Poetics

1. Introduction to the Poetics

Plato (427–347 B.C.E.) is notorious for attacking art in Book 10 of his Republic. According to
Plato’s Theory of Forms, objects in this world are imitations or approximations of Ideal Forms
that are the true reality. A chair in this world is just an imitation or instantiation of the Form of
Chair. That being the case, art is twice removed from reality, as it is just an imitation of an
imitation: a painting of a chair is an imitation of a chair which is in turn an imitation of the Form
of Chair. Further, Plato argues that art serves to excite the emotions, which can detract from the
balanced reasoning that is essential to virtue.

Aristotle’s Poetics can be read as a response to Plato’s attack on art. Aristotle (384 –322 BC) was
a student at Plato’s Academy from the time he was seventeen until Plato’s death some twenty
years later. He spent the next twelve years engaging in scientific research and serving as tutor to
the then teenaged Alexander the Great. He returned to Athens in 335 BC, and founded his own
school on the steps of the Lyceum. He remained there until 323 BCE, when he was forced to
leave as a result of his associations with Alexander. He died a year later of natural causes. The
Lyceum remained open until 525 AD, when it was closed by the emperor Justinian (483 – 565
AD; emperor of that day’s Byzantium and today’s Istanbul in Turkey).

None of the works of Aristotle that we have today were actually published by Aristotle. He wrote
a number of treatises and dialogues, but these have all been lost. What survive are collections of
notes, possibly from lecture courses Aristotle gave at the Lyceum, which are often unclear or
incomplete. The Poetics, in true form, was likely a much longer work than the one we have today.
Aristotle supposedly wrote a second book on comedy, which is now lost.

The main focus of the Poetics is on Greek tragedy. Though there were thousands of tragedies and
scores of playwrights, we only have thirty-three existing tragedies, written by the three great
tragedians: Aeschylus (525 – 456 BC), Sophocles (496 – 405 BC), and Euripides (485 – 406 BC).
Tragedies were performed in Athens twice annually at festivals in honour of Dionysus, the god of
wine and excess. Though the tragedies likely evolved out of religious ceremonies celebrating the
cycle of the seasons, they became increasingly secular. The dramatic festivals were immensely
important events, and the winning playwrights achieved great fame.

The Poetics also discusses epic poetry, using the example of Homer (eighth century BC) almost
exclusively. Homer wrote two great epics, the Iliad and the Odyssey, which deal with the fall of
Troy and Odysseus’s subsequent wanderings respectively. These epics are the source of a great
number of Greek tragedies and are considered among the earliest great works of world literature.

Though the Poetics is not one of Aristotle’s major works, it has exercised a great deal of
influence on subsequent literary theory, particularly in the Renaissance. Later interpreters
unfortunately turned many of Aristotle’s suggestions into strict laws, restricting the flexibility of
drama in ways that Aristotle would not have anticipated. The tragedies of Racine and Corneille in
particular are formed according to these demands. Even though such great playwrights as
Shakespeare often went against these laws, they were held as the model for writing tragedy well
into the nineteenth century.

1
2. Overview of the Poetics
Aristotle proposes to discuss poetry, which he defines as “a means of mimesis”, or “imitation”,
by means of language, rhythm, and harmony. As creatures that thrive on imitation, we are
naturally drawn to poetry.

In particular, Aristotle focuses his discussion on tragedy, which uses dramatic, rather than
narrative form and deals with agents who are better than us ourselves. Tragedy serves to arouse
the emotions of pity and fear and to affect a catharsis of these emotions. Aristotle divides tragedy
into six different parts, ranking them in order from most important to least important as follows:
(1) mythos, or plot, (2) character, (3) thought, (4) diction, (5) melody, and (6) spectacle.

The first essential to creating a good tragedy is that it should maintain unity of plot. This means
that the plot must move from beginning to end according to a tightly organized sequence of
necessary or probable events. The beginning should not necessarily follow from any earlier
events, and the end should tie up all loose ends and not produce any necessary consequences. The
plot can also be enhanced by an intelligent use of peripeteia, or reversal, and anagnorisis, or
recognition. These elements work best when they are made an integral part of the plot.

