Chapter 14

Fear and pity sometimes result from the spectacle and are sometimes aroused by the actual arrangement of the incidents, which is preferable and the mark of a better poet.

The plot should be so constructed that even without seeing the play anyone hearing of the incidents happening thrills with fear and pity as a result of what occurs. So would anyone feel who heard the story of Oedipus.

To produce this effect by means of an appeal to the eye is inartistic and needs adventitious aid, while those who by such means produce an effect which is not fearful but merely monstrous have nothing in common with tragedy. For one should not seek from tragedy all kinds of pleasure but that which is peculiar to tragedy, and since the poet must by representation produce the pleasure which comes from feeling pity and fear, obviously this quality must be embodied in the incidents.

We must now decide what incidents seem dreadful or rather pitiable. Such must necessarily be the actions of friends to each other or of enemies or of people that are neither.

Now if an enemy does it to an enemy, there is nothing pitiable either in the deed or the intention, except so far as the actual calamity goes.

Nor would there be if they were neither friends nor enemies. But when these calamities happen among friends, when for instance brother kills brother, or son father, or mother son, or son mother—either kills or intends to kill, or does something of the kind, that is what we must look for.

Now it is not right to break up the traditional stories, I mean, for instance, Clytaemnestra being killed by Orestes and Eriphyle by Alcmaeon, but the poet must show invention and make a skilful use of the tradition.

But we must state more clearly what is meant by skilful.

The action may happen in the way in which the old dramatists made their characters act—consciously and knowing the facts, as Euripides also made his Medea kill her children.

Or they may do the deed but without realizing the horror of it and then discover the relationship afterwards, like Oedipus in Sophocles. That indeed lies outside the play, but an example of this in the tragedy itself is the Alcmaeon of Astydamas or Telegonus in the Wounded Odysseus.

A third alternative is to intend to do some irremediable action in ignorance and to discover the truth before doing it.

Besides these there is no other way, for they must either do the deed or not, either knowing or unknowing.

The worst of these is to intend the action with full knowledge and not to perform it. That outrages the feelings and is not tragic, for there is no calamity. So nobody does that, except occasionally, as, for instance, Haemon and Creon in the Antigone.

Next comes the doing of the deed.

It is better to act in ignorance and discover afterwards. Our feelings are not outraged and the discovery is startling.

Best of all is the last; in the Cresphontes, for instance, Merope intends to kill her son and does not kill him but discovers; and in the Iphigeneia the case of the sister and brother; and in the Helle the son discovers just as he is on the point of giving up his mother.

So this is the reason, as was said above, why tragedies are about a few families. For in their experiments it was from no technical knowledge but purely by chance that they found out how to produce such an effect in their stories. So they are obliged to have recourse to those families in which such calamities befell.

Now concerning the structure of the incidents and the proper character of the plots enough has been said.