Aristotle: The Poetics

Plato’s Theory of Mimesis and Aristotle’s Defence

In his theory of Mimesis, Plato says that all art is mimetic by nature; art is an imitation of life. He
believed that ‘idea’ is the ultimate reality. Art imitates idea and so it is imitation of reality. He gives an
example of a carpenter and a chair. The idea of ‘chair’ first came in the mind of carpenter. He gave
physical shape to his idea out of wood and created a chair. The painter imitated the chair of the
carpenter in his picture of chair. Thus, painter’s chair is twice removed from reality. Hence, he believed
that art is twice removed from reality. He gives first importance to philosophy as philosophy deals with
the ideas whereas poetry deals with illusion – things which are twice removed from reality. So to Plato,
philosophy is superior to poetry. Plato rejected poetry as it is mimetic in nature on the moral and
philosophical grounds. On the contrary, Aristotle advocated poetry as it is mimetic in nature. According
to him, poetry is an imitation of an action and his tool of enquiry is neither philosophical nor moral. He
examines poetry as a piece of art and not as a book of preaching or teaching.
Aristotle's Reply to Plato's Objection

Aristotle replied to the charges made by his Guru Plato against poetry in particular and art in general. He
replied to them one by one in his defence of poetry.

1. Plato says that art being the imitation of the actual is removed from the Truth. It only gives the
likeness of a thing in concrete, and the likeness is always less than real. But Plato fails to explain
that art also gives something more which is absent in the actual. The artist does not simply
reflect the real in the manner of a mirror. Art cannot be slavish imitation of reality. Literature is
not the exact reproduction of life in all its totality. It is the representation of selected events and
characters necessary in a coherent action for the realization of the artist’s purpose. He even
exalts, idealizes and imaginatively recreates a world which has its own meaning and beauty.
These elements, present in art, are absent in the raw and rough real. While a poet creates
something less than reality he at the same times creates something more as well. He puts an
idea of the reality which he perceives in an object. This ‘more’, this intuition and perception, is
the aim of the artist. Artistic creation cannot be fairly criticized on the ground that it is not the
creation in concrete terms of things and beings. Thus considered, it does not take us away from
the Truth but leads us to the essential reality of life.
2. Plato again says that art is bad because it does not inspire virtue, does not teach morality. But is
teaching the function of art? Is it the aim of the artist? The function of art is to provide aesthetic
delight, communicate experience, express emotions and represent life. It should never be
confused with the function of ethics which is simply to teach morality. If an artist succeeds in
pleasing us in the aesthetic sense, he is a good artist. If he fails in doing so, he is a bad artist.
There is no other criterion to judge his worth. R.A.Scott -James observes: “Morality teaches. Art
 does not attempt to teach. It merely asserts it is thus or thus that life is perceived to be. That is
my bit of reality, says the artist. Take it or leave it – draw any lessons you like from it – that is my
account of things as they are – if it has any value to you as evidence of teaching, use it, but that
is not my business: I have given you my rendering, my account, my vision, my dream, my illusion
– call it what you will. If there is any lesson in it, it is yours to draw, not mine to preach.”
Similarly, Plato’s charges on needless lamentations and ecstasies at the imaginary events of
sorrow and happiness encourage the weaker part of the soul and numb the faculty of reason.
These charges are defended by Aristotle in his Theory of Catharsis. David Daiches summarizes
Aristotle’s views in reply to Plato’s charges in brief: “Tragedy (Art) gives new knowledge, yields
aesthetic satisfaction and produces a better state of mind.”
3. Plato judges poetry now from the educational standpoint, now from the philosophical one and
then from the ethical one. But he does not care to consider it from its own unique standpoint.
He does not define its aims. He forgets that everything should be judged in terms of its own
aims and objectives, its own criteria of merit and demerit. We cannot fairly maintain that music
is bad because it does not paint, or that painting is bad because it does not sing. Similarly, we
cannot say that poetry is bad because it does not teach philosophy or ethics. If poetry,
philosophy and ethics had identical function, how could they be different subjects? To denounce
poetry because it is not philosophy or ideal is clearly absurd.

