Poetics 2

1
Poetics
Aristotle
Introduction to Aristotle and his Poetics

Introduction to Aristotle
1. THE LIFE AND WORKS OF ARISTOTLE Birth
Aristotle was born at Stagira inMacedonia in 384 B.C. Son of Nicomachus, the court
physician to King Amyntas II ofMacedonia, Aristotle was later to become tutor to Alexander, the
grandson of Amyntas.
The First Phase of His Life : Plato’s Academy
The first phase of Aristotle’s career began in 368-67 B.C., when he began a twenty year
residence in Athens as member of the Academy founded by Plato. The phase came to an end with
Plato’s death.
The Second Phase : Away From Athens

After the death of Plato, Aristotle left the Academy and went to Assos, near Troy. With him
was another pupil of Plato, Xenocrates, who was also dissatisfied with the successor of Plato at
the Academy. In Assos, Aristotle joined the Platonic circle begun by Erastus and Coriscus. He
came into contact with Hermias, who had established himself as tyrant of Assos and Ataneus.
He’married Hermias’s adopted daughter. In 342 B.C., he accepted the invitation of Philip of
Macedon, to go and teach his son, Alexander, in Pella. Aristotle taught the young prince literature
and political science. With Alexander comifag to the throne, the second phase of Aristotle’s career
came to an end.
The Third Phase : Return to Athens and The School at Lyceum
After Alexander’s ascension to the throne of Macedonia, Aristotle returned to Athens, the
intellectual centre of Greece. Here, he set up his own school in the Lyceum—a school which came
to be known as the Peripatetic. This was so because it was Aristotle’s habit to walk about with his
students while giving them lectures. Theophrastus was among the lecturers at this school, which
included a museum and a library. Aristotle organised research on a large scale, in politics, history,
literature, natural and • biology.
The Last Years and Death

In 323 B.C., Aristotle got the news of Alexander’s death. Athens took up arms against
Macedonia, and Aristotle was accused of impiety. Aristotle withdrew to his mother’s home in
Chalcis. He died there at the age of 62, in the year of 322 B.C.
Aristotle’s Work
Aristotle’s works are mainly of three kinds. There are literary essays; there are the studies of
Constitutions; and then, there are the treatises intended for the lectures delivered to his students.
In all, he wrote about four hundred volumes, covering practically all spheres of human knowledge
Facebook Page MA English University of Sargodha Pakistan

2
and activity. Unfortunately, a number of his works have been lost, and many are incomplete
because of these losses.
Philosophical, Scientific, Political and Critical Treatises
1. Organon, or the Instrument of Correct Thinking.
2. Physics
3. De caelo.
4. De Generatione et Corruptione
5. Eudemian Ethics
6. Metaphysics
7. Politics
8. Historia Animalium
9. Meterologica
10. Constitutions (Including the Constitutions of Athens) llj Nicomachean Ethics.
12. Poetics
13. Rhetoric
H. THE SOCIAL AND LITERARY BACKGROUND OF ARISTOTLE
Or
LITERARY CRITICISM BEFORE ARISTOTLE : PLATO’S ATTACK ON POETRY
Existing Social Scene
In order to understand Aristotle’s views and especially the Poetics, it is necessary to know
something about the background, both social and literary. In the process, it becomes impossible
to ignore the work, views and influence of Plato. Plato’s views on poetry were also an outcome of
the existing social factors. It is his criticism of poetry that Aristotle refutes.
In the Athens of the time, the scene was one of political decline
and dissolution. Education was in a bad state. Homer’s epics were a
part of the school curriculum, but the portions which represented the
gods in an unfavourable light was criticised by philosophers and
educationalists. • .
The position of women was not high; they were not educated, and they had no say in politics
or religious matters. There was widespread slavery. Slaves were treated cruelly and considered
less than human. Foreigners coming to Athens could not acquire any rights of citizenship. The
sovereign body in Athens was the Assembly, a mass meeting consisting of the adult male citizens.

3
The virtues admired, even worshipped, by the Greeks—were courage, heroism, magnificence,
and skilful use of arms. It is to be kept in mind when Artistotle, in thePoetics, talks of the tragic
hero being ‘good’. Virtue to the Greek did not have the same meaning as it would have for the
Christian.
Literary .Scene
The literature of the period, too was in a state of decline; the golden age of Greek literature
was a period of the past. The creative impulse had dried up. Literature had become corrupt,
immoral and of a low level. The decadent poetry of the day aroused hostile criticism instead of
attracting readers.
It was the decadence of the imaginative literature that led to the elvation of philosophers and
orators over poets and artists. Among the confusion in the literary scene, there was constant
debate as to the superiority of poets as against the philosophers.
Plato : The Attack on Poetry
Plato’s attack on poetry came as a substantiation of his view that philosophers were superior
and of greater significance than poets. At the outset, however, one must take note of the fact that
Plato was not ignorant of the ‘greatness’ or enchantment of poetry; nor was he insensitive to it.
Indeed, it was because he was acutely conscious of the effect of poetry tht he banished poets from
his Republic of ideal citizens and statesmen. Although he respected the skilful poet named Homer,
he was not ready to give poets any place in an ideal state.
His attack on poetry was made on several grounds. On intellectual grounds, Plato
considered poetry to be a copy of the world of senses, and appearances. Poets thus have no
knowledge of truth, but* merely imitated a copy. Their poetry was thus a copy of a copy—a twice
removed from reality. The poets were unaware of the ideal world of concepts like truth, and
beauty. The poets merely copied the phenomenal world, which was a reflection of the ideal. Poetry
thus can serve no useful function.
On moral grounds, Plato declared that poets had a bad influence on social morality,for they
cater to popular taste and tell tales of man’s ‘pleasant vices’. Secondly, poetry tells lies about gods.
Gods are often represented as corrupt, and the tales told of them are immoral. This tends to
corrupt public taste and morals. Even Homer does not escape this charge, and cannot be suitable
for young students to read. Poets and dramatists, in other words,”appeal to the baser instincts of
man, according to Plato. Drama caters to, and encourages the instinct in men for the morbid and
the sensational.
Poetry is also attacked on emotional grounds—that poetry feeds and waters the desire and
passions of men, instead of drying them up as they ought to. Plato was highly distrustful of the
emotions, which according to him, created for men a sort of illusion. Emotions weaken man and
are contradictory to the views of philosophy. The soul has three parts—the rational, the spirited,
and the. desirous or appetitive. Poetry keeps reasons at abeyance and encourages emotions.
People give way to emotional distrubances under the effect of poetry, which they would be
ashamed of in real life. Poetry causes imbalance and leads to unrestrained emotional states in
which reason is subdued.
Thus, -poetry is attacked on the basis of being the result of “inspiration*; the poet
writes_quite unconsciously out of irrational impulses, and an irrational frenzy. Their work is not
a craft but the result of some irrational outside force. Hence, what they say is unreliable and
uncertain. What they write is useless, and a bad influence. Plato allows place for no poetry except
“hymns to gods and panegyrics on famous men”.

4
Philosophy—Superior to Poetry
Plato felt that philosophy was more suitable for nurturing and educating the young than
poetry. It was philosophy which would cure society of depravity and corruption. Philosophy would
offer a guide tx> good conduct. Plato conveniently ignores the fact that the ‘imitation’ in poetry
could stimulate and elevate human nature. He emphasizes the bad effects only. Citizens and rulers
alike are advocated to read philosophy, for philosophy sees Truth in its ideal or pure form.
Poetry, on the other hand, imitates shadows, and leads men to experience unreal feelings of pain
and pleasure and makes men lose their hold over themselves.
The Value of Plato’s Criticism

Plato’s criticism of poetry primarily stemmed from a desire to correct the prevailing tendency
in Greece, to regard poets as seers. At the time, Homer was not considered merely a great poet;
he was regarded in a more religious light. Plato felt that this was a dangerous thing not only for
the welfare of the state and society, but also from the point of view of the right appreciation of fine
art. Further, Plato’s criticism gave direction to future criticism :he proved to be a great stimulant
to thought, an irritant to thought; he dropped suggestive and illuminating ideas which have
proved to be more useful than any reasoned out,, coherent theory.
Plato’s ideas are given in brief, in the following lines :
1. In his works, appears for the first time the conception of ‘mimesis’, or imitation, as
the^essential characteristic of all art. The very concept of ‘mimesis’ is used by him to depreciate
poetry. Aristotle modified the concept to elevate poetry. Plato further divides art into two types—
the useful, and the fine arts.
. 2. Plato, in spite of his depreciation of poetry as a copy of a copy, was alive to the unseen
reality behind the world of the senses. He observed that poetry in its highesj form imitated this
ideal world; in its highest form, it became a process of representing things as they ought to be.
This is a hint of poetry being a creative process. It was to be taken up and elaborated by Aristotle.
. 3. Plato considers poetry to be a’ matter of inspiration. However, it is also an art, and Plato
lays down basic principles for the practice of poetry : first, there must beselection of
material; secondly, there must be knowledge of the rules and techniques of the art
: thirdly, study, practice and learning are necessary.
4.’fiao emphasizes the organic unity in a work of art. He compares the work of art .to a living
organism. This implies a coherent whole in which the parts have a significant relationship with
one another and to the whole. Once again, we see that Aristotle has taken the idea’ of’his
discussion.
5. Plato classifies poetry into dithyrambic, epic, and dramatic,

on the basis of the method of narration in each. This begins the classification of poetry according
to form and style.
6. Plato favoured decorum, austerity, order an M restraint in

poetry. “He is thus the first to enunciate the classical ideals of artistic
beauty.”
7. Though Plato took delight in the comedies of Aristophanes,

he was against excessive laughter. So is Aristotle.

5
8. Plato gives a moral basis to good art.Good art imitates truly,

and thus it cannot run counter to principles of morality.
Plato’s works formed the main literary criticism before Aristotle took up these views,
elaborated some, modified others, and gave a new dimension to literary criticism.
m. ARISTOTLE’S VIEWS
Or ARISTOTLE’S PHILOSOPHY : SOME ASPECTS
The following is a brief account of Aristotle’s views on state, God, Universe, ethics,
government and morality : On the Universe. Aristotle’s universe is a dynamic one; his world is
in the process of becoming.The nature of each thing is potentiality, moving through a process of
development to a reality—the perfect and final nature. This conception governs not only the
sphere of organic nature, but also the constructions in the area of art. On God. God is conceived
of as a Cause of the motion of the Universe, not as its creator. He is the Mover of the Universe,
not its Maker. He himself is moved by nothing, and He is the slave of no master. Every other thing
in the world, person, object, or thought, is a moved -mover. The Aristotelian God is ‘perfect’; He
is not interested in the world, though the world is interested in Him. It is a cold, impersonal God.
He is like the Primal Energy of scientists. On Goverment. In Politics, Aristotle presents an
analysis of 158 constitutions ‘and considers the relative merits of different forms of government.
He considers a Dictatorship to be the worst form, for in it the wishes of many are subject to those
of one. He favours that type of government which enables each man to exercise his best abilites
and to live his days pleasantly. Such a government would be run on the basis of a constitution, for
a government without a constitution would be a tyranny. Dictatorship by a class was no better
than dictatorship by one man;
Aristotle also demands that the rulers satsfy the ruled. Justice can achieve such satisfaction.
Revolution can then be avoided, for it is an unjust government which leads to it. In this sense,
a democracy is a safer form of government. The railing class must oversee the good education of
those who are ruled. The education should be ideal as well as practical.
On Communism. Aristotle is not in favour of communism because of a practical reason.
He feels that it is not conducive to individual responsibility, but will lead people to shirk their
responsibility. He favours the development of individual character and private ownership of
property.
Public Welfare. Aristotle does not want a clearcut demarcation between the ruler and ruled.
All citizens, he feels, should take a turn at governing, within the general principle that “the old are
more fitted to rule, the young to obey”. It is the legislator’s business to provide public interests to
the public. The main aim of the government is to ensure public welfare. The state exists for man,
and not vice versa.
Happiness. Politics is translated into ethics for Aristotle. Man is born to be happy. Happiness,
that pleasant state of being, is brought about by continual good deeds. Happiness also involves
having good birth, good looks, fortune, and good friends. A long life Is also needed to achieve
happiness.
Virtue. The nobleman can be happy even in the course of a short life. The noble soul can
cultivate an insensibility to pain; this itself is happiness. A man of virtue will act virtuously, aitd
happiness lies, in the performance of good deeds.

