Aristotle's plot

Aristotle's plot

Aristotle devotes great attention to the nature, structure and basic elements of the ideal tragic plot. The tragedy is the depiction of action consisting of incidents and events. The plot is the arrangement of these incidents and events. It contains the kernel of the action. Aristotle says that plot is the first principle, the soul of tragedy. He lists six formative elements of a tragedy – Plot, character, though, melody, diction, spectacle and gives the first place to plot.

The Greek word for ‘poet’ means a ‘maker’, and the poet is a ‘maker’, not because he makes verses but he makes plots. Aristotle differentiates between ‘story’ and ‘plot’. The poet need not make his story. Stories from history, mythology, or legend are to be preferred, for they are familiar and understandable. Having chosen or invented the story, it must be put to artistic selection and order. The incidents chosen must be ‘serious’, and not ‘trivial’, as tragedy is an imitation of a serious action that arouses pity and fear.

Aristotle says that the tragic plot must be a complete whole. It must have a beginning, a middle and an end. It must have a beginning, i.e. it must not flow out of some prior situation. The beginning must be clear and intelligible. It must not provoke to ask ‘why’ and ‘how’. A middle is consequent upon a situation gone before. The middle is followed logically by the end. And the end is consequent in a given situation but is not followed by any further incident. Thus artistic wholeness implies logical link-up of the various incidents, events, and situations that form the plot.

The plot must have a certain magnitude or ‘length’. ‘Magnitude’ here means ‘size’. It should be neither too small nor too large. It should be long enough to allow the process of change from happiness to misery but not too long to be forgotten before the end. If it is too small, its different parts will not be clearly distinguishable from each other. Magnitude also implies order and proportion and they depend upon the magnitude. The different parts must be properly related to each other and to the whole. Thus magnitude implies that the plot must have order, logic symmetry and perspicuity.

Aristotle considers the tragic plot to be an organic whole and also having organic unity in its action. An action is a change from happiness to misery or vice versa and tragedy must depict one such action. The incidents impart variety and unity results by arranging the incidents so that they all tend to the same catastrophe. There might be episodes for they impart variety and lengthen the plot but they must be properly combined with the main action following each other inevitably. It must not be possible to remove or to invert them without injuring the plot. Otherwise, episodic plots are the worst of all.

'Organic unity' cannot be provided only by the presence of the tragic hero, for many incidents in hero’s life cannot be brought into relation with the rest. So there should be proper shifting and ordering of material.

Aristotle joins organic unity of plot with probability and necessity. The plot is not tied to what has actually happened but it deals with what may probably or necessarily happen. Probability and necessity imply that there should be no unrelated events and incidents. Words and actions must be in character. Thus probability and necessity imply unity and order and are vital for artistic unity and wholeness.

'Probability' implies that the tragic action must be convincing. If the poet deals with something improbable, he must make it convincing and credible. He dramatist must procure, “willing suspension of disbelief”. Thus a convincing impossibility is to be preferred to an unconvincing possibility.

Aristotle rules out a plurality of activities. He emphasizes the Unity of Action but has little to say about the Unity of Time and the Unity of Place. About the Unity of Time, he merely says that tragedy should confine itself to a single revolution of the sun. As regards the Unity of Place, Aristotle said that epic can narrate a number of actions going on all together in different parts, while in a drama simultaneous actions cannot be represented, for the stage are one part and not several parts or places.

The tragedy is an imitation of a ‘serious action’ which arouses pity and fear. ‘Serious’ means important, weighty. The plot of a tragedy essentially deals with great moral issues. The tragedy is a tale of suffering from an unhappy ending. This means that the plot of a tragedy must be a fatal one. Aristotle rules out fortunate plots for tragedy, for such plot does not arouse tragic emotions. A tragic plot must show the hero passing from happiness to misery and not from misery to happiness. The suffering of the hero may be caused by an enemy or a stranger but it would be most piteous when it is by chance caused by friends and relatives who are his well-wishers.

According to Aristotle, Tragic plots may be of three kinds, (a) Simple, (b) Complex and (c) Plots based on or depicting incidents of suffering. A Simple plot is without any Peripety and Anagnorisis but the action moves forward uniformly without any violent or sudden change. Aristotle prefers Complex plots. It must have Peripeteia, i.e. “reversal of intention” and Anagnorisis, i.e. “recognition of truth”. While Peripeteia is ignorance of the truth, Anagnorisis is the insight of truth forced upon the hero by some signs or chance or by the logic events. In the ideal plot, Anagnorisis follows or coincides with Peripeteia.

'Recognition' in the sense is closely akin to reversal. Recognition and reversal can be caused by separate incidents. Often it is difficult to separate the two. Complex plots are the best, for recognition and reversal add the element of surprise and “the pitiable and fearful incidents are made more so by the shock of surprise”.

As regards the third kind of plot, Aristotle rates it very low. It derives its effect from the depiction of torture, murder, maiming, death etc. and tragic effect must be created naturally and not with artificial and theatrical aids. Such plots indicate a deficiency in the art of the poet.

In making plots, the poets should make their denouements, effective and successful. The unraveling of the plot should be done naturally and logically, and not by arbitrary devices, like chance or supernatural devices. Aristotle does not consider Poetic Justice necessary for Tragedy. He rules out plots with a double end i.e. plots in which there is happiness for one, and misery for others. Such plots weaken the tragic effect. It is more proper to Comedy. Thus Aristotle is against Tragi-comedy.

Read more »

Aristotle's concept of tragedy

Aristotle's concept of tragedy

“The Poetics” is chiefly about Tragedy which is regarded as the highest poetic form. Abercrombie says:

“But the theory of Tragedy is worked out with such insight and comprehension and it becomes the type of the theory of literature.”

Aristotle reveals that imitation is the common basis of all the fine arts which differ from each other in their medium of imitation, objects of imitation and manner of imitation. Poetry differs from music in its medium of imitation. Epic poetry and dramatic poetry differs on the basis of manner of imitation. Dramatic poetry itself is divisible in Tragic or Comic on the basis of objects of imitation. Tragedy imitates men as better and comedy as worse than they are. Thus, Aristotle establishes the unique nature of Tragedy.

Aristotle traces the origin and development of poetry. Earlier, poetry was of two kinds. There were ‘Iambs’ or ‘Invectives’, on one hand, which developed into satiric poetry, and ‘hymns’ on the gods or ‘panegyrics’ on the great, on the other, which developed into Epic or heroic poetry. Out of Heroic poetry developed Tragedy, and out of satiric came the Comedy. Both Epic and Tragedy imitate serious subjects in a grand kind of verse but they differ as Epic imitates only in one kind of verse both for Choral odes and dialogue. The Epic is long and varied but the Tragedy has greater concentration and effectiveness. The Epic lacks music, spectacle, the reality of presentation and unity of action which the Tragedy has.

“All the parts of an epic are included in Tragedy, but those of Tragedy are not all of them to be found in the Epic.”

Aristotle comes to a consideration of the nature and function of tragedy. He defines tragedy as:

“the imitation of an action, serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude, in a language beautified in different parts with different kinds of embellishment, through actions and not narration, and through scenes of pity and fear bringing about the ‘Catharsis’ of these emotions.”

The definition separates tragedy from other poetic forms. Firstly, its objects of imitation are serious actions, unlike Comedy which imitates the non-serious. ‘Serious’ means important, weighty. Secondly, Tragedy on the basis of manner differs from Epic which narrates and does not represent through action. Thirdly, on the basis of the medium, it differs from Lyric. It employs several kinds of embellishments.

Aristotle considers plot as the soul of tragedy. Tragedy imitates ‘actions’ and its plot consists of a logical and inevitable sequence of events. The action must be a whole. It must have a beginning, a middle and an end.

The tragic plot must have a certain magnitude or ‘length’. ‘Magnitude’ here means ‘size’. It should be long enough to allow the change from happiness to misery but not too long to be forgotten before the end. Action, too short, cannot be regarded as proper and beautiful for its different parts will not be clearly visible. Its different parts must be well-related to each other and to the whole. It must be an ‘organic’ whole.

Aristotle divides the tragic plot into ‘Simple’ and ‘Complex’. In Simple Plot, the change in the fortunes of hero takes place without Peripety and Discovery; while the Complex Plot involves one or the other, or both. The Peripety is the change in the fortunes of the hero, and the Discovery is a change from ignorance to knowledge. Aristotle prefers complex plot for it startles, captures attention and performs the tragic function more effectively. He regards episodic plot, lacking probability and necessity, as worst of all.

Aristotle lays great emphasis on the probability and necessity of the action of a tragedy. It implies that there should be no unrelated events and incidents. They must follow each other inevitably. No incident or character should be superfluous. The events introduced must be probable under the circumstances.

By various embellishments in various parts, Aristotle means verse and song. Tragedy imitates through verse in the dialogue and through song in the Choric parts. Verse and song beautify and give pleasure. But Aristotle does not regard them as essential to the success of a tragedy.

