Following upon what has been said above we should next state what ought to be aimed at and what avoided in the construction of a plot, and the means by which the object of tragedy may be achieved.

Since then the structure of the best tragedy should be not simple but complex ¹ and one that represents incidents arousing fear and pity—for that is peculiar to this form of art—it is obvious to begin with that one should not show worthy men passing from good fortune to bad. That does not arouse fear or pity but shocks our feelings.

Nor again wicked people passing from bad fortune to good. That is the most untragic of all, having none of the requisite qualities, since it does not satisfy our feelings ² or arouse pity or fear.

1453a 1 Nor again the passing of a thoroughly bad man from good fortune to bad fortune. Such a structure might satisfy our feelings but it arouses neither pity nor fear, the one being for the man who does not deserve his misfortune and the other for the man who is like ourselves—pity for the undeserved misfortune, fear for the man like ourselves—so that the result will arouse neither pity nor fear.

There remains then the mean between these. This is the sort of man who is not pre-eminently virtous and just, and yet it is through no badness or villainy of his own that he falls into the fortune, but rather through some flaw in him, ³ he being one of those who are in high station and good fortune, like Oedipus and Thyestes and the famous men of such families as those.

The successful plot must then have a single ⁴ and not, as some say, a double issue; and the change must be not to good fortune from bad but, on the contrary, from good to bad fortune, and it must not be due to villainy but to some great flaw in such a man as we have described, or of one who is better rather than worse.

This can be seen also in actual practice. For at first poets accepted any plots, but to-day the best tragedies are written about a few families— 20 Alcmaeon for instance and Oedipus and Orestes and Meleager and Thyestes and Telephus and all the others whom it befell to suffer or inflict terrible disasters.

Judged then by the theory of the art, the best ⁵ tragedy is of this construction.

Those critics are therefore wrong who charge Euripides with doing this in his tragedies, and say that many of his end in misfortune.

That is, as we have shown, correct. And there is very good evidence of this, for on the stage and in competitions such plays appear the most tragic of all, if they are successful, and even if Euripides is in other respects a bad manager, ⁶ yet he is certainly the most tragic of the poets.

Next in order comes the structure which some put first, that which has a double issue, like the Odyssey, and ends in opposite ways for the good characters and the bad.

It is the sentimentality of the audience which makes this seem the best form; for the poets follow the wish of the spectators.

But this is not the true tragic pleasure but rather characteristic of comedy, where those who are bitter enemies in the story, Orestes and Aegisthus, for instance, go off at the end, having made friends, and nobody kills anybody.

As the sequel to what has already been said, we must
proceed to consider what the poet should aim at, and
what he should avoid, in constructing his plots;
and by what means the specific effect of Tragedy will
be produced.

A perfect tragedy should, as we have seen,
be arranged not on the simple but on the complex plan.
It should, moreover, imitate actions which excite pity and
fear, this being the distinctive mark of tragic imitation.
It follows plainly, in the first place, that the change
of fortune presented must not be the spectacle of a
virtuous man brought from prosperity to adversity: for
this moves neither pity nor fear; it merely shocks us.

Nor, again, that of a bad man
passing from adversity to prosperity: for nothing can be
more alien to the spirit of Tragedy;
it possesses no single tragic quality; it neither satisfies
the moral sense nor calls forth pity or fear.

Nor, again, should the downfall of the utter villain be
exhibited. A plot of this kind would, doubtless, satisfy
the moral sense, but it would inspire neither pity nor
fear;
for pity is aroused by unmerited misfortune, fear by the
misfortune of a man like ourselves. Such an event,
therefore, will be neither pitiful nor terrible.

There remains, then, the character between these two
extremes, that of a man who is not eminently good and
just, yet whose misfortune is brought about not by vice
or depravity, but by some error or frailty.
He must be one who is highly renowned and prosperous,
a personage like Oedipus, Thyestes, or other illustrious men
of such families.

A well constructed plot should, therefore,
be single in its issue, rather than double as some maintain.
The change of fortune should be not from bad to good,
but, reversely, from good to bad.

It should come about as the result not of vice, but of
some great error or frailty, in a character either such as we
have described, or better rather than worse.
The practice of the stage bears out our view.
At first the poets recounted any legend that came in
their way.
Now, the best tragedies are founded on the story of a
few houses, on the fortunes of Alcmaeon, Oedipus, Orestes,
Meleager, Thyestes, Telephus, and those others who have
done or suffered something terrible.

A tragedy, then, to be perfect according to the rules of
art should be of this construction.

Hence they are in error who censure Euripides just because
he follows this principle in his plays, many of which
end unhappily.

It is, as we have said, the right ending. The best proof
is that on the stage and in dramatic competition, such
plays, if well worked out, are the most tragic in effect;
and Euripides, faulty though he may be in the general
management of his subject, yet is felt to be the most
tragic of the poets.