6
The Greek meaning of Virtue’ had a wider range than the modern sense. Virtue implied
excellence of any sort, or technial skills pf any variety. A person who possessed physical power, or
technical skill, or mental strength, was virtuous in the Greek sense. To Aristotle, Virtue’ also
meant ‘moral nobility. We must rememer this wide sense of the term when we come to Ariitostle’
statement in the Poetic, that the tragic character must be good.
The ‘gold mean*. Aristotle held that moderation should be the watchword in every sphere of
activity. The middle course between two extremes should be adopted. Neither should-one do too
little, nor too much. The rational way lay in being moderate. The virtuous man would always
preserve the golden mean, which was the right way. “For the golden mean is the royal road to
happiness.” The ideal man. The ideal man is one who does not unnecessarily expose himself to
danger, but one who would not hesitate to give his life in a crisis. He is pleased to do a favour to
others^ but feels ashamed of receiving them. He is good because it is profitable. The ideal man....
is altruistic because he is wise.
IV. ARISTOTLE AND PLATO : A COMPARATIVE STUDY
Or ARISTOTLE’S DEBT TO PLATO AND HIS ORIGINALITY
Introduction
Aristotle was a disciple of Plato, but he disagreed with some of Plato’s contentions.
The Poetics is quite correctly considered to be a “covert” answer to Plato’s charges against poetry.
Plato had declared poetry to be the mother of lies: Aristotle set out to prove that it was
8 ARISTOTLE’S POETICS
not so. At the same time, while the originality of Aristotle cannot be denied, his debt to Plato
has also to to be acknowledged. Indeed, Aristotle takes several hints from his master, elaborates
them and modified them to create his own theories.
Similarities between Plato and Aristotle
Firstly, both Greek thinkers considered poetry to be an imitative art. Secondly, they agreed
that poetry arouses emotions; thirdly, that poetry produces pleasure; and fourthly, that poetry has
an effect on the human personality. They also looked at poetry from a utilitarian perspective.
Differences between Plato and Aristotle
One may wonder how there can be any differences between Plato and Aristotle when in so
many basic things they agree. But in fact, they differed widely in their conclusions because they
differed greatly in their approach and objectives. In all the views listed above, Plato made
conclusions derogatory to poetry while Aristotle defended it.
1. Plato was an idealist who set out re-shape human life, while
Aristole was a realist trying to recorganise human knowledge. Plato
believed the idea to be real and the phenomenal world to be a shadow
of idea and therfore, unreal. But Aristotle believed in the world of
senses as being real. He believed that the physical world should form
the basis of any scientific study. He moves from the real to the ideal,
from the particular to the general.
2. Plato and Aristotle were different by temperament on account

of one being an idealist and the other a realist. Aristotle preferred

7
observation and analysis, the tools of the scientist by which he could

arrive at conclusions.
3. Coming after Plato, and possessing a scientific mind, Aristotle

is more comprehensive and systematic than his master. He has a
passion for “classification”.
Aristotle’s Answer to Plato on Poetry
Though Plato used the word “imitation” for poetry, he did so in a derogatory sense. Aristotle,
too considered poetry as imitation, but interpreted it as a “creative” process, Plato considered
imitation as mere mimicry. Aristotle widens its scope and insists that it can never be* mere imicry
but has to” possess the basic essence of Truth. Thus a poet is greater than a philosopher or
historian, for he creates something new by imitating reality. And, within reality, there are also
emotions.
While Plato compared poetry with painting, Aristotle compares it to music. It is thus that
Aristotle successfully refutes Plato’s charge of poetry imitating mere externalities; for like music,
poetry captures the soul, or essence of experience, internal as well as external.
Plato considered poetry to be a copy of natures as it is; Aristotle gives it the scope of being
concerned with “what ought to be” or “what can be”. Thus poetry idealises the reality.
Plato condemns the very fact that poetry arouses emotions. He considered these emotions to
be bad for humanity and hence, to be curbed if not avoided. Aristotle, however, insists that these
emotions should find expression—a saner view than Plato’s.
Plato regarded poetry to have a bad influence morally, intellectually and emotionally. But
Aristotle proves that in all these respects, poetry is to be praised for its good and healthy influence.
His theory of Catharisis tries to show that the efffect of poetry can be healthy.
Conclusion
Plato and Aristotle thus differed widely in their views. Though their basic premises were
similar, they arrived at opposite conclusions because their methods and objectives were different.
Aristotle proceeded from things to ideas, while Plato went from ideas to things. Aristotle was
scientific; Plato was metaphysical. It is this basic difference that forms the background to their
views on poetry.
Nature, Plan and Merits of Aristotle's Poetics

Introduction
At the very outset it is to be noted, and kept in mind while making a critical appreciation of
the Poetics, that the work is in the nature of lecture notes. It is no clear whether they are notes
taken by a student/or notes penned by Aristotle to guide him in his lectures. What is more, it is
not a complete text. One, therefore, cannot consider it a comprehensive and well-balanced study.
Critics have stipulated that the Poetics was really intended to be an answer to Plato’s attack on
poetry. At any rate, it is obvious that the work was not intended for publication, or it would not
perhaps be so disjointed and ‘lopsided’ in its emphasis.

8
The General Plan and Theme

The Poetics is divided into twenty six chapters. The book seems fragmenary and gives support
to the theory that a part of it was lost. Tha part probably contained a theory of Comedy and Satire,
and possibly, an explanation of that conroversial term, ‘Catharsis.’
It is possible to divide the “Poetics” into six parts: (i) The first five chapters, (1-5), are in the
nature of an introduction to the main treatise, a discussion of poetry and its different kinds.
Aristotle summarises on the different imitative arts, gives an outline on the origin of poetry, and
the development of its .main forms, namely tragedy and comedy.
(ii) Chapters 6-19 deals with tragedy. Aristotle defines tragedy, and discusses its elements.
A major portion is accorded to the discussion of plot, with one chapter given to
character (15) and two chapters to suggestions to poets on their art. (17 and 18).
(Hi) Chapters 20-22 are given to the discussion of diction. (if) Chapters 23 deals with
narrative poetry, ad compares it
with tragedy.
(v). Chapters 24 and 26 deal with the epic,’ and consider the relaive merits and superiority
of the two. • The treatment, thought brief is concise and full of meaning, (vi) Chapter 25 deals
with critical problems, and the principles
on which the objections can be resolved.
The -Poetics is restricted to the discussion of certain kinds of Greek poetry, or literature.
Aristotle groups these into two pairs. The grouping is made on the basis oftheir historical and
aesthetic connections.The origin of poetry, according to Aristotle, tended to be in two directions.
There is thethe ‘heroic’ poetry; and the ‘satiric’ poetry.Out of the “heroic’ or epic poetry developed
tragedy, while out of the satiric poetry developed comedy. Since then, the nature of poetry
disposed itself into two pairs or kinds. It would thus be seen that the principles valid for epic
would, with certain modifications, be valid for judging tragedy; and those applicable to satire will
be applicable to comedy. Aristotle was of the opinion, however, that the later kind in each pair
was superior to the earlier one. The later kind represented a higher development of poetic art. It
15 thus that they would deserve a fuller discussion than the earlier kind.
The Poetics is incomplete. As such, the scheme of treatment of the subject is indicated, and
not proved. We have only the discussion of tragedy and its comparison with the epic. The part
which has been lost probably contained a similar discussion of comedy and satire.
The Demerits or Defects of the Work
The handling of the subjects is rather unbalanced and disproportionate, as has been indicated
in the allocation of chapters to different topics. Tragedy forms the subject of discussion in the
major part of the book. We may find an excuse for this in that it. is the result of one part of the
book being lost. But we also find that, within the discussion of tragedy, a large portion is devoted
to the discussion of plot. May be, this too, is not surprising, as Aristotle considered the plot to be
the most important part of tragedy.
A glaring omission seems to be lyric poetry. Apart from the casual references to the
dithyramb and the nome, Aristotle does not give any attention to this variety of poetry. This was
probably because Aristotle thought that the lyric belonged more to the department of the music
than to poetry. And lyric was included in drama, in the songs of the Chorus. The personal lyric
had no structure of plot, like Epic and Drama, and so offered little interest to Aristotle. Further,

9
the Greeks had no ‘descriptive’ poetry in the modern sense. What there was of it, was incorporated
in one of the other main kinds.
The style o’f the work is almost ‘telegraphic’ in its conciseness and concentration. It is a style
for the initiated, those who were already familiar with the thought and terminology of the author.
But then, once again one remembers that the work was not intended primarily for publication. All
the haste, lack of revision, omissons and repetitions, go to prove that.
A limitation—one cannot really call it a defect—is that the Poetics is based entirely on Greek
drama. This is naturally so, because Aristotle was familiar only with Greek drama. It is only
natural that some of the views expressed in it seem outdated. But this limitation would be there
in any critical work if judged after so many centuries.
The Merits of The Book
No one. would deny the great significance of the Poetics, notwithstanding its defects. Its
influence has been continuous over the centuries. Indeed, it has commanded more interest and
attention than any other book of literary criticism. The assumptions made by Aristotle, and the
generalizations arrived at by him, many of them, are as valid to modern literature as they were to
ancient Greek literature. His assumption that a work of art should have a coherent and well-knit
structure, is a universally valid point.
These generalisations are arrived at through studying and analysing the particular, concrete
facts. But these generalisations are not made in a rigid tone.They are tentative and exploratory;
they are not assertions of some preconceived notion.The Poetics becomes the very foundation of
all subsequent critical ‘discussions of literature. What he says, illustrates Greek thpught and
literature. But also, at the same time, is an universal statement on literature in general. That is
what makes the Poetics remarkable. It has statements of permanent and universal importance;
its original ideas are often as true now as they were when first propounded. This, is so, inspite the
fact that Aristotle was merely trying to generalise from existing particular facts.
Aristotle was perhaps that first to employ the historical method of inquiry. He attempts to
trace the stages of development of Greek poetry. All through the Poetics he deals with poetry in
relatiojn to man. He traces its origian to the basic instincts of man—the instinct for imitation and
the instinct for harmony. This brings a psychological aspect to his method of inquiry.
The treatise is valuable for its method and perspective. It lays emphasis on the essentials,
simply and directly. It comes to the vital structure of a poem rather than the metre. It goes to the
end aim of tragedy rather than to the history of the Chorus. As F.R. Lucas remarks, “it shows a
very keen eye for vital points.” His conception of tragedy may not be the last work on the subject.
Everyone has realised that it has too many limitations.
The Poetics is full of thought-provoking material. As Atkins remarks, the “miracle of
the Poetics is that it contains so much that is of permanent and universal interest. And this is so
because the literature on which it was based was no artificial product of a sophisticated society,
but the natural expression of a race guided solely by what wa”s elemenal in human nature.”
The Universal Significance of the Poetics : Its Epoch-making Nature
The Poetics has, with justice, been called an important landmark in the history of literary
criticism. It is the final statement by the Greeks themselves upon two of their most important
poetic inventions, namely the Epic and the Tragedy. Before Aristotle, there apparantly did not
exist such a comprehensive and systematic work, which also shows a keen independent
judgement. The Poetics focusses on the best thought and practice of the time in which it was
written.

10
The Poetics is important because it more or less initiated the art of criticism. Later criticism
inevitably looks back to Aristotle and it becomes necessary to read the Poetics.Futhermore, many
of the ideas and assumptions it puts forward are universal—they are valid even for modern works
of literature. Unity of conception and artistic coherence are generalisations which are and will
always be appreciated and accepted. It is equally true that poetry is’ to be judged by its own laws
and not by extraneous standards.
Aristotle’s methods and perspective in the Poetics also gives the work its value. It
concentrates on essentials and treats the thoughts in a scientific mannner. He arrives at the
conception of an ideal structure for tragedy in a methodical manner, after testing each select
tragedy and by reasoning from function to form, and from form again to function.
The Poetics thus stands as a standard—universally valid in so many of its assumpations and yet
flexible enough to allow modifications. Indeed, it forms a foundation for all subsequent critical
discussions. It is, after all, the “first attempt made by a man of astounding genius .tobuild up in
the region of creative art a rational order”, as Gilbert Murray points out.
The “Poetics” Through the Ages
It has to be remembered that Aristotle’s views are based on the Greek drama he knew. The
modern reader has to exercise his own sense of history, and avoid beng a blind follower of
Aristotle. But there is no denying the fact that Aristotle and Plato have been the originating point
of much of literary thought in Europe. The ideas of Aristotle have been revived from time to time.
But it is also necessary to note that his thoughts have been revived in the context of particular
ages. The philosophical and literary concepts of Plato and Aristotle were something original and
intuitive. The reassessment of Aristotle” was possible because the ideas continued to change in a
smooth and gradual manner, without upsetting the fundamentals of the ancients Greeks.
It has been realised that Plato’s approach to the world is that of an idealist. Plato approached
nature to “woo it with mind and soul”. But Aristotle’s approach was that of arationalist, or one
who wished to conquer Nature through scientific analysis. Thus we see Plato and Aristotle at
opposite ends. Modern philosophers, however, strike a middle path between idealism and
realism. Kant proved that realism and” idealism do not run parallel but are convergent. A
synthesis between the idealism of Plato and the realism of Aristotle has been established in
philosophy, but this has not been done in the world of literature, where Aristotle continues to
suffer from his own limitations.
In the Poetics, Aristotle does not consider the importance of the ‘Higher Powers’ in tragedy.
He was a rationalist; he even excludes chance or accident from the sphere of dramatic art. He
forgets, or chooses to ignore, the very valid part played by the ‘theological situation’ in Greek
tragedy. The Greek dramatist uses a myth from tradition. It is used to indicate the ‘ultimate
reality* behind the human situation. The characters and plot are developed with the ends in view
of probing the mystery behind human success or failure. The dramatist’s main purpose is to
assert the universal order. This is what makes the spectator feel an awe’ and understanding for
the coherence in the universe. Perhaps, Aristotle does touch on this when he says that the poet
induces a sense of ‘inevitablity’ in the events depicted.
The “universal* forces at play* is vey much evident in Elizabethan drama as
well.Lear and Macbeth emphasise the eternal conflict between good and evil. The concept of
tragedy has changed through the ages. With the moderns, tragedy has shifted from the “heroic*
scale of values. The tragedies written by Sartre and Proust strike a different note. The dramatist’s
concept of tragedy is becoming ‘private*. Death of a Salesman strikes us immediately as an
example. It is a play more poignant than tragic. Traditional beliefs have weakened; society has
been levelled, and accepted codes of conduct questioned. The tragic hero is no longer a man of