A plot should consist of a hero going from happiness to misery. The hero should be portrayed
consistently and in a good light, though the poet should also remain true to what we know of the
character. The misery should be the result of some hamartia, or error, on the part of the hero. A
tragic plot must always involve some sort of tragic deed, which can be done or left undone, and
this deed can be approached either with full knowledge or in ignorance.

Aristotle discusses thought and diction and then moves on to address epic poetry. Epic poetry is
similar to tragedy in many ways, though it is generally longer, more fantastic, and deals with a
greater scope of action. After addressing some problems of criticism, Aristotle argues that tragedy
is superior to epic poetry.

3. Synopsis of the Poetics

Aristotle’s Poetics aims to give an account of poetry. Aristotle does this by attempting to explain
poetry through first principles, and by classifying poetry into its different genres and component
parts. The centrepiece of Aristotle’s work is his examination of tragedy. This occurs in Chapter 6
of Poetics: “Tragedy, then, 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; through pity and fear
effecting the proper purgation of these emotions.” He goes on to define the major characteristics
of Greek dramatic structure. This work combined with the Rhetoric make up Aristotle’s works on
aesthetics.

Imitation or Mimesis (Chapter 1)

For Aristotle, poetry is a species of imitation or mimesis. Poetry uses different media, objects and
modes in order to carry out an imitation. For Aristotle mimesis is more important than just for
aesthetic reasons. Michael Davis, a translator and commentator of the Poetics writes: “Human
action is imitation of action because thinking is always rethinking. Aristotle can define human
beings as at once rational animals, political animals, and imitative animals because in the end the
three are the same.”

2
The Medium, Object and Mode of Poetry (Chapters 1-3)

Poetry has a medium, object and mode. Aristotle gives some examples of medium: colour and
shape, harmony and rhythm, metered and un-metered speech. The object of poetry can be a
certain kind of person with a certain kind of character. This character can be “either of stature or
inferior”. The mode (sometimes translated manner) of poetry determines how the poem is
delivered and by whom. One can deliver a poem like a bard telling the story of the Iliad using
different voices, or telling a story using only one, or have lots of different imitators imitating
different people as in a play.

The Two Causes of Poetry (Chapter 4)

Poetry is caused either by imitation and/or melody and rhythm. When Aristotle discusses the
causes of poetry, he notes that poetry improved through improvisation and gradual innovation.

The Three Genres of Poetry

Aristotle taught that poetry could be divided into three genres: tragedy, comedy and epic verse.

Comedy (Chapter 5)

Comedy is an imitation of what is inferior in such a way that it is laughable. Although it is not
quite clear what Aristotle means by inferior, we do know that he uses the word as an adjective for
character. Comedians imitate those of an inferior character, whereas tragedians imitate those of
superior (“better than the rest of us”) character.

Tragedy (Chapters 6-22)

Aristotle does not aim at giving a detailed account of tragedy, yet. Aristotle merely points out
how Greek tragedy evolved and then came to a resting point where it no longer underwent any
changes. He brings up the innovations in theatre that a number of tragedians, including
Aeschylus, Euripides and Sophocles, introduced as examples. Much is made of how certain
techniques can be used to cause certain effects in the audience. For example, a tragedian will
want to portray suffering in certain ways to produce certain effects. Another significant notion
running throughout this section is that of unity: tragedy must observe unity of action, space, and
time.

Epic Verse (Chapters 23-26)

Epic is the same as tragedy except that epic “uses one verse-form alone, and is narrative”.

Influence of the Work

Poetics was not influential in its time, and was generally understood to coincide with the more
famous Rhetoric. This is because in Aristotle’s time, rhetoric and poetry were not as separated as
they later became, and were, in a sense, different versions of the same thing. In later times,
Poetics became hugely influential. The conception of tragedy during the Enlightenment
especially owes much to Poetics.

3
4. Important Terms Used in the Poetics

Mimesis: Mimesis is the act of creating in someone’s mind, through artistic representation, an
idea or ideas that the person will associate with past experience. Roughly translatable as
“imitation”, mimesis in poetry is the act of telling stories that are set in the real world. The events
in the story need not have taken place, but the telling of the story will help the listener or viewer
to imagine the events taking place in the real world.

