In speaking of a tragedy as the same or different, the best test to take
is the plot. Identity exists where the Complication and Unravelling are
the same. Many poets tie the knot well, but unravel it ill. Both arts,
however, should always be mastered.

Again, the poet should remember what has been often said, and not make an
Epic structure into a Tragedy--by an Epic structure I mean one with a
multiplicity of plots--as if, for instance, you were to make a tragedy
out of the entire story of the Iliad. In the Epic poem, owing to its
length, each part assumes its proper magnitude. In the drama the result
is far from answering to the poet's expectation. The proof is that the
poets who have dramatised the whole story of the Fall of Troy, instead of
selecting portions, like Euripides; or who have taken the whole tale of
Niobe, and not a part of her story, like Aeschylus, either fail utterly
or meet with poor success on the stage. Even Agathon has been known to
fail from this one defect. In his Reversals of the Situation, however, he
shows a marvellous skill in the effort to hit the popular taste,--to
produce a tragic effect that satisfies the moral sense. This effect is
produced when the clever rogue, like Sisyphus, is outwitted, or the brave
villain defeated. Such an event is probable in Agathon's sense of the
word: 'it is probable,' he says, 'that many things should happen contrary
to probability.'

The Chorus too should be regarded as one of the actors; it should be an
integral part of the whole, and share in the action, in the manner not of
Euripides but of Sophocles. As for the later poets, their choral songs
pertain as little to the subject of the piece as to that of any other
tragedy. They are, therefore, sung as mere interludes, a practice first
begun by Agathon. Yet what difference is there between introducing such
choral interludes, and transferring a speech, or even a whole act, from