Aristotle points out that the function of tragedy is to present scenes of ‘fear and pity’ and to bring about a Catharsis of these emotions. It would suffice to say that by Catharsis of pity and fear, he means their restoration to the right proportions, to the desirable ‘golden means’.

Aristotle lists six formative or constituent parts of Tragedy; Plot, character, diction, thought, spectacle and song. Two of these parts relate to the medium of imitation, one to the manner of imitation, and three to the object of imitation. The song is to be found in the Choric parts of a tragedy. The Spectacle has more to do with stagecraft than with the writing of poetry.

'Thought' is the power of saying what can be said, or what is suitable to the occasion. It is the language which gives us the thoughts and feeling of various characters. The language of Tragedy must be unusually expressive. The Language of Tragedy ‘must be clear, and it must not be mean’. It must be grand and elevated with familiar and current words. ‘Rare’ and ‘unfamiliar’ words must be set in wisely to impart elevation.

Aristotle stresses four essential qualities for characterization. First, the characters must be good, but not perfect. Wicked characters may be introduced if required by the plot. Secondly, they must be appropriate. They must have the traits of the profession or class to which they belong. Thirdly, they must have a likeness. By likeness, he means that the characters must be life-like. Fourthly, they must have consistency in development. There should be no sudden and strange change in character.

Aristotle lays down that an ideal tragic hero should not be perfectly good or utterly bad. He is a man of ordinary weakness and virtues, like us, leaning more to the side of good than of evil, occupying a position of eminence, and falling into ruin from that eminence, not because of any deliberate sin, but because of some error of judgment of his part, bringing about a Catharsis of the emotion of pity and fear.

The plot should arouse the emotions of pity and fear which is the function of tragedy. A tragic plot must avoid showing (a) a perfectly good man passing from happiness to misery (b) a bad man rising from misery to happiness (c) an extremely bad man falling from happiness to misery.

While comparing the importance of Plot and Character, Aristotle is quite definite that Plot is more important than Character. He goes to the extent of saying that there can be a tragedy without character but none without a plot.

Aristotle emphasizes only one of the three unities, the Unity of Action; he is against the plurality of action as it weakens the tragic effect. There might be numerous incidents but they must be related to each other, and they must all be conducive to one effect. As regards the Unity of Time, Aristotle only once mentions it in relation to dramatic Action. Comparing the epic and the Tragedy, he writes:

“Tragedy tries, as far as possible, to live within a single revolution of the sun, or only slightly to exceed it, whereas the epic observes no limits in its time of action.”

According to Aristotle, the end of poetry is to give pleasure, and tragedy has its own pleasure besides. Proper aesthetic pleasure can be possible only when the requirements of morality are satisfied. Verse and rhyme enhance the pleasure of poetry. Peripeteia and Anagnorisis heighten the seductive power of the action. Pure pleasure results from the exercise of our emotions and thoughts on the tragic action.


Such are the main features of Aristotle's theory of Tragedy. Aristotle knew only Greek Tragedy. His conclusions are based entirely on the drama with which he was familiar and often his views are not of universal application. His view might have been challenged but their history is the history of Tragedy.

Read more »

Aristotle's theory of imitation

Aristotle's theory of imitation

Aristotle did not invent the term “imitation”. Plato was the first to use the word in relation to poetry, but Aristotle breathed into it a new definite meaning. So poetic imitation is no longer considered mimicry but is regarded as an act of imaginative creation by which the poet, drawing his material from the phenomenal world, makes something new out of it.

In Aristotle's view, the principle of imitation unites poetry with other fine arts and is the common basis of all the fine arts. It thus differentiates the fine arts from the other category of arts. While Plato equated poetry with painting, Aristotle equates it with music. It is no longer a servile depiction of the appearance of things, but it becomes a representation of the passions and emotions of men which are also imitated by music. Thus Aristotle by his theory enlarged the scope of imitation. The poet imitates not the surface of things but the reality embedded within. In the very first chapter of the Poetic, Aristotle says:

“Epic poetry and Tragedy, Comedy also and Dithyrambic poetry, as also the music of the flute and the lyre in most of their forms, are in their general conception modes of imitation. They differ, however, from one another in three respects – their medium, the objects and the manner or mode of imitation, being in each case distinct.”

The medium of the poet and the painter are different. One imitates through form and color, and the other through language, rhythm, and harmony. The musician imitates through rhythm and harmony. Thus, poetry is more akin to music. Further, the manner of a poet may be purely narrative, as in the Epic, or depiction through action, as in drama. Even dramatic poetry is differentiated into tragedy and comedy accordingly as it imitates man as better or worse.

Aristotle says that the objects of poetic imitation are “men in action”. The poet represents men as worse than they are. He can represent men better than in real life based on material supplied by history and legend rather than by any living figure. The poet selects and orders his material and recreates reality. He brings order out of Chaos. The irrational or accidental is removed and attention is focused on the lasting and the significant. Thus he gives a truth of an ideal kind. His mind is not tied to reality:

“It is not the function of the poet to relate what has happened but what may happen – according to the laws of probability or necessity.”

History tells us what actually happened; poetry what may happen. Poetry tends to express the universal, history the particular. In this way, he exhibits the superiority of poetry over history. The poet freed from the tyranny of facts takes a larger or general view of things, represents the universal in the particular and so shares the philosopher’s quest for ultimate truth. He thus equates poetry with philosophy and shows that both are means to a higher truth. By the word ‘universal’ Aristotle signifies:


“How a person of a certain nature or type will, on a particular occasion, speak or act, according to the law of probability or necessity.”

The poet constantly rises from the particular to the general. He studies the particular and devises principles of general application. He exceeds the limits of life without violating the essential laws of human nature.

Elsewhere Aristotle says, “Art imitates Nature”. By ‘Nature’ he does not mean the outer world of created things but “the creative force, the productive principle of the universe.” Art reproduces mainly an inward process, a physical energy working outwards, deeds, incidents, situation, being included under it so far as these spring from an inward, act of will, or draw some activity of thought or feeling. He renders men, “as they ought to be”.

The poet imitates the creative process of nature, but the objects are “men in action”. Now the ‘action’ may be ‘external’ or ‘internal’. It may be the action of the soul caused by all that befalls a man. Thus, he brings human experiences, emotions, and passions within the scope of poetic imitation. According to Aristotle's theory, moral qualities, characteristics, the permanent temper of the mind, the temporary emotions and feelings, are all action and so objects of poetic imitation.

Poetry may imitate men as better or worse than they are in real life or imitate as they really are. Tragedy and epic represent men on a heroic scale, better than they are, and comedy represents men of a lower type, worse than they are. Aristotle does not discuss the third possibility. It means that poetry does not aim at photographic realism. In this connection, R. A. Scott-James points out that:

“Aristotle knew nothing of the “realistic” or “fleshy” school of fiction – the school of Zola or of Gissing.”

Abercrombie, in contrast, defends Aristotle for not discussing the third variant. He says:

“It is just possible to imagine life exactly as it is, but the exciting thing is to imagine life as it might be, and it is then that imagination becomes an impulse capable of inspiring poetry.”

Aristotle by his theory of imitation answers the charge of Plato that poetry is an imitation of “shadow of shadows”, thrice removed from the truth, and that the poet beguiles us with lies. Plato condemned poetry that in the very nature of things poets have no idea of truth. The phenomenal world is not the reality but a copy of the reality in the mind of the Supreme. The poet imitates the objects and phenomena of the world, which are shadowy and unreal. Poetry is, therefore, “the mother of lies”.

Aristotle, on the contrary, tells us that art imitates not the mere shows of things, but the ‘ideal reality’ embodied in very object of the world. The process of nature is a ‘creative process’; everywhere in ‘nature there is a ceaseless and upward progress’ in everything, and the poet imitates this upward movement of nature. Art reproduces the original not as it is, but as it appears to the senses. Art moves in a world of images, and reproduces the external, according to the idea or image in his mind. Thus the poet does not copy the external world but creates according to his ‘idea’ of it. Thus even an ugly object well-imitated becomes a source of pleasure. We are told in “The Poetics”:

“Objects which in themselves we view with pain, we delight to contemplate when reproduced with minute fidelity; such as the forms of the most ignoble animals and dead bodies.”

The real and the ideal from Aristotle's point of view are not opposites; the ideal is the real, shorn of chance and accident, a purified form of reality. And it is this higher ‘reality’ which is the object of poetic imitation. Idealization is achieved by divesting the real of all that is accidental, transient and particular. Poetry thus imitates the ideal and the universal; it is an “idealized representation of the character, emotion, action – under forms manifest in sense.” Poetic truth, therefore, is higher than historical truth. Poetry is more philosophical, more conducive to understanding than Philosophy itself.