Hamartia: This word translates almost directly as “error”, though it is often rendered more
elaborately as “tragic flaw”. Tragedy, according to Aristotle, involves the downfall of a hero, and
this downfall is affected by some error on the part of the hero. This error need not be an
overarching moral failing: it could be a simple matter of not knowing something or forgetting
something.

Anagnorisis: This word translates as “recognition” or “discovery”. In tragedy, it describes the

moment where the hero, or some other character, passes from ignorance to knowledge. This could
be recognition of a long lost friend or family member, or it could be a sudden recognition of some
fact about oneself, as is the case with Oedipus. Anagnorisis often occurs at the climax of a
tragedy at the same time with peripeteia.

Mythos: When dealing with tragedy, this word is usually translated as “plot”, but unlike plot,
mythos can be applied to all works of art. Not so much a matter of what happens and in what
order, mythos deals with how the elements of a tragedy (or a painting, sculpture, etc.) come
together to form a coherent and unified whole. The overall message or impression that we come
away with is what is conveyed to us by the mythos of a piece.

Katharsis: This word was normally used in ancient Greece by doctors to mean “purgation” or by
priests to mean “purification.” In the context of tragedy, Aristotle uses it to talk about a purgation
or purification of emotions. Presumably, this means that katharsis is a release of built up
emotional energy, much like a good cry. After katharsis, we reach a more stable and neutral
emotional state.

Peripeteia: A reversal, either from good to bad or bad to good. Peripeteia often occurs at the
climax of a story, often prompted by anagnorisis. Indeed, we might say that the peripeteia is the
climax of a story: it is the turning point in the action, where things begin to move toward a
conclusion.

Lusis: Literally “untying”, the lusis is all the action in a tragedy from the climax onward. All the
plot threads that have been woven together in the desis are slowly unraveled until we reach the
conclusion of the play.

Desis: Literally “tying”, the desis is all the action in a tragedy leading up to the climax. Plot
threads are craftily woven together to form a more and more complex mess. At the peripeteia, or
turning point, these plot threads begin to unravel in what is called the lusis, or
denouement / /.

5. Analytical Overview of the Poetics

Aristotle approaches poetry with the same scientific method with which he treats physics and
biology. He begins by collecting and categorizing all the data available to him and then he draws

4
certain conclusions and advances certain theses in accordance with his analysis. In the case of
tragedy, this means he divides it into six parts, identifies plot as the most important part, and
examines the different elements of plot and character that seem to characterize successful
tragedies. He tentatively suggests that tragedy ultimately aims at the arousal of pity and fear and
at the catharsis of these emotions. Then he begins to lay out certain theories as to what makes a
good tragedy: it must focus on a certain type of hero who must follow a certain trajectory within a
plot that is tightly unified, etc. Aristotle’s conclusions, then, are based less on personal taste and
more on an observation of what tends to produce the most powerful effects.

Aristotle’s method raises the fundamental question of whether poetry can be studied in the same
way as the natural sciences. Though there are some benefits to Aristotle’s method, the ultimate
answer seems to be “no.” The scientific method relies on the assumption that there are certain
regularities or laws that govern the behaviour of the phenomena being investigated. This method
has been particularly successful in the physical sciences: Isaac Newton, for example, managed to
reduce all mechanical behaviour to three simple laws. However, art does not seem to be governed
by unchanging, unquestionable laws in the same way that nature is. Art often thrives and
progresses by questioning the assumptions or laws that a previous generation has accepted. While
Aristotle insisted on the primacy and unity of plot, Samuel Beckett has achieved fame as one of
this century’s greatest playwrights by constructing plays that arguably have no plot at all. Closer
to Aristotle’s time, Euripides often violated the Aristotelian principles of structure and balance in
a conscious effort to depict a universe that is neither structured nor balanced. Not surprisingly,
Aristotle seems to have preferred Sophocles to Euripides.