According to Aristotle metre/verse alone is not the distinguishing feature of poetry or imaginative
literature in general. Even scientific and medical treatises may be written in verses. Verse will not make
them poetry. “Even if a theory of medicine or physical philosophy be put forth in a metrical form, it is
usual to describe the writer in this way; Homer and Empedocles, however, have really nothing in
common apart from their metre; so that, if one is to be called a poet, the other should be termed a
physicist rather than a poet.” Then the question is, if metre/verse does not distinguish poetry from
other forms of art, how can we classify the form of poetry along with other forms of art?
Aristotle classifies various forms of art with the help of object, medium and manner of their imitation of
life.
OBJECT: Which object of life is imitated determines the form of literature. If the Life of great people is
imitative it will make that work a Tragedy and if the life of mean people is imitated it will make the work
a Comedy. David Daiches writes explaining the classification of poetry which is imitative: “We can
classify poetry according to the kinds of people it represents – they are either better than they are in
real life, or worse, or the same. One could present characters, that is, on the grand or heroic scale; or
could treat ironically or humorously the petty follies of men, or one could aim at naturalism presenting
men neither heightened nor trivialized … Tragedy deals with men on a heroic scale, men better than
they are in everyday life whereas comedy deals with the more trivial aspects of human nature, with
characters ‘worse’ than they are in real life.”
MEDIUM: What sort of medium is used to imitate life again determines the forms of different arts. The
painter uses the colours, and a musician will use the sound, but a poet uses the words to represent the
life. When words are used, how they are used and in what manner or metre they are used further
classifies a piece of literature in different categories as a tragedy or a comedy or an epic.
The types of literature, says Aristotle, can be distinguished according to the medium of representation
as well as the manner of representation in a particular medium. The difference of medium between a
poet and a painter is clear; one uses words with their denotative, connotative, rhythmic and musical
aspects; the other uses forms and colours. Likewise, the tragedy writer may make use of one kind of
metre, and the comedy writer of another.
MANNER: In what manner the imitation of life is presented distinguishes the one form of literature from
another. How is the serious aspect of life imitated? For example, dramas are always presented in action
while epics are always in narration. In this way the kinds of literature can be distinguished and
determined according to the techniques they employ. David Daiches says: “The poet can tell a story in
narrative form and partly through the speeches of the characters (as Homer does), or it can all be done
in third-person narrative, or the story can be presented dramatically, with no use of  third person
narrative at all.”
THE NATURE, DEFINITION AND FORMATIVE ELEMENTS OF TRAGEDY
Introduction : “Poetics” Chiefly Concern with Tragedy
The very word ‘tragedy’ brings to mind Aristotle and the Poetics. Some aspects of the definition and
discussion of tragedy in that treatise may be considered controversial, unacceptable or outdated, but its
influence continues unabated. Tragedy, indeed, is the major concern of the Poetics, as it has come down
to us. Tragedy is considered by Aristotle to be the highest poetic form. His definition and theory of
tragedy presents remarkable insight and comprehension. It has become the type of the theory of
literature, as Abercrombie says.
The Greek Conception of the Term “Tragedy”
It is necessary at the very outset, to remember that the Greek conception of Tragedy was different
from ours. In the modern ages tragedy means a drama (sometimes story) with an unhappy ending, and
disastrous enough to have ‘tragic’ effect. But the origin of the term ‘tragedy’ is not too clear. Dante said
that an unhappy tale was called a “tragedy” or “goat-song” because goats are noisy. The real source is
still under dispute. It is not certain whether the goat was a prize or whether it was sacrificed, or whether
the original dancers dressed up in goat-masks or goat-skins. However, the Greek conception of tragedy
was that it was a serious drama, not necessarily with an unahppy ending. The essence of tragedy was
that it handled serious action of serious characters, whereas comedy dealt grotesquely with grotesque
characters.

