A Critique of Aristotle's Theory of Tragedy - Essay Example

A Critique of Aristotle's Theory of Tragedy As outlined in Aristotle’s “Poetics”, tragedy 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 several kinds being found in separate parts of the play; in the form of action, not of narrative; with incidents arousing pity and fear, wherewith to accomplish its katharsis of such emotions. . . . Every Tragedy, therefore, must have six parts, which parts determine its quality—namely, Plot, Characters, Diction, Thought, Spectacle, Melody.” (Aristotle 23). Apart from the structural components, or the literary form of a tragedy, the thematic portion of Aristotle’s concept pivots on the magnanimity of the social status of the hero, in most cases, the character’s hubris or overweening pride and ambition, whose downfall is essentially the result of a tragic flaw (hamartia), embedded in his judgment. Also the character’s downfall raises pity and fear and eventually a tragedy provides catharsis or release of these emotions. Aristotle composes ‘Poetics’ about 50 years after Sophocles’ death in 345 BC. His admiration for Sophocles’ “Oedipus the King” is well-known. Since he considers the play as a perfect tragedy, it is not a surprise that his definition of a tragedy fits the play most perfectly. But the underlying flaw to which Aristotle makes himself vulnerable to is to establish his entire premise for a tragedy on a single example of his choice and then to proceed further inductively to define tragedy depending on this single example. Aristotle’s induction is somewhat as following: ‘Sophocles’ “Oedipus the King” is a perfect tragedy and it has some essential features. Therefore all perfect tragedies should incorporate these particular features that this play has’. But Aristotle is apparently oblivious to the risk that such induction poses. If Aristotle faces with another example of tragedy, having different features, that seem to appeal him as tragic, most likely he would change some of the requirements of his supposed tragedy to make it more embracing. Though some of Aristotle-induced features of a tragedy are Sophocles’ play-specific, most of them are universal. They are essentially the universal dynamics of a tragedy. For example, if Aristotle would have been allowed to watch the plays like “Hamlet” or “Death of a Salesman”, most likely Aristotle would expunge the doctrine of the downfall of a person of noble status or high rank. Aristotle considers drama as an essential medium of tragedy. According to him, a tragedy must not be a narrative. That is, it will not tell anything, rather it will show. For him, tragedy deals with an elevated or philosophical theme through dramatizing what may happen. It is different from history, since it can dramatize the law of probability or what is possible according to the law of probability or necessity” (Aristotle 13). But history cannot deal the law of probability, since it deals with particulars. Why history cannot be dramatized lies in the fact that the cause-effect relationship between any two events is a subject to interpretation. Therefore, it does not allow an author to arrange the events in a cause-and-effect chain. But in a tragedy, the author is endowed with the freedom to manipulate the events in a universal cause-and-effect chain that create the possibility of an event as an effect of any preceding event. The tragic hero who undergoes these cause-and-effect chains of events are supposed to arouse both pity and fear, since the audience can envisage themselves in the same chains, but with different events. Since Aristotle is mostly concerned with the dramatization of the events and actions according to the laws of probability, plot occupies the central place among the features of a tragedy. For Aristotle, plot is not the story itself, rather the “arrangement of the incidents” in a story. Indeed the incidents in a story should be arranged and presented before the audience in such a cause-and-effect chain that they are supposed to arouse pity and fear at their best. The most essential part of a plot is the action, and in some cases, a number of actions. According to Aristotle, the plot of a perfect tragedy should be a ‘whole’ that has a beginning, middle and an end. The beginning of the plot will begin the cause-and-effect chain of the incidents in a story. The beginning of a plot must contribute to the incidents around the middle. Unlike the beginning, middle includes a number of events that strongly play with the law of probability arousing pity and fear due to some causes of earlier events. Now the end includes only those incidents that can be considered as the effects of the earlier events. From the beginning to the middle (desis), the audience’s pity and fear are aroused and dammed up, while from the middle to the end (lusis) these emotions are loosened by unraveling the earlier causes. According to Aristotle, perfect plot should be complete. That is, it has a unity of actions. By completeness or unity of action Aristotle means that consecutively without any break, any incident except the ending one should be followed by other that can be considered as its direct effect. He suggests that such unity of action remains intact if events happen only to the same person. According to him, episodic plots are the worst since they often obstruct the damming up of pity and fear, and their eventual release by diverting the audience’s mind, as he says that these are the plots “in whcih the episodes or acts succeed one another without probable or necessary sequence” (Aristotle 21). The plot must have a “certain magnitude” which is neither too long nor too short, but have a certain length that will provide a playwright with a scope to maintain the unity of action holding the emotions of the audience and to release them after reaching the climax. Plot can be both simple and complex. While simple plot contains only ‘catastrophe’ or ‘change of fortune’, the complex ones are enriched with “peripeteia” and “anagnorisis”. Indeed, peripeteia involves a character’s action that produces a result in contradiction of the character’s intention, while anagnorisis refers to a character’s perception of a flaw, as Aristotle says, an anagnorisis “is a change from ignorance to knowledge, producing love or hate between the persons destined for good or bad fortune” (Aristotle 16). Character is the second important feature of an Aristotelian tragedy. It is directly involved in the development of the cause-and-effect chain of the plot. Indeed character as well as its actions are a medium of communication between the plot and the audience. The audience can associate themselves with the fear of probability through a character. The protagonist of an Aristotelian tragedy comes from a high background or high social status in order to maintain the magnitude of the plot. He is primarily driven by hubris or a sense of high personal dignity that most likely provokes him to incorporate a ‘hamartia’ or a tragic flaw in his character. According to Aristotle, hamartia is “some great error or frailty in a character” (Aristotle 18). The protagonist of a tragedy brings about his downfall not because of his follies or vices, but because of his ignorance. An Aristotelian tragic figure is supposed to have the following characteristics: a. “good or morally elevated”, b. actions befitting a character’s type, c. true to life, d. consistent in term of his personality and motivation, e. idealized and ennobled. Four other minor features of a tragedy are theme, diction, song or melody, and diction. Indeed Aristotle says little about thought what is commonly interpreted by modern scholars as the theme of tragedy. In Aristotelian term, thought is “found where something is proved to be or not to be, or a general maxim is enunciated” (Aristotle 19). Again, in order to enhance the sense of probability, Aristotle suggests that a playwright should focus his mind on the diction of a tragedy. A playwright should make an extensive use of metaphors since metaphors will engage the audience in perceiving the probable, by concealing the truth behind the surface meaning while contributing to the nobility of the character. In regard to the metaphorical use, Aristotle says, “But the greatest thing by far is to have a command of metaphor; . . . it is the mark of genius, for to make good metaphors implies an eye for resemblances” (Aristotle 24). The others two features of a tragedy are merely instrumental. Though not a feature, the outcome or effect of a tragedy on the audience is purgation of emotions, in Aristotelian term, Katharsis. The term “Katharsis” has generated considerable debate among the scholars. But the most acceptable meaning of Katharsis is to relieve oneself from the excesses of emotions like pity and fear. Works Cited Aristotle, Poetics. London: Benham Press, 1989. Read More