In the second rank comes the kind of tragedy which
some place first.
Like the Odyssey, it has a double thread of plot, and also
an opposite catastrophe for the good and for the bad.

It is accounted the best because of the weakness of the
spectators; for the poet is guided in what he writes by
the wishes of his audience.

The pleasure, however, thence derived is not the true tragic
pleasure. It is proper rather to Comedy, where those
who, in the piece, are the deadliest enemies—like Orestes
and Aegisthus—quit the stage as friends at the close,
and no one slays or is slain.

The next points after what we have said above will be
these: (1) What is the poet to aim at, and what is he to
avoid, in constructing his Plots? and (2) What are the
conditions on which the tragic effect depends?

We assume
that, for the finest form of Tragedy, the Plot must be not
simple but complex; and further, that it must imitate actions
arousing pity and fear, since that is the distinctive function
of this kind of imitation. It follows, therefore, that there
are three forms of Plot to be avoided.
(1) A good man
must not be seen passing from happiness to misery, or
(2) a bad man from misery to happiness.
The first
situation is not fear-inspiring or piteous, but simply odious
to us.

The second is the most untragic that can be; it
has no one of the requisites of Tragedy; it does not appeal
either to the human feeling in us, or to our pity, or to our
fears.

Nor on the other hand should (3) an extremely bad
man be seen falling from happiness into misery.
Such a
story may arouse the human feeling in us, but it will not
move us to either pity or fear; pity is occasioned by un-
deserved misfortune, and fear by that of one like ourselves;
so that there will be nothing either piteous or fear-inspiring
in the situation.

There remains, then, the intermediate
kind of personage, a man not pre-eminently virtuous and
just, whose misfortune, however, is brought upon him not
by vice and depravity but by some error of judgement,
of the number of those in the enjoyment of great reputation
and prosperity; e.g. Oedipus, Thyestes, and the men of note
of similar families.

The perfect Plot, accordingly, must
have a single, and not (as some tell us) a double issue;
the change in the hero's fortunes must be not from misery
to happiness, but on the contrary from happiness to misery;
and the cause of it must lie not in any depravity, but in
some great error on his part; the man himself being either
such as we have described, or better, not worse, than that.

Fact also confirms our theory. Though the poets began
by accepting any tragic story that came to hand, in these
days the finest tragedies are always on the story of some
few houses, on that of Alcmeon, Oedipus, Orestes, Meleager,
Thyestes, Telephus, or any others that may have been in-
volved, as either agents or sufferers, in some deed of horror.

The theoretically best tragedy, then, has a Plot of this
description.

The critics, therefore, are wrong, who blame
Euripides for taking this line in his tragedies, and giving
many of them an unhappy ending. It is, as we have said,
the right line to take.

The best proof is this: on the
stage, and in the public performances, such plays, properly
worked out, are seen to be the most truly tragic; and
Euripides, even if his execution be faulty in every other
point, is seen to be nevertheless the most tragic certainly
of the dramatists.

After this comes the construction of
Plot which some rank first, one with a double story (like
the Odyssey) and an opposite issue for the good and the
bad personages.

It is ranked as first only through the
weakness of the audiences; the poets merely follow their
public, writing as its wishes dictate.

But the pleasure here
is not that of Tragedy. It belongs rather to Comedy, where
the bitterest enemies in the piece (e. g. Orestes and
Aegisthus) walk off good friends at the end, with no
slaying of any one by any one.