11
stature, moral or otherwise. He is someone about whom the audience can show curiosity, one with
whom they can identify themselves.
Aristotle’s Poetics was of a deductive nature. It was based on the practice of the Greek
dramatists of his day. He discusses the problem of tragedy as an art form not in the abstract, but
with particular reference to Sophocles. Any attempt to generalise or universalise his conclusion,
is hampered by the fact that tragedy has changed its objectives from that of ancient Greeks to the
modern age. The modern age has approached the Poetics with diserning eyes. The approach is not
one of blind idolatry. The approach has led to a better understanding and appreciation of its
merits, as well as its demerits and limitations.
Conclusion
The Poetics, then, is not without defects. Most of these arise from the fact that the treatise
was never, perhaps, meant to be published. Its value and significance, however, overwhelm its
drawbacks. The book is of permanent intellectual value, as Gilbert Murray observes. He
further coninues: The book is a xStore of information about Greek literature; and as an original
or first-hand statement of what we may call the classical view of artistic criticism. It does not
regard poetry as a matter of unanalysed inspiration...(It) is characteristic of the classical view that
Aristotle lays his greatest stress”; first on the need for Unity in a work of art, that each part should
subserve the,whole, while irrelevancies, however brilliant in themselves, should be cast away; and
next, on the demand that great art must have for its subject the great way of living. These
judgements have often been misunderstood, but the truth in them is profound and goes near to
the heart of things.”
The Poetics is a thought-provoking work. It is still alive, because it is a study of a great art by
a peculiarly acute, learned, and methodical critic. It is the first work of literarly criticism and it
is written by the world’s first scientist says Hamilton Fyfe. Its profundity might have been
exaggerated. But it is terse; it is honest, and it gets to grips with the most essential points.
Aristotle’s Concept of Tragedy

THE NATURE, DEFINITION AND FORMATIVE ELEMENTS OF TRAGEDY
Introduction : “Poetics” Chiefly Concern with Tragedy
The very word ‘tragedy’ brings to mind Aristotle and the Poetics. Some aspects of the
definition and discussion of tragedy in that treatise may be considered controversial, unacceptable
or outdated, but its influence continues unabated. Tragedy, indeed, is the major concern of
the Poetics, as it has come down to us. Tragedy is considered by Aristotle to be the highest poetic
form. His definition and theory of tragedy presents remarkable insight and comprehension. It has
become the type of the theory of literature, as Abercrombie says.
The Greek Conception of the Term “Tragedy”

It is necessary at the very outset, to remember that the Greek conception of Tragedy was
different from ours. In the modern ages tragedy means a drama (sometimes story) with an
unhappy ending, and disastrous enough to have ‘tragic’ effect. But the origin of the term ‘tragedy’
is not too clear. Dante said that an unhappy tale was called a “tragedy” or “goat-song” because
goats are noisy. The real source is still under dispute. It is not certain whether the goat was a prize
or whether it was sacrificed, or whether the original dancers dressed up in goat-masks or goat-

12
skins. However, the Greek conception of tragedy was that it was a serious drama, not necessarily
with an unahppy ending. The essence of tragedy was that it handled serious action of serious
characters, whereas comedy dealt grotesquely with grotesque characters.
The Greek had their dramatic festivals, with four plays being performed on each day. There
were three serious plays, and one satyr-play or burleque. Tragedy, for the Greeks, simply meant
“one of the three serious plays presented before the satyr-play at a dramatic festival”. The Greek
tragedy has scenes and incidents of pain and sorrow, but need not end disastrously. This is clear
from Aristotle’s classification of four possible tragic plots (in ch. 13) , which include two plots
which represented a change from misery to happiness—a contention which seems unacceptable
in the modern times.
The Origin of Tragedy and Its Superiority over The Epic
Aristotle traces the possible origin of tragedy in his Poetics. According to him, tragedy
developed from the heroic strain of poetry, which in its turn, developed from the hymns sung in
praise of gods and great men. Tragedy is considered by Aristotle to be a higher form than the
heroic or epic form of poetry, because it was a later development. Tragedy has greater degree of
concentration and coherence than the epic, and has a greater effect. Aristotle traces the different
stages in the evolution of tragedy, from the single singer to the addition of actors and scenery. He
considers tragedy to have attained full development by the time he wrote about it.
The Definition of Tragedy
Aristotle’s famous definition of tragedy says : A tragedy is the imitation of an action that is
serious, and also as having magnitude, complete in itself in language with pleasurable accessories,
each kind brought in separately in the parts of the work; in a dramatic, not in a narrative form:
with incidents arousing pity and fear; wherewith to accomplish its catharisis of such emotions.
(Ch. 6)
The definition clearly falls into two parts. The first part tells us about the nature of tragedy,
its object, manner, and medium of imitation; the second part points out the function of tragedy.
Tragedy : Difference from Other Forms of Poetic Imitation
Tragedy, like all other forms of art, is a form of imitation. It differs from other arts in the
object, manner, and medium of imitation. Its objects of imitation are ‘serious actions’. It is always
to be kept in mind that ‘imitation’ in the Aristotelian sense is not slavish copying. It involves
grasping and presenting the essence of a universal truth. Poetic imitation is re-creation or a
creative reproduction of objects. Tragedy, then, differs from comedy, because its object of
imitation is a serious action. Comedy imitates a ‘groteseque’ action. The term ‘serious’ has aroused
controversy. Generally, critics have said that it implies ‘weighty’ or ‘important’. It is something
that matters, and hence of permanent significance.
In its manner of imitation, tragedy is different from the epic. The epic uses the manner of
narrative, while tragedy represents life through acting. It differrs from other forms of poetry in
that it employs embellishments1 of pleasurable accessories2 of different kinds. It uses, for
instance, verse for dialogues, and song for the chorus.
The Action: Complete with a Beginning, Middle, and End
Aristotle does not define the word ‘action’. But we get the . implication through the qualities
which Aristotle ascribes to it. For convenience’s sake, one can say that an action shows the
progress of an individual from one position to another, at which he either dies, or becomes
involved in a completely changed set of circumstances. Action is the plot, consisting of the logical

13
and inevitable sequence of incidents. The action must be complete, which means that it must have
a beginning, middle and end “The beginning is that which does not itself come after anything else
in a necessary sequence, but after which some other thing does naturally exists or come to pass.”
In one sense, there is nothing that has a beginning or an end. There is a continuous causal1
relationship between events. What Aristotle means, however, is that a play should have good
reason for beginning where it does, and for. ending where it does. As F.L. Lucas comments,
events do tend to occur in clusters. A volcano, even when continuously active has eruptions, which
form episodes complete in themselves; and the events of a tragedy are like such an eruption. T.R.
Henn remarks that the beginning of an action might be perceived to be “a sort of a momentary
slack water before the turn of the tide. At the opening of Hamlet there is every indication that, if-
it were not for appearance of the Ghost, events in Denmark would have settled down into a period
of rest”. The end is that which naturally comes after something else, but has nothing else following
it. And a middle is that which follows something else, and leads to something else. In every case,
there is the clause of ‘inevitability’, probability and ‘logicality’.
The Magnitude
Besides being serious, the action must have a certain magnitude. The term been wrongly
interpreted as “important” or dignified. It actually refers to the size. A tragedy must of a correct
length. It must not be so long that it cannot be grasped in its entirety without confusion. Neither
must it be so short that its parts cannot be comprehended properly. Aristotle comares the tragic
plot to a living organism in order to bring out the importance of the correct size. The plot or action
should be of such a size that it allows human memory to encompass the whole of it. It should, at
the same time, be long enough to permit the orderly and natural development in the change of
fortune, leading to the catastrophe2. The parts and the whole should form a coherent, complete
and intelligible pattern.
Furthermore, the action should be long enought for the characters to develop the sympathy
and interest of the spectator. This is specially so if the drama is about characters who are
not familiar, traditional figures. A certain amount of length is necessary to create the impression
of the plot-pattern being a complete and ‘inevitable’ story in which the events are logically and
causally connected. However, the length should be proportionate; the play should be an organic
whole.
Aristotle means verse and song by the term, ‘embellishment’. Tragedy uses different kinds of
‘embellishment’. Verse is used for the dialogues. Chorus speaks in song. These add beauty and
decor to tragedy, and their end is to please the spectator or reader. Melody and Verse, however,
are not indispensable or absolutely essential parts of tragedy, according to Aristotle.
The Function is to Arouse Pity and Accomplish Its Catharsis of such Emotions
The most debated term in the Poetics perhaps, is ‘Catharsis’. Used only once in the whole of
the Poetics, the term has unfortunately been left unexplained. Critics have been given scores of
explanations— contradictory, controversial, and confusing. In the main, interpretation of the term
goes along three lines.
One set of critics have explained the term in the sense of ‘purgation’. Tragedy arouses pity
and fear through its painful and horrific incidents. The sight and experience of these purge the
human mind of such emotions, or rather, reduce such emotions to a proper balance in the human
psyche. There is the “homeopathic” explanation of the ‘like curing the like’. It says that the
excitement of tragedy provides a safe outlet for our pent up1 feelings, which we cannot express in
actual life. Plato for instance says: “When babies are restless, you do not prescribe quiet for them;
you sing to them and rock them to and fro”. The external agitation overcomes the internal
agitation, and leads to calm and peace.

14
Another set of critics interpret the term as ‘purification’. The emotions are purified of their
morbidity2 and distressing quality, which accompany them in real life. The emotions are purified
and reduced to their just measure.
The ‘clarification’ theory, of Catharsis relates the term to the structure of incidents rather
than to the emotional response of the audience. The tragedy by presenting an integrated whole of
incidents arousing pity and fear, brings about a clarification of such events. It presents these
incidents in such a way that the relation between the particular and the universal is brought out.
The poet takes his material and selects and orders it according to probability and necessity. The
incidents will be clarified in the sense that their relation, in universal terms, will be manifest in
the tragedy. This leads to the pleasure peculiar to tragedy, and this pleasure comes out of the
representation of incidents of pity and fear.
ARISTOTLE’S CONCEPT OF TRAGEDY
Catharsis, in any case, has to do with the function of tragedy, which is to provide the tragic
variety of pleasure.
The Quantitative Elements of Tragedy
Aristotle divides tragedy into five quantitative parts. These are not relevant to modern drama,
and apply only to the typical Greek traedy. It thus has little interest for the modern reader. The
quantitative elements are : Prologue, Episode, Exode, Choric Song; Choric song is further divided
into Parade and Stasimon.
The Formative Elements of Tragedy
After having given a definition of tragedy, Aristotle comes to the consideration of the
formative elements of tragedy. He gives six formative elements of tragedy—Plot, Character,
Thought, Diction Spectacle and Song. Three of these i.e. Plot, Character, and Thought are internal
aspects; three, namely, Diction, Spectacle, and Song, are external aspects. Diction and Song are
concerned with the medium of imitation, while Spectacle, with the manner of imitation. Plot,
Character, and Thought are concerned with the objects of imitation.
The Spectacle according to Aristotle, has more to do with the stage effects. A successful poet
depends on his own ‘writing1 than on Spectacle to produce the effect he wants. Fear and pity, for
instance, can be produced by Spectacle, but that would be rather vulgar. Spectacle obviously
means the appearance of the actors on stage, costume, scenic effect, and so on.
Diction is, of course, the language through which the characters express themselves. The
Diction is a means of interpreting the thought, feelings and sentiments of the character. It includes
technical devices such as, metaphor, rare words, etc., made use of by the poet. The language of
tragedy must be highly expressive. The ‘gift of metaphor’ is valuable, says Aristotle, and cannot be
taught. At the same time, the language of tragedy must be clear, though not mean or low.
Thought is the intellectual element in the tragedy, and is expressed through the character. It
is the “power of saying whatever can be said, or what is appropriate to the occasion”. Thought is
there whenever something is proved or disproved. Thought and diction are related in the sense
that it is through diction that thought is expressed. The speech of the character expreses the views
and feelings of a character.
Unified Plot : Element of Primary Importance in Tragedy
Tragedy imitates ‘men in action’. The men, or the dramatis personae, must have the two
qualities, namely moral and intellectual: what Aristotle calls the ethosand dianoia. But even

15
speeches, which are expressive of character, would not be producing the tragic effect as powerfully
as a well constructed plot.
Aristotle considers plot to be the most important part of tragedy; indeed, it is the very soul of
tragedy. Plot is the arrangement of the incidents in a logical sequence.
Significantly enough, plot is compared to a living organism. Just as the parts of a living
organism must be probably related to each other and to the whole, the part of a tragedy should
relate to one another and produce a unified effect. Each event should further the action, and no
part should be superfluous or irrelevant. If any part can be removed withut damaging the effect
of the work, then that part is superfluous. Aristotle does not advocate a formal or mechanical
unity, as his comparison of a plot with a living organism shows.
Furthermore, unity does not arise from a play having a single hero. A single person may
experience- several incidents, all of which cannot, and should not, be presented in one play.
Plurality of action is appropriate for an epic, but not for a tragedy. Thus, the tragic poet should
select and arrange his material to give it artistic unity.
We will now discuss the main formative elements of tragedy. Plot : Simple or Complex
Plot, says Aristotle, is the most important aspect of a tragedy. The Plot can be of two types,
simple and complex :
Plots are either simple or complex, since the actions they represent are
naturally of this two-fold description. The action proceeding in the way
defined, as one continuous whole, I call simple, when the change in the
hero’s fortunates takes place with out Peripety or Discovery; and complex,
when it involves one or the other, or both. These should each of them arise
out of the structure of the Plot itself, so as to be necessary and probable, of
the antecedents. There is a great difference between a thing happening
propter hoc and post hoc. (Ch. 10,Poetics)
Simple plots have continuous movements, and involve no violent
change. Complex plots involve changes arising out of Peripety and
Anagnorisis. The turns in a complex plot, it is emphasised, must
arise out of the structure of the Plot.
Peripety and Anagnorisis in a Complex Plot
Peripety, or reversal, is the change in the fortune of the hero. The change of reversal in the
situation is brought about by human actions producing the results very opposite to what was
intended. It is, as F.R. Lucas remarks, working in blindness to one’s own defeat. Anagnorisis or
recognition is the change from ignorance to knowledge, i.e.knowledge of the true identity of
persons, or the truth of facts, or circumstances. The effect of tragedy is greatest if the Peripety and
discovery come together as in Sophocles’s Oedipus the King. Aristotle prefers the complex plot,
for it is more effective in capturing attention.