The Greek had their dramatic festivals, with four plays being performed on each day. There were
three serious plays, and one satyr-play or burleque. Tragedy, for the Greeks, simply meant “one of the
three serious plays presented before the satyr-play at a dramatic festival”. The Greek tragedy has scenes
and incidents of pain and sorrow, but need not end disastrously. This is clear from Aristotle’s
classification of four possible tragic plots (in ch. 13) , which include two plots which represented a
change from misery to happiness—a contention which seems unacceptable in the modern times.
The Origin of Tragedy and Its Superiority over The Epic
Aristotle traces the possible origin of tragedy in his Poetics. According to him, tragedy developed
from the heroic strain of poetry, which in its turn, developed from the hymns sung in praise of gods and
great men. Tragedy is considered by Aristotle to be a higher form than the heroic or epic form of poetry,
because it was a later development. Tragedy has greater degree of concentration and coherence than
the epic, and has a greater effect. Aristotle traces the different stages in the evolution of tragedy, from
the single singer to the addition of actors and scenery. He considers tragedy to have attained full
development by the time he wrote about it.
The Definiton of Tragedy
Aristotle’s famous definition of tragedy says : A tragedy is the imitation of an action that is serious,
and also as having magnitude, complete in itself in language with pleasurable accessories, each kind
brought in separately in the parts of the work; in a dramatic, not in a narrative form: with incidents
arousing pity and fear; wherewith to accomplish its catharisis of such emotions. (Ch. 6)
The definition clearly falls into two parts. The first part tells us about the nature of tragedy, its
object, manner, and medium of imitation; the second part points out the function of tragedy.
Tragedy : Difference from Other Forms of Poetic Imitation
Tragedy, like all other forms of art, is a form of imitation. It differs from other arts in the object,
manner, and medium of imitation. Its objects of imitation are ‘serious actions’. It is always to be kept in
mind that ‘imitation’ in the Aristotelian sense is not slavish copying. It involves grasping and presenting
the essence of a universal truth. Poetic imitation is re-creation or a creative reproduction of objects.
Tragedy, then, differs from comedy, because its object of imitation is a serious action. Comedy imitates a
‘groteseque’ action. The term ‘serious’ has aroused controversy. Generally, critics have said that it
implies ‘weighty’ or ‘important’. It is something that matters, and hence of permanent significance.
In its manner of imitation, tragedy is different from the epic. The epic uses the manner of narrative,
while tragedy represents life through acting. It differrs from other forms of poetry in that it employs
embellishments1 of pleasurable accessories2 of different kinds. It uses, for instance, verse for dialogues,
and song for the chorus.
The Action: Complete with a Beginning, Middle, and End
Aristotle does not define the word ‘action’. But we get the . implication through the qualities which
Aristotle ascribes to it. For convenience’s sake, one can say that an action shows the progress of an
individual from one position to another, at which he either dies, or becomes involved in a completely
changed set of circumstances. Action is the plot, consisting of the logical and inevitable sequence of
incidents. The action must be complete, which means that it must have a beginning, middle and end
“The beginning is that which does not itself come after anything else in a necessary sequence, but after
which some other thing does naturally exists or come to pass.” In one sense, there is nothing that has a
beginning or an end. There is a continuous causal1 relationship between events. What Aristotle means,
however, is that a play should have good reason for beginning where it does, and for. ending where it
does. As F.L. Lucas comments, events do tend to occur in clusters. A volcano, even when continuously
active has eruptions, which form episodes complete in themselves; and the events of a tragedy are like
such an eruption. T.R. Henn remarks that the beginning of an action might be perceived to be “a sort of
a momentary slack water before the turn of the tide. At the opening of Hamlet there is every indication
that, if-it were not for appearance of the Ghost, events in Denmark would have settled down into a
period of rest”. The end is that which naturally comes after something else, but has nothing else
following it. And a middle is that which follows something else, and leads to something else. In every
case, there is the clause of ‘inevitability’, probability and ‘logicality’.