[1] IN the next place we must show, as consequent to what has been said, what those who compose fables ought to aim at, 13.1 and beware of, and whence the purpose of tragedy is effected. ¹ Since, therefore, it is necessary that the composition of the most beautiful tragedy should not be simple, but complex, and that it should be imitative of fearful and piteous actions—(for this is the peculiarity of such imitation) -in the first place it is evident, that it is not proper that worthy men should be represented as changed from prosperity to adversity, (for this is neither a subject of terror nor commiseration, 13.2 but is impious,) nor should depraved characters [be represented as changed] from adversity to prosperity; for this is the most foreign from tragedy of all things, since it possesses nothing which is proper; 13.3 for it neither appeals to moral sense, nor is piteous, nor fearful. 13.4 Nor, again, must a very depraved man be represented as having fallen from prosperity into adversity. For such a composition will indeed possess moral tendency, but not pity or fear. For the one is conversant with a character which does not deserve to be unfortunate; but the other, with a character similar [to one's own]. [And pity, indeed, is excited for one who does not deserve to be unfortunate; but fear, for one who resembles oneself2] ; so that the event will neither appear to be commiserable, nor terrible. ² 13.5 There remains therefore the character between these. But a character of this kind is one, who neither excels in virtue and justice, nor is changed through vice and depravity, into misfortune, from a state of ^{3 4} great renown and prosperity, but has experienced ⁵ this change through some [human] error; such as Œdipus and Thyestes; and other illustrious men of this kind. Hence it is necessary that a plot which is well constructed, should be rather single than twofold, (though some say it should be the latter,) and that the change should not be into prosperity from adversity, but on the contrary into adversity from prosperity, not through depravity, 13.6 but through some great error, either of such a character [as we have mentioned], or better rather than worse. But the proof of this is what has taken place. ⁶ For of old the poets adopted any casual fables; 13.7 but now the most beautiful tragedies are composed about a few families; as for instance, about Alcmaeon, Oedipus, Orestes, Meleager, Thyestes, and Telephus4, 13.8 and such other persons as happen either to have suffered or done things of a dreadful nature. The tragedy, therefore, which is most beautiful according to art, is of this construction. 13.9 Hence they erroneously blame ⁷ Euripides, who accuse him of having done this in his tragedies, and for making many of them terminate in misfortune. For this method, as we have said, is right; of which this is the greatest evidence, that in the scenes, 13.10 and contests of the players, simple fables which terminate unhappily appear to be most tragical, if they are properly acted. And Euripides, though he does not manage other things well, yet appears to be the most tragic of poets5. ⁸ 13.11 The fable, however, ranks in the second place, though by some it is said to be the first composition, which has a twofold construction, such as the Odyssey, and which terminates in a contrary fortune, both to the better ^{9 10 11} and worse characters. It appears, however, to rank in the first place, through the imbecility of the spectators6. ¹² 13.12 For the poets, in composing their plots, accommodate themselves to the wish of the spectators. 13.13 This pleasure, however, is not [properly] derived from tragedy, but is rather suited to comedy. For there, though the greatest enemies be introduced, as Orestes and AEgisthus, yet in the end they depart friends, and no one falls by the hand of the other7.

Quae vero oporteat sectari et quae cavere eos qui fabulas componunt, et unde futurum sit tragoediae opus, deinceps dicendum erit post ea quae exposita sunt.

quoniam igitur compositionem pulcherrimae tragoediae non simplicem esse sed implexam oportet, eamque timendorum et miserandorum esse imitationem (hoc enim proprium eiusmodi imitationis est), primum liquet non debere probos viros ex secunda fortuna in adversam incidentes conspici (non enim timendum hoc neque miserandum est, sed foedum) neque improbos ex

adversa in secundam (minime enim omnium tragicum hoc est: quippe nihil habet eorum quae debet: neque enim humanitatis sensum movet neque miserandum neque timendum est),

neque rursus vehementer improbum ex rebus secundis in adversas incurrere. nam id quod humanum talis compositio habitura est, sed neque miserationem neque timorem: illa enim circa innocentem miseriis conflictantem, hic circa similem versatur [, miseratio circa innocentem, timor circa similem], ut neque miserandum neque timendum sit quod accidit.

medius ergo inter hos relicuus est. est vero eiusmodi qui neque virtute iustitiaque excellat, neque ob nequitiam et improbitatem incidat in res adversas sed ob peccatum aliquod, ex iis qui magna existimatione sunt et felicitate, sicut Oedipus et Thyestes et qui ex huiusmodi gentibus illustres viri.

oportet igitur fabulam bene se habentem simplicem potius esse quam duplicem, ut nonnulli dicunt, et mutare non in fortunam secundam ex adversa sed contra ex secunda in adversam, non propter improbitatem sed propter peccatum magnum, vel eius quem diximus, vel melioris magis quam peioris.

signum est autem quod fieri solet: olim enim poetae qualescumque fabulas decantabant, sed iam circa paucas familias pulcherrimae tragoediae componuntur, veluti circa Alcmaeonem et Oedipum et Orestem et Meleagrum et Thyestem et Telephum, et quibuscumque aliis accidit ut aut paterentur gravia aut patrarent.

itaque pulcherrima tragoedia secundum artem est quae hac compositione praedita.

quapropter peccant qui Euripidi id ipsum vitio vertunt, quod hoc faciat in tragoediis et multae ex eius tragoediis in res adversas desinant. hoc enim, ut dictum, recte se habet.

magnum autem signum: nam in scenis et certaminibus maxime tragicae tales videntur, si bene peragantur, et Euripides, quamquam cetera non bene disponit, at maxime tragicus inter poetas videtur.

secunda autem est quae prima a nonnullis dicitur compositio, quae et duplicem compositionem habeat [, sicut Odyssea,] et finiatur iis qui meliores sunt contra quam deterioribus.

videtur autem prima esse propter spectantium imbecillitatem: obsequuntur enim poetae indulgentes spectatoribus.

est vero ea non tragoediae voluptas, sed potius comoediae propria: illic enim, qui inimicissimi sunt in fabula, velut Orestes et Aegisthus, amicitia inita postremo discedunt, nec perit quisquam a quoquam.

1.

12.10 Apres avoir ſuffiſament expliqué toutes ces parties de la Tragedie, l'ordre veut que 13.1 nous traitions des choſes qu'un Poëte doit ſuivre ou éviter dans la compoſition d'un ſujet, & du chemin qu'il doit tenir pour arriver au but que ſe propoſe la Tragedie.