16
The third kind of tragedy depends for its effect on scenes of suffering, or of painful incidents,
such as murders, violent deaths, torture, wounding, etc., on the stage.
Probability and Necessity : Plot is a Complete Whole
Probability and necessity are aspects on which Aristotle lays ‘great emphasis. It is necessary
that the plot of a tragedy be a choherent whole, in which the events are connected to each other
and to the whole, logically and causally. There should be nothing superfluous or irrelevant in the
Plot. The removed or the transposal of any part should disjoin the whole, otherwise that part is
superfluous. What is presented should be presented in a convincing manner, so that the sequence
of’events seem credible and probable. In this context, Aristotle makes a statement which is acute
for its artistic truth— that a likely impossibility is better than an unlikely possibility. The scheme
of events, in other words, should be reduced to a comprehensible and intelligible pattern. This is
what constitutes a sense of inevitability. Aristotle condemns the ‘episodic plot’ which is not a
unified whole and where episodes seem unconnected. Play of chance should be limited, and
preferably confined to narration and not presented on stage.
Fatal Plots : Aristotle’s .Implied Preference
There can be four types of plots. It is necessary to remember here that in the Greek sense of
the term, tragedy could have what is called a “happy end’. The plots to be avoided are enumerated
by Aristotle as follows:
(i) that which shows a perfectly good man passing from
happiness to misery ; (it) that which shows a bad man passing from happiness to
misery; . (Hi) that which shows a bad man passing from misery to
happiness.
The first kind will merely shock us, and arouse pity and fear. The second would satisfy our
moral sense, but again fail to arouse pity and fear, the proper tragic emotions. The third one is
obviously unsuitable for tragic action. The best plot, therefore, will be of a good, but not perfect
man suffering as a result of some error or fault of judgement, namely Hammartia.
The Dramatic Unities
Aristotle wrote Poetics as an analysis of the extant practice in dramatist art. As such, he lays
down no hard and fast rule. But there is one Unity he stresses upon—theUnity of Action. That the
action of the tragedy be a logical sequence and a coherent whole, directed towards a single end,
Aristotle does stipulate1.
As regards the Unity of Time, Aristotle merely states a general observation that tragedies
tended to limit the time to a single revo-
1. specific as essential.
lution of the sun, or a little more. But the observation is of a tentative kind and not a rigid
rule.
The Unity of Place he does not mention, let alone stress upon. The three unities came into
force with later critics, who wrongly ascribed two of them to Aristotle.

17
Character : The Four Essentials

Four essentials are enumerated by Aristotle for successful , characterisation in tragedy : (i)
Goodness (it) Appropriateness (in) True to life (iv) Self-consistency
The most important aspect of characterisation in tragedy, says Aristotle, isgoodness. The
character should be good. This is so, if the » purpose he shows is good. The tragic characters
should be ‘better than ordinary life’. Secondly, the character must be appropriate to the status or
type he represents. Thus it would be improper to ascribe valour1 to a woman, and nobility to a
slave. Thirdly, the character has to show truth to life. The character must be true respresentatives
of actual human nature. Or, they must be like the historical persons names they bear.
Fourthly, the character should be self-consistent. A person of given character should speak
or behave in a given way. The inconsistent character should be represented as inconsistent all
through the play. Character should also be governed by the laws of probability and necessity. The
speech and behaviour of the character should be the outcome of his nature.
The Ideal Tragic Hero
The ideal tragic hero should not be perfectly good, nor utterly depraved2. He should be a man
not “pre-eminently good and just, yet whose misfortune is brought about not by vice or depravity,
but by some error or fraility. He must be one who is highly renowned and prosperous”.
Thus a tragic hero should be a mixture of virtue and human frailty3; his misfortune should
come about from an error of judgement; and he must fall from a height of glorious position. Such
a man would arouse the tragic emotions of pity and fear.
Comparative Importance of Plot and Character
According to Aristotle, plot is of supreme importance in a tragedy. Plot in tragedy is like an
outline in painting; it gives meaning to the work. Col; ifs thrown haphazardly on a canvas have
little significance—only the outline gives meaning. Similarly, the soul of tragedy is to be found in
the plot. Aristotle goes so far as to say that there can be a tragedy without character, but none
without plot. Such a statement seems asburd on the face of it, for how, one may ask, can there be
a play without characters ? it is, however, to be noted that Aristotle’s concept of ‘character’ here
does not mean the dramatis personae, but the “moral bent” of a person. He means the tendency
of a person to act in a certain way. Now, the moral bent of a character is only revealed when he is
faced with a dilemma, where choices becomes necessary. In his choice he will reveal his nature,
and it is this ‘nature’ which Aristotle refers to as ‘character’. In a tragedy, there may or may not be
such situations of choice were ‘character’ is revealed, and in this sense, there can be a tragedy
without ‘character’. But there can be no play without some form of ‘action’. Even a modern
audience will agree that a plot is essential if a play is to succeed on stage.
The Tragic Pleasure
Tragedy, Aristotle correctly remarks, has its special kind of pleasure. He recognised the
emotional effects of tragedy, and said that it aroused the feelings of pity and fear. And he accepted
that these feelings excited in the human psyche need not be harmful.
The pleasure is also derived from the instinctive response of human beings to imitation and
harmony. It is also derived from the satisfaction one gets from learning. Tragedy clarified certain
incidents for us, relates the particular to the universal; it increases our understanding of life. The
unity of plot, the diction and the spectacle add to the pleasure, i.e. the pleasure of art.

18
Limitations in Aristotle’s Concept of Tragedy

It is true that the concept of tragedy put forward by Aristotle is no mean achievement. It lends
itself to a remarkable amount of adaptation, beyond what was immediately present to the mind
of the writer. Yet, the fact that Aristotle was writing of only the Greek tragedy he knew, does put
a limitation to his concept of tragedy. Later experience in the field of tragedy has shown the
immense scope for modification in Aristotle’s theory, especially regarding the tragic hero.
There is another limitation in Aristotle’s theory. He does not take into account the religius
origions of tragedy. Neither does he give enough importance to the outside forces which interact
with the human forces in a play. In other words, he does not discuss a very basic issue in tragedy—
conflict, both inner and outer conflict. In Greek tragedy itself, one feels the existence of the
mysterious and divine forces; there is the effect of the unseen on the seen. It is the tragic choice
faced by the heroies and heroines which makes the Greek tragedy so awesome. Greek tragedy
dramatises the struggle between contending moral forces. Aristotle does not discuss the collision
offerees: the collision between man, who is imprisoned within the limits of the actual, and the
forces outside, belonging to a superior power which restricts man’s freedom. The conflict between
man and outside forces, between problems of good and evil, are very much a part of tragedy of all
ages. It is unfortunate that Aristotle does not discuss these factors.
Conclusion
The main features of Aristotle’s conception cannot be ignored easily There are weaknesses as
there are bound to be. His conception is based on Greek tragedy alone. Yet his views lend
themselves to a remarkable amount of universalization. Today, we may not agree with his
‘essentials’ of tragic characterization—Shakespeare has shown us the possibilities of a tragic
characterisation—Shakespeare has shown us the possibilities of a tragic ‘villain’. But what he says
regarding Peripety and Discovery and Hamartia, are conceptions which are still valid. At any
rate, “Aristotle’s theory of Tragedy is the foundation on which all subsequent discussion of literary
aesthetics has most securely based itself. His views on tragedy are the “history” of tragedy.
Aristotle’s Concept of the Ideal Tragic Hero

Introduction : Idealized Imitation of Objects in Tragedy
Poetry is a form of imitation. The objects of poetic imitation may be either
better than real life, worse than real life, or the same as they are in actual life.
Aristotle thus distinguishes between comedy and tragedy, for tragedy involves
the imitation of men better than they are in actual life. Hence tragedy presents
a character in an idealised form. The tragic poet represents life as it might be,
not as it necessarily is. The characters are better than we are. It is, however,,
important to understand that the idealization does not mean that the characters
are good in a strictly moral sense. It merely means that the characters live a
more complete and intense life than the real men and women dare to in the real
world. This is what makes the characters in a tragedy awesome1, as they are on
a higher plane than ordinary men and women. Aristotle in his Poetics puts
forward a number of characteristics for the ideal tragic hero, which, however,

19
have proved to be quite controversial. Different critics have interpreted them in

different manner.
The Main Features of the Tragic Character

In chapter 15, Aristotle speaks of dramatic characters and the four points to
aim at in the treatment of these characters. The four points are :
(i) that the characters should be good; • . (ii) that they should be
appropriate;
(iii) that they should be close to reality or true to life;
1. inspiring a mixed feeling of fear, wonder, and reverence (usually caused
by something majestic).
(iv) that they should be consistent.
(i) Goodness. The first characteristic demanded by Aristotle has struck
many critics as somewhat strange and extraordinary. But it is essential to
Aristotle’s theory because it is the very foundation for the basic sympathy in the
reader or audience, without which tragic emotions cannot be evoked, or the
tragic pleasure conveyed. A character is assumed ‘good’ if his words and actions
reveal a good purpose behind them. This is irrespective of the class to which he
belongs. Aristotle held woman to be inferior (and classified them with slaves),
but even women, if introduced in tragedy, should be shown to have some good
in them. Aristotle based his statements on an assumption that his spectators
have a ‘normally balanced moral attitude’, as Humphry House says. As such,
they cannot be sympathetic towards one who is depraved or odious1. Sympathy
is necessary’as it is the very basis of the whole tragic pleasure. The bad man does
to arouse pity in us if he falls from happiness to misery.
Entirely wicked persons have no place in tragedy, according to Aristotle. But
we must remember that, by implication, we can see that Aristotle allows the
“bad’ or wicked man in a tragedy if he is indispensable to the plot. He says that
he would not allow for “depravity of character” when it is not necessary and no
use is made of it. Thus Aristotle realises that 1)ad’ characters may be necessary
in some tragedies. But this badness may occur only in so far as the main action
requires it. And the action of the play as a whole should be a ‘good’ one; in other
words, it should portray efforts to bring about a ‘good’ result. The characters
initiating the main action are, therefore, good. Yet, bad characters may occur in
the process of realising this action. It is thus that a wicked character like lago is
not necessarily ruled out in the context of the Aristotelian concept.

20
Aristotle’s dictum of ‘goodness’ in the tragic character has given rise to a

great deal of controversy and contradictory interpretations. To Corneille, the
French playwright and critic, the term ‘good’ meant magnificent. Dacier and
Metastasio interpreted ‘good’ to mean Veil-marked’. Telford considers the term
to signify, ‘dramatically effective’. F.L Lucas is of the firm opinion that the term
implies being ‘fine’ or ‘noble’: The real point is, however, that Aristotle is clearly
insisting that the dramatis personae of tragedy shall be as finea character as
the plot permits.”
However, what Humphry House says in this context is clear and 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 terms of Christian ethics. The insistence on goodness is not coloured with
direct didacticism.
It does not have 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, temperance, liberality, magnificence, gentleness,
truthfulness, friendliness, and even witness.” Thus the moralistic interpretation
of “goodness” implying the effort to do one’s duty, should not be read into what
Aristotle says. Aristotle’s good man is good in so far as he desires specific,
positive good ends, and works towards attaining those ends, Aristotle’s use of
the term ‘good’ implies something necessarily different -from what we mean by
it today. If we remember that the “pagan idea of virtue,... (Demands) strength
and intensity of character rather than purity of soul, Aristotle’s words ‘are not
without force. Greek ethics had a larger element of aesthetics,” says F.L., Lucas.
The characters need not be virtuous in the Christian sense of the term. Indeed
this would lead to the play being rather undramatic as humility and modesty
and meekness are perhaps the most undramatic human qualities. By
implication, what is required is a sense of ‘grandeur’.
(ii) Appropriateness. The next essential as far as character is concerned is
that of “appropriateness”. This term has also been interpreted variously. Once
set of critics take it to mean true to type. Yet this does not mean the Aristotle
meant characters to be mere types and not individuals. What he meant is that
the characters should be true to their particular age, profession, class, sex, or
status.’ But they are^ individuals at the same time, for they are ‘men in action’
as represented in tragedy.
The actions of people of the same type can, and do differ : in this lies their
individuality. The choice made .by them in the crucial situation indicates their
particular individuality. Aristotle, with his insistence that practice is the source
of character, would have maintained that one who has been brought up in
slavery would not suddenly develop nobility and heroism. He would, through

21
the constant habit of doing the acts of a slave, become slave like. A woman,
similarly , must be shown as ‘womanly’ and not manly. Each character should
be given a character appropriate to his ‘status’ or situation. Within each status;
there remains the greatest freedom for individuality in characterisation. In spite
of restrictions and limitation, the individual may rise above the tendency to run
true to type. This involves dramatic treatment too.
Another aspect of appropriateness has been pointed o’ut by critics. Aristotle
has not made it clear as to what exactly the character is to be appropriate. It has
been remarked th’at Aristotle could have also meant that the character should
be appropriate to the historical or traditional portrait of him. For instance,
Ulysses must be characterised as he has been historically presented. Any
character taken from myth or traditional story must be true to what he has been
presented as in that myth or story Apparently, if Aristotle meant this, he had the
practice of the Greek dramatists in mind who took their characters from
traditional sources like myth and history. It is thus that Clytemnestra cannot be
represented as gentle, or Ulysses as foolish.
(iii) Likeness. The third essential .is that of likeness. Aristotle gives no
example to illustrate his meaning in this context. Thus it is slightly difficult to
assess what exactly he means by the term. If one interprets the term as likeness
to the ‘original* in the sense of how the painter is true to the original, it would
mean being true to the personage in history, or legend. This would curtail1 the
freedom of the creative artist. It would be more acceptable to interpret the term
as “true to life”—that the character must be true to life. The likeness to life as we
know of it is necessary, for it is only then that we can identify ourselves with the
characters. If we do not see the character as we see ourselves, the tragic
emotions of pity and fear become irrelevant. We see that this likeness to life
precludes the characters from being either too good or utterly depraved. The
tragic character has thus to be a normal person, or “of an intermediate sort”.
Only then will he be convincing.
One might argue here that Aristotle is contradicting himself, for he also says
that tragedy represents characters better than our selves. But this is not
necessarily a contradiction. The action of tragedy, we have been told, is a
complete whole, has a coherent, well-knit, patterned unity—and thus, has a
more clearly defined end than a piece of real life or a slice of history. To fit such
an action, character must also be modified from the commonplace norm2 of
real life. So, the character is at one, true to life and different from reality as well.
It is the balance on one hand between our desire for reality and life like
‘imitation’ and on the other our desire for something better than that found in
real life.