Thus Aristotle successfully and finally refuted the charge of Plato and provided a defense of poetry which has ever since been used by lovers of poetry in justification of their Muse. He breathed new life and soul into the concept of poetic imitation and showed that it is, in reality, a creative process.

Read more »

Aristotle's concept of ideal tragic hero: Hamartia

Aristotle's concept of ideal tragic hero: Hamartia

No passage in “The Poetics” with the exception of the Catharsis phrase has attracted so much critical attention as his ideal of the tragic hero.

The function of a tragedy is to arouse the emotions of pity and fear and Aristotle deduces the qualities of his hero from this function. He should be good, but not perfect, for the fall of a perfect man from happiness into misery, would be unfair and repellent and will not arouse pity. Similarly, an utterly wicked person passing from happiness to misery may satisfy our moral sense but will lack proper tragic qualities. His fall will be well-deserved and according to ‘justice’. It excites neither pity nor fear. Thus entirely good and utterly wicked persons are not suitable to be tragic heroes.

Similarly, according to Aristotelian law, a saint would be unsuitable as a tragic hero. He is on the side of the moral order and hence his fall shocks and repels. Besides, his martyrdom is a spiritual victory which drowns the feeling of pity. Drama, on the other hand, requires for its effectiveness a militant and combative hero. It would be important to remember that Aristotle’s conclusions are based on the Greek drama and he is lying down the qualifications of an ideal tragic hero. He is here discussing what is the very best and not what is good. Overall, his views are justified, for it requires the genius of a Shakespeare to arouse sympathy for an utter villain, and saints as successful tragic heroes have been extremely rare.

Having rejected perfection as well as utter depravity and villainy, Aristotle points out that:

“The ideal tragic hero … must be an intermediate kind of person, a man not pre-eminently virtuous and just, whose misfortune, however, is brought upon him not by vice or depravity but by some error of judgment.”

An ideal tragic hero is a man who stands midway between the two extremes. He is not eminently good or just, though he inclines to the side of goodness. He is like us but raised above the ordinary level by a deeper vein of feeling or heightened powers of intellect or will. He is idealized, but still he has so much of common humanity as to enlist our interest and sympathy.

The tragic hero is not evil or vicious, but he is also not perfect and his disaster is brought upon him by his own fault. The Greek word used here is “Hamartia” meaning “missing the mark”. He falls not because of the act of outside agency or evil but because of Hamartia or “miscalculation” on his part. Hamartia is not a moral failing and it is unfortunate that it was translated as “tragic flaw” by Bradley. Aristotle himself distinguishes Hamartia from moral failing. He means by it some error or judgment. He writes that the cause of the hero’s fall must lie “not in depravity, but in some error or Hamartia on his part”. He does not assert or deny anything about the connection of Hamartia with hero’s moral failings.

“It may be accompanied by moral imperfection, but it is not itself a moral imperfection, and in the purest tragic situation the suffering hero is not morally to blame.”

Thus Hamartia is an error or miscalculation, but the error may arise from any of the three ways: It may arise from “ignorance of some fact or circumstance”, or secondly, it may arise from hasty or careless view of the special case, or thirdly, it may be an error voluntary, but not deliberate, as acts committed in anger. Else and Martian Ostwald interpret Hamartia and say that the hero has a tendency to err created by lack of knowledge and he may commit a series of errors. This tendency to err characterizes the hero from the beginning and at the crisis of the play it is complemented by the recognition scene, which is a sudden change “from ignorance to knowledge”.

In fact, Hamartia is a word with various shades of meaning and has been interpreted by different critics. Still, all serious modern Aristotelian scholarship agreed that Hamartia is not moral imperfection. It is an error of judgment, whether arising from ignorance of some material circumstance or from rashness of temper or from some passion. It may even be a character, for the hero may have a tendency to commit errors of judgment and may commit series of errors. This last conclusion is borne out by the play Oedipus Tyrannus to which Aristotle refers to time and again and which may be taken to be his ideal. In this play, hero’s life is a chain or errors, the most fatal of all being his marriage with his mother. If King Oedipus is Aristotle’s ideal hero, we can say with Butcher that:

“His conception of Hamartia includes all the three meanings mentioned above, which in English cannot be covered by a single term.”

Hamartia is an error, or a series of errors, “whether morally culpable or not,” committed by an otherwise noble person, and these errors derive him to his doom. The tragic irony lies in the fact that hero may err mistakenly without any evil intention, yet he is doomed no less than immortals who sin consciously. He has Hamartia and as a result, his very virtues hurry him to his ruin. Says Butcher:

“Othello in the modern drama, Oedipus in the ancient, are the two most conspicuous examples of ruin wrought by character, noble indeed, but not without defects, acting in the dark and, as it seemed, for the best.”

Aristotle lays down another qualification for the tragic hero. He must be, “of the number of those in the enjoyment of great reputation and prosperity.” He must be a well-reputed individual occupying a position of lofty eminence in society. This is so because of Greed tragedy, with which alone Aristotle was familiar, was written about a few distinguished royal families. Aristotle considers eminence as essential for the tragic hero. But Modern drama demonstrates that the meanest individual can also serve as a tragic hero and that tragedies of Sophoclean grandeur can be enacted even in remote country solitudes.


However, Aristotle’s dictum is quite justified on the principle that, “higher the state, the greater the fall that follows,” or because heavens themselves blaze forth the death of princes, while the death of a beggar passes unnoticed. But it should be remembered that Aristotle nowhere says that the hero should be a king or at least royally descended. They were the Renaissance critics who distorted Aristotle and made the qualification more rigid and narrow.

Read more »

Aristotle's concept of catharsis

Aristotle's concept of catharsis

Aristotle writes that the function of tragedy is to arouse the emotions of pity and fear and to affect the Katharsis of these emotions. Aristotle has used the term Katharsis only once, but no phrase has been handled so frequently by critics, and poets. Aristotle has not explained what exactly he meant by the word, nor do we get any help from the Poetics. For this reason, help and guidance have to be taken from his other works. Further, Katharsis has three meaning. It means ‘purgation’, ‘purification’, and ‘clarification’, and each critic has used the word in one or the other senses. All agree that Tragedy arouses fear and pity, but there are sharp differences as to the process, the way by which the rousing of these emotions gives pleasure.
Katharsis has been taken as a medical metaphor, ‘purgation’, denoting a pathological effect on the soul similar to the effect of the medicine on the body. This view is borne out by a passage in the Politics where Aristotle refers to religious frenzy being cured by certain tunes which excite religious frenzy. In Tragedy:
“…pity and fear artificially stirred the latent pity and fear which we bring with us from real life.”
In the Neo-Classical era, Catharsis was taken to be an allopathic treatment with the unlike curing unlike. The arousing of pity and fear was supposed to bring about the purgation or ‘evacuation’ of other emotions, like anger, pride etc. As Thomas Taylor holds:
“We learn from the terrible fates of evil men to avoid the vices they manifest.”
F. L. Lucas rejects the idea that Katharsis is a medical metaphor, and says that:
“The theatre is not a hospital.”
Both Lucas and Herbert Reed regard it as a kind of safety valve. Pity and fear are aroused, we give free play to these emotions which are followed by emotional relief. I. A. Richards’ approach to the process is also psychological. Fear is the impulse to withdraw and pity is the impulse to approach. Both these impulses are harmonized and blended in tragedy and this balance brings relief and repose.
The ethical interpretation is that the tragic process is a kind of lustration of the soul, an inner illumination resulting in a more balanced attitude to life and its suffering. Thus John Gassner says that a clear understanding of what was involved in the struggle, of cause and effect, a judgment on what we have witnessed, can result in a state of mental equilibrium and rest, and can ensure complete aesthetic pleasure. Tragedy makes us realize that divine law operates in the universe, shaping everything for the best.
During the Renaissance, another set of critics suggested that Tragedy helped to harden or ‘temper’ the emotions. Spectators are hardened to the pitiable and fearful events of life by witnessing them in tragedies.
Humphrey House rejects the idea of ‘purgation’ and forcefully advocates the ‘purification’ theory which involves moral instruction and learning. It is a kind of ‘moral conditioning’. He points out that, ‘purgation means cleansing’.
According to ‘the purification’ theory, Katharsis implies that our emotions are purified of excess and defect, are reduced to an intermediate state, trained and directed towards the right objects at the right time. The spectator learns the proper use of pity, fear and similar emotions by witnessing the tragedy. Butcher writes:
“The tragic Katharsis involves not only the idea of emotional relief but the further idea of purifying the emotions so relieved.”
The basic defect of ‘purgation’ theory and ‘purification’ theory is that they are too much occupied with the psychology of the audience. Aristotle was writing a treatise not on psychology but on the art of poetry. He relates ‘Catharsis’ not to the emotions of the spectators but to the incidents which form the plot of the tragedy. And the result is the “clarification” theory.
The paradox of pleasure being aroused by the ugly and the repellent is also the paradox involved in the tragedy. Tragic incidents are pitiable and fearful.They include horrible events as a man blinding himself, a wife murdering her husband or a mother slaying her children and instead of repelling us produce pleasure. Aristotle clearly tells us that we should not seek for every pleasure from tragedy, “but only the pleasure proper to it”. ‘Catharsis’ refers to the tragic variety of pleasure. The Catharsis clause is thus a definition of the function of tragedy, and not of its emotional effects on the audience.
Imitation does not produce pleasure in general, but only the pleasure that comes from learning, and so also the peculiar pleasure of tragedy. Learning comes from discovering the relation between the action and the universal elements embodied in it. The poet might take his material from history or tradition, but he selects and orders it in terms of probability and necessity, and represents what, “might be”. He rises from the particular to the general and so is more universal and more philosophical. The events are presented free of chance and accidents which obscure their real meaning. Tragedy enhances understanding and leaves the spectator ‘face to face with the universal law’.
Thus according to this interpretation, ‘Catharsis’ means clarification of the essential and universal significance of the incidents depicted, leading to an enhanced understanding of the universal law which governs human life and destiny, and such an understating leads to the pleasure of tragedy. In this view, Catharsis is neither a medical, nor a religious or moral term, but an intellectual term. The term refers to the incidents depicted in the tragedy and the way in which the poet reveals their universal significance.
The clarification theory has many merits. Firstly, it is a technique of the tragedy and not to the psychology of the audience. Secondly, the theory is based on what Aristotle says in the Poetics and needs no help and support of what Aristotle has said in Politics and Ethics. Thirdly, it relates Catharsis both to the theory of imitation and to the discussion of probability and necessity. Fourthly, the theory is perfectly in accord with current aesthetic theories.
According to Aristotle the basic tragic emotions are pity and fear and are painful. If tragedy is to give pleasure, the pity and fear must somehow be eliminated. Fear is aroused when we see someone suffering and think that similar fate might befall us. Pity is a feeling of pain caused by the sight of the undeserved suffering of others. The spectator sees that it is the tragic error or Hamartia of the hero which results in suffering and so he learns something about the universal relation between character and destiny.