2.

13.2 Puiſque la Tragedie, pour avoir toute la beauté dont elle eſt capable, doit être implexe & non pas ſimple, & qu'elle doit exciter la compaſſion & la terreur, car nous avons déja dit que c'eſt le propre de cette forte d'imitation, c'eſt une conſequence neceſſaire qu'il ne faut pas choiſir un tres honnête homme pour le faire tomber de la proſperité dans l'adverſité, car au lieu d'exciter la terreur ou la compaſſion, cela ne fait que donner de l'horreur, & eſt deteſté de tout le monde.

3.

13.3 Il eſt évident encore qu'il ne faut pas prendre un méchant homme pour le faire paſſer d'un état malheureux à un état heureux & tranquille, Il n'y a rien qui ſoit moins tragique, & on ne voit là aucun des effets de la Tragedie, car outre que cela n'excite, ny la terreur ny la compaſſion, il ne fait aucun plaiſir.

4.

13.4 Bien plus, on ne doit pas repreſenter les malheurs d'un tres méchant homme. Véritablement une telle repreſentation peut faire quelque plaiſir; mais elle ne produira ny la crainte ny la pitié, car la premiere naît des malheurs de nos ſemblables & l'autre des miſeres de ceux qui méritoient un meilleur fort. Et par conſequent un tel ſujet n'a rien qui ſoit ny pitoyable ny terrible.

5.

13.5 Il ne reſte donc que celuy qui tient le milieu, & qui n'étant ny vicieux, ny juſte dans un ſouverain degré, ne s'attire pas non plus ſes malheurs par ſes méchancetez & par ſes crimes. Il faut choiſir parmy ceux qui ſont dans une fortune éclatante, & dans une grande réputation, quelque perſonnage illuſtre qui ſe ſoit rendu malheureux par quel-que faute involontaire, comme Edipe, Thyeſte, & tous les autres hommes celebres de ces deux familles.

6.

13.6 Il s'enfuit de là neceſſairement, qu'une fable bien compoſée doit être ſimple & non pas double, comme quelques gens l'ont prétendu, & qu'elle doit plûtôt finir par le malheur que par le bonheur des principaux perſonnages, pourvû que ce malheur ſoit la ſuite de quelque grande faute, & non pas l'effet d'une infigne méchanceté. En un mot ce doit être le malheur d'un homme qui ne ſoit, ny méchant ny bon, & ſi on n'en trouve pas un qui ſoit précisément tel, il faut choiſir celuy qui eſt plûtôt bon que méchant.

7.

13.7 Ce que nous voyons aujourd'huy eſt une preuve évidente de cette verité. Les Poëtes mettoient d'abord ſur le Theatre, avec ſuccez, toutes ſortes de ſujets; mais preſentement leurs plus belles pieces, & celles qui réüſſiſſent le mieux ſans contredit ſont celles dont les ſujets ne ſont pris que dans un petit nombre de familles comme dans celles d'Alcmæon, d'Edipe, d'Oreſte, de Meleagre, de Thyeſte, de Telephus, & de tous les autres qui ont fait ou ſouffert des choſes terribles. 13.8 On peut donc aſſeurer que la plus belle Tragedie, ſelon les regles de l'Art, eſt celle où l'on a obſervé cette conduite.

8.

13.9 C'eſt pourquoy tous ceux qui blâment Euripide de ce qu'il ſuit ces maximes dans ſes Tragedies, & que la plupart de ſes pieces ont une Cataſtrophe funeſte, ſe trompent infiniment. Au contraire cela eſt parfaitement bien, comme je l'ay déja dit. 13.10 En voicy une preuve inconteſtable, c'eſt que dans les diſputes publiques, & ſur le Theatre, ces ſortes de Tragedies paroiſſent toûjours les plus tragiques & les plus touchantes, ſi rien d'étranger n'en trouble ou n'en gâte la répreſentation. Et le même Euripide, quoyque d'ailleurs peu exact & peu châtié dans la conduite & la diſpoſition de ſes ſujets, paroît pourtant le plus Tragique de tous les Poëtes.

9.

13.11 La Fable à laquelle je donne le ſecond rang, quoyque d'autres luy ayent donné le premier, c'eſt celle qui a une double conſtitution, comme l'Odyſſée, & qui finit par une double Cataſtrophe, c'est-à-dire, par une Cataſtrophe qui eſt heureuſe pour les bons, & funeſte pour les méchans. 13.12 Ceux qui l'ont préferée à la premiere, l'ont fait apara-ment à cauſe de la foibleſſe des ſpectateurs, au goût & aux ſouhaits deſquels les Poëtes ſe conforment d'ordinaire. 13.13 Mais le plaiſir que donne cette Fable n'eſt pas à beaucoup prés ſi propre à la Tragedie qu'à la Comedie; en effet on voit à la Comedie des ennemis auſſi irréconciliables qu'Oreſte & qu'Egyſthe, devenir à la fin fort bons amis, & ſe retirer ſans qu'il y ait de côté ny d'autre une goute de ſang répandu.