22
(iv) Consistency. The fourth essential with regard to character

is that it must be consistent. This is a valid point which cannot be
disputed. The character must be seen as a whole, and consistent to
what he is presented as from beginning to end. There is to be
uniformity in behaviour unless there is a proper motivation for any
deviation. Any development in character has to take place according
to intelligible principles, i.e., logically. There has to be probability or
necessity in the character’s actions and words. Aristotle allows for
waywardness by saying that if the character is to be show as being
an inconsistent one, he should be consistently inconsistent. The
character, in other words, should act and seem to think in a manner
which we can logically expect from that particular individual. This is
similar to Aristotle’s contention of the plot being a causally related
whole. The character’s actions and words should be appropriate to
what he is represented to be, as well as to the situation in which he
is placed.
AN IDEAL TRAGIC HERO
The passage in the Poetics which deals with the ideal tragic hero, has
attracted a great deal of critical attention. Aristotle says : “It follows plainly, in
the first place that the change of fortune presented must not be the spectacle of
a virtuous man brought from prosperity to adversity; for it moves the audience
to neither fear nor pity : it simply shocks us. Nor, again, that of a bad man
passing from adversity to prosperity, for nothing can be more alien to the spirit
of tragedy .
Nor, again should the downfall of an utter villain be exhibited.
A plot of this kind would, doubtless,, satisfy the moral sense, but it would
inspire neither pity nor fear; for pity is aroused by unmerited misfortune, fear
by the misfortune of man like ourselves.”
We see that Aristotle has no place in tragedy for two types of characters—
the perfectly virtuous and the thoroughly depraved or bad. Thus the tragic
character is one who is not eminently good and just, yet whose misfortune is
brought about not by vice and depravity, but by some error or frailty. He must
also be one who is highly renowned and prosperous.
The Perfectly Good : Not Fit for a Tragic Hero
Aristotle’s concept of the effect of tragedy is that is arouses pity and fear in
the spectator. But a perfectly good man, if he suffers the fall from prosperity to
misery, will not arouse pity or fear; he would simply shock the spectator’s sense

23
of justice. The shock arises from the fact that a completely virtuous man is
suffering; the suffering is wholly undeserved. It is an irrational suffering.
The concept of the tragic hero not being perfect is related to the insistence
on goodness in character. For, a perfect person would be one who had his
desires under control, and whose intellect is able to form the right calculations
and the right practical inferences, so that he would formulate to himself ends
more immediately within his power. Right action would become more and more
spontaneous and immediate, and the sphere of deliberation more and more
limited. And ultimately the scope for the dramatic display of action would not
exist. A blameless, virtuous character cannot be dramatically effective..
Furthermore, we cannot identify ourselves with such a saintly character. It is
true that in recent times Shaw and Eliot have made successful drama with
saints as their tragic heroes. But then Aristotle was speaking about the drama
he knew, i.e., the Greek drama. And generally speaking saints have been
excluded from the sphere of drama. Yet Antigone in Greek drama itself was
quite blameless. She had to choose and chose as well as possible in the
circumstances; she sacrificed the lower duty to the higher.
One might say that blameless goodness is not the proper stuff for drama.
Perfect goodness- is apt to be immobile1 and uncombative2; it tends to bring
action to a standstill. Yet it would not be 1- not moving or changing. 2. not ready
to fight or struggle.
It is completely right to say that the spectacle of a perfect man suffering

shocks rather than arouses pity. Desdemona, Cordelia, and Antigone surely
arouse pity. It would not be correct to say that terror, here, outweighs pity. The
sense of outraged justice is there but it does not exclude pity.
The Thoroughly Depraved Character : Not Suited for Tragedy
Another type of character excluded by Aristotle from the sphere of tragedy
is that of the utter villain. The completely bad man falling from prosperity to
adversity1, says Aristotle, would merely satisfy our sense of justice. There would
be no pity or fear. The suffering is deserved, and we cannot feel pity for the one
who suffers . Furthermore, the sense of identification is absent, just as it is in
the case of the perfectly good man.
Nor can we tolerate the idea of bad man rising from adversity to prosperity.
This would be entirely alien to tragedy, says Aristotle. This is quite aceeptable.
It would indeed offend our sense of justice. Even the aesthetic2 effect would be
one tinged with disquiet.

24
However, the exclusion of the villain from the sphere of tragedy is somewhat
debatable. In this Aristotle seems to show a limited vision. True, crime as crime
has no place in dramatic art. But presented in another light it becomes valid in
drama. Macbeth outrages hospitality as well as loyalty by killing his guest and
king, Duncan, under his own roof. Webster’sVittoria is a “white devil’. But these
peQple arouse pity. Vittoria standing undaunted before her enemies; Lady
Macbeth, alone, and broken by her sorrow and guilt; Macbeth courageously
drawing his sword in the face of certain defeat at Dunsidane,—all of them arouse
pity though they are such Villains’. Pity, as Lucas remarks, is not so narrow. It
needs, however, the genius of Shakespeare to evolve tragic villains of this type.
Only he could perhaps create a Macbeth, or a Richard III.
There is something grand about these villains. It is wickedness on a grand
level; the wickedness is intellectual and resolute, and it raises the criminal above
the commonplace and gives to him a sort of dignity. There is something terrible
in the spectacle of a will power working out its evil course, dominating its
surroundings. The fall and breakdown of such a power evokes a certain tragic
feeling in us, or a tragic sympathy. It is not the pity one feels for the unmerited
sufferer. But 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; provided they show some sort* of
magnificence—then it is astonishing how much their fellow-men can sometimes
forgive them.” One might, perhaps, offer a defence’ of Aristotle,-here too. After
all, he says that a completelydepraved person is not fit to
be a tragic hero. Macbeth, one could argue, is not completely depraved, for he shows
inordinate1 courage.
The Tragic Hero : An Intermediate Sort of Person

The person who stands between complete villainy and complete goodness, according to
Aristotle, is the ideal tragic hero. He is a. man like a ourselves, yet has a moral elevation. He is a
more intense person; his feelings are deeper, he has heightened powers of intellect and will. But
he is essentially human, so that it is easy for us to identify ourselves with him and sympathise with
him. Thus the tragic hero “must be an intermediate sort of person, a man not pre-eminently
virtuous and just, whose misfortune, however, is brought on him not be vice or depravity but by
some error of judgement, or Hamartia.”
Hamartia’ : Not A Moral Falling but an Error of Judgement
Hamartia has been interpreted variously. It has come to be rather loosely interpreted as
“tragic flaw’ by Bradley. This interpretation has stuck and has tended to confuse the true meaning
of the term. Hamartia is not a moral failing, as the term, tragic flaw implies. Aristotle makes it
clear that Hamartia is some error of judgement—that the fall of the hero comes about not because
of some depravity, but from some error on bis part. Critics like Butcher, Bywater, Rostangi and
Lucas agree that Hamartia is not a moral drawback. It may be connected with moral drawback
but it is not itself a moral imperfection.

25
Hamartia can Arise in Three Ways

The Hamartia is an error or miscalculation. It may arise in three ways. Firstly, it may be
derived from an ignorance of some material fact or circumstance. Secondly, the error of
judgement may arise from a hasty or careless view of a given situation. The case is illustrated
by Othello. In this case the error was avoidable but the hero does not avoid it. Thirdly, the error
may be voluntary, though not deliberate. This happens in an act of anger or passion. Lear commits
such an error when he banishes Cordelia.
In the case of Oedipus all three errors are included. The defect of Oedipus lies in his proud
self-assertion. But the ruin brought upon him is through the force of circumstance.
The Hamartia in his case includes a defect of character, a passionate act, and ignorance. The tragic
irony lies in the fact that the hero commits this error in blindness and in innocence, without any
evil intention. But the result is disastrous. This is closely connected with Peripitea, or the
production of a result opposed to the one intended. Then comes the discovery of
truth. In this connection Butcher remarks : “Othello in the modern

drama, Oedipus in the ancient, are the two most conspicuous examples
of ruin wrought by characters, noble indeed, but not without defects,
acting in the dark and, as it seemed, for the best.”
The Eminence of the Tragic Hero : Not Relevant in the Modern
Context
Greek drama had for its heroes men of eminence and nobility. They held a
position on exaltation in society. When such a man falls from greatness to
misery, a nation as a whole is affected. The fall seems all the more striking
because of the hero’s eminence. The concept was acceptable and relevant in a
situation in which prominent men of the nobility were held to be
representatives of the society. The concept is, however, outdated today.
Modern tragedy has shown that tragedy is possible all its effectiveness even
when the hero is ordinary and commonplace. Rank and nobility of birth are now
irrelevant. But the man who is the tragic hero should, nevertheless be a man of
eminence, not of rank and position, as far as quality goes. There has got to be
some sort of dignity which makes the fall from prosperity arouse sympathy in
the spectator.
Conclusion
On the whole, we see that Aristotle’s concept of the tragic hero is not
unacceptable. In some ways he has a limited vision. Tragedy is possible .with
saints, as Shaw and Eliot have shown. But this is not a -generally found fact.
That tragedy is also much possible with a villainous hero, has been remarkably
shown by the Renaissance dramatists, especially Shakespeare. Further, the
tragedy arises from Hamartia. This, too, is proved by many of our best

26
tragedies, for these are indeed what Lucas calls tragedies of error. It is the most
effective of tragedies. However, the chief limitation of Aristotle’s concept is that
it is based on one section of world drama.
The Relative Importance of Plot and Character in Poetics by

Aristotle
Introduction : Aristotle’s Controversial Statement on Plot
Aristotle lists six formative1 elements of tragedy. Of these he gives the primary place of
importance to the plot. Indeed, he devotes a major portion of his discussion of tragedy to Plot.
Plot he says, is the very soul of tragedy; it is the principle of tragedy. He then makes the famous
statement which led to such a great deal of controversy. He declares : “A tragedy is impossible
without plot, but there may be one without character.” The statement has led to plenty of hostile
criticism, specially from the modern critics, who consider that Aristotle is depressing the value of
character to that of plot. Some critics have misread Aristotle’s statement, and have accused him
of being absurd. How, they ask, can there be tragedy without ‘character’ as used by Aristotle,
before we go into the relative importance of plot and character in a tragedy.
The Necessity of Plot

Aristotle defines tragedy as in imitation of an action. What is action ? It is a process of change,
and in tragedy, a process of change from happiness to misery. The action is made up of a number
of logically connected incidents. One can say that the plot is the arrangement of the incidents.
However, it is important to note that Aristotle did not consider the term ‘action’ as clearly and
wholly external. It .involves inward activity also. To him, plot did not mean an abstract pattern of
action largely independent of the specific character, or agent.
In drama characters are not described; they act. They reveal themselves through their speech
and action. Without action in this sense, there can be no drama at all. The plot contains the kernel1
of the action. It isthrough the plot that the change from happiness to misery is shown. Aristotle
defines tragedy thus :
Tragedy is an imitation, not of men, but of an action of life, and life consists in action, and its
end is a mode of action, not a quality. Now Character determines men’s qualities, but it is by their
action that they are happy or the reverse. Dramatic action, therefore, is not with a view to the
representation of character ; character comes in as subsidiary to the actions. Hence the incidents
and plot are the end of tragedy, and the end is the chief thing of all. Again, without action there
cannot be a tragedy; there may be without character.
We see that the two elements of plot and character seem to be set against one another in sharp
and impossible opposition. It is also obvious that one cannot take the last sentence of the above
quotation in a literal sense. The confusion in the discussion of this question arises from the
ambiguity2 in the use of the words ‘plot’ and ‘character’. In the popular sense, the antithesis3,
between the two terms is based on the fact that the term ‘character’ is not seen in its full dramatic
value. It is made to stand for the abstract impression of character, rather than signifying
“characters producing action,” as it should in the dramatic sense.

27
The ‘plot’ in the full sense of term is the ‘action’, and includes not only the circumstances and
incidents which form the main part of ‘plot’ as popularly thought, but also ‘character’ in the full
dramatic sense of ‘characters producing action’. Thus we find that an antithesis between ‘plot’ and
‘character’ is not possible. .
Two Aspects of ‘Character : Ethos andDionoia
In one sense, ‘character’ can be taken to mean the dramatic personages. If used in this sense,
the antithesis between plot and character at once becomes absurd, for how can there be a plot
without the agent ? It is apparent that Aristotle did not use the term to mean dramatic personage.
In the second sense, ‘character’ is that bent or tendency or habit of mind, which is revealed
only through the speech and action of a dramatic personage. It is in this sense that Aristotle uses
the term ‘character’, when he says that tragedy is possible without character. He means
that tragedy is passibleeven if character delineation4 is not too strong, i.e., even if the characters
are mere types, or marked only by class characteristics, or lacking in those distinctive qualities out
of which dramatic action grows.
Aristotle uses two words for the elements in the character of a person—ethosand dionoia.
Both these elements determine the cause of action, as well as the quality of action. Ethos is the
moral element, whiledionoia .is the intellectual element. It is through character, consisting of
both these elements that the moral self of a person finds “outward expression.” Both these
elements reveal themselves in the speech and action of the personage. If a person has a tendency
to do good, he is called virtuous. As Humphry House says, this tendency to do good or bad is not
realised if it is merely inherent1; it is realised only through actions, and it is only through.the past
actions that one forms an idea1 of the character’s ‘character’.
Character is Formed Through Action
We have certain qualities or abilities inherent in us, suc.h as the ability to see, hear, etc. Our
moral self is acquired by our actions in the past. We learn to become good or bad by acting well
or ill, just as a builder learns to build building by building. “By repeated acts of a certain kind, we
acquire a habit or a certain bent of character. In this way, qualities of characters are legacies of
past acts,” says Humphry House.
Character is formal through action, and is revealed through actions. When Aristotle talks
of tragedy without character, he means that the dramatic personages do not reveal their
character, their moral bent which makes them act in a particular manner. This moral bent is
revealed in the purpose of an action, as well as in the means adopted to bring about that end. In
some plays the moral bent need not be revealed because there is no situation which demands the
person to make a choice. There may not be a situation in which the person has to decide on a
course of action. As such, in the absence of the need to make a choice, a moral choice involving
.intellectual reasoning, the ‘character’ of the person is not required to be revealed. In such a
tragedy all that matters, is the plot. Thus tragedy is possible without ‘character’, but it is not
possible without plot.
It will be noted that the necessity of making a choice, which requires deliberation2 and
thought about the means, is conducive3 to the ‘individualised’ characters. Aristotle’s theory thus
allows for ‘individualised’ characters. Each situation would demand a choice from such
characters; each choice would require, deliberation and thought, which would be expressed in
their speech. Such speeches would be in the nature of presentation of an action, for they reflect an
inward mental activity; an inward activity which would soon be manifested externally. They would
reflect the inward ‘movement towards the choice’ ultimately made by the dramatic character.

