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 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