To conclude, Aristotle's conception of Catharsis is mainly intellectual. It is neither didactic nor theoretical, though it may have a residual theological element. Aristotle's Catharsis is not a moral doctrine requiring the tragic poet to show that bad man come to bad ends, nor a kind of theological relief arising from the discovery that God’s laws operate invisibly to make all things work out for the best.

Read more »

Aristotle 's Poetics concepts

Aristotle 's Poetics

1. The Concept of Imitation
In The Poetics, Aristotle asserts that literature is a function of human nature's instinct to imitate.This implies that as humans, we are constantly driven to imitate, to create. By labeling thiscreative impulse an "instinct," one is to believe that this desire for imitation is a matter of survival,of necessity. The question then arises, of what does one feel compelled to imitate and in whatway does it aid in our survival? According to essays by T.S. Eliot and Barbara Johnson, thepurpose of literature is to be a part of a necessary creative process, sometimes to the extent thatthe creator is lost and consumed by the cause.http://www.allonlinefree.com/The first issue to tackle is the question of what literature imitates. Imitation and representationencompass all the media of artistic expression with the artist striving to represent aspects of reality or human experience. This is done either through song, the visual arts, or literature. Theartist, in a sense, strives to imitate God by wielding creative power and performing a humanversion of divine creation. The artist is attempting to communicate his or her subjectiveinterpretation of the world. However, the use of an interpretive medium also poses a uniquechallenge. In the case of Literature, imitation is complicated by the inherent limitations of language. Despite, or perhaps because of these limitations, artist then becomes part of a creativeprocess in which the relationship between the writer, the text, and the subject matter becomeintertwined, blurring distinction between these separate components.T.S. Eliot deals specifically with how one should view literature in relation to its creator. Heopposes the school of literary criticism that judges a poem's effectiveness based on the historyand personality of the poet rather than the poem itself. According to Eliot, the poet mustunderstand his or her position in the literary tradition. He states that "what is to be insisted uponis that the poet must develop or procure the consciousness of the past and that he shouldcontinue to develop this consciousness throughout his career"(CMS 407). According to Eliot theonly consciousness a writer should have is of his or her place in the literary tradition.Consciousness of emotional authenticity is irrelevant for Eliot. Consciousness of the literary pastis what gives a text its individuality. The individuality of the poet or the uniqueness of theemotions expressed in the poem is unnecessary because, Eliot believes, "one error, in fact, of eccentricity in poetry is to seek for new human emotions to express"(CMS 410). Eliot wants thefocus to be on the actual text for its contribution to the literary tradition rather than the poet'spersonality or emotional depth. Questions of whether or not the poem realistically captureshuman experience are not as important as whether the poem maintains its own emotional impactregardless of the poet's history. Therefore, if one understands imitation as the creator'srepresentation of personal emotions or subjective experience, Eliot does not see imitation as thegoal of literature. The poem is not representing something, but rather, it is existing on its own.Despite the fact that Eliot does not see "mimesis" or, imitation as the goal of poetry, his theory of depersonalization of literature does relate to Aristotle's idea of mimesis. Eliot does not view thepoet's personal experience as the proper motivation for good literature. During the creativeprocess, the poet should experience "a continual surrender of himself as he is at the moment tosomething which is more valuable. The progress of an artist, is a continual self-sacrifice, acontinual extinction of personality" (CMS 407). However, this does not mean that the poet doesnot communicate emotional depth through poetry. A poet can still successfully capture certainepistemological and philosophical truths about existence and reality. He or she is still fulfillingthe instinct to imitate. In fact, Elliot argues, only through depersonalization can the poetsuccessfully communicate his imitation because it is not bogged down in subjectiveinterpretation. Therefore, the poet is imitating and representing, but Eliot believes it is possibleonly by escaping the self and removing the personal implications of a text's meaning.Barbara Johnson explores mimesis in relation to the limitations of language in her essay, "A Hound, a Bay Horse, and a Turtle Dove: Obscurity in Walden." Johnson focuses on Thoreau'suse of symbolic language and what she sees as his unintended goal. She understandsThoreau's use of obscure symbols as representing an idea of obscurity rather than actual objectsor concepts. She asserts that "You are supposed to recognize them as not as obscure symbols,but as symbols standing for the obscure, the lost, the irretrievable"(CMS 658). In this sense, formfollows content. The symbols are purposely obscure because they represent the irretrievable andobscure. Thoreau's imitation here is not relegated to a particular experience of loss, but of aconcept and he accomplishes this in an intentionally cryptic fashion. This is because the concepthe is attempting to communicate is itself so unknowable, so he uses obscure terms.Thoreau realizes the limitations of language. He understood that the act of imitation is itself anendeavor limited by language. Therefore, for Thoreau, this instinctual impulse toward imitationremains exactly that an impulse toward creativity despite the limitations of the medium. However,his text also maintains a consciousness of its inherent limitations. Johnson calls Thoreau'stechnique "catachreses," or, figurative substitutes for a literal term that does not exist (CMS 659).Thoreau fulfills his imitative instinct by using literature's representative, though inherently limited,faculty to represent something, which can not be represented.Johnson concludes her essay by stating that Thoreau became so completely consumed in thecreative act, that his figurative language ceases to be understandable as either pure rhetoric or aliteral cataloguing of thoughts. She explains that, "what Thoreau has done in moving to WaldenPond is to move himself, literally, into the world of his own figurative language."(CMS 661) Hiswriting loses its coherence because his symbolism saturates and overwhelms the narrative.Johnson explains that "Thoreau has literally crossed over into the very parable he is writing,where reality itself has become a catachresis"(CMS 661). He has delved so deeply into the act of representation that the reader is never sure of the creator's true intent. Perhaps it is Thoreau'sintent to illustrate that the imitative power of literature is that one can never quite represent anidea, thought, emotions, without disclaiming its true intent beforehand. The paradox of artisticintent is that because of its inherent duality, art and literature can never specifically be separatedfrom its creator or its product.Both Eliot and Johnson agree that a text should posses a certain consciousness. For Eliot thatconsciousness is of the literary tradition, of the text of human experience. As Johnsondemonstrates through Thoreau, text can not help but be conscious of its own limited imitativecapacity. Eliot believes that if a poet depersonalizes a text enough, than it can really accomplishan expression of deep emotion or thought. Johnson sees the medium of literature as an obstacleto actual representation, but that ambiguity enhances the text to the extent that it "delights andbaffles" (CMS 655). Aristotle's idea now takes on greater depth given these new perspectives. He phrases it as an"instinct towards imitation" because this impulse toward to creation is practically unconscious. Asthoughtful beings, humans are driven to pursue this creative instinct. It is as innate an instinct for survival as the need for food and shelter. Therefore we pursue this impulse toward imitationalmost without caring if we imitate successfully. We are acting within our given boundaries andlimitations. According to Johnson, that is what gives literature its richness. Eliot believes the poetcan transcend those limitations. Everyone agrees that one must act on the creative instinct.