These remarks on Sophocles and Euripides bring us to another problem of interpreting Aristotle:
we have a very limited stock of Greek tragedies against which to test Aristotle’s theories.
Aristotle could have been familiar with hundreds, or even thousands, of tragedies. All we have
today are thirty-three plays by three tragedians. As a result, it is difficult to say to what extent
most tragedies fit Aristotle’s observations. Those that we have, however, often extremely violate
Aristotle’s requirement. The best example we have of an Aristotelian tragedy is Oedipus Rex, so
it is no wonder that Aristotle makes such frequent reference to it in his examples.

As far as the difference between our definition of poetry and that of Aristotle is concerned, we
normally think of poetry as anything that is written in verse. Aristotle’s definition is more
specific, saying that poetry is a kind of imitation that employs language, rhythm, and harmony.
These elements are certainly present in most poetry, though there are notable differences. First,
Aristotle makes no requirement that poetry be written in verse. Provided it has rhythm and
harmony, prose could count as poetry. Second, in claiming that poetry is imitative, Aristotle
limits poetry to narrative: it has to describe something in the world. This would exclude most
abstract or experimental poetry in this century, and would also raise serious questions about the
dominant tradition of lyric poetry in the modern world, which usually deals more with emotions
and ideas than with events and actions.

6. Aristotle’s Theory of Imitation

Aristotle did not invent the term “imitation”. Plato was the first to use the word in relation to
poetry. Aristotle disagreed with Plato on its definition and gave it a new meaning. According to
Aristotle, poetic imitation is not mimicry, but an act of imaginative creation by which the poet,
drawing his material from the phenomenal world, makes something new out of it.

5
Plato equated poetry with painting but Aristotle related it with music. In Aristotle’s view,
imitation forms the common basis for all fine arts but poetry differs from other fine arts in a way
that it is not just a servile depiction of the appearance of things, but it becomes a representation of
the passions and emotions of men. Aristotle, by his theory, thus enlarged the scope of imitation.
The poet imitates not the surface of things but the reality embedded within it. In the very first
chapter of the Poetics, he writes: “Epic poetry and Tragedy, Comedy also and Dithyrambic
poetry, and the music of the flute and of the lyre in most of their forms, are all in their
general conception modes of imitation. They differ, however, from one another in three
respects – the medium, the objects, the manner or mode of imitation, being in each case
distinct.”

The medium of the poet and the painter are different. One imitates through form and color, 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 those of 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 while poetry tells 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 means: “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.” 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 happens to 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 points out that:
“Aristotle knew nothing of the “realistic” or “fleshy” school of fiction – the school of Zola or of
Gissing.” Some critics, however, defend Aristotle for not discussing the third variant. They say:

6
“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”, twice removed from truth, and that the poet deceives 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. 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 shadows of things, but the ‘ideal
reality’ embodied in the 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 removing accidental, transient and
particular from the real. 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 defense 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.

7. Aristotle’s Concept of Tragedy

There may not be anybody to disagree if I regard the Poetics as a book chiefly on tragedy which
is regarded as the highest poetic form. The very word “tragedy” brings to mind the idea of
Aristotle and his Poetics. According to Aristotle, all forms of art are imitation of reality. They
differ from one another on the basis of medium, object and manner of imitation. Poetry differs
from music in its medium of imitation. Epic poetry and dramatic poetry differ on the basis of
manner of imitation. Dramatic poetry itself is divisible in Tragic or Comic on the basis of objects
of imitation. Tragedy imitates men as better and comedy as worse than they in reality are.

Aristotle traces the origin and development of poetry. Earlier, poetry was of two kinds. There
were ‘Iambs’ or ‘Invectives’, on one hand, which developed into satiric poetry, and ‘hymns’ on
the gods or ‘panegyrics’ on the great, on the other, which developed into Epic or heroic poetry.
Out of Heroic poetry developed Tragedy, and out of satiric came the Comedy. Both Epic and
Tragedy imitate serious subjects in a grand kind of verse but they differ as Epic imitates only in
one kind of verse both for Choral odes and dialogue. The Epic is long and varied but the Tragedy

7
has greater concentration and effectiveness. The Epic lacks music, spectacle, reality of
presentation and unity of action which the Tragedy has. “All the parts of an epic are included in
Tragedy; but those of Tragedy are not all of them to be found in the Epic.”

