syllable is a nonsignificant sound, composed of a mute and a vowel: for GR without A is a syllable, as also with A—GRA. But the investigation of these differences belongs also to metrical science.

A Connecting Word is a nonsignificant sound, which neither causes nor hinders the union of many sounds into one significant sound; it may be placed at either

[12장] 전체의 요소로 취급되어야하는 비극의 부분은 이미 언급되었습니다. 이제 우리는 비극이 나뉘는 별도의 부분, 즉 프롤로그, 에피소드, 엑소더스, 코러스(합창가)의 양적 부분에 도달합니다. 이 마지막은 퍼러도스(Parode)^[1]와 스타시몬(Stasimon)^[2]으로 나뉩니다. 이것은 모든 연극에 공통적입니다. 일부 특유의 것은 무대에서의 배우의 노래와 비탄조(Commoi)입니다.^[3]

프롤로그는 합창 퍼러도스(Parode)에 선행하는 비극의 전체 부분입니다. 에피소드는 완전한 합창곡 사이에있는 비극의 전체 부분입니다. 엑소더스(Exode)는 이후 합창곡이 없는 비극의 전체 부분입니다. 합창 부분에서 퍼러도스(Parode)는 합창의 첫 번째 분할되지 않은 발화입니다. 스타시몬(Stasimon)은 아나파에스트(anapaest)^[4] 또는 약강사보격(trochaic tetrameter)^[5]이 없는 합창 노래입니다. 비탄조(Commos)는 합창과 배우의 공동 애도입니다. 전체의 요소로 취급되어야하는 비극의 부분은 이미 언급되었습니다. 양적 부분(분할되는 별도의 부분)이 여기에 열거됩니다.

[13장] 이미 말한 것의 속편으로서, 우리는 시인이 자신의 음모를 구성할 때 무엇을 목표로 해야하는지, 그리고 무엇을 피해야하는지 고려해야합니다. 그리고 어떤 의미로 비극의 특정 효과가 생성될 것입니다.

우리가 본 것처럼 완벽한 비극은 단순한 계획이 아니라 복잡한 계획에 따라 이루어져야합니다. 더욱이 그것은 연민과 두려움을 불러 일으키는 행동을 모방해야합니다. 이것은 비극적 모방의 특징적인 표식입니다. 첫째로, 제시된 재산의 변화가 번영에서 역경으로 옮겨진 덕이있는 사람의 광경이 아니어야한다는 것은 분명합니다. 왜냐하면 이것은 연민도 두려움도 움직이지 않기 때문입니다. 우리에게 충격을 줄뿐입니다. 다시 말하지만, 역경에서 번영으로 넘어가는 나쁜 사람의 것도 아닙니다. 비극의 정신에 더 이상 이질적인 것은 아무것도 없기 때문입니다. 그것은 하나의 비극적인 특성을 가지고 있지 않습니다. 그것은 도덕적 감각을 만족 시키지도 않고 연민이나 두려움을 불러 일으키지도 않습니다. 다시 말하지만, 완전한 악당의 몰락이 드러나서는 안됩니다. 이런 종류의 음모는 의심할 여지없이 도덕적 감각을 만족시킬 것이지만 연민이나 두려움을 불러 일으키지는 않을 것입니다. 연민은 무익한 불행에 의해 유발되고, 우리와 같은 사람의 불행에 의해 두려움이 발생하기 때문입니다. 그러므로 그러한 사건은 불쌍하거나 끔찍하지 않을 것입니다. 그러므로 이 두 극단 사이에는 현저히 선하고 정의롭지 않지만 악이나 타락이 아니라 어떤 오류나 약함으로 불행을 가져 오는 사람의 성격이 남아 있습니다. 그는 오이디푸스(Oedipus), 티에스테스(Thyestes) 또는 그러한 가족의 다른 저명한 사람들과 같은 매우 유명하고 번영하는 사람이어야합니다.

따라서 잘 구성된 플롯은 일부가 유지하는 것처럼 두 배가 아닌 단일 문제가 되어야합니다. 행운의 변화는 나쁜 것에서 좋은 것으로가 아니라 반대로 좋은 것에서 나쁜 것으로 바뀌어야합니다. 그것은 악의가 아니라 우리가 묘사한 것과 같은 성격의 큰 오류나 연약함의 결과로 나타나야합니다. 무대 연습은 우리의 견해를 뒷받침합니다. 처음에 시인들은 자신의 방식대로 온 전설을 이야기했습니다. 이제 최고의 비극은 알크마에온(Alcmaeon), 오이디푸스(Oedipus), 오레스테스(Orestes)^[6], 멜레아그로스(Meleager), 티에스테스(Thyestes) , 텔레포스(Telephus) 및 끔찍한 일을 했거나 겪은 다른 사람들의 재산에 대한 몇 집의 이야기에서 시작됩니다. 그러므로 예술의 규칙에 따라 완전 해지기 위한 비극은 이 구조에 있어야합니다. 그러므로 그들은 단지 그가 그의 희곡에서 이 원칙을 따르기 때문에 에우리피데스(Euripides)^[7]를 비난하는 오류가 있습니다. 우리가 말했듯이 올바른 결말입니다. 가장 좋은 증거는 무대와 극적 경쟁에서 그러한 연극이 잘 해결 되었다면 사실상 가장 비극적이라는 것입니다. 그리고 에우리피데스(Euripides)가 비록 그가 그의 주제에 대한 일반적인 취급에 있을지 모르지만, 시인들 중에서 가장 비극적인 것으로 느껴집니다.