The Magnitude
Besides being serious, the action must have a certain magnitude. The term been wrongly
interpreted as “important” or dignified. It actually refers to the size. A tragedy must of a correct length.
It must not be so long that it cannot be grasped in its entirety without confusion. Neither must it be so
short that its parts cannot be comprehended properly. Aristotle comares the tragic plot to a living
organism in order to bring out the importance of the correct size. The plot or action should be of such a
size that it allows human memory to encompass the whole of it. It should, at the same time, be long
enough to permit the orderly and natural development in the change of fortune, leading to the
catastrophe2. The parts and the whole should form a coherent, complete and intelligible pattern.
Furthermore, the action should be long enought for the characters to develop the sympathy and
interest of the spectator. This is specially so if the drama is about characters who are not familiar,
traditional figures. A certain amount of length is necessary to create the impression of the plot-pattern
being a complete and ‘inevitable’ story in which the events are logically and causally connected.
However, the length should be proportionate; the play should be an organic whole.
Aristotle means verse and song by the term, ‘embellishment’. Tragedy uses different kinds of
‘embelishment’. Verse is used for the dialogues. Chorus speaks in song. These add beauty and decor to
tragedy, and their end is to please the spectator or reader. Melody and Verse, however, are not
indispensable or absolutely esssential parts of tragedy, according to Aristotle.
The Function is to Arouse Pity and Accomplish Its Catharsis of such Emotions
The most debated term in the Poetics perhaps, is ‘Catharisis’. Used only once in the whole of
the Poetics, the term has unfortunately been left unexplained. Critics have been given scores of
explanations— contradictory, controversial, and confusing. In the main, interpretation of the term goes
along three lines.
One set of critics have explained the term in the sense of ‘purgation’. Tragedy arouses pity and fear
through its painful and horrific incidents. The sight and experience of these purge the human mind of
such emotions, or rather, reduce such emotions to a proper balance in the human psyche. There is the
“homeopathic” explanation of the ‘like curing the like’. It says that the excitement of tragedy provides a
safe outlet for our pent up1 feelings, which we cannot express in actual life. Plato for instance says:
“When babies are restless, you do not prescribe quiet for them; you sing to them and rock them to and
fro”. The external agitation overcomes the internal agitation, and leads to calm and peace.
Another set of critics interpret the term as ‘purification’. The emotions are purified of their
morbidity2 and distressing quality, which accompany them in real life. The emotions are purified and
reduced to their just measure.
The ‘clarification’ theory, of Catharsis relates the term to the structure of incidents rather than to
the emotional response of the audience. The tragedy by presenting an integrated whole of incidents
arousing pity and fear, brings about a clarification of such events. It presents these incidents in such a
way that the relation between the particular and the universal is brought out. The poet takes his
material and selects and orders it according to probability and necessity. The incidents will be clarified in
the sense that their relation, in universal terms, will be manifest in the tragedy. This leads to the
pleasure peculiar to tragedy, and this pleasure comes out of the representation of incidents of pity and
fear.
ARISTOTLE’S CONCEPT OF TRAGEDY
Catharisis, in any case, has to do with the function of tragedy, which is to provide the tragic variety
of pleasure.
The Quantitative Elements of Tragedy
Aristotle divides tragedy into five quantitative parts. These are not relevant to modern drama, and
apply only to the typical Greek traedy. It thus has little interest for the modern reader. The quantitative
elements are : Prologue, Episode, Exode, Choric Song; Choric song is further divided
into Parade and Stasimon.
The Formative Elements of Tragedy
After having given a definition of tragedy, Aristotle comes to the consideration of the formative
elements of tragedy. He gives six formative elements of tragedy—Plot, Character, Thought, Diction
Spectacle and Song. Three of these i.e. Plot, Character, and Thought are internal aspects; three, namely,
Diction, Spectacle, and Song, are external aspects. Diction and Song are concerned with the medium of
imitation, while Spectacle, with the manner of imitation. Plot, Character, and Thought are concerned
with the objects of imitation.
The Spectacle according to Aristotle, has more to do with the stage effects. A successful poet
depends on his own ‘writing1 than on Spectacle to produce the effect he wants. Fear and pity, for
instance, can be produced by Spectacle, but that would be rather vulgar. Spectacle obviously means the
appearance of the actors on stage, costume, scenic effect, and so on.
Diction is, of course, the language through which the characters express themselves. The Diction is
a means of interpreting the thought, feelings and sentiments of the character. It includes technical
devices such as, metaphor, rare words, etc., made use of by the poet. The language of tragedy must be
highly expressive. The ‘gift of metaphor’ is valuable, says Aristotle, and cannot be taught. At the same
time, the language of tragedy must be clear, though not mean or low.
Thought is the intellectual element in the tragedy, and is expressed through the character. It is the
“power of saying whatever can be said, or what is appropriate to the occasion”. Thought is there
whenever something is proved or disproved. Thought and diction are related in the sense that it is
through diction that thought is expressed. The speech of the character expreses the views and feelings
