5
The whole tragic art, then, is to epic poetry what these later actors were compared to their predecessors, since according to this view epic appeals to a cultivated audience which has no need of actor’s poses, while tragedy appeals to a lower class. If then it is vulgar, it must obviously be inferior.
6
First of all, this is not a criticism of poetry but of acting: even in reciting a minstrel can overdo his gestures, as Sosistratus did, or in a singing competition, like Mnasitheus of Opus.Both unknown.
7
Besides it is not all attitudinizing that ought to be barred any more than all dancing, but only the attitudes of inferior people. That was the objection to Callippides; and modern actors are similarly criticized for representing women who are not ladies.
8
Moreover, tragedy fulfils its function even without acting, just as much as epic, and its quality can be gauged by reading aloud. So, if it is in other respects superior, this disadvantage is not necessarily inherent.
9
Secondly, tragedy has all the elements of the epic—it can even use the hexameter—
10
and in addition a considerable element of its own in the spectacle and the music, which make the pleasure all the more vivid;
11
and this vividness can be felt whether it is read or acted.
12
Another point is that it attains its end with greater economy of length. What is concentrated is always more effective than what is spread over a long period; suppose, for example, Sophocles’Oedipuswere to be turned into as many lines as there are in the Iliad .
13
Again, the art of the epic has less unity, as is shown by the fact that any one epic makes several tragedies. The result is that, if the epic poet takes a single plot, either it is set forth so briefly as to seem curtailed, or if it conforms to the limit of lengthLiterally the length of the (proper) limit. it seems thin and diluted.
13
In saying that epic has less unity I mean an epic made up of several separate actions.