2. Aristotle on TragedyThe Nature of Tragedy:

In the century after Sophocles, the philosopher Aristotle analyzedtragedy. His definition: Tragedy then, is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude; in language embellished with each kind of artistic ornament, the severalkinds being found in separate parts of the play; in the form of action, not of narrative; through pityand fear effecting the proper purgation of these emotions. Aristotle identified six basic elements: (1) plot; (2) character; (3) diction (the choice of style,imagery, etc.); (4) thought (the character's thoughts and the author's meaning); (5) spectacle (allthe visual effects; Aristotle considered this to be the least important element); (6) song. According to Aristotle, the central character of a tragedy must not be so virtuous that instead of feeling pity or fear at his or her downfall, we are simply outraged. Also the character cannot be soevil that for the sake of justice we desire his or her misfortune. Instead, best is someone"who isneither outstanding in virtue and righteousness; nor is it through badness or villainy of his own

that he falls into misfortune, but rather through some flaw [hamartia]". The character should befamous or prosperous, like Oedipus or Medea.What Aristotle meant by hamartia cannot be established. In each play we read you shouldparticularly consider the following possibilities. (1) A hamartia may be simply an intellectualmistake or an error in judgement. For example when a character has the facts wrong or doesn'tknow when to stop trying to get dangerous information. (2) Hamartia may be a moral weakness,especially hubris, as when a character is moral in every way except for being prideful enough toinsult a god. (Of course you are free to decide that the tragic hero of any play, ancient or modern,does not have a hamartia at all). The terms hamartia and hubris should become basic tools of your critical apparatus.

The Concept of Tragedy:

The word tragedy can be applied to a genre of literature. It can mean'any serious and dignified drama that describes a conflict between the hero (protagonist) and asuperior force (destiny, chance, society, god) and reaches a sorrowful conclusion that arousespity or fear in the audience.' From this genre comes the concept of tragedy, a concept which isbased on the possibility that a person may be destroyed precisely because of attempting to begood and is much better than most people, but not perfect. (Irony, therefore, is essential and it isnot surprising that dramatic irony, which can so neatly emphasize irony, is common in tragedies.)Tragedy implies a conflict between human goodness and reality. Many scholars feel that if Godrewards goodness either on earth or in heaven there can be no tragedy. If in the end each persongets what he or she deserves, tragedy is impossible. Tragedy assumes that this universe is rottenor askew. Christians believe that God is good and just, hence, for certain scholars tragedy islogically impossible. Of course a possible variation of the tragic concept would allow a character to have a fault which leads to consequences far more dire than he deserves. But tragic literatureis not intended to make people sad. It may arouse pity and fear for the suffering protagonist, or for all humanity, especially ourselves. But usually it also is intended to inspire admiration for thecentral character, and by analogy for all mankind. In the tragic hero's fall there is the glory in hisor her misfortune; there is the joy which only virtue can supply. Floods, automobile accidents,children's deaths, though terribly pathetic can never be tragic in the dramatic sense because theydo not occur as a result of an individual man's grandeur and virtue. After reading each book in thecourse, be sure you know whether it presents a tragic view of life. (Incidentally, although someplays we read are certainly tragic in all scholars' opinions, many Greek plays produced astragedies are not tragic by anyone's definition, including Aristotles'.)

Aristotle's Poetics: Basic Concepts

You should be aware of the following concepts andopinions of Aristotle's which have tremendously influenced drama in the Western World.a. Tragedies should not be episodic. That is, the episodes in the plot must have a clearlyprobable or inevitable connection with each other. This connection is best when it is believablebut unexpected. b. Complex plots are better than simple plots. Complex plots have recognitionsand reversals. A recognition is a change from ignorance to knowledge, especially when the newknowledge identifies some unknown relative or dear one whom the hero should cherish but wasabout to harm or has just harmed. 'Recognition' (anagnorisis) is now commonly applied to anyself-knowledge the hero gains as well as to insight to the whole nature or condition of mankind,provided that that knowledge is associated, as Aristotle said it should be, with the hero's 'reversalof fortune' (Greek: peripeteia). A reversal is a change of a situation to its opposite. Consider Oedipus at the beginning and end of Oedipus the King. Also consider in that play how a mancomes to free Oedipus of his fear about his mother, but actually does the opposite. Recognitionsare also supposed to be clearly connected with all the rest of the action of the plot. c. Suffering(some fatal or painful action) is also to be included in a tragic plot which, preferably, should endunhappily. d. The pity and fear which a tragedy evokes, should come from the events, the action,not from the mere sight of something on stage. e. Catharsis ('purification' or 'purgation') of pity andfear was a part of Aristotle's definition of tragedy. The meaning of this phrase is extremelydebatable. Among the many interpretations possible, consider how well the following apply toour plays:1) Purification of the audience's feelings of pity and fear so that in real life we understand better whether we should feel them. 2) Purgation of our pity and fear so that we can face life with less of these emotions or more control over them. 3) Purification of the events of the plot, so that thecentral character's errors or transgressions become 'cleansed' by his or her recognitions and suffering.

3. Plot and Tragedy In his Poetics
[1] Aristotle (384-322 BC) classifies plot into two types: simple [haplos], andcomplex [peplegmenos]. The simple plot is defined as a unified construct of necessary andprobable actions accompanied by a change of fortune. The complex plot, says Aristotle, isaccompanied by two other features, namely; peripeteia or reversal, and anagnorisis, or recognition. It is this which Aristotle feels is the best kind of tragic plot, in that it provides the bestpossibility of delivering tragic pleasure.Before we look at the distinctive features of the complex plot, it would perhaps be instructive toexamine those features which it shares with the simple plot. The unity of structure recommendedby Aristotle includes the tripartite division of the plot into the beginning, the middle and the end,as well as the unities of time and action. He stresses unified action, where all action in the plotcarries a definite link to other actions, and subsequent actions are the necessary and probableoutcomes of the former.Necessary and probable are terms which recur throughout the
Poetics
. They stand for theuniversality of poetry in that they point to how or what actions should logically be in a givensituation. Unity of action, therefore, does not mean all that happens to the protagonist, butprecisely what comprises a particular whole action according to the norms of necessity andprobability. Unity of time, in contrast to its neo-classical applications, here simply means the timespan in which the tragic action can be best comprehended by the audience, given the constraintsof human memory, and the wholeness of the action.Finally, we come to the change of fortune. It is either from good to bad or the reverse. The former is more characteristic of tragedy but in a later section Aristotle complicates the idea by saying thatthose plots where the catastrophe is averted by recognition are best. The change of fortune isalso accompanied by a complication of events [desis] and their resolution [lusis].http://www.allonlinefree.com/Having briefly examined the common aspects of both kinds of plot, we can now look at thespecial attributes of the complex plot.Let us take another look at Aristotle's celebrated definition of complex action: 'A complex action isone where the change is accompanied by such reversal or recognition or both.' Peripeteia hasbeen defined as a reversal of the action. If, however, it is just that, then how is it different from thechange of fortune? Clearly this is too limited a definition of peripeteia and it would perhaps bepertinent to consider two other definitions. Humphrey House [2] defines it as a 'reversal of intention'. This definition takes into account the 'thought' or the dianoia exercised by thecharacter. House describes it as 'holding the wrong end of the stick'. Peripeteia is therefore theturning of the stick thinking that it is the right end. The ignorance behind any peripeteia is notmere ignorance. It is the ignorance arising out of error. The other definition is more recent. FrankKermode [3] defines it as a 'disconfirmation followed by a consonance; the interest of having our expectations falsified is obviously related to our wish to reach discovery by an unexpected route.It has nothing to do with our reluctance to get there at all. So that in assimilating the peripeteia weare enacting that readjustment of our expectations in regard to an end'. This points out thepleasure we receive from peripeteia which is quite different from the straightforward following of anarrative to its end, or in other words, mere change of fortune.Having defined peripeteia and identified its characteristic pleasure, we must also consider whatthis pleasure actually consists of. This is the element of surprise or wonder [Gk. Thaumaston].The source of wonder is often the tragic recognition or anagnorisis. Recognition has beenvariously defined. In Aristotle it is the recognition of persons through tokens, artistic contrivances,memory, reasoning (including false inferences) and lastly, arising out of the events themselves(as in Oedipus Rex). Aristotle defines this anagnorisis as a change from ignorance to knowledge.In terms of Humphrey House's analogy, it would mean the realization that you have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. House himself defines recognition thus, 'The discovery of the truth of the matter is the ghastly wakening from the state of the ignorance which is the very essence of hamartia.' Other scholars define it variously as 'a way in which the emotional potential . . . can bebrought to its highest voltage, so to speak at the moment of discharge', or, 'recognition brings its  illumination, which can shed retrospective light'. Aristotle likes best the recognition which arises out of the events themselves, as in Sophocles'sOedipus Rex. The whole play is a step by step unravelling of Oedipus's true identity andOedipus's holding the wrong end of the stick, as it were, in trying to discover his identity withoutknowing that the results will be catastrophic. At second best, he places those tragedies wherereasoning effects the recognition. Together with these definitions, we could compare the slightlydifferent angle from which Terence Cave [4] views recognition. For him it is a stumbling block tobelief which disturbs the decorum. From this comparison we realize the complicated nature of recognition. In the unravelling of the complex plot the point of the recognition is very different fromthat possible in a simple plot. The combination of peripeteia and recognition does not merelyaffect the characters in the tragedy. They can also extend to the audience or the reader. Theunexpectedness of the tragic catastrophe which the complex plot brings [the element of wonder or thaumaston] heightens our feelings of pity and fear as well as other related emotions.Here it would be useful to look at another famous assertion of Aristotle's. In Ch XIV of the poetics
he says, 'the pleasure which the poet should afford is that which comes from pity and fear throughimitation' [5]. Perhaps an examination of pity and fear together with imitation can give us a better idea of the pleasures incidental to tragedy. Let us start with an appraisal of pity and fear. Pity andfear are man's sympathy for the good part of mankind in the bad part of their experiences. Pity isevoked when there is a discrepancy between the agent and Fate, and fear when there is alikeness between the agent and us. Stephen Dedalus defines Pity and Fear in James Joyce's  A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man