28
In Prometheus, there is no outward movement : the main situation at the end is what it was
at the beginning. There is a conflict of two surperhuman wills, neither of which can surrender to
the other. Yet the dialogue is not mere conversation. Each of Promet heus* speech is a step
forward in the action. His words are equivalent to deeds. This is action, though not consisting of
outward doing. Thus we find that some of the Greek plays were not only devoid of intricate plots,
but presented an unchanging situation.- Similarly, in Milton’s Samson Agonistes, the speeches of
Samson form an integral part of the action.
Character is Realised Through Action and thus Subordinate to Plot
It has to be realised that dramatic characters exist through what they say or do. The character
is ‘actualised’ through the action. It is the action of the person that leads to either happiness or
misery. The plot is the ground work, or the design through the medium of which ethos derives its
meaning _and dramatic value. “The most beautiful colours”, says Aristotle, “laid on confusedly,
will not give as much pleasure as the chalk outline of a portrait” Ethos, divorced from plot is like
a daub of colour, beautiful in itself, but, which apart from form gives little pleasure. A play is like
a living organism. Its animating principle is the plot, according to Aristotle. Without it the play
could not exist. It is the plot which gives to the play its .inner meaning and reality, as the soul does
to the body. The true significance of the tragedy lies in the plot. It is through the plot that the end,
or the intention, of tragedy is realised. It is the sequence of events which produce, the emotional
effect special to tragedy. In the plot there are the reversal of situations and Discoveries, which
most powerfully evoke the tragic feeling. Thus plot is supreme and character is subordinate to it,
says Aristotle.
Aristotle’s Doctrine : Disputed by Modern Critics
Modern critics have assailed the doctrine of the primary, importance of plot as propounded
by Aristotle. They argue that plot is a mere external framework, a - piece of mechanism devised
to illustrate the working of character. The ‘Character’ of a person lies in thought prior to action,
and is implied in it. Events have no meaning or interest, except in so far as they are supposed to
proceed from will. A man’s character defines, expresses and interprets action. But the issue has
been confused by such questions. The actual question is not whether one element can be shown
ultimately to contain the other. The question is, which of the two is the more fundamental as
regards the artistic conception and dramatic structure of a play.’
Action is the first necessity to a play. But mere action is not enough. Action, to be dramatic,
must stand in relation to certain mental states. We like to see the feelings out of which it grows,
the motivating force of will which carries it out to the end. Drama is will or emotion in action. But
in real life all mental activity does not manifest itself in outward activity. However, the action of
drama cannot consist in an inward activity that does not go beyond the sphere of thought and
emotion. Even where the main interest is centred in the internal conflict, this conflict must
manifest itself in individual acts, and in concrete relations with the world outside. The action and
reaction within the mind itself become dramatic, only when they are brought out into a plot which
gives them significance. In this connection Butcher observes that only certain characters are
capable of dramatic treatment. Passive characters are not fit for drama. Plot is not, as some critics
say, a mere external, or an accident of inner life. In the action of drama, character is revealed and
defined. Plot does not overpower characters, it is the very medium through which character is
discerned.
The Trend in Modern Drama
Modern drama shows a marked tendency to lay. greater stress on the delineation of individual
character. Greek dramatists of the ancient age were, to some extent, impeded2 in the development
of character, because of the ready material they had to work with. They were more or less confined

29
to a group of legends whose main outlines were already fixed. The freedom of the Greek poet in
delineating character was restricted by the choice of subject-matter. . ‘.
Modern drama brings us to another world. A richer and more varied inner life is opened up.
The sense of personality is developed. Characters become more complex. Actions tend more and
more to take place within the human mind itself. The frontier between action and passion
threatens to fade away.
In Shakespeare, character assumes infinite variety, contradictory elements are brought
together—contradictions which do not yield to psychological analysis. Love, honour, ambition,
jealously are the prevailing motives of modern tragedy. But Shakespeare, while deepening the
subjective personality of man, does not lose sight of the “objective ends of life and corresponding
phases of character.” He maintains a balance between these two sides of human experience. He
does not permit the dramatic action to become subservient to the portrayal of individual
character.
Hamlet, as F.L. Lucas says, could be said to be the first modern man, who realised that,
“Action is transitory--a step, a blow, The motion of a muscle-this way or that--Tis done, and
in-the after vacancy We wonder at ourselves like men betrayed : „ Suffering is permanent, obscure,
and dark,
And shares the nature of infinity.”
In Hamlet, it is true that character becomes ‘dramatic by an intellectual and masterly
inactivity which offers resistance to the 1. recognized; made out clearly that prompt ordinary men
to action. Events seem to be brought about by acts of arrested volition2, and not by the energy of
free will. We find that the inaction is indeed an active force making Hamlet desist from doing
anything. Just as some men are compelled to act. Hamlet has this energetic resisting force which
stops him from acting. Thus the non-acting itself becomes a form of action.
There is the increased tendency to exhibit character in growth, in successive stages of its
development. A Greek tragedy takes a few significant scenes out of a hero’s life; these are bound
together by acausal relationship, and made to constitute a single concentrated action. The modern
would not have such a concentrated action. They would include much more than the Greek
dramatists. In modern drama, the dramatic theme often encompasses the whole process,
beginning at the moment when a deed is dormant3 in the mind until it has developed into action
and brought about its consequences. The period encompassed by the action is enlarged. It is only
natural that the characters should also expand in new and complex directions. The ancient stage
gives us no such example of character development as we have, for instance, inMacbeth.
The mystery of the human personality becomes of supreme interest in modern drama starting
with Ibsen. He fastens on the contrast between what man dreams of and what he really is, .and
works towards the culminating moment of disillusionment. Strindberg dramatises obsessive
egotism. And Chekov celebrates the frustrated and inarticulate4 hero. There is an impulse towards
self-discovery, which splits up the human psyche into abstractions (the theatre of the soul).
Modern drama has indeed brought the delineation of character into new and stronger relief.
Character and Plot should be Harmoniously Blended in an Ideal Tragedy
Modern dramatists have explored the deep recesses6 of hum#n mind. They have represented
the abnormal and strange impulses of man. But too much of this can hamper dramatic art. Too
much of subjectivism and psychological interest can lead to dramatic lyrics but not to successful
drama. Goethe, for example, with all his poetic genius did not surmount this pitfall. His reflective,
emotional characters, who view life through the medium of individual feeling, seldom have the

30
requisite energy to carry out a tragic action, as S.H. Butcher comments. Drama demands a balance
between plot and character. Drama is a representation of a complete and typical action, whose
lines converge on a determined end, which evolves out of human will in such a manner that action
and character are each in turn the outcome of the other. Drama requires a fusion of the two
elements, plot and character.
Conclusion
When Aristotle says that a tragedy can be possible without character, but not without plot, it
is to be noted that he is not saying that a tragedy without character is the ideal type. Indeed, he
says that a poet should utilise all the formative elements of tragedy to produce an ideal tragedy.
He is merely talking of possibility of drama with, or without, one or the other element. The
characters cannot act without reference to the situation in which they are placed. Thus the
situation influences their very feelings, the very motives, that spring them to action. In this sense
plot becomes fundamental to drama. A passive character will produce no action and as such, has
no place in drama.
It is unfortunate that Aristotle has not discussed an essential aspect of drama—namely
conflict. The tragic action is in essence the outcome of conflict. And to be tragic, the conflict must
be both inside and outside man. It is out of this conflict that plot and character both develop.
Ultimately, however, plot is the first necessity of drama, artistically speaking.
Aristotle’s Conception of Tragic Catharsis in Poetics by

Aristotle
Introduction: Catharsis is a Controversial Term
The term ‘Catharsis’ is used only once in the course of Aristotle’s Poetics in the fourth chapter.
Yet there is hardly any other single term which has given rise to so many different interpretations
and controversies. The difficulty arises out of the fact that Aristotle does not define or explain the
term.. Perhaps, he did so in the second book of the Poetics, which is lost. The term has been
explained by critics in the light of its use in Aristotle’s other works, such as
hisPolitics and Ethics. It has also been noted that the term ‘Catharsis’ has three meanings : it
could mean “purgation” or “purification”, or “clarification”. Critics have interpreted Aristotle’s
views in the light of each of these meanings—and it has not done much to ease the difficulty. Only
one thing has been agreed upon—that tragedy should arouse pity and feat. But there is difference
of opinion as to how the arousal of these emotions lead to ‘tragic pleasure’.
The Place of Catharsis in the Definition of Tragedy

The term ‘Catharsis* occurs in Aristotle’s definition of tragedy :
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 a narrative; through pity and fear effecting
the proper catharisis, or purgation, of the’se emotions.
We see that the term is also linked with the concept of pity and fear. It is, therefore, necessary
to consider the meanings of pity and fear as connected with tragedy.

31
The Place of Pity and Fear in Catharsis

The terms, ‘pity’ and ‘fear’ are closely connected in Aristotelian theory. There are different
types of fear. Fear can be centred on an individual, in the form of some vague feeling of insecurity
and anxiety. It could possibly derive from a feeling for others, even for society or the state. Fear
could be the outcome of facing some inexplicable event, or some disastrous and awful incident.
Fear may also arise out of feelings of guilt, or rather a recognition of this guilt in ourselves, when
we see it portrayed in someone else. It is apparent that tragedy can easily encompass all these
forms of fear, either singley or collectively.
Pity, we are told by Aristotle, is occasioned by undeserved misfortune, and fear by that of one
like ourselves (i.e., by the misfortune of one like ourselves). In theRhetoric, fear is defined as “a
kind of pain or disturbance due to a mental picture of some destructive or painful evil in the
future”. The impending evil in this case must be near at hand, not distant. Anything that causes
fear in us if it happens to us, causes pity in us if it happens to others. Pity is a “sort of pain at an
evident evil of a destructive or painful kind in the case of somebody who does not deserve it, the
evil being one which we might expect to happen to ourselves or to some of our friends, and this
at a time when it is near at hand.”
Pity and fear are related emotions. Pity turns to fear when the object is closely related to us
that the suffering seems to be our own, and we pity others in circumstances in which we should
fear for ourselves. Pity is derived from the feeling that similar suffering might befall us. It is
because of this that the tragic character should be like ourselves’ and at the same time slightly
idealised. In such a case, we feel pity for the suffering of the innately good person, while having a
sympathetic fear for one who is so like ourselves. Aristotle everywhere says that pity and fear are
the characteristic and necessary tragic emotions.
The essential tragic effect depends on maintaining the intimate alliance between pity and
fear. According to Aristotle, pity alone should be not be evoked by tragedy, as many moderns have
held; not pity or fear, for which Corneille argued; not pity and admiration, which is the
modification under which the Aristotelian phrase finds ‘ currency in the Elizabethan writers. The
requirement of Aristotle is a combination of pity and fear, as Butcher says.
The tragic fear is impersonal in the artistic sense. It is not really the crushing apprehension1
of personal disaster. In reading or seeing a tragedy, one does not really fear that one would be
placed in similar circumstances, or be overtaken by the same calamities that overtake the tragic
hero. But there is a feeling of horror or of vague foreboding, as Butcher observes. The tension and
excited expectation with which we wait for the catastrophe derives from our sympathy with the
hero, with whom we tend to identify ourselves. Butcher says in this context : “We are thrilled with
awe at the greatness of the issues thus unfolded, and with the moral • inevitableness of the result.
In this sense of awe the emotions of fear and pity are blended.”
Having dealt with the emotions of pity and fear, let us now go on to the concept of the
catharsis of such emotions. Various interpretations have been offered regarding the term.
‘Catharsis’ Taken as a Medical Term : Purgation Theories
The term ‘Catharsis’ has been interpreted in medical terms, meaning purgation. In medical
terms (especially in the older sense), purgation meant the partialremoval of excess “humours”.
The health of the body depended on a true balance of the humours. Thus purgation of the
emotions of pity and fear does not mean the removal of these emotions, but that the passions or
emotions are reduced to a healthy, balanced proportion. Catharsis in this sense, denotes a
pathological effect on the soul comparable to the effect of medicine on the body.

