Aristotle's Poetics (Modern, Updated Translation)

Book Summary

Aristotle's "Poetics" (circa 335 BC) stands as the foundational text of Western literary criticism and dramatic theory, providing a systematic analysis of tragedy, epic poetry, and other forms of artistic imitation (mimesis). Written as a series of lectures, the work examines how different art forms achieve their effects and what constitutes excellence in storytelling.

The treatise begins with Aristotle's central concept of mimesis (imitation or representation), arguing that all art forms are various ways of imitating human action. He classifies different types of poetry based on their means (rhythm, language, harmony), objects (characters of varying moral worth), and manner of imitation (narrative or dramatic).

Aristotle devotes particular attention to tragedy, which he considers the highest form of poetry. He defines tragedy as an imitation of a serious and complete action that arouses pity and fear and achieves catharsis (emotional purification) in the audience. His famous six elements of tragedy - plot, character, thought, diction, melody, and spectacle - have influenced dramatic criticism for over two millennia.

The work emphasizes the supreme importance of plot (mythos), which Aristotle calls the "soul of tragedy." He argues that a well-constructed plot should be unified, complete, and of appropriate magnitude. His analysis of plot structure, including concepts like reversal (peripeteia), recognition (anagnorisis), and tragic flaw (hamartia), remains influential in modern storytelling.

Aristotle provides detailed guidance on character development, arguing that characters should be good, appropriate, true to life, and consistent. He emphasizes that character serves plot, not vice-versa, and that characters' actions should arise from probability or necessity rather than mere coincidence.

The surviving text also includes valuable discussions of epic poetry, comparing it with tragedy and analyzing Homer's techniques. Though the section on comedy has been lost, Aristotle's principles of unity, probability, and catharsis have influenced comic as well as tragic writing.

Throughout the work, Aristotle takes a remarkably practical approach to artistic creation, focusing on what actually works to engage audiences rather than abstract theoretical principles. His analysis is based on close observation of successful works, particularly Greek tragedies.

Aristotle's Poetics (Modern, Updated Translation)

Support more translations by picking up a copy of this book on Amazon.

Buy Book on Amazon

Free Book Preview (Modern English)

I plan to discuss poetry on its own and its different types, pointing out what makes each unique. I'll look into what makes a good poem's plot, the number and type of parts that make up a poem, and anything else related to this topic. Let's start with the basic principles, following the natural order.

Epic poetry, tragedy, comedy, dithyrambic poetry, and music from flutes and lyres are all ways of imitating. However, they differ from each other in three ways: the medium they use, the objects they imitate, and the manner or mode of imitation, which are all different in each case.

Just like some people, either by skill or habit, imitate and show different things using color and shape, or by using their voice, in the arts mentioned above, the imitation is done through rhythm, language, or harmony, either alone or together.

In the music of the flute and the lyre, only harmony and rhythm are used. This is also true for other arts like the shepherd's pipe, which are similar to these. In dancing, only rhythm is used without harmony, because dancing also imitates character, emotion, and action through rhythmic movement.

There's another type of art that imitates using only language, either in prose or verse. This verse can mix different types of meters or stick to just one kind, but it hasn't been given a specific name yet. We don't have a common term for works like the mimes of Sophron and Xenarchus or the Socratic dialogues, and similarly, for poetic works in iambic, elegiac, or other meters. People often add 'maker' or 'poet' to the name of the meter, calling them elegiac poets or epic poets (meaning hexameter poets), as if the verse, not the imitation, makes someone a poet. Even if a book on medicine or science is written in verse, the author is usually called a poet. Yet, Homer and Empedocles only share the meter, so it's more accurate to call Homer a poet and Empedocles a physicist. Similarly, if a writer uses all kinds of meters in their poetic work, like Chaeremon did in his Centaur, which mixes all sorts of meters, we would still call them a poet. That's the explanation for these differences.

There are some arts that use all the methods mentioned above: rhythm, tune, and meter. These include dithyrambic and nomic poetry, as well as tragedy and comedy. The difference is that in the first two, these methods are used together, while in the latter, sometimes one method is used, and sometimes another.

These are the differences in the arts when it comes to the way they imitate.

2

Since the things we imitate are people in action, and these people must be either of a higher or lower type (because moral character is mostly divided into good and bad, which are the main differences in morality), it means we have to show people as either better than they are in real life, worse, or just as they are. It's the same in painting. Polygnotus painted people as nobler than they really are, Pauson painted them as less noble, and Dionysius painted them realistically.