두 번째 순위에는 어떤 사람이 먼저 차지하는 비극이 있습니다. 오디세이아(Odyssey)^[8]와 마찬가지로, 그것은 줄거리의 이중 실을 가지고 있으며 또한 선과 악에 대한 반대의 재앙을 가지고 있습니다. 관중의 연약함 때문에 최고로 평가됩니다. 왜냐하면 시인은 청중의 소원에 따라 그가 쓴 글에서 인도를 받습니다. 그러나 그로부터 파생된 쾌락은 진정한 비극적 쾌락이 아닙니다. 코미디보다는 오레스테스(Orestes)나 아이기스투스(Aegisthus)처럼 가장 치명적인 적들이 마지막에 친구로 무대를 그만두고 아무도 죽이거나 살해 당하지 않는 코미디가 적절합니다.

[14장] 두려움과 연민은 화려한 수단에 의해 유발될 수 있습니다. 그러나 그것들은 또한 작품의 내부 구조에서 비롯될 수도 있는데, 그것은 더 나은 방식이며 뛰어난 시인을 나타냅니다. 줄거리는 눈의 도움 없이도 이야기를 듣는 사람이 공포에 질려 전율하고 일어난 일에 대해 연민에 녹을 정도로 구성되어야 하기 때문입니다. 이것이 오이디푸스의 이야기를 듣고 우리가 받아야 할 인상입니다. 그러나 단순한 스펙타클에 의해 이러한 효과를 생성하는 것은 덜 예술적인 방법이며 외부 보조에 의존합니다. 끔찍한 것이 아니라 단지 기괴한 것의 감각을 창조하기 위해 극적인 수단을 사용하는 사람들은 비극의 목적에 대해 낯선 사람입니다. 왜냐하면 우리는 비극에 모든 종류의 쾌락을 요구해서는 안 되며, 오직 그에 합당한 것만을 요구해야 하기 때문입니다. 그리고 시인이 줄 수 있는 즐거움은 모방을 통한 연민과 두려움에서 오는 것이기 때문에 이러한 특성이 사건에 각인되어야 한다는 것은 분명합니다.

그런 다음 우리에게 끔찍하거나 불쌍하다고 생각되는 상황이 무엇인지 결정해봅니다.

이 효과를 낼 수 있는 행동은 친구이거나 적이거나 서로에게 무관심한 사람들 사이에서 일어나야 합니다. 적이 적을 죽이면 그 행위나 의도에 동정심을 불러일으키는 것은 아무것도 없습니다. 무관심한 사람들에게도 마찬가지입니다. 그러나 서로 가깝거나 사랑하는 사람들 사이에 비극적인 사건이 발생하는 경우, 예를 들어 형제가 형제를 죽이거나 죽이려고 한다면, 아들은 아버지를, 어머니는 아들을, 아들은 어머니를, 또는 그런 종류의 다른 행동들은 모두 연민을 불러 일으킬것입니다. 이것이 시인이 찾아야 할 상황입니다. 예를 들어 클리타임네스트라(Clytemnestra)가 오레스테스(Orestes)에 의해 살해되고 에리필레(Eriphyle)가 알크마이온(Alcmaeon)에 의해 살해되었다는 사실과 같이 받아들여진 전설의 틀을 실제로 파괴하지는 않을지 모르지만 그는 자신의 것을 보여주고 전통적인 것을 재료로 능숙하게 다루어야 합니다. 능숙하게 다루는 것이 무엇을 의미하는지 더 명확하게 설명해봅니다.