32
1. Like Curing the Like : Some critics who favour the medical sense of the term Catharsis,
explain the process in the light of “homeopathic” treatment, in which a little substance of
something” cures the body of a excess of the same thing. It is a case of the- ‘like curing the like’. A
passage in the Politicsof Aristotle bears this out, where the effects of music on some morbid states
of mind is talked about.1 The emotions should not be repressed; they must be allowed an outlet,
so that the mental equilibrium is maintained. In the Poetics, Aristotle refers to the curing of
religious frenzy. According to Plato, a crying child is rocked to sleep by. singing a song. The
outward restlessness (induced by. the rocking) allays or cures the inward restlessness, and brings
about calm.
In his Preface to Samson Agonistes,Milton expresses a similar view, that the effect of tragedy
is to “temper and reduce . .. (Pity and fear and such emotions) to just measure with a kind of
delight, stirred up by reading or seeing those passions well imitated”. Pity and fear are artificially
produced in tragedy, and it expels the excess
1. The passage in the Politics which gives strong justification to the view, that catharsis is a
“relief to overcharged feeling” : Those who are subject to the emotions of pity and fear and the
feelings generally will necessarily be affected in the same way; and so will other men in exact
proportion to their susceptibility to such emotions. All experience a certain catharsis and pleasant
relief. In the same manner cathartic melodies give innocent joy to men of these emotions lying
latent in us. Bernays, and before him Twining, put. forward the pathological theory of the effect
of tragedy. The stage, according to them, provided a harmless and pleasurable outlet for instincts
which demand satisfaction, and which can be indulged here more fearlessly than in real life. In
the pleasurable calm .which follows when the passion is spent, an emotional cure has been
wrought. Freud’s theory of psychological cure of neurosis is similar to this, when he says that a
neurotic can be cured by being made to recall painful childhood experiences.
2. Unlike Curing the Unlike. In the neoclassical period, the medical interpretation of the
term took on an “allopathic” light. Catharsis was seen to be in the nature of the unlike curing the
unlike. The arousing of pity and fear, the more tender emotions, brought about a purgation or
evacuation of other emotions like anger and pride. The sight of the incidents aroused pity and fear
and the spectator is purged of those emotions which caused the incidents of suffering in the
tragedy.. If the suffering in the play was caused by anger or pride, the spectator was cured of these
emotions.
Dryden in his preface to Troilus and Cressida, says that it is not “the abasement of pity and
fear, but of such aggressive and evil emotions as pride and anger through the feeding and watering
of the soft-hearted emotions.
Psychological Interpretation of ‘Catharsis’
Some critics have tried to give a psychological explanation to the term ‘Catharsis. Herbert
Read considers it in the light of a safety valve. Tragedy gives a free outlet to the emotions of pity
and fear. The result is a feeling of emotional relief. This, one notes, is quite closely related to the
purgation theory.
A. A. Richard puts forward as ingenius theory. He says that the emotion of pity is an impulse
to advance, while fear is an impulse to withdraw. In tragedy both these impulses are blended,
harmonised into balance. Emotional excess is thus brought to a balance. However, the theory
holds good only for the emotion of pity and fear, and it restricts the range of tragic emotions to
these.

33
Ethical Interpretation of ‘Catharsis’

The ethical interpretation of’ Catharsis’ regards the tragic process as an illustration of the
soul, a lighting up which results in a more philosophical attitude to life and suffering. The
spectator sees the largeness of the disasters presented onstage and realises that his personal
emotions are insignificant beside such a catastrophe. It brings him to a balanced view of things.
Man sees himself in proportion to the large design of the universe. In the words of John Gassner,
“only enlightenment, a clear comprehension of what was involved in the struggle, an
understanding of cause and effect, a judgement on what we have witnessed”, can bring about a
state of mental peace and balance, and result in complete aesthetic gratification1.
Another set of critics said that the effect of tragedy was to harden or ‘temper’ the emotions.
Just as soldiers become hardened against death after seeing it so many times on the battlefield,
so too, constant contact with tragedy on stage hardens men against pity and fear in real’life. This
is, undoubtedly, a bit far-fetched, if not totally absurd.
The Purification Theory of ‘Catharsis’
One meaning of Catharsis is ‘purification’. Some critics have interpreted the term in the light
of this meaning. These critics reject the interpretation of Catharsis in the lights of medical
terminology. Humphry House, for instance, says that Aristotle’s concept of Catharsis was not as
a medical term. He interprets the word to mean a kind of “moral conditioning”, which the
spectator undergoes. He comments that purgation means ‘cleansing*. This cleansing may be a
quantitative evacuation or qualitative change in the body, in the restoration of the proper
equilibrium. In this context he says : “A tragedy arouses pity and fear from potentiality to activity
through worthy and adequate stimuli; to control them ,by directing them to the right objects in
the right way; and exercises them, within the limits of the play, as the emotions of the good man
would be exercised. When they subside to potentiality again after the play is over, it is a more
“trained” potentiality than before .... Our responses are brought nearer to those of the good and
wise man.” Catharsis results in emotional health. Catharsis is thus a moral conditioning. It is a
purification of the excess and.defect in our emotions, so that emotional equilibrium can be
restored. According to House, Aristotle’s whole doctrine only makes sense if we realise that the
proper development and balance of the emotions depend upon the habitual direction of
them towards worthy objects.
Butcher, too, agrees with the purification theory. He observes that Catharisis involves “not
only the idea of emotional relief, but the further idea of purifying the emotions to be relieved.” He
says, further, that, the poets found out how “the transport of human pity and human fear might,
under the excitation of art, be dissolved in joy, and the pain escape in the purified tide of human
sympathy.” Tragic experience, onstage, purifies the feeling of pity and fear of its morbid content.
The Clarification Theory of ‘Catharsis’
There are some critics who show that the implications of Catharsis are to be found in
the Poetics itself without any need to refer to the Politics or the Ethics. Writing of the imitative
arts, Aristotle points out that the pleasure in the imitative arts is connected with learning Pleasure
does not come from joy alone; even the pictures of dead bodies can give pleasure if well executed.
This shows that pleasure is linked with learning; that pleasure is there in anything fitted to
instruct. It is paradox that even the ugly and the repellent1
can and do give pleasure. A similar paradox’lies there in tragedy. The tragic incidents are
painful. They might present horrible situations of man blinding himself, or a woman killing her
husband, or a mother killing her child. Such events would horrify us and repel us in real .life; yet,
in tragedy, they afford us a special pleasure. It is a pleasure peculiar to tragedy.

34
• Aristotle himself tells us that tragedy has its own kind of pleasure, and that we must seek
from it this pleasure—”the pleasure proper to it.” And Catharsis involves such a pleasure. The
function of tragedy is to provide the pleasure peculiar to it. This pleasure involves the presentation
of events which arouse pity and fear. According to this theory, Catharsis becomes an indication
of the function of tragedy, and not of its emotional effects on the, audience.Cathasis is related to
incidents of the tragedy, not to the emotions of pity and fear evoked in the audience. ‘Catharsis’
involves a Process of Learning
Tragic pleasure rises from the fact that imitation produces that sort of pleasure which comes
from learning. This learning comes from our discovery of a certain relationship between the
particular events presented in the imitation and. certain universal elements embodied in it. As
has already been remarked, the poet selects and orders his material according to the laws of
probability and necessity. He presents “what might be”,-more than “what is”. This is.what makes
a poet more philosophical than a historian, for he makes the particular into the general; he deals
with the universal. The events are presented as free of all accidentals, transients, and chances,
which might obscure their true significance. Tragedy brings a better understanding; it bring the
spectator “face to face with the universal law.”
The tragic poet selects incidents embodying pity and fear and then “presents them in such a
way as to bring out the probable or necessary principles that unite them in a single action and
determine their relation to this action as it proceeds from its beginning to its end. When the
spectator has witnessed a tragedy of this type, he will have learned something; the incidents will
be clarified in the sense that their relation, in terms of universal, will have become manifest and
the act of learning, says Aristotle, will be enjoyable.”
In the light of this theory, Catharsis refers to the incidents of the tragedy rather than to the
psychology of the audience. Catharsis is not purgation of emotions, nor is it a purification of
emotions. It refers to the way in which the poet has a presented his incidents of pity and fear, to
rise from the particular to the universal. Catharsis is not the catharsis of the audience but of pity
and fear themselves.. Indeed, Aristotle does not refer to the audience in the definition of tragedy.
It becomes inevitable that he is talking of the work of tragedy itself. He is talking of the suitable
embodiment of pity and fear. In this sense Catharsis means simply “the ideal state”, but with
reference to the tragedy, and not with reference to the emotional state’ of the audience. Pity and
fear take on the ideal form in course of the ‘composition of tragedy. Of tragedy Aristotle says : “We
must not demand of tragedy any and every kind of pleasure, but only that which is proper to it.
And since the pleasure which the poet should afford is that which comes from pity and fear
through imitation, it is evident that this quality must be impressed upon the incidents.” Thus the
pleasure peculiar to tragedy comes from pity and fear. Imitated in. a work of art • these two
emotions, which may not be pleasant in real life, afford pleasure. And the problem of any writer
is to suitably formulate the pleasure peculiar to each genre of poetry.
There is in this theory, a clarification involved. There is a clarification of the essential and
universal significance of the incidents presented in the tragedy. It leads to an understanding of
the universal law governing the universe, and produces the pleasure peculiar to tragedy. Catharsis
takes on an intellectual tone, rather than a medical or religious tone.
The Relative Merits and Demerits of the Theories
The purgation theory and the purification theory of Catharsis have obvious limitations. They
cannot explain the whole process involved in Catharsis. A fundamental, drawback of these
theories is that these theories are concerned with the effect of tragedy on the audience, i.e., with
the psychology of the audience. Both views concentrate not on what tragedy says or what tragedy
is, but what tragedy may do to us; they lie rather in the field of experimental psychology than in
that of literary criticism. They treat “pity and fear” as references to something in the audience

35
rather than to something (scenes and elements) in the play. In actuality, Aristotle was writing a
treatise on the art of poetry, and was concerned more with technique of writing poetry than with
audience psychology. As theories of psychology, the two theories are not bad in themselves, but it
is doubtful if it explains the term as Aristotle intended it to mean.
Modern critics advocate the clarification theory. This theory refers to the incidents of tragedy
rather than to the reaction of the audience. It is more concerned with what tragedy is i.e., with the
nature of tragedy. According to this theory, purgation or purification is only incidental to the
pleasure of tragedy. But comprehension of the relation of the particular to the universal as
embodied in tragedy, brings about a peculiar pleasure. It is an intellectual pleasure which lies in
realising the relationship between the hamartia of the hero and the suffering which results, the
relationship between character and destiny. There is design incorporated into the tragedy. The
alleviation1 of pity and fear is a ‘by-product’ of the learning process, not the chief object of tragedy.
Conclusion
Aristotle is a. great critic, and what he said centuries ago will continue to influence thinking
as it has done all this time. It is unfortunate that he has not explained some of the terms which
seem so very significant to his central thesis. The term ‘Catharsis,’ for instance, has been
interpreted so variously that it is difficult to come to an agreement as to what Aristotle really
meant. Of the theories advanced to explain Catharsis, the clarification theory appears to be the
most acceptable, perhaps, for it tends to relate Catharsis to the work rather than to the psychology
of the audience. And, after all Aristotle was writing on the art of poetry, not about the effect
of poetry. All the same, the last word on Catharsis has hot yet been said.
The Nature of Poetic Truth in Aristotle's Poetics

Introduction
Several critics are of the view that Aristotle’s Poetics was primarily written as an answer to
Plato’s charge against poetry. Whether this is acceptable or not, Aristotle’s concept of poetry
certainly involves a ‘defence’ of poetry against the charge that poetry is a pack of lies, a copy of a
copy, a shadow of shadows and twice removed from reality. We see how Aristotle takes the very
concept of ‘imitation’ from Plato but modifies it to hold greater dimensions.
The Concept of ‘Imitation’

Plato considered poetry as imitation. But to him, the imitation was of a lower order. Poets,
according to him, imitated the world of appearances, which was a shadow or image of the ideal
conception. Thus poetry imitated a shadow; it copied’a copy of reality, and hence, was twice
removed from reality.
Aristotle took the term ‘imitation’ from Plato. He gave to it a much wider significance and
greater dimensions. He turns the table on Plato by saying that poetry is an imitation, but imitation
of a special type. The imitation in poetry is not a slavish ‘copying* of the external appearances of
things. It is a recreative imitation. It is a creative reproduction of objects; it involves the effort of
the imagination and the intellect. It thus presents a higher truth, the truth of imagination. It
universalizes the particular. The poet sifts1 his material, selects the most relevant portions,
imposes order and design on the chaotic material of life and universalises the particular. Thus
Aristotle contends2, the truth involve in poetry is higher than that embodied in history.