It's clear that each way of imitating mentioned earlier shows these differences and becomes unique when imitating different things. You can see these differences in dancing, playing the flute, and playing the lyre. The same goes for language, whether it's prose or verse without music. For example, Homer shows people as better than they are; Cleophon shows them as they are; Hegemon the Thasian, who invented parodies, and Nicochares, who wrote the Deiliad, show them as worse than they are. This is also true for dithyrambs and nomes; here, too, you can show different types, like how Timotheus and Philoxenus differed in their portrayals of Cyclopes. This difference also separates tragedy from comedy; comedy tries to show people as worse, while tragedy shows them as better than in real life.

3

There is also a third difference—the way each of these things can be copied. Even if the medium and the objects are the same, the poet can copy by telling a story. In this case, the poet can either take on a different character like Homer does, or speak as themselves without changing. Alternatively, the poet can show all the characters as if they are alive and moving in front of us.

These are the three differences that set artistic imitation apart: the medium, the objects, and the manner. From one perspective, Sophocles is similar to Homer because both imitate noble characters. From another perspective, he's like Aristophanes because both imitate people acting and doing things. That's why some say the name 'drama' is given to such works, as they show action. For this reason, the Dorians claim they invented both Tragedy and Comedy. The Megarians, both those in Greece and those in Sicily, claim Comedy started with them. They say it began under their democracy, and they mention the poet Epicharmus from Sicily, who came before Chionides and Magnes. Some Dorians from the Peloponnese also claim Tragedy. They use language as evidence. They say their villages are called {kōmai}, while the Athenians call them {dēmi}. They believe Comedians were named not from {kōmazein}, 'to revel,' but because they traveled from village to village (kata kōmas), being kept out of the city. They also mention that the Dorian word for 'doing' is {drān}, while the Athenian word is {prattein}.

This should be enough to explain the different types and ways of imitation.

4

Poetry seems to come from two deep reasons in our nature. First, humans have an instinct to imitate from childhood. Unlike other animals, humans are the most imitative and learn their first lessons through imitation. People also enjoy things that are imitated. We see this in real life. We might find objects painful to look at, but we enjoy them when they are copied accurately, like the shapes of ugly animals or dead bodies. This is because learning gives great pleasure, not just to philosophers but to everyone, though most people have a limited ability to learn. So, people enjoy seeing a likeness because they feel like they are learning or figuring something out, and might say, 'Ah, that is him.' If you haven't seen the original, the pleasure comes not from the imitation itself, but from the skill, the colors, or something else.

Imitation is a natural instinct for us. Also, we have an instinct for harmony and rhythm, with meters being clear parts of rhythm. So, people began with this natural talent and gradually improved their skills, until their simple improvisations led to the creation of poetry.

Poetry started to go in two different directions, based on the personality of the writers. The more serious writers copied the noble actions and deeds of good people. The lighter writers copied the actions of less important people, first creating satires, while the serious ones wrote hymns to the gods and praised famous people. We can't really name any satirical poet before Homer, although there were probably many. But from Homer onward, we can find examples—like his own work "Margites" and other similar pieces. The right kind of rhythm was also introduced here; that's why the rhythm is still called the iambic or lampooning measure, as it was used for making fun of others. So, the older poets were known as writers of either heroic or lampooning verse.

In serious poetry, Homer is the best among poets because he was the first to combine a dramatic style with great storytelling. He also set the foundation for comedy by making fun of things in a playful way instead of attacking people directly. His work, Margites, is to comedy what the Iliad and Odyssey are to tragedy. When tragedy and comedy became popular, poets followed their interests: those who liked to mock others wrote comedy, and those who wrote epic stories were followed by tragedians, as drama was seen as a bigger and more important art form.

These, then, as we said at the beginning, are the three differences which distinguish artistic imitation,--the medium, the objects, and the manner. So that from one point of view, Sophocles is an imitator of the same kind as Homer--for both imitate higher types of character; from another point of view, of the same kind as Aristophanes--for both imitate persons acting and doing. Hence, some say, the name of 'drama' is given to such poems, as representing action. For the same reason the Dorians claim the invention both of Tragedy and Comedy. The claim to Comedy is put forward by the Megarians,--not only by those of Greece proper, who allege that it originated under their democracy, but also by the Megarians of Sicily, for the poet Epicharmus, who is much earlier than Chionides and Magnes, belonged to that country. Tragedy too is claimed by certain Dorians of the Peloponnese. In each case they appeal to the evidence of language. The outlying villages, they say, are by them called {kappa omega mu alpha iota}, by the Athenians {delta eta mu iota}: and they assume that Comedians were so named not from {kappa omega mu 'alpha zeta epsilon iota nu}, 'to revel,' but because they wandered from village to village (kappa alpha tau alpha / kappa omega mu alpha sigma), being excluded contemptuously from the city. They add also that the Dorian word for 'doing' is {delta rho alpha nu}, and the Athenian, {pi rho alpha tau tau epsilon iota nu}.