. He calls pity the feeling which arrests the mind in thepresence of whatsoever is grave and constant in human-sufferings and unites it with the humansufferer. Terror, or fear, is that which unites it with the secret cause. [6]. Aristotle himself gives similar definitions of these terms in his  Rhetoric
[books V and II]. There hedefines them as a species of pain. It is here that we can begin to consider the idea that tragicpleasure derives from the purgation of these emotions. The idea of purgation as a medicalmetaphor has been in vogue for a long time and can be substantiated by examples from Aristotle's Problems
[problem XXX] where coldness of black bile accompanies 'despair and fear'and heat is the suggested cure which restores the temperature to a temperate mean. Aristotle,unlike his teacher Plato, says that the emotions are good in themselves. Therefore there shouldbe no need to purge the feelings of pity and fear. Instead, a more sensible definition of tragicpleasure would be that concomitant with the proper feeling of these emotions. By proper I mean atemperate attitude to these emotions as Aristotle teaches in his
Nichomachean Ethics
. In Book IIof his
Ethics
, he says:fear and confidence and appetite and anger and pity and in general pleasure and pain may befelt both too much and too little, and in both cases not well; but to feel them at the right times, withreference to the right objects, towards the right people, with the right motive, and in the right way,is what is both intermediate and best, and this is characteristic of virtue. [7] Aristotle's idea of the mean is derived from the Pythagoreans who applied it to music. Here wemay note that another place where Aristotle uses the term catharsis is in his
Politics
and in thecontext of giving 'relief to overcharged feeling' through music. Interestingly, here too, he mentionspity and fear among the emotions dealt with and the restoration is once again to a temperatemean. [8]Is catharsis the only possible source of pleasure in tragedy? Humphry House does not think so.Those who are temperate in themselves and do not require an adjustment of their emotionalreactions to tragic situations, still derive pleasure from tragedy. Even Plato in
The Republic
testifies to this fact: 'even the best of us enjoy it and let ourselves be carried away by our feelings;and are full of praises for the merits of the poet who can most powerfully affect us in this way.' [9].The pleasure arising out of poetry is therefore not entirely dependent on catharsis. Instead, itworks in two ways. In Book VII [section 11 - 14] Aristotle discusses 'pure' pleasure and'incidental' pleasure. The former is universal and is accompanied by no pain and is likened to thepleasure arising out of contemplation. Those who experience this do so solely by contemplatingand appraising the imitation of human emotions in tragedy.It is through this view that we bring our focus back on the last part of Aristotle's statement quotedabove. Pleasure is effected through imitation [or mimesis]. As Aristotle said [10] imitation is itself a pleasurable act. All of this applies to epic as well as tragedy and can probably be extended to
other types of poetry. The specifically 'tragic' pleasure is that pertaining to the medium and thedramatic mode of tragedy. These constitute the specific imitative aspects of tragedy.The idea of tragic pleasure therefore necessarily consists as Aristotle aptly puts it 'in that whichcomes with pity and fear through imitation'. A heightened sense of pity and fear is effected whenthe necessary and probable events take an unexpected turn. This is possible in the complex plotwith the accompanying peripeteia and anagnorisis. Thus our examination of the elements of thecomplex plot has led us to a consideration of pity and fear. These together with imitation [or mimesis] help us understand the pleasure peculiar to tragedy.

Read more »

Aristotle's concept of ideal tragic hero: Hamartia

Aristotle's concept of ideal tragic hero: Hamartia


No passage in "The Poetics" with the exception of the Catharsis phrase has attracted so much critical attention as his ideal of the tragic hero.

The function of a tragedy is to arouse the emotions of pity and fear and Aristotle deduces the qualities of his hero from this function. He should be good, but not perfect, for the fall of a perfect man from happiness into misery, would be unfair and repellent and will not arouse pity. Similarly, an utterly wicked person passing from happiness to misery may satisfy our moral sense, but will lack proper tragic qualities. His fall will be well-deserved and according to 'justice'. It excites neither pity nor fear. Thus entirely good and utterly wicked persons are not suitable to be tragic heroes.

Similarly, according to Aristotelian law, a saint would be unsuitable as a tragic hero. He is on the side of the moral order and hence his fall shocks and repels. Besides, his martyrdom is a spiritual victory which drowns the feeling of pity. Drama, on the other hand, requires for its effectiveness a militant and combative hero. It would be important to remember that Aristotle's conclusions are based on the Greek drama and he is lying down the qualifications of an ideal tragic hero. He is here discussing what is the very best and not what is good. Overall, his views are justified, for it requires the genius of a Shakespeare to arouse sympathy for an utter villain, and saints as successful tragic heroes have been extremely rare.

Having rejected perfection as well as utter depravity and villainy, Aristotle points out that:
"The ideal tragic hero … must be an intermediate kind of person, a man not pre-eminently virtuous and just, whose misfortune, however, is brought upon him not by vice or depravity but by some error of judgment."
The ideal tragic hero is a man who stands midway between the two extremes. He is not eminently good or just, though he inclines to the side of goodness. He is like us, but raised above the ordinary level by a deeper vein of feeling or heightened powers of intellect or will. He is idealized, but still he has so much of common humanity as to enlist our interest and sympathy.

The tragic hero is not evil or vicious, but he is also not perfect and his disaster is brought upon him by his own fault. The Greek word used here is "Hamartia" meaning "missing the mark". He falls not because of the act of outside agency or evil but because of Hamartia or "miscalculation" on his part. Hamartia is not a moral failing and it is unfortunate that it was translated as "tragic flaw" by Bradley. Aristotle himself distinguishes Hamartia from moral failing. He means by it some error or judgment. He writes that the cause of the hero's fall must lie "not in depravity, but in some error or Hamartia on his part". He does not assert or deny anything about the connection of Hamartia with hero's moral failings.
"It may be accompanied by moral imperfection, but it is not itself a moral imperfection, and in the purest tragic situation the suffering hero is not morally to blame."
Thus Hamartia is an error or miscalculation, but the error may arise from any of the three ways: It may arise from "ignorance of some fact or circumstance", or secondly, it may arise from hasty or careless view of the special case, or thirdly, it may be an error voluntary, but not deliberate, as acts committed in anger. Else and Martian Ostwald interpret Hamartia and say that the hero has a tendency to err created by lack of knowledge and he may commit a series of errors. This tendency to err characterizes the hero from the beginning and at the crisis of the play it is complemented by the recognition scene, which is a sudden change "from ignorance to knowledge".

