Comedy and Epic Poetry Compared to Tragedy

Comedy is, as we have said, an imitation of characters of a lower type, not, however, in the full sense of the word bad, the Ludicrous being merely a subdivision of the ugly. It consists in some defect or ugliness which is not painful or destructive. To take an obvious example, the comic mask is ugly and distorted, but does not imply pain.

As we have said, comedy imitates characters of a lower kind, but not in every sense bad. The ridiculous is only one kind of ugliness. It consists of some defect or ugliness that causes no pain or harm. For an obvious example, a comic mask is ugly and distorted, but it does not suggest pain.

The successive changes through which Tragedy passed, and the authors of these changes, are well known, whereas Comedy has had no history, because it was not at first treated seriously. It was late before the Archon granted a comic chorus to a poet; the performers were till then voluntary. Comedy had already taken definite shape when comic poets, distinctively so called, are heard of. Who furnished it with masks, or prologues, or increased the number of actors,—these and other similar details remain unknown. As for the plot, it came originally from Sicily; but of Athenian writers Crates was the first who, abandoning the 'iambic' or lampooning form, generalised his themes and plots.

The stages of Tragedy's development and the people responsible for them are well known. Comedy, however, has no recorded history because it was not taken seriously at first. It was only later that the Archon granted a comic chorus to a poet. Until then, the performers were volunteers. Comedy had already taken definite shape before poets known specifically for comedy appeared. We do not know who introduced masks or prologues, or who increased the number of actors. Other similar details also remain unknown. The plot originally came from Sicily. Among Athenian writers, Crates was the first to abandon the 'iambic' or satirical form and use more general themes and plots.

Epic poetry agrees with Tragedy in so far as it is an imitation in verse of characters of a higher type. They differ, in that Epic poetry admits but one kind of metre, and is narrative in form. They differ, again, in their length: for Tragedy endeavours, as far as possible, to confine itself to a single revolution of the sun, or but slightly to exceed this limit; whereas the Epic action has no limits of time. This, then, is a second point of difference; though at first the same freedom was admitted in Tragedy as in Epic poetry.

Epic poetry is like tragedy in that both imitate characters of a higher type in verse. But epic poetry uses only one kind of meter and tells a story. They also differ in length. Tragedy tries, as far as possible, to limit its action to a single day, or only slightly longer. Epic action, however, has no time limit. This is a second difference, though tragedy originally had the same freedom as epic poetry.

Of their constituent parts some are common to both, some peculiar to Tragedy, whoever, therefore, knows what is good or bad Tragedy, knows also about Epic poetry. All the elements of an Epic poem are found in Tragedy, but the elements of a Tragedy are not all found in the Epic poem.

Some elements are common to both epic poetry and tragedy, while others are unique to tragedy. Therefore, anyone who knows what makes a tragedy good or bad also understands epic poetry. All the elements of an epic poem are found in tragedy, but not all the elements of tragedy are found in an epic poem.