This may suffice as to the number and nature of the various modes of imitation.

4 

Poetry in general seems to have sprung from two causes, each of them lying deep in our nature. First, the instinct of imitation is implanted in man from childhood, one difference between him and other animals being that he is the most imitative of living creatures, and through imitation learns his earliest lessons; and no less universal is the pleasure felt in things imitated. We have evidence of this in the facts of experience. Objects which in themselves we view with pain, we delight to contemplate when reproduced with minute fidelity: such as the forms of the most ignoble animals and of dead bodies. The cause of this again is, that to learn gives the liveliest pleasure, not only to philosophers but to men in general; whose capacity, however, of learning is more limited. Thus the reason why men enjoy seeing a likeness is, that in contemplating it they find themselves learning or inferring, and saying perhaps, 'Ah, that is he.' For if you happen not to have seen the original, the pleasure will be due not to the imitation as such, but to the execution, the colouring, or some such other cause.

Imitation, then, is one instinct of our nature. Next, there is the instinct for 'harmony' and rhythm, metres being manifestly sections of rhythm. Persons, therefore, starting with this natural gift developed by degrees their special aptitudes, till their rude improvisations gave birth to Poetry.

Poetry now diverged in two directions, according to the individual character of the writers. The graver spirits imitated noble actions, and the actions of good men. The more trivial sort imitated the actions of meaner persons, at first composing satires, as the former did hymns to the gods and the praises of famous men. A poem of the satirical kind cannot indeed be put down to any author earlier than Homer; though many such writers probably there were. But from Homer onward, instances can be cited,--his own Margites, for example, and other similar compositions. The appropriate metre was also here introduced; hence the measure is still called the iambic or lampooning measure, being that in which people lampooned one another. Thus the older poets were distinguished as writers of heroic or of lampooning verse.

As, in the serious style, Homer is pre-eminent among poets, for he alone combined dramatic form with excellence of imitation, so he too first laid down the main lines of Comedy, by dramatising the ludicrous instead of writing personal satire. His Margites bears the same relation to Comedy that the Iliad and Odyssey do to Tragedy. But when Tragedy and Comedy came to light, the two classes of poets still followed their natural bent: the lampooners became writers of Comedy, and the Epic poets were succeeded by Tragedians, since the drama was a larger and higher form of art.

Whether tragedy has fully developed its proper forms or not, and whether it should be judged on its own or also based on the audience, is another question. Regardless, tragedy—like comedy—started as simple improvisation. Tragedy came from the creators of the dithyramb, while comedy came from those who made phallic songs, which are still used in many of our cities. Tragedy evolved slowly; each new element that appeared was developed further. After going through many changes, it found its natural form and stopped there.

Aeschylus was the first to introduce a second actor, reducing the role of the Chorus and focusing more on dialogue. Sophocles increased the number of actors to three and added scene-painting. It wasn't until later that short plots were replaced with longer ones, and the odd language of early satyric plays was replaced with the formal style of Tragedy. The iambic meter replaced the trochaic tetrameter, which was used when the poetry was more like dancing. Once dialogue was introduced, the natural choice for the meter was iambic because it is the most conversational. We can see this because everyday speech often falls into iambic lines more than any other type of verse, and rarely into hexameters unless we change our normal speaking tone. The increase in the number of episodes or acts, and other traditional elements, have been described already; discussing them in detail would be a big task.

5

Comedy is, as we've mentioned, an imitation of characters who are not as noble, but not truly bad either. The funny part is just a type of ugliness. It involves some flaw or ugliness that isn't painful or harmful. For example, a comic mask looks ugly and twisted, but it doesn't suggest pain.

