Complex Tragic plot:

Aristotle’s treatise “Peri poietikes”, commonly called “Poetics” (ca. 330 BC) is not only the chief
philosophical discussion of literature but the substance of all succeeding discussions. Although
a disciple of Plato, he through Poetics provided his discomfiture towards Platonism. Plato
believed that the essence of things is only in the transcendental element while Aristotle
believed that a thing in itself is beautiful. Plato was an idealist and so wanted to see everything
in the light of poetic touch. However Aristotle who believed in experimentalism believed that
change is an important part of nature and that it lays out the path from potentiality to act.
Poetry, according to Aristotle, has extended into two parts. One which is taken up by the
serious writers and imitates the noble action is called Tragedy. However, comedy he regards, is
an imitation of characters of a lower type which depicts some defect or ugliness. Aristotle
defines Tragedy as “an imitation of an action that is serious, complete and of a certain
magnitude; the language… pity and fear affecting the proper purgation of these emotions” as
translated by Butcher. (Aristotle, Part VI)
Aristotle holds that plot is the very soul or ‘psuche’ of a tragedy. There could be a tragedy
without a character but not without a plot. Aristotle defines plot as an imitation of action not of
men, but of life and life consists of action. Interestingly, Bhagwad Gita too, holds that life is not
possible without action or ‘Karmyoga’. Only through one’s action, can happiness and misery for
the rest of his/her life be realized. He provides plot (mythos) the supreme position among other
tragic elements. He says “Character determines men's qualities, but it is by their actions that
they are happy or the reverse… Peripeteia or Reversal of the Situation, and Recognition scenes-
are parts of the plot.” (Aristotle VI) This concept is disagreeing to that of Henry James in “The Art
of Fiction” where he considers that plot is inseparable from character, and in any case would
privilege character over plot because one’s character is the determination of the kinds of
action. In Aristotle's “Nicomachean Ethics” we find the opinion that in real life, apart from
literature, character is secondary to action because it is the produce of action. He divides plot
into simple and complex: “An action which is one and continuous in the sense, I call Simple,
when the change of fortune takes place without Reversal… the last should arise from the
internal structure of the plot.” ‘Peripeteia’ and ‘Anagnorisis’ are the pivotal point of a complex
plot. The plot ought to be balanced, not too long and not too short. Unity of plot or structure
should be the basic feature of both simple and complex plot. Unity of plot does not only consist
in the unity of the hero; the actions of a man do not essentially build up a single outline, all the
combined action in the plot makes a comprehensible whole with a sense.
A complex plot should not be devoid of ‘peripeteia’ or reversal. It is the sudden reversal of
things at the commencement of the play to the precise contradictory state by the culmination
of the same. The protagonist can suddenly change from being rich to being poor, or from
being powerful to being powerless. Moral attack can be provoked only if the hero falls from
fortune to a disastrous future. Similarly the precipitous decline of an evil person will not
provoke any compassion for him. So, the tragic hero should be between these two extremities;
he should have what is called Hamartia or a tragic flaw which would ultimately result in his
downfall. Oedipus can be seen as first being 'guilty’, Macbeth to be the tragedy of an ambitious
man, Othello to be the tragedy of a jealous man and king Lear to be that of an aged fool.
Aristotle restricts tragedy from showing a stranded man, brought up in obliviousness, torn by
his destiny. Aristotle describes Anagnorisis or “Recognition, as the name indicates, is a change
from ignorance to knowledge, producing love or hate between the persons destined by the
poet for good or bad fortune. The best form of recognition is coincident with a reversal of the
situation, as in the Oedipus.” (Aristotle XI) The classic example is obviously from Sophocles’
“Oedipus Rex” (429 BC) when Oedipus comes to the realization that he has killed his own father
and married his own mother Jocasta; recognition. In Milton’s “Paradise Lost”, it is the fate of
Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit thus, helping unknowingly in the beginning of a new
race. Only after they are banished from heaven, do they discover about the emotions of
sadness, desire, sin, etc.
The pity and fear aroused by tragedy centers around the undeserved suffering of a relatively
virtuous protagonist. Tragic catharsis is the cleansing of the emotions of pity and fear such that
the emotions of pity and fear are modified. Aristotle describes it as a destructive and a painful
process giving light to self-inflicting tortures like when Oedipus blinds himself after facing the
harsh reality; he does not see the world anymore as he had known it to be or when Othello
realizes his mistake of killing Desdemona as a result of Iago’s plot, he kills himself. In Kyd’s “The
Spanish Tragedy”, audience feels both pity and fear for Hieronimo when he comes to know of
his son Horatio’s death. There has been a debate about the term “Catharsis” and what really
meant by “pity and fear”. John Morley has mentioned in his book “Diderot” that Aristotle has
not given any detailed material about ‘pity and fear’. Else in his book “Aristotle’s Poetics: The
Argument” has pointed out that the effect of catharsis is not to be located in audience but
inside the play. Tragedy would require then scenes representing pity and fear; it is the hero
who is purified through pity and fear when he realizes the failing that has brought about his
downfall. Plato in “Republic” had specifically criticized tragedy for arousing pity and fear among
audience and making them fearsome. He believed that emotions are a threat to intellect and
his ideal man must have them in as lesser quantity as possible. In fact, Brecht through the
Verfremdungeffekt or better known the Distancing effect, tries to ‘distance’ the audience from
the characters so that they do not sympathize with them emotionally and instead see the
wrongdoings of the characters by their intellectual level of understanding.
Samuel Johnson mentions that Shakespeare's protagonists are not tokenized caricatures
needing accurate context, but they are 'one of a species'. Shakespeare scripts human emotions
organic to any timeframe or context. His conflicts are universally prevalent. Even Abercrombie
has pointed out that “the most important thing is to consider the book, as an exposition of
principle of literary criticism as valid for Shakespeare and Milton.” Aristotle felt that the Iliad
was “rich in suffering”. Aristotle explicates suffering as a damaging and painful action yet a
necessity in the play whereby arousing our empathy, consideration and woe for the hero.
Among the ancients, there existed a theory that even if no one was individually to be blamed,
there was even so a fear in the eyes of gods and men as it was capable of affecting the entire
nation. And for this the man, as inscribed by Helen Gardner in “Religion and Literature”: “must
be humbled, brought down, and taught wisdom and self-knowledge. This feeling is moralized
into the doctrine of punishment that awaits ‘hubris’ which sees man as rightly punished for
arrogance”. (Gardener, 52)

Bibliography:
1. Aristotle. “The Poetics” Part VI. Translated by S.H. Butcher.
2. Aristotle “The Poetics” Part VI. Translated by S.H. Butcher.
3. Helen Gardner, Religion and Literature, (Faber and Faber, London), p. 52.