of a character.
Unified Plot : Element of Primary Importance in Tragedy
Tragedy imitates ‘men in action’. The men, or the dramatis personae, must have the two qualities,
namely moral and intellectual: what Aristotle calls the ethos and dianoia. But even speeches, which are
expressive of character, would not be producing the tragic effect as powerfully as a well constructed
plot.
 Aristotle considers plot to be the most important part of tragedy; indeed, it is the very soul of
tragedy. Plot is the arrangement of the incidents in a logical sequence.
Significantly enough, plot is compared to a living organism. Just as the parts of a living organism
must be probably related to each other and to the whole, the part of a tragedy should relate to one
another and produce a unified effect. Each event should further the action, and no part should be
superfluous or irrelevant. If any part can be removed withut damaging the effect of the work, then that
part is superfluous. Aristotle does not advocate a formal or mechanical unity, as his comparison of a plot
with a living organism shows.
Furthermore, unity does not arise from a play having a single hero. A single person may experience-
several incidents, all of which cannot, and should not, be presented in one play. Plurality of action is
appropriate for an epic, but not for a tragedy. Thus, the tragic poet should select and arrange his
material to give it artistic unity.
We will now discuss the main formative elements of tragedy. Plot : Simple or Complex
Plot, says Aristotle, is the most important aspect of a tragedy. The Plot can be of two types, simple
and complex :
Plots are either simple or complex, since the actions they represent are
naturally of this two-fold description. The action proceeding in the way
defined, as one continuous whole, I call simple, when the change in the
hero’s fortunates takes place with out Peripety or Discovery; and complex,
when it involves one or the other, or both. These should each of them arise
out of the structure of the Plot itself, so as to be necessary and probable, of
the antecedents. There is a great difference between a thing happening
propter hoc and post hoc.   (Ch. 10, Poetics)
Simple plots have continuous movements, and involve no violent
change. Complex plots involve changes arising out of Peripety and
Anagnorisis. The turns in a complex plot, it is emphasised, must
arise out of the structure of the Plot.
Peripety and Anagnorisis in a Complex Plot
Peripety, or reversal, is the change in the fortune of the hero. The change of reversal in the situation is
brought about by human actions producing the results very opposite to what was intended. It is, as F.R.
Lucas remarks, working in blindness to one’s own defeat. Anagnorisis or recognition is the change from
ignorance to knowledge, i.e. knowledge of the true identity of persons, or the truth of facts, or
circumstances. The effect of tragedy is greatest if the Peripety and discovery come together as in
Sophocles’s Oedipus the King. Aristotle prefers the complex plot, for it is more effective in capturing
attention.
The third kind of tragedy depends for its effect on scenes of suffering, or of painful incidents, such
as murders, violent deaths, torture, wounding, etc., on the stage.
Probability and Necessity: Plot is a Complete Whole
Probability and necessity are aspects on which Aristotle lays ‘great emphasis. It is necessary that the plot
of a tragedy be a choherent whole, in which the events are connected to each other and to the whole,
logically and causally. There should be nothing superfluous or irrelevant in the Plot. The removed or the
transposal of any part should disjoin the whole, otherwise that part is superfluous. What is presented
should be presented in a convincing manner, so that the sequence of’events seem credible and
probable. In this context, Aristotle makes a statement which is acute for its artistic truth— that a likely
impossibility is better than an unlikely possibility. The scheme of events, in other words, should be
reduced to a comprehensible and intelligible pattern. This is what constitutes a sense of inevitability.
Aristotle condemns the ‘episodic plot’ which is not a unified whole and where episodes seem
unconnected. Play of chance should be limited, and preferably confined to narration and not presented
on stage.
Fatal Plots : Aristotle’s .Implied Preference
There can be four types of plots. It is necessary to remember here that in the Greek sense of the term,
tragedy could have what is called a “happy end’. The plots to be avoided are enumerated by Aristotle as
follows:
(i) that which shows a perfectly good man passing from
happiness to misery ; (it) that which shows a bad man passing from happiness to
misery; . (Hi) that which shows a bad man passing from misery to
happiness.
The first kind will merely shock us, and arouse pity and fear. The second would satisfy our moral
sense, but again fail to arouse pity and fear, the proper tragic emotions. The third one is obviously
unsuitable for tragic action. The best plot, therefore, will be of a good, but not perfect man suffering as a
result of some error or fault of judgement, namely Hammartia.
The Dramatic Unities
Aristotle wrote Poetics as an analysis of the extant practice in dramatist art. As such, he lays down no
hard and fast rule. But there is one Unity he stresses upon—the Unity of Action. That the action of the
tragedy be a logical sequence and a coherent whole, directed towards a single end, Aristotle does
stipulate1.
As regards the Unity of Time, Aristotle merely states a general observation that tragedies tended to
limit the time to a single revo-
1. specific as essential.
lution of the sun, or a little more. But the observation is of a tentative kind and not a rigid rule.
The Unity of Place he does not mention, let alone stress upon. The three unities came into force
with later critics, who wrongly ascribed two of them to Aristotle.