그 행위는 의식적으로 행해질 수 있고, 옛 시인들처럼 인물에 대한 지식을 가지고 행해질 수 있습니다. 에우리피데스가 메데아에게 자식들을 죽게 한 것도 마찬가지입니다. 또는 다시 공포스러운 행위를 할 수 있지만 무지에서 행해지며 친족 관계 또는 우정의 유대가 나중에 발견됩니다. 소포클레스의 오이디푸스가 대표적입니다. 실제로 여기서 사건은 드라마 고유의 범위 밖에 있습니다. 그러나 연극의 행동에 해당하는 경우가 발생합니다. 아스티다마스(Astydamas)의 알크마이온(Alcmaeon) 또는 오디세우스(Odysseus)와 텔레고노스(Telegonus)를 인용할 수 있습니다. 다시 말하지만, 세 번째 경우가 있습니다. 즉, 사람들을 알고 행동하려고 하고 나서 행동하지 않는 것입니다. 네 번째 경우는 어떤 사람이 무지로 인해 돌이킬 수 없는 일을 하려고 하고, 그것이 이루어지기 전에 발견하는 경우입니다. 이것이 가능한 유일한 방법입니다. 행위는 행해지거나 행해지지 않아야 하며, 그것도 고의로든 무의식적으로든 말입니다. 그러나 이 모든 방법 중에서 사람을 알고 행동하려고 하고 행동하지 않는 것은 최악입니다. 그것은 비극적이지 않고 충격적입니다. 재앙이 뒤따르지 않기 때문입니다. 그러므로 그것은 시에서 결코 발견되지 않거나 매우 드물게 발견됩니다. 그러나 한 가지 사례는 하이몬이 크레온을 죽이겠다고 위협하는 안티고네에 있습니다. 다음으로 더 좋은 방법은 행위를 저지르는 것입니다. 더 좋은 점은 그것이 무지 속에서 행해지고 나중에 발견된다는 것입니다. 그 발견이 놀라운 효과를 낳는 동안 우리를 놀라게 할 것은 아무것도 없습니다. 마지막 경우는 크레스폰테스(Cresphontes)에서 메로페(Merope)가 아들을 죽이려고 할 때와 같이 최선이지만 그가 누구인지 인식하고 목숨을 구합니다. 그래서 이피게네이아(Iphigenia)에서 자매는 제때에 형제를 인식합니다. 다시 헬레(Helle)에서 아들은 어머니를 포기하려고 할 때 어머니를 알아봅니다. 이것이 바로 이미 관찰된 바와 같이 소수의 가족만이 비극의 대상이 되는 이유입니다. 주제를 찾는 시인들이 그들의 플롯에 비극적 특성을 부여하게 된 것은 예술이 아니라 행복한 우연이었다. 따라서 그들은 역사에 이와 같은 감동적인 사건이 포함된 가족사에 의지할 수밖에 없습니다.

이제 사건의 구조와 올바른 종류의 음모에 대해 충분히 이야기했습니다.

[15장]

참고

1. (위키낱말사전) parodos (plural parodoi) 1. A side entrance to an Ancient Greek theater, affording access to the stage or orchestra. 2. The ode sung by the chorus as it enters the orchestra, typically following the play's prologue.
2. (우리말샘) 스타시몬(stasimon)은 고대 그리스 연극에서 등장인물이 퇴장한 후 그 시간을 메우기 위하여 이미 전개되었거나 앞으로 전개될 사건과 관련된 노래를 부르는 장면. 무용을 동반할 때가 있다. 나중에는 극과 전혀 무관한 간주악으로 변질되었다.
3. (우리말샘) 비탄조
4. (우리말샘)단단장격(短短長格) 3음절로 이루어진 시행의 끝부분. 단음절이 처음과 다음에 오고 장음절이 끝에 온다.
5. [참고] (우리말샘) 약강오보격(弱強五步格) 영시(英詩)의 대표적인 운율 형식. 한 시행이 10음절이면서, 5개의 약음절(弱音節)과 그것에 어울리는 강음절(強音節)이 한 음보(音步)씩 오 음보를 이루는 시격이다.
6. (우리말샘)오레스테스 (Orestes) 그리스 신화에 나오는 신. 아가멤논과 클리템네스트라의 아들로, 아버지를 죽인 어머니와 그 정부(情夫)를 살해한 죄로 복수의 신에게 쫓겨 미쳤으나 다시 회복하여 부왕(父王)의 뒤를 이었다고 한다.
7. (우리말샘)에우리피데스 (Euripides) 고대 그리스의 비극시인(B.C.484?~B.C.406?). 고대 그리스 삼대(三大) 비극시인 가운데 한 사람으로, 작품에 <트로이의 여인>, <디오니소스의 여신자들> 따위가 있다.
8. (우리말샘)오디세이 (Odyssey) 호메로스가 기원전 8세기 무렵에 지은 고대 그리스의 장편 서사시. 트로이 원정에 성공한 영웅 오디세우스가 겪은 표류담과 이타카(Ithaca)섬에 돌아오기까지 10여 년 동안 정절을 지킨 아내 페넬로페와의 재회담, 아내에게 구혼한 자들에 대한 복수담으로 이루어져 있다. 24권.