Epic Notes: Poetics

epicnotes1.blogspot.com

Poetics

Aristotle's Theory of Poetic Imitation

Plato was the first to use the word “imitation” in relation with
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, 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.
The medium of the poet and the painter are different. One imitates
through form and colour, 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 reproduce 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 within 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 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 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 defence 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.
v Aristotle's Concept of Tragedy
Aristotle outlines the nature and function of tragedy by defining
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. First, 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 medium it differs from Lyric. It employs several kinds of
embellishments.
Aristotle expounds 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. 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
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 for the
success of a tragedy.
'Thought' is the power of saying what can be said, or what is
suitable to the occasion. The language of tragedy must be
unusually expressive. It ‘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 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
‘peripeteia’ and ‘anagnorisis’; while the ‘complex Plot’ involves one
or the other, or both. The ‘peripeteia’ is the change in the fortunes
of the hero, and the ‘anagnorisis’ 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.
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. 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 plot.
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 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. Thus a virtuous man whose fortune changes from
prosperity to adversity will not do. Such a fall merely shocks us.
Nor is the fall of an evil man properly tragic. Such a fall can please
our moral sense, but it does not create the effect of tragedy.
Aristotle lays great emphasis on the probability and necessity of
the action of a tragedy. He is against plurality of action as it
weakens the tragic effect. There might be numerous incidents but
they must be related with each other, and they must all be
conducive to one effect. No incident or character should be
superfluous. The events introduced must be probable under the
circumstances.
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. By catharsis of pity and fear, he means their restoration
to the right proportions, to the desirable ‘golden means’.
To Aristotle, the end of poetry is to give pleasure, and tragedy has
its own pleasure beside. 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 tragic 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. His
conclusions are based entirely on the Greek 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.
v Aristotle's Ideal Tragic Plot
Aristotle greatly emphasizes 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. Plot
is the pivotal component of a tragedy.
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.
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
c. Plots based on or depicting incidents of suffering.
A Simple plot is without any ‘Peripeteia’ 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.
v Aristotle’s Concept of Ideal Tragic Hero/ Hamartia
The function of a tragedy is to arouse the emotions of pity and fear
in the spectators, and Aristotle deduces the qualities of his ideal
tragic hero from this essential function.
An ideal tragic hero should be good, but not too good or perfect, for
the fall of a perfectly good man from prosperity to adversity, would
be odious and repellent for the spectators. His fall will also not
arouse the proper sentiment of pity, for he is not like us and his
undeserved fall would only shock and disgust. Moreover, his
martyrdom is a spiritual victory and the sense of moral triumph
drowns the feeling of pity.
The perfectly good man or the saint is self-effacing and unselfish,
so he tends to be passive and inactive. Drama, on the other
hand, requires for its effectiveness a militant and combative hero.
Similarly, the spectacle of an utterly wicked person passing from
prosperity to adversity may satisfy our moral sense, but lacks in
arousing the proper tragic sentiments of pity and fear. Because
such a person is not like us, and his fall seems to be well-deserved
and in accordance with the requirement of 'justice', so it excites
neither pity nor fear. Thus according to Aristotle, perfectly good, as
well as utterly wicked persons are not at all suitable to be heroes of
tragedies. The fall of such an evil power evokes a certain tragic
feeling in us, or at least a tragic sympathy. It is not the pity one
feels for the unmerited sufferer. But it is a sense of loss and regret
over the waste or misuse of such splendid gifts. "Provided a
person has some redeeming quality - courage, intellect, beauty,
wit, passionate devotion".
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 just and
virtuous, whose misfortune, however, is brought upon him not by
vice or depravity but by some error of judgment."
Precisely, 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, he has so much
of common humanity to arouse our interest and sympathy, but he
is an idealised one. Aristotle says that the tragic hero is not
depraved or vicious, he is also not perfect at the same time, his
misfortune is brought upon him by some fault of his own. In this
connection the Greek word used here is "hamartia". The root
meaning of Hamartia is "missing the mark". So the tragic hero falls
not because of some vice or depravity, but because
of "miscalculation" on his part. Hamartia is not a moral failing, but
unfortunately it has been translated rather loosely as, "tragic flaw",
by Bradley. Aristotle himself distinguishes hamartia from moral
failing, and makes it quite clear that he means by it some error of
judgment. Some critics believe that 'Hamartia' is not a moral
failing; but an error of judgment which a man commits
unconsciously or innocently. However, Humphrey House opines
that Aristotle neither does assert nor deny anything about the
connection of hamartia with moral failings in the hero. He says: "It
may be accompanied by moral imperfection, but it is not in itself a
moral imperfection."
Thus ‘Hamartia’ is an error of judgement or miscalculation, it may
arise from any of the three ways: First, it may arise from "ignorance
of some material fact or circumstance", or secondly, it may be
an error arising from hasty or careless view of a given situation, or
thirdly, it may be an error voluntary but not deliberate, as in the case
of acts committed in anger or passion.
Aristotle lays down another qualification for the tragic hero. He
says an ideal tragic hero must be “enjoying great reputation and
prosperity.” In other words, he must be a person who occupies a