Character : The Four Essentials
 Four essentials are enumerated by Aristotle for successful , characterisation in tragedy : (i)
Goodness (it) Appropriateness (in) True to life (iv) Self-consistency
The most important aspect of characterisation in tragedy, says Aristotle, is goodness. The character
should be good. This is so, if the » purpose he shows is good. The tragic characters should be ‘better
than ordinary life’. Secondly, the character must be appropriate to the status or type he represents.
Thus it would be improper to ascribe valour1 to a woman, and nobility to a slave. Thirdly, the character
has to show truth to life. The character must be true respresentatives of actual human nature. Or, they
must be like the historical persons names they bear.
Fourthly, the character should be self-consistent. A person of given character should speak or
behave in a given way. The inconsistent character should be represented as inconsistent all through the
play. Character should also be governed by the laws of probability and necessity. The speech and
behaviour of the character should be the outcome of his nature.
The Ideal Tragic Hero
The ideal tragic hero should not be perfectly good, nor utterly depraved2. He should be a man not “pre-
eminently good and just, yet whose misfortune is brought about not by vice or depravity, but by some
error or fraility. He must be one who is highly renowned and prosperous”.
Thus a tragic hero should be a mixture of virtue and human frailty3; his misfortune should come
about from an error of judgement; and he must fall from a height of glorious position. Such a man would
arouse the tragic emotions of pity and fear.
Comparative Importance of Plot and Character
According to Aristotle, plot is of supreme importance in a tragedy. Plot in tragedy is like an outline
in painting; it gives meaning to the work. Col; ifs thrown haphazardly on a canvas have little significance
—only the outline gives meaning. Similarly, the soul of tragedy is to be found in the plot. Aristotle goes
so far as to say that there can be a tragedy without character, but none without plot. Such a statement
seems asburd on the face of it, for how, one may ask, can there be a play without characters ? it is,
however, to be noted that Aristotle’s concept of ‘character’ here does not mean the dramatis
personae, but the “moral bent” of a person. He means the tendency of a person to act in a certain way.
Now, the moral bent of a character is only revealed when he is faced with a dilemma, where choices
becomes necessary. In his choice he will reveal his nature, and it is this ‘nature’ which Aristotle refers to
as ‘character’. In a tragedy, there may or may not be such situations of choice were ‘character’ is
revealed, and in this sense, there can be a tragedy without ‘character’. But there can be no play without
some form of ‘action’. Even a modern audience will agree that a plot is essential if a play is to succeed
on stage.
The Tragic Pleasure
Tragedy, Aristotle correctly remarks, has its special kind of pleasure. He recognised the emotional effects
of tragedy, and said that it aroused the feelings of pity and fear. And he accepted that these feelings
excited in the human psyche need not be harmful.
The pleasure is also derived from the instinctive response of human beings to imitation and
harmony. It is also derived from the satisfaction one gets from learning. Tragedy clarified certain
incidents for us, relates the particular to the universal; it increases our understanding of life. The unity of
plot, the diction and the spectacle add to the pleasure, i.e. the pleasure of art.
Limitations in Aristotle’s Concept of Tragedy
It is true that the concept of tragedy put forward by Aristotle is no mean achievement. It lends itself to a
remarkable amount of adaptation, beyond what was immediately present to the mind of the writer. Yet,
the fact that Aristotle was writing of only the Greek tragedy he knew, does put a limitation to his
concept of tragedy. Later experience in the field of tragedy has shown the immense scope for
modification in Aristotle’s theory, especially regarding the tragic hero.
There is another limitation in Aristotle’s theory. He does not take into account the religius origions
of tragedy. Neither does he give enough importance to the outside forces which interact with the
human forces in a play. In other words, he does not discuss a very basic issue in tragedy—conflict, both
inner and outer conflict. In Greek tragedy itself, one feels the existence of the mysterious and divine
forces; there is the effect of the unseen on the seen. It is the tragic choice faced by the heroies and
heroines which makes the Greek tragedy so awesome. Greek tragedy dramatises the struggle between
contending moral forces. Aristotle does not discuss the collision offerees: the collision between man,
who is imprisoned within the limits of the actual, and the forces outside, belonging to a superior power
which restricts man’s freedom. The conflict between man and outside forces, between problems of
good and evil, are very much a part of tragedy of all ages. It is unfortunate that Aristotle does not
discuss these factors.
Conclusion
The main features of Aristotle’s conception cannot be ignored easily There are weaknesses as there are
bound to be. His conception is based on Greek tragedy alone. Yet his views lend themselves to a
remarkable amount of universalisation. Today, we may not agree with his ‘essentials’ of tragic
characterisation—Shakespeare has shown us the possibilities of a tragic characterisation—Shakespeare
has shown us the possibilities of a tragic ‘villain’. But what he says regarding Peripety and Discovery
and Hammartia, are conceptions which are still valid. At any rate, “Aristotle’s theory of Tragedy is the
foundation on which all subsequent discussion of literary aesthetics has most securely based itself. His
views on tragedy are the “history” of tragedy.
Critical Essay Aristotle on Tragedy