Onciofia adunche che la compoſition' della bella Tragedia non debba eſſere ſcempia, ma intrec ciata;& che tale debba eſſere imitatrice di coſe terribi li, & compafsioneuoli:imperochè queſti due affetti ſo no propii da douere eſſere imitati da lei. ¹

Però manifeſtamente ſi vede, che in efla non debbe apparire mutamento tale, che gli huomini giuſti,& buoni vi trapaf fino di felicità in miſeria; concioſia che tal coſa non apporti mifericordia, nè timore: anzi che ella ci dimoſtri vn fatto ſcelerato, & empio. Ne allincontro vi ſi debbe fare apparire vn tale mutamento, che li maluagi huo mini di miferia vi paſsino in felicità;

perchè vn ſimil caſo infra tutti gli altri è lontaniſsimo dalla Tragedia: per non eſſere in lui parte alcuna di quelle, che fe gli ricercan' d'hauere; nè l'humanità dico, nè la mifericor dia,nè lo ſpauento.

Medefimamente non vi fi debbe fare apparire, che vno huomo grandemente maluagio di felicità vi trapaſsi in miferia. Perchè vna tal conſtitutione di Fauola può hauere affai del piaceuole, & non può muouere nè à mifericordia, ne à timore; eſſendo l'uno affetto intorno à colui, che indegnamente viene in miferia:& l'altro intorno à colui, che gli è ſimile. La mifericordia, dico, è intorno à chi non è degno; & la paura è intorno à chi è tuo fimile.

Onde vn ſimil caſo non può apparire nè cõpaſsioneuole, ne ſpauétofo.Re ſtaci adunche, ch'e' fi faccia trapaſſare quei, che ſono nel mezo de ſopra racconti. Et tali ſono quegligi qua li nè per virtù, nè per giuftitia eſſendo eccellenti fan trapaſſaméto nella miferia; nó per vitio, nè per iniqui- • tà, ma per qualche errore commeſſo da loro, che ſono in gloria, & in proſperità di fortuna conſtituiti:ficome interuenne à Edippo, à Tieſte, & à tutti gli altri di ſimil fatta, che furono huomini illuſtri.

E' di necefsita adúche, che la Fauola, che ha ad eſſer' bella, ſia piutoſto ſcempia, che doppia, ſicome molti ſi ſtimano; cioè fia tale, doue ſi faccia il tranfito non da miferia in felici tà, ma à rouefcio, da felicità in miſeria;non per maluagità, ma per errore, che non ſia certamente leggieri commeſſo dagli huomini della forte, quale io ho raccotasò vero che piutoſto inchinino à miglior qualità, che à peggiore.

Segno di ciò mi ſia l'uſo d'hoggidı, per chè anticamente i Poeti metteuono ne' loro Poemi qualunche Fauola haueffe dato la ſorte; ma hoggi le Tragedie bellissime fon'compoſte intorno à poche famiglie:come è intorno à quella d'Algmeone, d'Edip po, d'Oreste, di Meleagro, di Tieſte, di Telefo, & di tutti quegli altri, a'quali interuenne ò di ſopportare,ò d'operar coſe acerbe.

E' adunche la Tragedia, che fi dice eſſere per arte belliſsima, in tal modo teſſuta.

Et però errano tutti quegli, che riprendon queſto in Euripi de, cioè che e faccia tal coſa nelle fue Tragedie; doue le piu d'eſſe vi finiſchino in miferia:

anzi vna tal coſa (ſi come io ho detto) è fabbricata rettamente. Di ciò è ſegno gradiſsimo, che nelle Scene, & in quei gareggia menti le coſifatte pare che habbino forte del Tragico; in caſo, dico, che elle ſien ben condotte. Et Euripide ſteſſo, febene e' difpone male l'altre parti;in queſta appariſce egli ſopra de gli altri Poeti il più Tragico.

Nel ſecondo luogo, che da molti è chiamato il primo, è meſ ſa la compoſitione di quella Fauola, che è doppia; nel quale ordine e l'Odiffea, come quella che da cotrario ſucceſſo a gli huomini buoni, & alla cattiui.

Et à queſta pare, che habbia dato le prime parti la theatrale debolezza; concioſia che i Poeti, tirando dietro al fauore, componghino efle Fauole ſecodo la voglia degli ſpet tatori.

Ma il piacere coſi fatto non è propio della Tragedia, ma è piutoſto della Commedia ; perche in queita coſi fatta Tragedia ſe in eſſa vi ſono introdotti due inimici(come fu Oreſte, & Egisto) nel fine ricóciliati, ſi dipartono amici, nê vi ſegue morte fatta da neſſuno.

