Is Epic Poetry or Tragedy the Greater Art?

The question may be raised whether the Epic or Tragic mode of imitation is the higher. If the more refined art is the higher, and the more refined in every case is that which appeals to the better sort of audience, the art which imitates anything and everything is manifestly most unrefined. The audience is supposed to be too dull to comprehend unless something of their own is thrown in by the performers, who therefore indulge in restless movements. Bad flute-players twist and twirl, if they have to represent 'the quoit-throw,' or hustle the coryphaeus when they perform the 'Scylla.' Tragedy, it is said, has this same defect. We may compare the opinion that the older actors entertained of their successors. Mynniscus used to call Callippides 'ape' on account of the extravagance of his action, and the same view was held of Pindarus. Tragic art, then, as a whole, stands to Epic in the same relation as the younger to the elder actors. So we are told that Epic poetry is addressed to a cultivated audience, who do not need gesture; Tragedy, to an inferior public. Being then unrefined, it is evidently the lower of the two.

One might ask whether Epic or Tragic imitation is the higher art. Suppose the more refined art is higher, and that art is always more refined when it appeals to a better audience. On that basis, an art that imitates absolutely everything is clearly the least refined. Its audience is assumed to be too dull to understand unless the performers add something of their own. So the performers make restless movements. Bad flute players twist and spin when they have to represent 'the quoit-throw.' They shove the coryphaeus when they perform the 'Scylla.' Tragedy, it is said, has the same defect. We can compare this with what older actors thought of their successors. Mynniscus used to call Callippides an 'ape' because his acting was so exaggerated. The same opinion was held of Pindarus. Tragic art as a whole, then, is said to stand in the same relation to Epic as younger actors to older ones. So we are told that Epic poetry is meant for a cultivated audience that does not need gestures. Tragedy is meant for an inferior audience. Since Tragedy is unrefined, it is clearly the lower of the two arts.

Now, in the first place, this censure attaches not to the poetic but to the histrionic art; for gesticulation may be equally overdone in epic recitation, as by Sosi-stratus, or in lyrical competition, as by Mnasitheus the Opuntian. Next, all action is not to be condemned any more than all dancing—but only that of bad performers. Such was the fault found in Callippides, as also in others of our own day, who are censured for representing degraded women. Again, Tragedy like Epic poetry produces its effect even without action; it reveals its power by mere reading. If, then, in all other respects it is superior, this fault, we say, is not inherent in it.

First, this criticism applies not to poetry but to acting. Gestures can be overdone just as much in epic recitation, as by Sosi-stratus, or in lyric competitions, as by Mnasitheus the Opuntian. Next, we should not condemn all acting, any more than we should condemn all dancing. We should condemn only the acting of bad performers. This was the criticism made of Callippides and others in our own day, who are criticized for portraying degraded women. Again, tragedy, like epic poetry, has an effect even without acting. Its power is clear from reading it alone. If, then, tragedy is superior in every other respect, this fault is not inherent in tragedy itself.

And superior it is, because it has all the epic elements—it may even use the epic metre—with the music and spectacular effects as important accessories; and these produce the most vivid of pleasures. Further, it has vividness of impression in reading as well as in representation. Moreover, the art attains its end within narrower limits; for the concentrated effect is more pleasurable than one which is spread over a long time and so diluted. What, for example, would be the effect of the Oedipus of Sophocles, if it were cast into a form as long as the Iliad? Once more, the Epic imitation has less unity; as is shown by this, that any Epic poem will furnish subjects for several tragedies. Thus if the story adopted by the poet has a strict unity, it must either be concisely told and appear truncated; or, if it conform to the Epic canon of length, it must seem weak and watery. (Such length implies some loss of unity,) if, I mean, the poem is constructed out of several actions, like the Iliad and the Odyssey, which have many such parts, each with a certain magnitude of its own. Yet these poems are as perfect as possible in structure; each is, in the highest degree attainable, an imitation of a single action.

Tragedy is superior because it has all the elements of epic poetry. It may even use epic meter. It also has music and spectacle as important additions, and these produce the most vivid pleasures. Tragedy also makes a vivid impression both when read and when performed. Moreover, it achieves its purpose within a shorter span. A concentrated effect is more pleasurable than one spread over a long time and diluted. For example, what would be the effect of Sophocles’ Oedipus if it were as long as the Iliad? Epic imitation also has less unity. This is clear from the fact that any epic poem can provide subjects for several tragedies. So, if the poet’s story has strict unity, it must either be told briefly and seem cut short, or follow the epic standard of length and seem weak and diluted. (Such length involves some loss of unity when, as I mean, the poem is built from several actions.) The Iliad and the Odyssey, for example, have many such parts, each with a certain size of its own. Yet these poems are as perfect in structure as possible. Each imitates a single action to the highest degree possible.

If, then, Tragedy is superior to Epic poetry in all these respects, and, moreover, fulfils its specific function better as an art for each art ought to produce, not any chance pleasure, but the pleasure proper to it, as already stated it plainly follows that Tragedy is the higher art, as attaining its end more perfectly.

If tragedy is better than epic poetry in all these respects, and also fulfills its particular purpose better as an art, then tragedy is clearly the higher art. As already stated, each art should produce not just any pleasure, but the pleasure proper to it. Tragedy is therefore the higher art because it achieves its purpose more perfectly.

Thus much may suffice concerning Tragic and Epic poetry in general; their several kinds and parts, with the number of each and their differences; the causes that make a poem good or bad; the objections of the critics and the answers to these objections.

This may be enough about tragic and epic poetry in general. We have covered their different kinds and parts, how many there are, and how they differ. We have also covered what makes a poem good or bad, the critics’ objections, and the answers to those objections.