Aristotle comes to a consideration of the nature and function of tragedy. He defines 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 ‘Katharsis’ of these
emotions.”

The definition separates tragedy from other poetic forms. Firstly, 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 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
climax 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.

Aristotle lays great emphasis on the probability and necessity of the action of a tragedy. It implies
that there should be no unrelated events and incidents. They must follow each other inevitably.
No incident or character should be superfluous. The events introduced must be probable under the
circumstances.

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.
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.

Aristotle lists 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.

‘Thought’ is the power of saying what can be said, or what is suitable to the occasion. It is the

8
language which gives us the thoughts and feeling of various characters. The language of Tragedy
must be unusually expressive. The Language of Tragedy ‘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 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 (Hamartia) of his part, bringing about a
catharsis of the emotion of pity and fear.

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.

While comparing the importance of Plot and Character, 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 emphasizes only one of the three unities, the Unity of Action; he is against plurality of
action as it weakens the tragic effect. There might be numerous incidents but they must be related
with one another, and they must all be conducive to one effect. As regards the Unity of Time,
Aristotle only once mentions it in relation to dramatic Action. Comparing the epic and the
Tragedy, he writes: “Tragedy tries, as far as possible, to live within a single revolution of the
sun, or only slightly to exceed it, whereas the epic observes no limits in its time of action.”

According 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 alluring power of the action. Pure 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.
Aristotle knew only Greek Tragedy. His conclusions are based entirely on the 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.

8. The Epic and the Tragedy

Aristotle establishes that there is an affinity between the epic and the tragedy. Aristotle’s
treatment of the epic is slight as compared to his treatment of the tragedy. But he makes a few
general statements, which enable us to know about the salient features of an epic and they also
help us compare and contrast the two genres. Both the epic and the tragedy are imitations of a
serious subject and deal with the characters of a higher type. A number of elements are to be
found common to both: Plot, Character, Thought and Diction. The structure in both genres

9
should show unity but an epic is allowed more freedom than tragedy in this regard. The structure
of the epic should be modeled on dramatic principles, according to Aristotle. Single actions
should have a beginning, a middle and an end to be a complete organic whole and the same is
also applicable to a tragedy. Aristotle expresses his admiration for Homer as he chose a portion
and not the whole of the Trojan War for his epic. It is only through such selection that the theme
can be embraced in a single view.

An epic can have as many species as a tragedy can and like a tragedy its plot can also be simple
or complex. Homer is again cited here as an ideal example. Like a tragedy, an epic’s diction and
thought are also supreme. Aristotle advises the poet to speak through his characters and not to
speak directly. This is the dramatic slant given to the epic by Aristotle.

Points of Differences between Epic and Poetry

The first difference that matters is that of length. Tragedy, by its very nature, is more
concentrated and compact. Hence its size is much more limited than that of epic. The length of a
tragedy is based on a principle that the work must be short enough to be grasped as an artistic
whole. This is also good for an epic but the time limits of an epic are not fixed. The epic has
another advantage: it can relate a number of incidents happening simultaneously to different
persons at the same time. Tragedy cannot show more than one incident happening at one place at
one time. This gave rise to the concept of the Unity of Place. The greater size of the epic allowed
it more grandeur and dignity in the treatment of its incidents.

Tragedy can make use of a greater variety of metres, while the epic has to be content with the
heroic metre alone. The heroic metre or the hexameter is most dignified and stately. It can make
use of metaphors, in the iambic and trochaic tetrameter. Nature, says Aristotle, has established the
appropriate metres for all forms of poetry. The iambic verse is close to the speech of men and
suited to the imitation of men in action.

The epic allows greater scope for the marvelous and the irrational. Tragedy, however, cannot
make too much use of the marvel within the action, for this would seem improbable and
unconvincing. Epic can relate improbable tales because it is not going to be presented on stage
before the eyes of spectators. The degree of irrationality can be greater because it is left to the
imagination, and not placed before the eyes. Indeed, the element of marvel adds to the artistic
pleasure and wonder of the epic. Such incidents of the marvelous, which include the supernatural
and the irrational, have to be placed outside the action of a tragedy.