Quae vero oportet spectare et quae oportet cavere constituentes fabulas, et unde erit tragoediae opus, sequitur ut dicamus post illa quae adhuc dicta sunt. quoniam igitur constitutionem pulcherrimae tragoediae oportet esse non simplicem sed nexam, eamque terribilium et miserabilium imitationem (hoc enim proprium huiusmodi est imitationis),

primum quidem manifestum est neqne neque aequos viros mutatos apparere oportere ex prospera fortuna in adversam (id enim non est terribile nec miserabile, sed sceleratum) neque improbos ex infortunio in prosperam fortunam (id enim maxime omnium a tragoedia alienum est,

quia nihil habet eorum quae oportet: neque enim gratum hominibus neque miserabile neque terribile est),

neque rursus valde malum ex prospera fortuna in adversam cadere: quod enim gratum est hominibus, id quidem habet talis constitutio, sed neque misericordiam habet neque timorem: illa enim est circa eum qui indigne adversa fortuna utatur, hic vero circa similem, quare neque miserabile neque terribile apparet quod contingit. reliquus igitur est inter hos interiectus.

est autem talis, qui neque virtute praestat et institia iustitia, neque propter vitium et pravitatem mutatur in adversam fortunam, sed propter errorem aliquem, eorum qui sunt in magna existimatione et fortunae prosperitate, cuiusmodi Oedipus et Thyestes, et qui ex talibus familiis illustres viri sunt.

necesse enim est egregie se habentem fabulam esse magis simplicem quam duplicem, ut quidam dicunt; et mutari non in prosperam fortunam ex adversa, sed contra ex prospera in adversam, non propter improbitatem sed propter errorem magnum, aut talis personae qualis dictum est, aut melioris magis quam peioris.

signum autem est etiam id quod observatur: nam antea quidem poëtae quaslibet fabulas enumerabant, nunc vero circa paucas domos pulcherrimae componuntur tragoediae, ut circa Alcmaeonem et Oedipum et Orestem et Meleagrum et Thyestem et Telephum, et quibuscunque aliis contingit atrocia aut pati ant aut facere.

ac secundum artem quidem pulcherrima est tragoedia ex hac constitutione.

quare et errant qui accusant Euripidem in eadem re, quod hoc faciat in tragoediis, et mnltae ipsius in adversam fortunam terminent.

id enim rectum est, ut diximus. ac signum maximum est, quod in scenis et certaminibus tales maxime apparent tragicae, si recte dirigantur; et Euripides quamvis alia non bene disponat, hac tamen in parte inter poëtas maxime apparet tragicus.

iam vero secunda constitutio est, quae a quibusdam prima dicta est, eius fabulae quae duplicem habet constitutionem, ut Odyssea, et desinit ex contrarietate melioribus et peioríbus.

videtur autem esse prima propter theatrorum imbecillitatem: nam poëtae eam consequuntur morem gerentes spectatoribus.

atque haec ea non est quae a tragoedia proficiscitur voluptas, sed magis comoediae propria: in ea enim fabula si inimicissimi sint, ut Orestes et Aegisthus, amici tandem facti exeunt et nullus per alterum moritur.

Que autem oportet coniecturare et que oportet vereri constituentes fabulas et unde erit tragodie opus, consequenter utique nunc dictis erit dicendum.

Quoniam igitur oportet compositionem optime tragodie esse non simplicem sed complexam et hanc terribilium et miserabilium esse imitativam (boc enim proprium talis imitationis est) primo quidem palam quod neque epieilkees viros oportet apparere transmutantes ex eufortunio in infortunium (non enim terribile neque miserabile hoc, sed odibile est)

neque pestilentes ex infortunio in eufortunium (intragodotatissimum enim hoc est omnium; nullum enim quorum opus est, neque enim filantropum neque miserabile neque terribile est),

neque ipsum valde malignum ex eufortunio in infortunium transcidere. Quod quidem enim filantropum habebit utique talis consistentia, sed neque misericordiam neque terrorem ; hec quidem enim est circa indignum infortunantem, hic autem circa similem, misericordia quidem circa indignum, terror autem circa similem, quare neque miserabile neque terribile est quod accidit;

qui intermedius ergo horum reliquus. Est autem talis qui neque virtute differens et iustitia, neque propter malitiam et pestilentiam transmutans in infortunium, sed propter peccatum aliquod, eorum qui in magna gloria sunt et eufortunio, ut puta Dipoys et Thyestes et qui ex talibus generibus insignes viri. —

Necesse ergo bene habentem fabulam simplicem magis esse quam duplicem, sicut quidam aiunt, et transmutari non in eufortunium ex infortunio, sed contrarium ex eufortunio in infortunium, non propter pestilentiam sed propter peccatum magnum aut qualis dictum est aut melioris magis aut peioris. —

Signum autem et quod fit; primo quidem enim poete contingentes fabulas enumerabant, nunc autem circa paucas convenientes optime tragodie componuntur, puta circa Alkmeonem et Oidipoyn et Orestem et Meleagrum et Thyestem et Tilefum et quibuscumque aliis accidit aut pati dira aut fecisse. —

Que quidem igitur secundum artem pulcherrima tragodia ex tali consistentia est.