position of lofty eminence in society. He must be a highly placed
and well-reputed individual. This is so because Greek tragedy, alone
with which Aristotle was familiar, was written about a few
distinguished royal families.
However, Aristotle's dictum is quite justified on the principle that,
"higher the state, the greater the fall that follows," or “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
royal descended, they were the Renaissance critics who distorted
Aristotle and made the qualification more rigid and narrow.
Aristotle's Concept of Catharsis
The word catharsis means in general “outlet of strong emotions”
or a willing account of deep feelings given to another person.
Anyhow its roots are found in a Greek word “Katherine” meaning to
clear and purity. Aristotle has used the term ‘Katharsis’ only once
and has not explained what exactly he meant by the word, nor do
we get any help from the Poetics. Further, ‘Katharsis’ has three
meaning. It means ‘purgation’, ‘purification’, and ‘clarification’, and
each critic has used the word in one or the other senses.
‘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. The
incidents of tragedy are painful yet in tragedy, they afford us a
special pleasure. It is a pleasure peculiar to tragedy. 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. 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.
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.
Aristotle's Consideration of Tragedy as Superior to an Epic
To Aristotle, an Epic is a narrative poem written in heroic hexa-
metre. It has four constituent parts namely plot , character, thought,
& diction. Aristotle defines every point in much detail & finally,
having compared between tragedy & epic, comes to the conclusion
that a tragedy is superior to an epic.
According to Aristotle, the plots of epics should be dramatically
constructed like those of tragedies. They should centre upon a
single action whole & complete & having a beginning, middle & an
end. Nor should epics be constructed like the common run of
histories. The aim of history is to focus on a single period, while the
task of an epic is to focus on a single action that is required. In this
respect, Aristotle appreciates the greatness of Homer beyond all
other poets. Though the Trojan War had a beginning & a war,
Homer didn't attempt to put the whole of it to 'The Iliad'. As whole
would have been too vast a theme to be easily embraced by a
single view. Homer has selected one part of the story & has
introduced mant incidents from other parts as episodes in order to
give the poem a touch of variety. Other epic like the authors of
'Cypria' & 'The Little Iliad' have used many separate incident in their
works.
Thus, while only one tragedy could be made out of the 'Iliad' & the
‘Odyssey’. Several might be made out of the 'Cypria' & more than
eight out of the 'Little Iliad’. Again epic poetry must divide into the
same type as tragedy; it must me simple or complex or ethical or
pathetic, & its thoughts & diction should be as artistic as they are in
tragedy. The best models,again,supplied by Homer. His 'Iliad' is at
once simple & pathetic & ‘Odyssey’, complex & ethical. Moreover,in
diction & thought, they surpass all other poems. The epic, like
tragedy, requires reversals of the situation, recognition & scenes of
suffering.
Epic can be greater in length than tragedy. Unlike tragedy, an epic
action should have no limit in time. It is the special advantage of
epic that it may be of considerable length. In tragedy, it isn't
possible to represent several parts of the story as taking palce
simultaneously. Epic poetry, on the contrary, is able to represent
several incidents that are taking place simultaneously. And if these
incidents are relevant, they increase the gravity of the poems & also
relieve the poems of monotony & dullness.
Epic represents the life of an entire period & relates an action
concerning the fortunes or destiny of a nation.
The marvellous has a function in epic . The irrational on which the
wonderful depends for its chief effects,has a wider scope in epic
poetry because there the persons' acting ain't visible. The pursuit of
Hector by Achilles in Homer's 'The Ilaid' before the Greeks, standing
still & watching the scene with passive interest, would be simply
laughable on the stage, whereas in the epic the absurdity passes
unnoticed.
In the final chapter of poetics Aristotle raises the question whether
the epic or the tragic drama is the higher form of imitation.
According to him , the better form of art is less vulgar & the less
vulgar is always that which is designed to appeal to the better type
of audience . Now it's obvious that the form that appeals everyone
is extremely vulgar. Thus epic is said to appeal to cultivated
readers who don't need the help of visible forms, while tragedy
appeals to meaner minds. If ,then, it is a vulgar art, it is obviously
inferior to epic.
But this accusation can be defended by saying that the tragic
drama can achieve its end without the help of action. Like epics,
the quality of a tragic drama can be staged, while tragic drama can
be staged as well as recited. Moreover, the disadvantage that tragic
drama appeals to meaner minds can be compensated by the other
respects in which tragedy is definitely superior.
The second accusation inherent to tragedy is that when the
performers act on the stage ,they sometimes do a great deal of
unnecessary movements. The performers can't act the parts of
respectable women.
The flute players can't do their job properly. And the older actors
always criticize the younger.But this kind of arguing is a criticism of
acting, not of poetry , for it is also possible for a bard to exaggerate
his gestures while reciting, & for a singer too.
The tragic drama is also superior because it has all the epic
elements, while epic doesn't have all the elements of tragedy.
Tragic drama may even employ the epic metre ,& it has the
additional attraction of music & spectacular effects which are the
sources of distinct feeling of pleasure. Then the effect is as vivid
when a play is need as when it is acted.
Aristotle is a teleologian, the upholder of the theory that everything
has a purpose to fulfill. The purpose of a poetic imitation is to give
pleasure. In this respect, tragic drama achieves its ends in shorter
compass, and what is more compact gives more pleasure than
what is extended over a long period . For example, if the play
'Oedipus Rex' by Sophocles was cast in a form as long as the epic
''The Iliad' , the effect of the play would greatly be diminished. An
epic has less unity than a tragedy. An epic can furnish subject for
several tragedies & this shows that , then, is less unity in an epic
poem.

Concluding his discussion Aristotle says that if tragedy is superior

to epic in all these respects , it fulfills its artistic function in
achieving its end better than epic. It must be the better form of art
& also fulfilling its artistic function then, obviously, in achieving its
ends better than epic; it must be the better form.