fault　if　a　thing　is　inconsistent　with　their　own　fancy。
  The　question　about　Icarius　has　been　treated　in　this　fashion。　The
  critics　imagine　he　was　a　Lacedaemonian。　They　think　it　strange；
  therefore；　that　Telemachus　should　not　have　met　him　when　he　went　to
  Lacedaemon。　But　the　Cephallenian　story　may　perhaps　be　the　true　one。
  They　allege　that　Odysseus　took　a　wife　from　among　themselves；　and
  that　her　father　was　Icadius；　not　Icarius。　It　is　merely　a　mistake；
  then；　that　gives　plausibility　to　the　objection。
  In　general；　the　impossible　must　be　justified　by　reference　to
  artistic　requirements；　or　to　the　higher　reality；　or　to　received
  opinion。　With　respect　to　the　requirements　of　art；　a　probable
  impossibility　is　to　be　preferred　to　a　thing　improbable　and　yet
  possible。　Again；　it　may　be　impossible　that　there　should　be　men　such　as
  Zeuxis　painted。　'Yes；'　we　say；　'but　the　impossible　is　the　higher
  thing；　for　the　ideal　type　must　surpass　the　realty。'　To　justify　the
  irrational；　we　appeal　to　what　is　commonly　said　to　be。　In　addition　to
  which；　we　urge　that　the　irrational　sometimes　does　not　violate
  reason；　just　as　'it　is　probable　that　a　thing　may　happen　contrary　to
  probability。'
  Things　that　sound　contradictory　should　be　examined　by　the　same　rules
  as　in　dialectical　refutation…　whether　the　same　thing　is　meant；　in
  the　same　relation；　and　in　the　same　sense。　We　should　therefore　solve
  the　question　by　reference　to　what　the　poet　says　himself；　or　to　what　is
  tacitly　assumed　by　a　person　of　intelligence。
  The　element　of　the　irrational；　and；　similarly；　depravity　of
  character；　are　justly　censured　when　there　is　no　inner　necessity　for
  introducing　them。　Such　is　the　irrational　element　in　the　introduction
  of　Aegeus　by　Euripides　and　the　badness　of　Menelaus　in　the　Orestes。
  Thus；　there　are　five　sources　from　which　critical　objections　are
  drawn。　Things　are　censured　either　as　impossible；　or　irrational；　or
  morally　hurtful；　or　contradictory；　or　contrary　to　artistic
  correctness。　The　answers　should　be　sought　under　the　twelve　heads　above
  mentioned。
  POETICS｜26
  XXVI
  The　question　may　be　raised　whether　the　Epic　or　Tragic　mode　of
  imitation　is　the　higher。　If　the　more　refined　art　is　the　higher；　and
  the　more　refined　in　every　case　is　that　which　appeals　to　the　better
  sort　of　audience；　the　art　which　imitates　anything　and　everything　is
  manifestly　most　unrefined。　The　audience　is　supposed　to　be　too　dull
  to　comprehend　unless　something　of　their　own　is　thrown　by　the
  performers；　who　therefore　indulge　in　restless　movements。　Bad
  flute…players　twist　and　twirl；　if　they　have　to　represent　'the
  quoit…throw；'　or　hustle　the　coryphaeus　when　they　perform　the　Scylla。
  Tragedy；　it　is　said；　has　this　same　defect。　We　may　compare　the
  opinion　that　the　older　actors　entertained　of　their　successors。
  Mynniscus　used　to　call　Callippides　'ape'　on　account　of　the
  extravagance　of　his　action；　and　the　same　view　was　held　of　Pindarus。
  Tragic　art；　then；　as　a　whole；　stands　to　Epic　in　the　same　relation　as
  the　younger　to　the　elder　actors。　So　we　are　told　that　Epic　poetry　is
  addressed　to　a　cultivated　audience；　who　do　not　need　gesture；
  Tragedy；　to　an　inferior　public。　Being　then　unrefined；　it　is
  evidently　the　lower　of　the　two。
  Now；　in　the　first　place；　this　censure　attaches　not　to　the　poetic　but
  to　the　histrionic　art；　for　gesticulation　may　be　equally　overdone　in
  epic　recitation；　as　by　Sosistratus；　or　in　lyrical　competition；　as　by
  Mnasitheus　the　Opuntian。　Next；　all　action　is　not　to　be　condemned…
  any　more　than　all　dancing…　but　only　that　of　bad　performers。　Such　was
  the　fault　found　in　Callippides；　as　also　in　others　of　our　own　day；
  who　are　censured　for　representing　degraded　women。　Again；　Tragedy
  like　Epic　poetry　produces　its　effect　even　without　action；　it　reveals
  its　power　by　mere　reading。　If；　then；　in　all　other　respects　it　is
  superior；　this　fault；　we　say；　is　not　inherent　in　it。
  And　superior　it　is；　because　it　has　an　the　epic　elements…　it　may　even
  use　the　epic　meter…　with　the　music　and　spectacular　effects　as
  important　accessories；　and　these　produce　the　most　vivid　of
  pleasures。　Further；　it　has　vividness　of　impression　in　reading　as
  well　as　in　representation。　Moreover；　the　art　attains　its　end　within
  narrower　limits　for　the　concentrated　effect　is　more　pleasurable　than
  one　which　is　spread　over　a　long　time　and　so　diluted。　What；　for
  example；　would　be　the　effect　of　the　Oedipus　of　Sophocles；　if　it　were
  cast　into　a　form　as　long　as　the　Iliad？　Once　more；　the　Epic　imitation
  has　less　unity；　as　is　shown　by　this；　that　any　Epic　poem　will　furnish
  subjects　for　several　tragedies。　Thus　if　the　story　adopted　by　the
  poet　has　a　strict　unity；　it　must　either　be　concisely　told　and　appear
  truncated；　or；　if　it　conforms　to　the　Epic　canon　of　length；　it　must
  seem　weak　and　watery。　＇Such　length　implies　some　loss　of　unity；＇　if；
  I　mean；　the　poem　is　constructed　out　of　several　actions；　like　the　Iliad
  and　the　Odyssey；　which　have　many　such　parts；　each　with　a　certain
  magnitude　of　its　own。　Yet　these　poems　are　as　perfect　as　possible　in
  structure；　each　is；　in　the　highest　degree　attainable；　an　imitation
  of　a　single　action。
  If；　then；　tragedy　is　superior　to　epic　poetry　in　all　these
  respects；　and；　moreover；　fulfills　its　specific　function　better　as　an
  art…　for　each　art　ought　to　produce；　not　any　chance　pleasure；　but　the
  pleasure　proper　to　it；　as　already　stated…　it　plainly　follows　that
  tragedy　is　the　higher　art；　as　attaining　its　end　more　perfectly。
  Thus　much　may　suffice　concerning　Tragic　and　Epic　poetry　in
  general；　their　several　kinds　and　parts；　with　the　number　of　each　and
  their　differences；　the　causes　that　make　a　poem　good　or　bad；　the
  objections　of　the　critics　and　the　answers　to　these　objections。。。。
  …THE　END…
  。