Propter quod et Euripedem incusantes idem peccant quia hoc agit in tragodis et multe ipsius in infortunium terminantur. Hoc enim est, sicut dictum est, rectum.

Signum autem maximum, in skenis enim et agonibus maxime tragodiales que tales apparent si dirigantur ; et Euripedes, et si alia non bene dispensat, sed tragodicotatissimus poetarum videtur. —

Secunda autem, que prima dicitur a quibusdam, est consistentia que duplicem consistentiam habens, sicut Odysseia, et terminans ex contraria melioribus et peioribus.

Putatur autem prima propter theatrorum debilitatem ; assecuntur enim poete secundum votum poetizantes inspectoribus. —

Est autem non hec a tragodia delectatio, sed magis komodie propria ; ibi enim si inimicissimi sint in fabula, velut Orestes et Egistus, amici facti in fine recedunt, et moritur nullus a nullo.

‏وهى التى *طں فى بعضها طٮا وبعضها التى يحترس بها عند تركيب الخرافات فاما من اى موضع يوجد عمل صناعة المديح فنحن مخبرون فيما بعد ونضيف ذلك الى ما تقدم فقيل

‏ومن قبل ان تركب المديح ينبغى ان يكون غير بسيط بل مزوج وان يكون هذا من اشيا مخوفة محزنة [حرقه مملوه حزنا] وان يكون محاكى لهذه اذ كان هذا هو خاصة المحاكاة لمثل هذه فهو ظاهر اولا انه ليس يسهل ولا على الرجال الانجاد ان تروى دايما فى التغير من الفلاح الى لافلاح وذلك ان هذا ليس هو مخوف ولا صعب لكن لهذه الى دٯلها

‏ولا ايضا يروى للتعبين من لافلاح الى فلاح ونجح ذلك ان هذه باجمعها هى غير مديحية وذلك ان ليس فيها شى مما يجب لا التى لمحبة الانسانية ولا التى للحزن

‏ولا ايضا هى مخوفة ولا ايضا هى للذين هم ارديا جدا من فلاح الى لافلاح ان يسقطون وذلك ان التى لمحبة الانسانية فلها قوام مثل هذا ولا ايضا الحزن *الـ*وف ايضا ***ك انه اما ذاك هو الى من لا يستحق عند ما لا يصلح واما هذا ڡالٮى من يشتبهه اخر اما هذا الى من لا يستحق واما الخوف فالى من الشبيه فاذا ما يعرض ليس هو لا للخوف ولا للحزن

‏فبقى اذا المتوسط بين هذين هو هذا اعنى الذى لا فرق فيه لا فى الفضيلة والعدل ولا ايضا يميل الى لافلاح ولانجح بسبب الجور والتعب بل بسبب خطا ما وذلك الذين هم فى جلالة عظيمة وفى نجاح وفلاح بمنزلة اوديفوس وثواسطس وهولا الذين هم من قبل هذه الاحساب ومشهورين

‏والخرافة التى تجرى على الاجود فلا تخلوا من ان تكون كما قال قوم بسيطة واما مركبة وان تغير لا من لا فلاح من فلاح لكن بالعكس اعنى من الفلاح الى لا فلاح لا بسبب التعب لكن بسب خطا وذلك عظيم او مثل التى قيلت الافاضل خاصة اكثر من الارذال

‏والدليل على ذلك ما يكون واولا كانوا يحصون الخرافات الذين يوجدون لكميا يطنون واما الان فقد تركب المديحات قليلا عند البيوت مثل ما كان بسبب القامان واوديفوس واورسطس ومالاغرس وثواسطس وطيلافس وساير القوم الاخر كم كان مبلغهم ممن مرت به مصايب ونابته النوايب ان ينفعلوا ويفعلوا اشيا صعبة

‏واما المديح الحسن الذى يكون بصناعة هو هذا التركيب

‏ولذلك قد يخطى الذين يلزمون اوريفيدس اللوم من قبل انه جعل مدايحه على هذا الضرب وذلك ان كثيرا مما يوول بالامر الى لافلاح ولانجاح والى شقا البخوت وذلك كما قلنا مما هو مستقيم

‏واعظم الدلايل على ذلك ان هذه الاشيا التى تكون من الجهادات ومن المسكن ترى بهذه الحال غير ان هولا يصلحون الخطا وان كان اوريفيدس دبر هذه الاشيا تدبيرا حسنا الا انه قد يرى انه ادخل فى باب المدايح من الشعرا الاخر

‏واما القوام الثانى فقد يقول فيها بعض الٯوام انها اولى وهى مضاعفة فى قوامها بمنزلة التدوين الذى للجوهر واذا حصلت على جهة الرواية من التضاد فقد يظن بها انها للافاضل جدا والارذال

