WS Chapter 05 RUT
Aristotle
Concept of Tragedy
WAAR
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outdated, but its influence continues unabated.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 Greck
conception of tragedy was that it was a serious drama, not necessarily
with an unhappy 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 burlesque. Tragedy, for the Greeks, simply meant “one
209210| Poetics Section III
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, 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 Definition 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 catharsis 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 ig re-creation or a creative
reproduction of objects. Tragedy, then, differs from comedy, because05 — ARISTOTLE: CONCEPT OF TRAGEDY [211
its object of imitation is a serious action. Comedy imitates a
‘grotesque’ action. The term ‘serious’ has aroused controversy.
Generally, critics have said that it implies ‘weighty’ or ‘important’. Tt
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 differs from other forms of poetry in that it employs
embellishments! of pleasurable accessories? 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 causal? 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
“ogicality’.
a
1. ornamental touch which improves.
2.’ additions.
3, involving cause and effect.212| POETICS Section III
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 compares 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 catastrophe!. The parts and the whole
should form a coherent, complete and intelligible pattern.
Furthermore, the action should be long enough 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.
Embellishments
Aristotle means verse and song by the term, ‘embellishment’.
Tragedy uses different kinds of ‘embellishment’. 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 essential
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 ‘Catharsis’.
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,
1, final event in drama; disastrous happening,05 — ARISTOTLE: CONCEPT OF TRAGEDY [213
Ont 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 up! 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 morbidity? 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.
Catharsis, 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
tragedy. 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,
1. confined; held in check.
2. quality of gloomy reflection214| POETICS Section II
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 ‘writing’ 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 expresses 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.05 — ARISTOTLE: CONCEPT OF TRAGEDY [215
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 without 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, asm6} PoETICS Section 11
.R. Lucas remarks, working in blindness to one’s own defeat
Fhcgreias or recognition is the change from ighorence to Knowledge, .
ie, knowledge of the true identity of persons, or dl ie trutl of facts, or
circumstances. The effect of tragedy is greatest if the Peripety and
discovery come together as in Sophocles’ 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 isa Complete Whole
Probability and necessity are aspects on which Aristotle lays
great emphasis. It is necessary that the plot of a tragedy be a coherent
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
here that in the Greek se
called a “happy end”
Aristotle as follows:
types of plots. It is necessary to remember
nse of the term, tragedy could have what is
- The plots to be avoided are enumerated by
(i) that which shows a
happiness to misery;
(ii) that which shows a bad man
misery;
(iii) that which shows a
happiness,
Perfectly good man passing from
Passing from happiness to :
bad man passing from misery to”‘ONCEPT OF TRAGEDY [217
05—Aristori
The first kind will merely shock us, and arouse pity and fear. Th»
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 goo:
but not perfect man suffering as a result of some error or fault «
judgement, namely Hamartia,
The Dramatic Unities
Aristotle wrote Poetics as an analysis of the extant practice i
dramatist art. As such, he lays down no hard and fast rule. But ther
is one Unity he stresses upon—the Unity of Action. That the action
the tragedy be a logical sequence and a coherent whole, directed
towards a single end, Aristotle does stipulate.’
As regards the Unity of Time, Aristotle merely states a gener’!
observation that tragedies tended to limit the time to a sin;
revolution 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 uo?
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:
() Goodness;
(ii) Appropriateness;
(ill) 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
valour? to a woman, and nobility to a slave. Thirdly, the character has
1. specific as essential.
2. courage; bravery.218] PogTics Section 11
to show truth to life. The character must be true Teptesentatives 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
depraved’, 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
frailty?; 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, Colours 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 absurd 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 itis -
this ‘nature’ which Aristotle refers to as ‘character’, Ina tragedy, there
may or may not be such situations of choice were ‘character’ is
pe
1. corrupt; morally bad.
2. weakness.05— ARISTOTLE: CONCEPT OF TRAGEDY |219
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 religious origins 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 heroes and heroines which makes the Greek
tragedy so awesome. Greek tragedy dramatises the struggle between
contending moral forces. Aristotle does not discuss the collision of
—* forces: 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.YY
0 PoETICS Section Mm
22(
tside forces, between Proble,
conflict between man and oul a
f oa a ve are very much a part of tragedy of all ages. It ig
f , J
anfortunate that Aristotle does not discuss these factors.
Conclusion |
The main features of Aristotle’s conception aiieined 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 toa
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 Hamartia, 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.
Important University Questions
1. Examine critically Aristotle's definition of tragedy. What
according to the him are the formative elements of a tragedy?
2. - What are the limitations, if any, of Aristotle's definition of
Tragedy?
3. “Aristotle's views on tragedy require considerable modification
in the view of later developments in the field of tragedy.”
Elucidate.
4. Compare and contrast Aristotle's theory of tragedy with
Elizabethan and modern conception,
5. What, according to Aristotle, are the elements that constitute a
Proper tragedy? Do you consider them as essential and equally
important? Discuss,