The epic uses the mode of the narrative, and tragedy the mode of the dramatic. The plot of epic,
as of tragedy, must have unity. Yet, within the overall unity, the epic allows for more and longer
incidents than does tragedy. The epic allows multiplicity of stories, which would be unthinkable
in the tragedy. The elements which are, however, only to be found in the tragedy, are Music and
Spectacle. Tragedy has a vividness which is absent in epic. This is so, even if the tragedy is read
and not acted out on the stage.

Aristotle considers the question of the relative values of epic and tragedy. In his opinion, though
tragedy had been criticized as ‘vulgar’, this is not so. “Tragedy”, he maintains, “is richer in its
effects adding music and spectacle to epic resources; it presents its stories even when read
no less vividly than the epic; it has a stricter unity; its methods are more concentrated; and
it produces more effectively the requisite emotional results, i.e. the pleasure arising from a
catharsis of pity and fear.”

10
9. Aristotle's Concept of Catharsis
The aim of a tragedy, as Aristotle maintains in the Poetics, is to arouse the emotions of pity and
fear and to affect the catharsis of these emotions. Aristotle has used the term catharsis only once,
but it has been discussed by the critics more than any other term of the book. The reason is
mainly that Aristotle has not explained what exactly he meant by the word. The word catharsis
has three different meanings: ‘purgation’, ‘purification’, and ‘clarification’. Each critic has used
the word in one or the other sense. All agree that tragedy arouses fear and pity, but there are sharp
differences as to the process, the way by which the arousing of these emotions gives pleasure.

Catharsis 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: “…they
artificially stirred a real life’s pity and fear.”

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. Thomas Taylor holds: “We learn from the terrible fates
of evil men to avoid the vices they manifest.”

But F. L. Lucas rejects the idea that catharsis 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 relaxation.

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, catharsis implies that
our emotions are purified of excess and defect, are reduced to an 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

11
art of poetry. He relates ‘Katharsis’ 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 contradiction
of pleasure being aroused by the ugly and the repellent is also the contradiction 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 killing her children and instead of repelling
us, produce pleasure. 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.

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.

The clarification theory has many merits. Firstly, it is a technique of the tragedy and not of the
psychology of the audience. Secondly, the theory is based on what Aristotle says in the Poetics,
and needs no help and support of what Aristotle has said in Politics and Ethics. Thirdly, it relates
catharsis both to the theory of imitation and to the discussion of probability and necessity.
Fourthly, the theory is perfectly in accord with current aesthetic theories.

10. Aristotle’s Concept of Ideal Tragic Hero

According to Aristotle, dramatic characters should be (1) good, (2) appropriate (3) lifelike and
(4) consistent. A character is assumed to be ‘good’ if his words and action reveal a good purpose
behind them. This is irrespective of the class to which he belongs. Aristotle held woman to be
inferior but even women if introduced in a tragedy, are to be shown to have some good in them.
Audience should have sympathy with him as a bad man does not arouse pity in us if he falls from
happiness to misery.

Aristotle’s dictum of ‘goodness’ in the tragic hero has given rise to a great deal of controversy
among the critics. To Corneille, the term ‘good’ meant magnificent. Dacier and Metastasio
interpreted ‘good’ to mean ‘well-marked’. Telford considers the term to signify ‘dramatically
effective’. F.L. Lucas is of the opinion that the term implies ‘fine’ or ‘noble’. Aristotle, however,
insists that the dramatic personae should be as good as permitted by the plot. Aristotle’s good
man is good in so far as he very positively desires good ends, and also works to attain those ends.
Aristotle’s use of the term ‘good’ implies something necessarily different from what we mean by
it today. However what Humphrey House says in this context is clear and is the most acceptable
of the interpretations. He points out that the term ‘good’ and ‘goodness’ in Greek meant
something different from what it has come to mean in Christian ethics. The insistence on
goodness is not colored with direct didacticism. It does not have any significant ‘moralistic’
implications, for in the Greek sense of the term, it means the “habitual possession of one or more
of the separate virtues, such as courage, self-control, bigheartedness, magnificence, gentleness,
truthfulness, friendliness, and even wittiness”.

