IX

It is, moreover, evident from what has been said, that it is not the function of the poet to relate what has happened, but what may happen,—­ what is possible according to the law of probability or necessity.  The poet and the historian differ not by writing in verse or in prose.  The work of Herodotus might be put into verse, and it would still be a species of history, with metre no less than without it.  The true difference is that one relates what has happened, the other what may happen.  Poetry, therefore, is a more philosophical and a higher thing than history:  for poetry tends to express the universal, history the particular.  By the universal, I mean how a person of a certain type will on occasion speak or act, according to the law of probability or necessity; and it is this universality at which poetry aims in the names she attaches to the personages.  The particular is—­for example—­what Alcibiades did or suffered.  In Comedy this is already apparent:  for here the poet first constructs the plot on the lines of probability, and then inserts characteristic names;—­unlike the lampooners who write about particular individuals.  But tragedians still keep to real names, the reason being that what is possible is credible:  what has not happened we do not at once feel sure to be possible:  but what has happened is manifestly possible:  otherwise it would not have happened.  Still there are even some tragedies in which there are only one or two well known names, the rest being fictitious.  In others, none are well known, as in Agathon’s Antheus, where incidents and names alike are fictitious, and yet they give none the less pleasure.  We must not, therefore, at all costs keep to the received legends, which are the usual subjects of Tragedy.  Indeed, it would be absurd to attempt it; for even subjects that are known are known only to a few, and yet give pleasure to all.  It clearly follows that the poet or ‘maker’ should be the maker of plots rather than of verses; since he is a poet because he imitates, and what he imitates are actions.  And even if he chances to take an historical subject, he is none the less a poet; for there is no reason why some events that have actually happened should not conform to the law of the probable and possible, and in virtue of that quality in them he is their poet or maker.

Of all plots and actions the epeisodic are the worst.  I call a plot ‘epeisodic’ in which the episodes or acts succeed one another without probable or necessary sequence.  Bad poets compose such pieces by their own fault, good poets, to please the players; for, as they write show pieces for competition, they stretch the plot beyond its capacity, and are often forced to break the natural continuity.