In the Poetics, Aristotle's famous study of Greek dramatic art, Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) compares tragedy
to such other metrical forms as comedy and epic. He determines that tragedy, like all poetry, is a kind of
imitation (mimesis), but adds that it has a serious purpose and uses direct action rather than narrative to
achieve its ends. He says that poetic mimesis is imitation of things as they could be, not as they are —
for example, of universals and ideals — thus poetry is a more philosophical and exalted medium than
history, which merely records what has actually happened.

The aim of tragedy, Aristotle writes, is to bring about a "catharsis" of the spectators — to arouse in them
sensations of pity and fear, and to purge them of these emotions so that they leave the theater feeling
cleansed and uplifted, with a heightened understanding of the ways of gods and men. This catharsis is
brought about by witnessing some disastrous and moving change in the fortunes of the drama's
protagonist (Aristotle recognized that the change might not be disastrous, but felt this was the kind
shown in the best tragedies — Oedipus at Colonus, for example, was considered a tragedy by the Greeks
but does not have an unhappy ending).

According to Aristotle, tragedy has six main elements: plot, character, diction, thought, spectacle (scenic
effect), and song (music), of which the first two are primary. Most of the Poetics is devoted to analysis of
the scope and proper use of these elements, with illustrative examples selected from many tragic
dramas, especially those of Sophocles, although Aeschylus, Euripides, and some playwrights whose
works no longer survive are also cited.

Several of Aristotle's main points are of great value for an understanding of Greek tragic drama.
Particularly significant is his statement that the plot is the most important element of tragedy:

Tragedy is an imitation, not of men, but of action and life, of happiness and misery. And life consists of
action, and its end is a mode of activity, not a quality. Now character determines men's qualities, but it is
their action that makes them happy or wretched. The purpose of action in the tragedy, therefore, is not
the representation of character: character comes in as contributing to the action. Hence the incidents
and the plot are the end of the tragedy; and the end is the chief thing of all. Without action there cannot
be a tragedy; there may be one without character. . . . The plot, then, is the first principle, and, as it
were, the soul of a tragedy: character holds the second place.

Aristotle goes on to discuss the structure of the ideal tragic plot and spends several chapters on its
requirements. He says that the plot must be a complete whole — with a definite beginning, middle, and
end — and its length should be such that the spectators can comprehend without difficulty both its
separate parts and its overall unity. Moreover, the plot requires a single central theme in which all the
elements are logically related to demonstrate the change in the protagonist's fortunes, with emphasis
on the dramatic causation and probability of the events.

