One need not therefore endeavor invariably to keep to the traditional stories with which our tragedies deal. Indeed it would be absurd to do that, seeing that the familiar themes are familiar only to a few and yet please all.The reason why Greek tragedy dealt only with a few familiar themes is to be found of course in its religious origin. It was the function of tragedy to interpret and embroider myths. Aristotle never gives this reason, but offers instead the unconvincing explanation that tragedians adhered to certain real stories to gain verisimilitude—and yet he has to admit that, since to many of the auditors these stories were unfamiliar and none the less attractive, dramatists might just as well invent new themes.

It is clear, then, from what we have said that the poet must be a maker not of verses but of stories, since he is a poet in virtue of his representation, and what he represents is action.

Even supposing he represents what has actually happened, he is none the less a poet, for there is nothing to prevent some actual occurrences being the sort of thing that would probably or inevitably happen, and it is in virtue of that that he is their maker.

Of simpleThis term is defined in the next chapter. It seems odd to use it before its meaning is explained. Perhaps we should read ἄλλων(Tyrwhitt) and translate of all plots. plots and actions the worst are those which are episodic. By this I mean a plot in which the episodes do not follow each other probably or inevitably.

Bad poets write such plays because they cannot help it, and good poets write them to please the actors. Writing as they do for competition, they often strain a plot beyond its capacity and are thus obliged to sacrifice continuity.Or logic. He means the chain of cause and effect, wherein each incident is the result of what has gone before. See the end of the next chapter.