But most important of all is the structure of the incidents. For Tragedy
is an imitation, not of men, but of an action and of life, and life
consists in action, and its end is a mode of action, not a quality. Now
character determines men's qualities, but it is by their actions that
they are happy or the reverse. Dramatic action, therefore, is not with a
view to the representation of character: character comes in as subsidiary
to the actions. Hence the incidents and the plot are the end of a
tragedy; and the end is the chief thing of all. Again, without action
there cannot be a tragedy; there may be without character. The tragedies
of most of our modern poets fail in the rendering of character; and of
poets in general this is often true. It is the same in painting; and here
lies the difference between Zeuxis and Polygnotus. Polygnotus delineates
character well: the style of Zeuxis is devoid of ethical quality. Again,
if you string together a set of speeches expressive of character, and
well finished in point of diction and thought, you will not produce the
essential tragic effect nearly so well as with a play which, however
deficient in these respects, yet has a plot and artistically constructed
incidents. Besides which, the most powerful elements of emotional:
interest in Tragedy Peripeteia or Reversal of the Situation, and
Recognition scenes--are parts of the plot. A further proof is, that
novices in the art attain to finish: of diction and precision of
portraiture before they can construct the plot. It is the same with
almost all the early poets.

The Plot, then, is the first principle, and, as it were, the soul of a
tragedy: Character holds the second place. A similar fact is seen in
painting. The most beautiful colours, laid on confusedly, will not give
as much pleasure as the chalk outline of a portrait. Thus Tragedy is the
imitation of an action, and of the agents mainly with a view to the