Another essential of an ideal dramatic character is to be ‘appropriate’, that is, in accordance with
their customary characteristics. A woman should be shown ‘womanly’ and not ‘manly’. A slave
who is brought up in slavery will not suddenly emerge as hero. An illiterate should not act like
highly qualified people, though he can be very wise, of course. A king should appear like a king

12
and the knight, a knight. But Aristotle also clears that dramatic characters are ‘men in action’.
They will, of course, exhibit individuality as well. Their decisions and actions can and does differ
from those of the usual characters of their kind in the normal life. Jus the idea is that actions
assigned or attributed to characters should be appropriate for their age, sex and statutes etc.

The third essential is the lifelikeness. If the audience does not believe in what is happening to a
character or what he is undertaking, it will not arouse any sympathy or the emotions of pity and
fear. The audience should believe that all this is quiet possible and they themselves can also
experience all that in their lives because the same is the law of nature. The idea that it can also
happen to me causes the audience to feel fear or weep over the misery of the hero.

The fourth essential of ‘consistency’ implies the importance of ‘organization’ in both the
character as well the plot. There should be a beginning, an end and every second event should
logically be correlated to the first one. All the characteristics of a character should make a logical
part of a ‘whole’ and it should not illogically contradict any other characteristic. The same way,
all his actions and consequences should be consistent with the overall image of the character as
well as the theme of the tragedy. It will be inconsistent that at one occasion, a character is
extravagantly lavish while on another occasion, he is extremely a miser; a dauntless, lionhearted
hero is fearful of a trivial matter; in the beginning of a plot, the character is not able to resist one
person’s oppression and on another occasion, the same character, without having grown to that
extent logically, is fighting with ten professionally trained scoundrels and knocking them down
alone.

We see that Aristotle has no place in tragedy for two types of characters — one who is perfectly
virtuous and the other who is thoroughly bad…

11. Tragic Plot in Poetics

Aristotle declares the plot to be the ‘soul of tragedy’. So he makes the account of this constituent
the most extensive and attentive. He lists six formative elements of a tragedy – plot, character,
thought, melody, diction, and spectacle and gives the first place to plot. Aristotle draws an
analogy between the plot and a living organism. As an organism has a definite shape of its body;
so should a plot give a particular design to the tragedy. Plot is like a skeleton without which the
body cannot sustain itself.

According to him, a plot should have a specific length and the structure. ‘Specific’ means that it
should be designed in such a way that it reveals all external actions of the characters and their
internal mental processes so as to arouse the emotions of pity and fear in the audience. By the
word ‘plot’, he does not simply mean ‘story’ but it is a creative process of selecting the chaotic
material of life and then arranging it in a coherent order. In this process comes the issue of
‘inevitability’, ‘probability’ and ‘necessity’. The episodes of a plot have to be logically
connected. Aristotle’s statement regarding tragedy insists that it be a representation of an action,
which is “complete”.

The Greek word for ‘poet’ means a ‘maker’, and the poet is a ‘maker’, not because he makes
verses but he makes plots. Aristotle differentiates between ‘story’ and ‘plot’. The poet need not
make his story. Stories from history, mythology, or legend are to be preferred, for they are
familiar and understandable. Having chosen or invented the story, it must be put to artistic
selection and order. The incidents chosen must be ‘serious’, and not ‘trivial’, as tragedy is an
imitation of a serious action that arouses pity and fear.

13
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, that is, 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.

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.

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.

According to Aristotle, Tragic plots may be of three kinds, (a) Simple, (b) Complex and (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.

The tragic plot falls in two parts — the Complication and Denouement. Complication is that part
of the tragedy which extends from the beginning to the part where the turning point occurs. The
Denouement is that which extends from the turning point to the end of the tragedy. One could call
it ‘unraveling’. The denouement demands logicality and natural development of events. Aristotle
insists on the single action being fit for tragedy. He is against a plurality of actions. He also
speaks categorically against the ‘poetic justice’ formula of meting out happiness to some and
misery to others, in a tragedy. Aristotle’s concept of the plot is in keeping with what we have
come to call ‘classical’. There is an insistence on order, pattern and design.

14