Aristotle has relatively less to say about the tragic hero because the incidents of tragedy are often
beyond the hero's control or not closely related to his personality. The plot is intended to illustrate
matters of cosmic rather than individual significance, and the protagonist is viewed primarily as the
character who experiences the changes that take place. This stress placed by the Greek tragedians on
the development of plot and action at the expense of character, and their general lack of interest in
exploring psychological motivation, is one of the major differences between ancient and modern drama.

Since the aim of a tragedy is to arouse pity and fear through an alteration in the status of the central
character, he must be a figure with whom the audience can identify and whose fate can trigger these
emotions. Aristotle says that "pity is aroused by unmerited misfortune, fear by the misfortune of a man
like ourselves." He surveys various possible types of characters on the basis of these premises, then
defines the ideal protagonist as
. . . a man who is highly renowned and prosperous, but one who is not pre-eminently virtuous and just,
whose misfortune, however, is brought upon him not by vice or depravity but by some error of
judgment or frailty; a personage like Oedipus.

In addition, the hero should not offend the moral sensibilities of the spectators, and as a character he
must be true to type, true to life, and consistent.

The hero's error or frailty (harmartia) is often misleadingly explained as his "tragic flaw," in the sense of
that personal quality which inevitably causes his downfall or subjects him to retribution. However,
overemphasis on a search for the decisive flaw in the protagonist as the key factor for understanding the
tragedy can lead to superficial or false interpretations. It gives more attention to personality than the
dramatists intended and ignores the broader philosophical implications of the typical plot's
denouement. It is true that the hero frequently takes a step that initiates the events of the tragedy and,
owing to his own ignorance or poor judgment, acts in such a way as to bring about his own downfall. In a
more sophisticated philosophical sense though, the hero's fate, despite its immediate cause in his finite
act, comes about because of the nature of the cosmic moral order and the role played by chance or
destiny in human affairs. Unless the conclusions of most tragedies are interpreted on this level, the
reader is forced to credit the Greeks with the most primitive of moral systems.

It is worth noting that some scholars believe the "flaw" was intended by Aristotle as a necessary
corollary of his requirement that the hero should not be a completely admirable man. Harmartia would
thus be the factor that delimits the protagonist's imperfection and keeps him on a human plane, making
it possible for the audience to sympathize with him. This view tends to give the "flaw" an ethical
definition but relates it only to the spectators' reactions to the hero and does not increase its
importance for interpreting the tragedies.

The remainder of the Poetics is given over to examination of the other elements of tragedy and to
discussion of various techniques, devices, and stylistic principles. Aristotle mentions two features of the
plot, both of which are related to the concept of harmartia, as crucial components of any well-made
tragedy. These are "reversal" (peripeteia), where the opposite of what was planned or hoped for by the
protagonist takes place, as when Oedipus' investigation of the murder of Laius leads to a catastrophic
and unexpected conclusion; and "recognition" (anagnorisis), the point when the protagonist recognizes
the truth of a situation, discovers another character's identity, or comes to a realization about himself.
This sudden acquisition of knowledge or insight by the hero arouses the desired intense emotional
reaction in the spectators, as when Oedipus finds out his true parentage and realizes what crimes he has
been responsible for.

Aristotle wrote the Poetics nearly a century after the greatest Greek tragedians had already died, in a
period when there had been radical transformations in nearly all aspects of Athenian society and
culture. The tragic drama of his day was not the same as that of the fifth century, and to a certain extent
his work must be construed as a historical study of a genre that no longer existed rather than as a
description of a living art form.
In the Poetics, Aristotle used the same analytical methods that he had successfully applied in studies of
politics, ethics, and the natural sciences in order to determine tragedy's fundamental principles of
composition and content. This approach is not completely suited to a literary study and is sometimes
too artificial or formula-prone in its conclusions.

Nonetheless, the Poetics is the only critical study of Greek drama to have been made by a near-
contemporary. It contains much valuable information about the origins, methods, and purposes of
tragedy, and to a degree shows us how the Greeks themselves reacted to their theater. In addition,
Aristotle's work had an overwhelming influence on the development of drama long after it was
compiled. The ideas and principles of the Poetics are reflected in the drama of the Roman Empire and
dominated the composition of tragedy in western Europe during the seventeenth, eighteenth, and
nineteenth centuries.