In fact, Hamartia is a word with various shades of meaning and has been interpreted by different critics. Still, all serious modern Aristotelian scholarship agreed that Hamartia is not moral imperfection. It is an error of judgment, whether arising from ignorance of some material circumstance or from rashness of temper or from some passion. It may even be a character, for the hero may have a tendency to commit errors of judgment and may commit series of errors. This last conclusion is borne out by the play Oedipus Tyrannus to which Aristotle refers time and again and which may be taken to be his ideal. In this play, hero's life is a chain or errors, the most fatal of all being his marriage with his mother. If King Oedipus is Aristotle's ideal hero, we can say with Butcher that:
"His conception of Hamartia includes all the three meanings mentioned above, which in English cannot be covered by a single term."
Hamartia is an error, or a series of errors, "whether morally culpable or not," committed by an otherwise noble person, and these errors derive him to his doom. The tragic irony lies in the fact that hero may err mistakenly without any evil intention, yet he is doomed no less than immorals who sin consciously. He has Hamartia and as a result his very virtues hurry him to his ruin. Says Butcher:
"Othello in the modern drama, Oedipus in the ancient, are the two most conspicuous examples of ruin wrought by character, noble indeed, but not without defects, acting in the dark and, as it seemed, for the best."
Aristotle lays down another qualification for the tragic hero. He must be, "of the number of those in the enjoyment of great reputation and prosperity". He must be a well-reputed individual occupying a position of lofty eminence in society. This is so because Greed tragedy, with which alone Aristotle was familiar, was written about a few distinguished royal families. Aristotle considers eminence as essential for the tragic hero. But Modern drama demonstrates that the meanest individual can also serve as a tragic hero, and that tragedies of Sophoclean grandeur can be enacted even in remote country solitudes.

However, Aristotle's dictum is quite justified on the principle that, "higher the state, the greater the fall that follows," or because heavens themselves blaze forth the death of princes, while the death of a beggar passes unnoticed. But it should be remembered that Aristotle nowhere says that the hero should be a king or at least royally descended. They were the Renaissance critics who distorted Aristotle and made the qualification more rigid and narrow.

Read more »

Aristotle's Plot

 Aristotle's Plot

  Aristotle devotes great attention to the nature, structure and basic elements of the ideal tragic plot. Tragedy is the depiction of action consisting of incidents and events. Plot is the arrangement of these incident and events. It contains the kernel of the action. Aristotle says that plot is the first principle, the soul of tragedy. He lists six formative elements of a tragedy – Plot, character, thought, melody, diction, spectacle and gives the first place to plot.

The Greek word for 'poet' means a 'maker', and the poet is a 'maker', not because he makes verses but he makes plots. Aristotle differentiates between 'story' and 'plot'. The poet need not make his story. Stories from history, mythology, or legend are to be preferred, for they are familiar and understandable. Having chosen or invented the story, it must be put to artistic selection and order. The incidents chosen must be 'serious', and not 'trivial', as tragedy is an imitation of a serious action that arouse pity and fear.
Aristotle says that the tragic plot must be a complete whole. It must have a beginning, a middle and an end. It must have a beginning, i.e. it must not flow out of some prior situation. The beginning must be clear and intelligible. It must not provoke to ask 'why' and 'how'. A middle is consequent upon a situation gone before. The middle is followed logically by the end. And end is consequent upon a given situation, but is not followed by any further incident. Thus artistic wholeness implies logical link-up of the various incidents, events and situations that form the plot.

The plot must have a certain magnitude or 'length'. 'Magnitude' here means 'size'. It should be neither too small nor too large. It should be long enough to allow the process of change from happiness to misery but not too long to be forgotten before the end. If it is too small, its different parts will not be clearly distinguishable from each other. Magnitude also implies order and proportion and they depend upon the magnitude. The different parts must be properly related to each other and to the whole. Thus magnitude implies that the plot must have order, logic symmetry and perspicuity.

Aristotle considers the tragic plot to be an organic whole, and also having organic unity in its action. An action is a change from happiness to misery or vice versa and tragedy must depict one such action. The incidents impart variety and unity results by arranging the incidents so that they all tend to the same catastrophe. There might be episodes for they impart variety and lengthen the plot but they must be properly combined with the main action following each other inevitably. It must not be possible to remove or to invert them without injuring the plot. Otherwise, episodic plots are the worst of all.

Organic unity' cannot be provided only by the presence of the tragic hero, for many incidents in hero's life cannot be brought into relation with the rest. So there should be proper shifting and ordering of material.
Aristotle joins organic unity of plot with probability and necessity. The plot is not tied to what has actually happened but it deals with what may probably or necessarily happen. Probability and necessity imply that there should be no unrelated events and incidents. Words and actions must be in character. Thus probability and necessity imply unity and order and are vital for artistic unity and wholeness.
Probability' implies that the tragic action must be convincing. If the poet deals with something improbable, he must make it convincing and credible. He dramatist must procure, "willing suspension of disbelief". Thus a convincing impossibility is to be preferred to an unconvincing possibility.

Aristotle rules out plurality of action. He emphasizes the Unity of Action but has little to say about the Unity of Time and the Unity of Place. About the Unity of Time he merely says that tragedy should confine itself to a single revolution of the sun. As regards the Unity of Place, Aristotle said that epic can narrate a number of actions going on all together in different parts, while in a drama simultaneous actions cannot be represented, for the stage is one part and not several parts or places.

Tragedy is an imitation of a 'serious action' which arouses pity and fear. 'Serious' means important, weighty. The plot of a tragedy essentially deals with great moral issues. Tragedy is a tale of suffering with an unhappy ending. This means that the plot of a tragedy must be a fatal one. Aristotle rules out fortunate plots for tragedy, for such plot does not arouse tragic emotions. A tragic plot must show the hero passing from happiness to misery and not from misery to happiness. The suffering of the hero may be caused by an enemy or a stranger but it would be most piteous when it is by chance caused by friends and relatives who are his well-wishers.

According to Aristotle, Tragic plots may be of three kinds, (a) Simple, (b) Complex and (c) Plots based on or depicting incidents of suffering. A Simple plot is without any Peripety and Anagnorisis but the action moves forward uniformly without any violent or sudden change. Aristotle prefers Complex plots. It must have Peripeteia, i.e. "reversal of intention" and Anagnorisis, i.e. "recognition of truth". While Peripeteia is ignorance of truth, Anagnorisis is the insight of truth forced upon the hero by some signs or chance or by the logic events. In ideal plot Anagnorisis follows or coincides with Peripeteia.

Recognition' in the sense is closely akin to reversal. Recognition and reversal can be caused by separate incidents. Often it is difficult to separate the two. Complex plots are the best, for recognition and reversal add the element of surprise and "the pitiable and fearful incidents are made more so by the shock of surprise".

As regards the third kind of plot, Aristotle rates it very low. It derives its effect from the depiction of torture, murder, maiming, death etc. and tragic effect must be created naturally and not with artificial and theatrical aids. Such plots indicate a deficiency in the art of the poet.
In making plots, the poets should make their denouements, effective and successful. Unraveling of the plot should be done naturally and logically, and not by arbitrary devices, like chance or supernatural devices. Aristotle does not consider Poetic Justice necessary for Tragedy. He rules out plots with a double end i.e. plots in which there is happiness for one, and misery for others. Such plots weaken the tragic effect. It is more proper to Comedy. Thus Aristotle is against Tragi-comedy.

Read more »

Aristotle's Concept of Catharsis

Aristotle's Concept of Catharsis

Aristotle writes that the function of tragedy is to arouse the emotions of pity and fear, and to affect the Katharsis of these emotions. Aristotle has used the term Katharsis only once, but no phrase has been handled so frequently by critics, and poets. Aristotle has not explained what exactly he meant by the word, nor do we get any help from the Poetics. For this reason, help and guidance has to be taken from his other works. Further, Katharsis has three meaning. It means 'purgation', 'purification', and 'clarification', and each critic has used the word in one or the other senses. All agree that Tragedy arouses fear and pity, but there are sharp differences as to the process, the way by which the rousing of these emotions gives pleasure.

Katharsis has been taken as a medical metaphor, 'purgation', denoting a pathological effect on the soul similar to the effect of medicine on the body. This view is borne out by a passage in the Politics where Aristotle refers to religious frenzy being cured by certain tunes which excite religious frenzy. In Tragedy:

…pity and fear, artificially stirred the latent pity and fear which we bring with us from real life.

In the Neo-Classical era, Catharsis was taken to be an allopathic treatment with the unlike curing unlike. The arousing of pity and fear was supposed to bring about the purgation or 'evacuation' of other emotions, like anger, pride etc. As Thomas Taylor holds:

We learn from the terrible fates of evil men to avoid the vices they manifest.

F. L. Lucas rejects the idea that Katharsis is a medical metaphor, and says that:

The theatre is not a hospital.

Both Lucas and Herbert Reed regard it as a kind of safety valve. Pity and fear are aroused, we give free play to these emotions which is followed by emotional relief. I. A. Richards' approach to the process is also psychological. Fear is the impulse to withdraw and pity is the impulse to approach. Both these impulses are harmonized and blended in tragedy and this balance brings relief and repose.

The ethical interpretation is that the tragic process is a kind of lustration of the soul, an inner illumination resulting in a more balanced attitude to life and its suffering. Thus John Gassner says that a clear understanding of what was involved in the struggle, of cause and effect, a judgment on what we have witnessed, can result in a state of mental equilibrium and rest, and can ensure complete aesthetic pleasure. Tragedy makes us realize that divine law operates in the universe, shaping everything for the best.