The changes that tragedy went through and the people who made these changes are well known. However, comedy doesn't have a history because it wasn't taken seriously at first. It wasn't until later that the archon allowed a poet to have a comic chorus; before that, the performers were volunteers. Comedy had already developed a clear form by the time we hear about comic poets specifically. We don't know who introduced masks, prologues, or added more actors, and other similar details are still unknown. The plot of comedy originally came from Sicily, but among Athenian writers, Crates was the first to move away from the 'iambic' or mocking style and made his themes and plots more general.

Epic poetry is similar to tragedy because both use verse to imitate characters of a higher status. They differ because epic poetry uses only one type of meter and tells a story. They also differ in length: tragedy tries to fit within a single day or just a bit more, while epic poetry has no time limits. This is another difference, although initially, tragedy had the same time freedom as epic poetry.

Some parts are shared by both, and some are unique to tragedy. So, if someone knows what makes a good or bad tragedy, they also understand epic poetry. Tragedy includes all the elements of an epic poem, but not all elements of a tragedy are in an epic poem.

6

We will talk about poetry that uses hexameter verse and comedy later. For now, let's focus on tragedy, going back to its formal definition based on what we've already discussed.

Tragedy is a type of story that imitates a serious and complete action of a certain size. It uses language that is decorated with different artistic elements, with each kind found in different parts of the play. It is shown through action, not just told as a story, and it uses feelings of pity and fear to cleanse these emotions. By 'language embellished,' I mean language that includes rhythm, harmony, and song. By 'the several kinds in separate parts,' I mean that some parts are done with just verse, while others use song as well.

Since tragic imitation involves people acting, it means that spectacular equipment will be part of tragedy. Next, there's song and diction, because these are how imitation is expressed. By 'diction,' I mean the way words are arranged in a pattern, and 'song' is a term everyone understands.

Tragedy is about copying an action, and an action involves people who have certain qualities in their character and thinking. These qualities define the actions, and actions lead to success or failure. So, the plot is the copy of the action, meaning how the events are arranged. By character, I mean the traits we give to the people involved. Thought is needed when proving a point or stating a general truth. Every tragedy must have six parts that determine its quality: plot, character, diction, thought, spectacle, and song. Two parts are about the way it's shown, one is about how it's done, and three are about what is shown. These make up the complete list. Poets have used all these elements; every play has spectacular elements along with character, plot, diction, song, and thought.

But most importantly, it's about how the events are structured. Tragedy is an imitation, not of people, but of actions and life, and life is about actions, and its goal is a way of acting, not a trait. Character shows what people are like, but it's through their actions that they find happiness or not. So, dramatic action isn't mainly about showing character: character supports the actions. That's why the events and the plot are the main focus of a tragedy; and the main focus is the most important thing. Also, without action, there can't be a tragedy; there can be one without character. Most modern poets' tragedies fail in showing character; and this is often true for poets in general. It's the same in painting; this is the difference between Zeuxis and Polygnotus. Polygnotus shows character well: Zeuxis's style lacks ethical quality. Also, if you just put together a series of speeches that show character, and are well-crafted in language and thought, you won't create the essential tragic effect as well as with a play that, even if lacking in these areas, has a plot and well-constructed events. Moreover, the most powerful emotional elements in tragedy, like peripeteia or reversal of the situation, and recognition scenes, are parts of the plot. Another proof is that beginners in the art achieve good language and clear character portrayal before they can create a plot. It's the same with almost all early poets.

The plot is the main part and, you could say, the heart of a tragedy. Character comes second. You can see something similar in painting. Even the most beautiful colors, if mixed up randomly, won't be as pleasing as a simple chalk outline of a portrait. So, tragedy is about copying an action and focusing on the people involved mainly to show the action.

Third is thought—this means the ability to say what is possible and relevant in a situation. In speeches, this is the job of political skills and rhetoric. Older poets made their characters talk like everyday people; today's poets make them talk like speakers. Character shows moral purpose, revealing what a person chooses or avoids. So, speeches that don't show this, or where the speaker doesn't choose or avoid anything, don't show character. Thought, however, is present when something is shown to be true or false, or when a general principle is stated.

The fourth element listed is diction, which means expressing the meaning in words. As I mentioned before, its essence is the same in both poetry and regular writing.

Among the remaining elements, song is the most important embellishment.

The spectacle does have its own emotional appeal, but it is the least artistic part and the least connected to the art of poetry. We can be sure that the power of tragedy is felt even without the performance and actors. Also, creating spectacular effects relies more on the skills of the stage technician than on the poet's art.

7

With these principles in place, let's now talk about how to properly structure the plot, as this is the first and most important part of a tragedy.