‏فاما الاولى فبسبب ضعف المعروف ٮٮيطر او اما الشعرا فعندما يجعلونها للناظرين موضع الدعا

‏وليس هذه هى اللذة من صناعة المديح لكنها اكثر مناسبة لصناعة الهجا وذلك ان هنالك فالاعدا والمبغضون هم الذين يوجدون فى الخرافة بمنزلة اوسطس والسطس اللذين عند ما صارا اصدقا فى اخر الامر قد تبديا وڡعال فيهما فى القينة امر الميتة لا واحد من رفيقه وقرينه

‏فاما من اى موضع يوجد عمل صناعة المديح فنحن مخبرون فيما بعد ونضيف ذلك الى ما تقدم فقيل

‏ومن قبل ان تركب المديح ينبغى ان يكون غير بسيط بل مزوج وان يكون هذا من اشيا مخوفة محزنة [حرقه مملوه حزنا] وان يكون محاكى لهذه اذ كان هذا هو خاصة المحاكاة لمثل هذه فهو ظاهر اولا انه ليس يسهل ولا على الرجال الانجاد ان تروى دايما فى التغير من الفلاح الى لافلاح وذلك ان هذا ليس هو مخوف ولا صعب لكن لهذه الى دٯلها ولا ايضا يروى للتعبين من لافلاح الى فلاح ونجح ذلك ان هذه باجمعها هى غير مديحية وذلك ان ليس فيها شى مما يجب لا التى لمحبة الانسانية ولا التى للحزن ولا ايضا هى مخوفة ولا ايضا هى للذين هم ارديا جدا من فلاح الى لافلاح ان يسقطون

‏وذلك ان التى لمحبة الانسانية فلها قوام مثل هذا ولا ايضا الحزن *الـ*وف ايضا ***ك انه اما ذاك هو الى من لا يستحق عند ما لا يصلح واما هذا ڡالٮى من يشتبهه اخر اما هذا الى من لا يستحق واما الخوف فالى من الشبيه فاذا ما يعرض ليس هو لا للخوف ولا للحزن

‏فبقى اذا المتوسط بين هذين هو هذا

‏اعنى الذى لا فرق فيه لا فى الفضيلة والعدل ولا ايضا يميل الى لافلاح ولانجح بسبب الجور والتعب بل بسبب خطا ما وذلك الذين هم فى جلالة عظيمة وفى نجاح وفلاح بمنزلة اوديفوس وثواسطس وهولا الذين هم من قبل هذه الاحساب ومشهورين

‏والخرافة التى تجرى على الاجود فلا تخلوا من ان تكون كما قال قوم بسيطة واما مركبة وان تغير لا من لا فلاح من فلاح لكن بالعكس اعنى من الفلاح الى لا فلاح لا بسبب التعب لكن بسب خطا وذلك عظيم او مثل التى قيلت الافاضل خاصة اكثر من الارذال

‏والدليل على ذلك ما يكون واولا كانوا يحصون الخرافات الذين يوجدون لكميا يطنون واما الان فقد تركب المديحات قليلا عند البيوت مثل ما كان بسبب القامان واوديفوس واورسطس ومالاغرس وثواسطس وطيلافس وساير القوم الاخر كم كان مبلغهم ممن مرت به مصايب ونابته النوايب ان ينفعلوا ويفعلوا اشيا صعبة

‏واما المديح الحسن الذى يكون بصناعة هو هذا التركيب

‏ولذلك قد يخطى الذين يلزمون اوريفيدس اللوم من قبل انه جعل مدايحه على هذا الضرب وذلك ان كثيرا مما يوول بالامر الى لافلاح ولانجاح والى شقا البخوت

‏وذلك كما قلنا

‏واعظم الدلايل على ذلك مما هو مستقيم ان هذه الاشيا التى تكون من الجهادات ومن المسكن ترى بهذه الحال غير ان هولا يصلحون الخطا وان كان اوريفيدس دبر هذه الاشيا تدبيرا حسنا الا انه قد يرى انه ادخل فى باب المدايح من الشعرا الاخر

‏واما القوام الثانى فقد يقول فيها بعض الٯوام انها اولى وهى مضاعفة فى قوامها بمنزلة التدوين الذى للجوهر واذا حصلت على جهة الرواية من التضاد فقد يظن بها انها للافاضل جدا والارذال

‏فاما الاولى فبسبب ضعف المعروف ٮٮيطر او اما الشعرا فعندما يجعلونها للناظرين موضع الدعا

‏وليس هذه هى اللذة من صناعة المديح لكنها اكثر مناسبة لصناعة الهجا وذلك ان هنالك فالاعدا والمبغضون هم الذين يوجدون فى الخرافة بمنزلة اوسطس والسطس اللذين عند ما صارا اصدقا فى اخر الامر قد تبديا وڡعال فيهما فى القينة امر الميتة لا واحد من رفيقه وقرينه