5
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.
6
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.
7
Now if an enemy does it to an enemy, there is nothing pitiable either in the deed or the intention,
8
except so far as the actual calamity goes.
9
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.
10
Now it is not right to break up the traditional stories, I mean, for instance, Clytaemnestra being killed by Orestes and Eriphyle by Alcmaeon,
11
but the poet must show invention and make a skilful use of the tradition.
11
But we must state more clearly what is meant by skilful.
12
The action may happen in the way in which the old dramatists made their characters act—consciously and knowing the facts, as EuripidesThis does not necessarily imply that Aristotle reckons Euripides “a modern,” since the Greek can equally mean “Euripides as well as other old dramatists.” also made his Medea kill her children.
13
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,i.e., Oedipus kills his father Laius before the play opens. but an example of this in the tragedy itself is the Alcmaeon of AstydamasA prolific tragedian of the fourth century. or Telegonus in the Wounded Odysseus.
14
A third alternative is to intend to do some irremediable action in ignorance and to discover the truth before doing it.
15
Besides these there is no other way, for they must either do the deed or not, either knowing or unknowing.