According to our definition, tragedy is a copy of an action that is complete, whole, and of a certain size; because something can be whole but lack size. A whole has a beginning, a middle, and an end. A beginning is something that doesn't come after anything else by necessity, but after which something naturally happens. An end is something that naturally comes after something else, either by necessity or usually, but nothing comes after it. A middle is something that comes after one thing and is followed by another. A well-constructed plot should not start or end randomly but should follow these rules.

A beautiful object, whether it's a living thing or something made of parts, needs to have an orderly arrangement and be of a certain size. Beauty relies on size and order. So, a very small animal can't be beautiful because it's hard to see clearly in a short moment. Likewise, something extremely large can't be beautiful either, because the eye can't see it all at once, losing the sense of unity, like if something were a thousand miles long. Just like living bodies need to be a certain size that can be easily seen, a story needs to have a certain length that can be easily remembered. The length for dramatic performances isn't about artistic theory. If a hundred plays were to compete, they would be timed by a water-clock, as was done in the past. But the natural limit for drama is this: the longer the piece, the more beautiful it can be because of its size, as long as it remains clear. To put it simply, the right size is such that the sequence of events, following the rules of probability or necessity, allows for a change from bad fortune to good, or from good fortune to bad.

8

Unity of plot doesn't mean just having one main character. One person's life can have many different events that don't fit together as one story. Similarly, one person can do many things that don't form a single action. This is the mistake made by poets who wrote about Heracles or Theseus, thinking that because Heracles was one person, his story must be one unified tale. But Homer, who was excellent in many things, understood this well. In the Odyssey, he didn't include every adventure of Odysseus, like his injury on Parnassus or pretending to be mad when the army gathered, because these events weren't necessarily connected. Instead, he focused the Odyssey and the Iliad around a single action that we can see as one whole. Just like in other arts where the imitation is one when the object is one, a plot should imitate one complete action. The parts should be so connected that if you remove or change one part, the whole story falls apart. If something can be taken away without affecting the whole, it's not really a necessary part of the story.

9

It's clear from what we've discussed that a poet's job is not to tell what has happened, but what could happen—what's possible based on probability or necessity. Poets and historians aren't different because one writes in verse and the other in prose. If you put Herodotus's work into verse, it would still be history, with or without the meter. The real difference is that one tells what has happened, and the other what might happen. Poetry is more philosophical and higher than history because poetry aims to express the universal, while history focuses on the specific. By universal, I mean how a person of a certain type might speak or act in certain situations, based on probability or necessity; this is what poetry aims for with the names it gives to characters. The particular is, for example, what Alcibiades did or experienced. In comedy, this is clear: the poet first creates the plot based on probability, then adds fitting names—unlike those who write about specific people. But tragedians often use real names because what's possible is believable: if something hasn't happened, we aren't sure it's possible, but if it has happened, it's clearly possible. Some tragedies use only one or two well-known names, with the rest being made up. In others, like Agathon's Antheus, both incidents and names are fictional, yet they still bring pleasure. We shouldn't always stick to traditional stories, which are common in tragedy. It would be silly to try because even well-known stories are only familiar to a few, yet they please everyone. So, a poet should focus on creating plots rather than verses, since a poet is someone who imitates actions. Even if they use a historical subject, they're still a poet because some real events can fit the probable and possible, and because of that, they are their poet or creator.

Of all plots and actions, the episodic ones are the worst. I call a plot "episodic" when the episodes or acts follow one another without a likely or necessary sequence. Bad poets create these kinds of works because of their own mistakes, while good poets do it to please the actors. They write show pieces for competitions, stretching the plot beyond its limits, and often have to break the natural flow.

Tragedy is not just about copying a complete action, but also about showing events that make us feel fear or pity. This effect works best when the events surprise us, and it's even stronger when they happen as a result of cause and effect. The tragic impact is greater than if they just happened randomly or by accident; even coincidences are more impressive when they seem planned. For example, the statue of Mitys in Argos fell on his murderer during a festival and killed him. Such events don't seem like pure chance. So, plots built on these ideas are the best ones.

10

Plots can be either simple or complex, just like real-life actions, which plots try to imitate, show a similar difference. I call an action simple when it is one continuous event, as defined earlier, and the change in fortune happens without a reversal of the situation or recognition.

A complex action is when the change comes with a reversal, recognition, or both. These should come naturally from the plot's structure, so what happens next is a necessary or likely result of what happened before. It's important to know if an event happens because of something (propter hoc) or just after it (post hoc).