During the Renaissance, another set of critics suggested that Tragedy helped to harden or 'temper' the emotions. Spectators are hardened to the pitiable and fearful events of life by witnessing them in tragedies.

Humphrey House rejects the idea of 'purgation' and forcefully advocates the 'purification' theory which involves moral instruction and learning. It is a kind of 'moral conditioning'. He points out that, 'purgation means cleansing'.

According to 'the purification' theory, Katharsis implies that our emotions are purified of excess and defect, are reduced to intermediate state, trained and directed towards the right objects at the right time. The spectator learns the proper use of pity, fear and similar emotions by witnessing tragedy. Butcher writes:

The tragic Katharsis involves not only the idea of emotional relief, but the further idea of purifying the emotions so relieved.

The basic defect of 'purgation' theory and 'purification' theory is that they are too much occupied with the psychology of the audience. Aristotle was writing a treatise not on psychology but on the art of poetry. He relates 'Catharsis' not to the emotions of the spectators but to the incidents which form the plot of the tragedy. And the result is the "clarification" theory.

The paradox of pleasure being aroused by the ugly and the repellent is also the paradox involved in tragedy. Tragic incidents are pitiable and fearful.

They include horrible events as a man blinding himself, a wife murdering her husband or a mother slaying her children and instead of repelling us produce pleasure. Aristotle clearly tells us that we should not seek for every pleasure from tragedy, "but only the pleasure proper to it". 'Catharsis' refers to the tragic variety of pleasure. The Catharsis clause is thus a definition of the function of tragedy, and not of its emotional effects on the audience.

Imitation does not produce pleasure in general, but only the pleasure that comes from learning, and so also the peculiar pleasure of tragedy. Learning comes from discovering the relation between the action and the universal elements embodied in it. The poet might take his material from history or tradition, but he selects and orders it in terms of probability and necessity, and represents what, "might be". He rises from the particular to the general and so is more universal and more philosophical. The events are presented free of chance and accidents which obscure their real meaning. Tragedy enhances understanding and leaves the spectator 'face to face with the universal law'.

Thus according to this interpretation, 'Catharsis' means clarification of the essential and universal significance of the incidents depicted, leading to an enhanced understanding of the universal law which governs human life and destiny, and such an understating leads to pleasure of tragedy. In this view, Catharsis is neither a medical, nor a religious or moral term, but an intellectual term. The term refers to the incidents depicted in the tragedy and the way in which the poet reveals their universal significance.

The clarification theory has many merits. Firstly, it is a technique of the tragedy and not to the psychology of the audience. Secondly, the theory is based on what Aristotle says in the Poetics, and needs no help and support of what Aristotle has said in Politics and Ethics. Thirdly, it relates Catharsis both to the theory of imitation and to the discussion of probability and necessity. Fourthly, the theory is perfectly in accord with current aesthetic theories.

According to Aristotle the basic tragic emotions are pity and fear and are painful. If tragedy is to give pleasure, the pity and fear must somehow be eliminated. Fear is aroused when we see someone suffering and think that similar fate might befall us. Pity is a feeling of pain caused by the sight of underserved suffering of others. The spectator sees that it is the tragic error or Hamartia of the hero which results in suffering and so he learns something about the universal relation between character and destiny.

To conclude, Aristotle's conception of Catharsis is mainly intellectual. It is neither didactic nor theoretical, though it may have a residual theological element. Aristotle's Catharsis is not a moral doctrine requiring the tragic poet to show that bad men come to bad ends, nor a kind of theological relief arising from discovery that God's laws operate invisibly to make all things work out for the best.

Read more »

Aristotle's Plot

Aristotle's Plot

Aristotle devotes great attention to the nature, structure and basic elements of the ideal tragic plot. Tragedy is the depiction of action consisting of incidents and events. Plot is the arrangement of these incident and events. It contains the kernel of the action. Aristotle says that plot is the first principle, the soul of tragedy. He lists six formative elements of a tragedy – Plot, character, thought, melody, diction, spectacle and gives the first place to plot.

 The Greek word for 'poet' means a 'maker', and the poet is a 'maker', not because he makes verses but he makes plots. Aristotle differentiates between 'story' and 'plot'. The poet need not make his story. Stories from history, mythology, or legend are to be preferred, for they are familiar and understandable. Having chosen or invented the story, it must be put to artistic selection and order. The incidents chosen must be 'serious', and not 'trivial', as tragedy is an imitation of a serious action that arouse pity and fear.

 

Aristotle says that the tragic plot must be a complete whole. It must have a beginning, a middle and an end. It must have a beginning, i.e. it must not flow out of some prior situation. The beginning must be clear and intelligible. It must not provoke to ask 'why' and 'how'. A middle is consequent upon a situation gone before. The middle is followed logically by the end. And end is consequent upon a given situation, but is not followed by any further incident. Thus artistic wholeness implies logical link-up of the various incidents, events and situations that form the plot.

The plot must have a certain magnitude or 'length'. 'Magnitude' here means 'size'. It should be neither too small nor too large. It should be long enough to allow the process of change from happiness to misery but not too long to be forgotten before the end. If it is too small, its different parts will not be clearly distinguishable from each other. Magnitude also implies order and proportion and they depend upon the magnitude. The different parts must be properly related to each other and to the whole. Thus magnitude implies that the plot must have order, logic symmetry and perspicuity.

 Aristotle considers the tragic plot to be an organic whole, and also having organic unity in its action. An action is a change from happiness to misery or vice versa and tragedy must depict one such action. The incidents impart variety and unity results by arranging the incidents so that they all tend to the same catastrophe. There might be episodes for they impart variety and lengthen the plot but they must be properly combined with the main action following each other inevitably. It must not be possible to remove or to invert them without injuring the plot. Otherwise, episodic plots are the worst of all.

'Organic unity' cannot be provided only by the presence of the tragic hero, for many incidents in hero's life cannot be brought into relation with the rest. So there should be proper shifting and ordering of material.

Aristotle joins organic unity of plot with probability and necessity. The plot is not tied to what has actually happened but it deals with what may probably or necessarily happen. Probability and necessity imply that there should be no unrelated events and incidents. Words and actions must be in character. Thus probability and necessity imply unity and order and are vital for artistic unity and wholeness.

'Probability' implies that the tragic action must be convincing. If the poet deals with something improbable, he must make it convincing and credible. He dramatist must procure, "willing suspension of disbelief". Thus a convincing impossibility is to be preferred to an unconvincing possibility. 

Aristotle rules out plurality of action. He emphasizes the Unity of Action but has little to say about the Unity of Time and the Unity of Place. About the Unity of Time he merely says that tragedy should confine itself to a single revolution of the sun. As regards the Unity of Place, Aristotle said that epic can narrate a number of actions going on all together in different parts, while in a drama simultaneous actions cannot be represented, for the stage is one part and not several parts or places.

Tragedy is an imitation of a 'serious action' which arouses pity and fear. 'Serious' means important, weighty. The plot of a tragedy essentially deals with great moral issues. Tragedy is a tale of suffering with an unhappy ending. This means that the plot of a tragedy must be a fatal one. Aristotle rules out fortunate plots for tragedy, for such plot does not arouse tragic emotions. A tragic plot must show the hero passing from happiness to misery and not from misery to happiness. The suffering of the hero may be caused by an enemy or a stranger but it would be most piteous when it is by chance caused by friends and relatives who are his well-wishers.

According to Aristotle, Tragic plots may be of three kinds, (a) Simple, (b) Complex and (c) Plots based on or depicting incidents of suffering. A Simple plot is without any Peripety and Anagnorisis but the action moves forward uniformly without any violent or sudden change. Aristotle prefers Complex plots. It must have Peripeteia, i.e. "reversal of intention" and Anagnorisis, i.e. "recognition of truth". While Peripeteia is ignorance of truth, Anagnorisis is the insight of truth forced upon the hero by some signs or chance or by the logic events. In ideal plot Anagnorisis follows or coincides with Peripeteia.

'Recognition' in the sense is closely akin to reversal. Recognition and reversal can be caused by separate incidents. Often it is difficult to separate the two. Complex plots are the best, for recognition and reversal add the element of surprise and "the pitiable and fearful incidents are made more so by the shock of surprise".

 As regards the third kind of plot, Aristotle rates it very low. It derives its effect from the depiction of torture, murder, maiming, death etc. and tragic effect must be created naturally and not with artificial and theatrical aids. Such plots indicate a deficiency in the art of the poet.

In making plots, the poets should make their denouements, effective and successful. Unraveling of the plot should be done naturally and logically, and not by arbitrary devices, like chance or supernatural devices. Aristotle does not consider Poetic Justice necessary for Tragedy. He rules out plots with a double end i.e. plots in which there is happiness for one, and misery for others. Such plots weaken the tragic effect. It is more proper to Comedy. Thus Aristotle is against Tragi-comedy.

source---allrfree.blogspot.com

Read more »