11

A reversal of the situation is when the action suddenly changes to its opposite, but it must still make sense or be necessary. For example, in the story of Oedipus, a messenger comes to calm Oedipus about his fears regarding his mother, but instead, he reveals something that causes the opposite effect. Similarly, in the story of Lynceus, Lynceus is being taken to be killed, and Danaus plans to kill him, but events lead to Danaus being killed and Lynceus being saved. Recognition is when someone goes from not knowing to knowing something, leading to love or hate between characters meant for good or bad outcomes. The best kind of recognition happens at the same time as a reversal of the situation, like in Oedipus. There are other types too. Even small, non-living things can be recognized in a way. We can also find out if someone did something or not. But the most important recognition in the story is when characters recognize each other. This recognition, combined with reversal, creates feelings of pity or fear, which are what tragedy is about. These situations decide if things will end well or badly. Recognition usually happens between people, and sometimes only one person recognizes the other, who is already known. Other times, both need to recognize each other. For example, Iphigenia is revealed to Orestes through a letter, but another recognition is needed for Orestes to be known to Iphigenia.

There are two parts of the plot that involve surprises: reversal of the situation and recognition. The third part is the scene of suffering. The scene of suffering involves destructive or painful actions, like death on stage, physical pain, injuries, and similar events.

12

[We've already talked about the parts of tragedy that are elements of the whole. Now, let's look at the different parts that make up a tragedy: prologue, episode, exode, and choric song. The choric song is further divided into parode and stasimon. These parts are found in all plays. Some plays also have songs performed by actors on stage and the commoi.]

The Prologue is the part of a tragedy that comes before the Chorus's first song, called the Parode. The Episode is the part of a tragedy between the full songs of the Chorus. The Exode is the part of a tragedy that doesn't have a choric song after it. In the choric part, the Parode is the first complete song by the Chorus. The Stasimon is a Chorus song without anapaests or trochaic tetrameters. The Commos is a shared lament by the Chorus and actors. The parts of tragedy that need to be seen as elements of the whole have already been mentioned. The quantitative parts, or the separate parts it's divided into, are listed here.

13

Following what we've already discussed, we need to look at what the poet should focus on and what to avoid when creating plots. We'll also explore how to achieve the specific impact of tragedy.

A perfect tragedy should be set up not in a simple way but in a complex one. It should show actions that make us feel pity and fear, which is what makes a tragedy special. First, the change in fortune shouldn't show a good person going from happiness to sadness because this doesn't make us feel pity or fear; it just surprises us. Also, it shouldn't show a bad person going from sadness to happiness because this doesn't fit the spirit of tragedy; it doesn't have any tragic quality and doesn't make us feel pity or fear. Similarly, we shouldn't see a complete villain's downfall. While this might make us feel justice is served, it doesn't inspire pity or fear because pity comes from undeserved misfortune, and fear comes from the misfortune of someone like us. So, such an event wouldn't be pitiful or scary. Instead, the character should be someone between these extremes—a person who isn't extremely good or just, but whose misfortune happens because of a mistake or weakness. This person should be well-known and successful, like Oedipus, Thyestes, or other famous people from such families.

A well-made plot should have a single outcome, not a double one as some suggest. The change in fortune should go from good to bad, not the other way around. This change should happen not because of evil, but because of a big mistake or weakness in a character who is either like we described or better rather than worse. This is supported by what we see in plays. At first, poets told any story they came across. Now, the best tragedies are based on the stories of a few families, like the tales of Alcmaeon, Oedipus, Orestes, Meleager, Thyestes, Telephus, and others who have done or suffered something terrible. A perfect tragedy, according to the rules of art, should be built this way. So, those who criticize Euripides for following this principle in his plays, many of which end sadly, are mistaken. As we said, this is the right ending. The best evidence is that on stage and in drama contests, such plays, if well executed, are the most tragic. Euripides, despite any flaws in how he handles his subjects, is considered the most tragic of the poets.

The second type of tragedy, which some people consider the best, is like the Odyssey. It has two storylines and opposite outcomes for good and bad characters. It's thought to be the best because it appeals to the audience's preferences; the poet writes based on what the audience wants. However, the enjoyment from this isn't the true pleasure of tragedy. It's more like comedy, where characters who are fierce enemies—like Orestes and Aegisthus—end up as friends by the end, and no one dies or kills anyone.