36
Poetry and History : Universal versus Particular.

The poet does not deal with things as they had happened in the past. To do so would be the
work of the historian. The function of the poet is to relate what may happen—what is possible
according to the laws of probability and necessity :
The poet and historian differ not by writing in prose or in verse. The true difference is that
one relates what has happened, the other what may happen.
The poet could take for his material, things as they are, as they are said or thought to be, or
things as they ought to be. He uses creative vision to make something ‘new’ out of the material of
life. But what are these materials of life ? Are they the external happenings and events which took
place historically ? No. Poetry deals with the universal, the basic elements in human nature, the
permanent possibilities of human nature. History, on the other hand, deals with the concrete
particulars of existence. The historian is restricted to the particular happenings, or the existent
facts. The poet’s view is larger, deeper, more generalised. He presents the universal through the
particular.
Poetry has this in common with philosophy : there is a search for Truth—universal truth. The
historical facts appear in a chronological order. I, them, there is not a logical sequence or causal
chain. But in poetry, there is the governing appearance of design imposed on the confused
material taken from We.
The Government of Probability and Necessity
The poet, as has been already remarked, imposes order on the confused tangle of life. The
poet eliminates the irrelevant matter, the nonessential, or the merely incidental. The law of
probability and necessity refers to the internal structure of the poem. It brings about the close
cohesion of the parts. There has got to be a ‘necessity’ about the events following one another.
There has to be a ‘necessary’ relationship between the events, and between the characters and
events. There is a probably causal relationship between the incidents.
One might argue that this kind of order and design is far removed from real life, in which
things often happen without apparent cause. Things often happen in a haphazard manner, with
no proper causal relationship in life. Why, then, should we say that poetry’s truth depends upon
the law of probability and necessity, or order and the establishment of proper relationship
between cause and effect ? The very fact that the poet selects his material and imposes order on
it, and produces an effect of ‘inevitability’ about the sequence of events, embodies the essence of
poetic truth. It is through this process of ordering the material into a cohesive1 whole that a poet
achieves the idealisation of appearances. The poet takes the haphazard material of the life as we
see it. He imagines a cohesive while composed out of this material. He creates this cohesive whole
out of the chaotic material. Thus the truth embodied in poetry is of a higher order than that of
history.
Imaginative Truth
The men and women we meet in poetry are not ‘real’ in the usual sense of term. They are
always slightly different, either better or lower than average. Their thoughts and words are not
thoughts and words of ordinary men and women. The probable laws of their behaviour cannot be
measured against the standards of average humanity. The rules of ordinary experience do not
govern the higher creations of- poetry. Poetry imitates the ‘essence’ and not the appearances. It
reveals the ideal possibilities inherent in human life. All that the truth of poetry demands is that
the actions of the character in the poem be logical. The events presented by the poet should have
a relationship not only with one another, but also with the character placed in the midst of these
events. Aristotle agrees that poetry presents not facts, but fiction. But this does not make poetry

37
‘unreal’ or ‘untrue’. The truth of poetry is a “higher reality*, because poetry rises above facts. In
this it becomes ‘ideal’; it presents something as it might have been, or ought to be, according to
the idea of the poet. It is the imaginative power which makes poetic truth different from historical
truth. And it is this that makes poetry ‘universal’ and permanent in its truth.
Likely Impossibility is Preferable to Unlikely Possibility
Aristotle makes a valid statement in connection with poetic truth. He remarks that in pftetry
the ‘likely impossibility is preferable to the ‘unlikely possibility’. The poet, Aristotle is quite willing
to admit, tells lies; the poet is not concerned with actualities. But what matters, tells lies; the poet
is not concerned with actualities. But what matters, is the way of telling these lies. It is of the
utmost importance that these ‘lies’ be convincing, credible, probable. The most impossible
occurrence, incident, or character becomes credible through the poet’s vivid handling. Indeed, we
find that we are quite willing to believe the ‘fantastic’ in actual life even if it seems quite unlikely.
But the same thing would appear incredible in art, if it is not presented in a ‘realistic’ manner.
Poetic illusion has to be created with a master-touch, otherwise the required ‘suspension of
disbelief will not be produced. It is’the poet’s artistic capabilities which can create this poetic
illusion, by ordering the events in a causal sequence. It would then appear as if the events could
have happened under a particular set of circumstances. Through the poet’s art, “the impossible
not only becomes possible, but natural and even inevitable.”
Kinds of Improbabilities and Irrationalities
The probable is that which appears rational, and hence gains our credibility. Anything
improbable is irrational. The impossible is that which is not possible physically. But the
impossible can be made to look ‘probable’ if it is given a logical inevitability through art. The
improbable does not really have a place in art. But there are some types of improbabilities which
can be overcome in their presentation.
Material improbability, with regards to material facts, can be overcome. It can be made to
look logically inevitable by artistic skill. Improbabilities are admitted in poetry as they are
conducive to the heightening of the poetic effects of wonder and admiration. Homer, says
Aristotle, could handle ‘lies’ very well.
The ‘irrational’ is much more difficult to handle if it is the introduction of the marvellous. But
the supernatural elements are easily believed, if it is in accordance with the general beliefs and
received opinion. The supernatural elements are easily admittable in epic poetry, but less so in
tragedy which is presented on stage. On stage, irrationalities appear less credible.
In dramatic poetry, the events presented must be the logical and natural outcome of the
preceding events. Each event has to lead naturally to the next. There is a complex interelationship
between character and event in drama. Cause and effect have to be logically presented. Hence, the
place for the irrational, the supernatural, and the marvellous is highly restricted in drama. Nor is
there much place for ‘chance’ or ‘accident’. Chance events do not have rationality while drama
requires its events to be governed by the law of probability and necessity. Chance is allowed only
if the poet’s great skill can overcome its apparent irrationality.
Moral Improbability
The one kind of improbability which cannot be overcome through the skill of any poet is
‘moral improbability’. This is the improbability arising out of the violation of the basic laws of
human behaviour. These violate the very principles of human nature, and do not have a place in
poetry at all. They cannot be glossed1 over by any skilful technique, for they are absolutely untrue,
conceptually2 or really. Artistic truth depends on the basic truths of human nature—the eternal
emotions, thoughts, feeling, and actions of human beings. If it violates these very objects of

38
imitation, it cannot have any credibility. Logical and moral necessity are at all times to be adhered
to.
Conclusion
Poetry then, is ‘imitation’, but not a photographic presentation of the world of appearances
and all its mundane trivialities. Poetry’s truth is based on the basic elements of human nature, the
everlasting, universal aspects of human life. Poetry ignores the nonessentials, removes
irrelevances, and concentrates on the essentials. It presents the ‘universal’, while history deals
with particular events. Poetry takes the particular and makes it into the universal. But the process
of imitation is in keeping with the law of logicality, probability and necessity. Poetic truth is higher
than that of history. The particular object taken by the poet is transfigured, “so that the higher
truth, the idea of the universal, shines thought it”. Aristotle defends poetry against the charge that
it is full of lies.
Aristotle enunciates a doctrine which holds good for all ages—the presence of a universal
element in all great .poetry, accounting for its permanent appeal, while at the same time he
showed how a reconciliation might be effected between poetry and philosophy. “Plato had indeed
shown that an element of intuition was common to the processes of philosopher and poet alike;
but it remained for Aristotle to complete the vindication of poetry, and to recommend the claims
of philosophy and poetry by showing that both were avenues to the higher truth.”
The Epic and the Tragedy in Aristotle's Poetics

Introduction
In the Poetics, Aristotle has given a brief outline of how poetry could have evolved.
We see from the beginning that Aristotle holds that the tragic evolved from the heroic
strain, which in turn originated from the hjrmns of praise sung to the gods and the great
men. Thus Aristotle establishes and affinity between the epic and the tragedy.
The Affinity between Tragedy and Epic

Aristotle’s treatment of the epic is slight as compared to his treatment of tragedy.
But he makes a few general statements, which bring out the salient features of the epic,
and establishes the affinity as well as the difference between epic and tragedy.
Both epic and tragedy are imitations of serious subjects, and deal with characters
of the higher type. A number of elements are to be found common to both. These are Plot,
Character, Thought and Diction. The structure in the case of both should show a unity,
though in this matter, the epic is allowed more freedom than tragedy. The structure of
the epic should be modelled on dramatic principles, according to Aristotle. Single actions
should, as far as possible, be the proper content of the epic. The action should of course
have a beginning, middle and end, be a complete organic whole, just as it should in
tragedy. Aristotle expresses his admiration for Homer in this, as in all other respects.
Homer chose a particular 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.

39
Epic poetry is similar to tragedy in that it has as many species as tragedy. The epic
plots can be complex or simple, full of suffering, or concentrate on Character. Homer is
again cited as the perfect model. His diction and thought are also supreme. Further, says
Aristotle, the epic poet should not speak directly. It is better that he should speak through
his .characters. This is the dramatic slant1 given to the epic by Aristotle.
Differences between Epic and Tragedy
The first difference that matter is that of length. Tragedy, by its very nature, is more
concentrated and compact. Hence its size is much more limited than that of. the epic.
The length of a tragedy is based on the principle that the work must be short enough to
be grasped as an artistic whole. This holds good for the epic as well. But the length of the
epic can be greater than that of the tragedy. The time limits of 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 is what gave rise to the concept of
the Unity of Place. Though Aristotle does not stipulate this Unity at any time, not even
in the chapter concerning the epic and the tragedy, later critics have attributed it to him.
All that Aristotles says, is that tragedy cannot represent more than one incident at one
time, and that it cannot show incidents happening at different places at the same time.
This is a common sense observation based on the practice of the Greek theatre. The
greater size (length) of the epic allowed it more grandeur and dignity in the treatment
of its incidents. The incidents in tragedy have necessarily to “be shorter, and more
concentrated. The introduction of the different episodes in an epic make it more
interesting, as they relieve the dullness and monotony.
Tragedy can make use of a greater variety of metres, while the epic has to content
itself with the heroic metre. The heroic metre, or the hexameter1 is most dignified and
stately. It can make use of rare and strange words.’ The tragic mode allows the use of
metaphors, in the iambic* and trochaic3 tetrameter4. 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 imitation of men in action.
The epic allows greater scope for the marvellous and the irrational.
Tragedy,’however, cannot make too much use of the marvellous 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 the spectators. The degree of the irrational
can be greater because it is left to the imagination, and not placed before the eyes.
Indeed, the element ofv marvellous adds to the artistic pleasure and wonder of the epic.
Such incidents
of the marvellous, which include the supernatural and the irrational, have to be placed
outside the action of 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.

40
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 stage
Tragedy is Superior to the Epic : Aristotle’s Conclusion
Aristotle considers the question of the relative value of epic and tragedy. In his
opinion, though tragedy has been criticised 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 result, i.e., the pleasure from a catharsis of pity and fear.”
“There remain, then, an intermediate kind of character, a man not

pre-eminently virtuous and just, whose misfortune, however, is
brought upon him not by vice or depravity, but by some error of
judgement.” Discuss.
Introduction
The complex plot has two ingredients which are inherent in it—Peripety and Anagnorisis.
Closely connected to these two aspects of the plot is an aspect of Character—hamartia’. Aristotle
simply says in this connection:
It follows plainly, in the first place, that the change of fortune presented must not be the
spectacle of a virtuous man brought from prosperity to adversity: for it moves neither fear nor
pity; it simply shocks us. Nor, again, that of a bad man passing from adversity to prosperity, for
nothing can be more alien to the spirit of tragedy……Nor again, should the downfall of an utter
villain be exhibited. A plot of this kind would, doubtless, satisfy the moral sense, but it would
inspire neither pity nor fear; for pity is aroused by unmerited misfortune, fear by the misfortune
of a man like ourselves.
Thus it is that the most suitable character for tragedy is an intermediate sort of person, who
is not “pre-eminently good and just, yet whose misfortune is brought about not by any vice or
depravity, but by some error of judgement”. We know that the ideal tragic hero is not
‘perfect’. He is capable of an error of judgement which is not at the same time, it is necessary to
note that Aristotle does not equate moral imperfection with Tiamartia’ or the error of judgement.
There has, however, been a tendency on the part of various critics to read more into the term
“hamartia1 than was meant by Aristotle.
‘Hamartia’ and The Tragic Flaw
While Aristotle stipulates that the tragic character should be an intermediate person, and
thus implies that he has his share of moral and intellectual imperfections, he nowhere says that
‘hamartia’ is moral failing. Indeed, he seems to insist on the contrary that the misfortune is. not
brought about, by ‘depravity’ or ‘vice’—both indubitably moral’ failings. It is true that the hero
may have certain drawbacks, but it is equally true that the misfortune arises from an ‘error of
judgement’ and not from these moral failings. Hamartia, as Humphry House points out, is not a
moral state, but a specific error which a man makes or commits. The translation of the term

41
Tiamartia’ into ‘tragic flaw’ is not by itself wrong. But it usage has tended to include the sense of
a characteristics moral failing in an otherwise predominantly good man. Thus critics interpret the
‘tragic flaw’ in Oedipus as pride and hasty temper; in Macbeth the flaw is vaulting ambition; in
Othello, jealously, and so on. These are character traits, but there is nothing to justify their being
accepted as the ‘hamartia’ in each case.
The term ‘hamartia’, then, should not be confused with moral failing. In its correct sense, it
is an error of judgement, rather than some ethical fault or infirmity of character; an error which
is derived from “ignorance of some material fact or circumstance.” The Oedipus of Sophocles’ play
is man of hasty temper, but his misfortune did not really come out of that. The mainspring of the
action that brings about the disaster lay in the great mistake he made, when he became
unwittingly the slayer of the father.
The ‘hamartia’ of Oedipus involves his ignorance of his true parentage. His strength and
weakness of character, namely his courage and hasty temper respectively, then cause him to act
iij a particular way, but the mainspring of the tragedy lies in his acting in blindness to his own
harm. His aim in setting in motion a train of action, is a good one. His aim is to discover the
polluted person because of whom Thebes was suffering the agony of plague. But he is ignorant
that he has killed his own father; and the discovery of his true identity produces a result other
than that he expected. We see how closely “hamartia” is related to the two aspects of plot, Peripety
and Discovery. Hamartia is the cause of the misfortune; Peripety is the reversal of situation; and
Discovery is the realisation of the truth.
The word used by Aristotle implies “a mistake”, and the persistent attempts to make
‘hamartia’ much more definitely a moral weakness, is not correct, Perhaps, behind this tendency
of equating ‘hamartia’ with moral failing lies the craving for ‘poetic justice’. Aristotle’s ideal form
of tragedy is one in which the destruction of the hero or heroine is caused by some false step taken
in blindness.
‘Hamartia’ as Seen in Various Plays
The false step may be either a crime like Clytemnestra’s a mere miscalculation like Dejanira’s,
Oedipus’ error has already been mentioned. Even Shakespearean tragedies lend themselves more
to the interpretation of ‘hamartia’ as error, than as ‘tragic flaw in the sense of being a moral failing.
It has too often been the custom to ascribe the tragic action of Macbeth to the ‘moral flaw’ of
ambition in the hero. True, the moral failing is part of the tragedy—in Shakespeare, character is
too well developed to preclude moral overtones. But the ‘mainspring” of the tragedy can be traced
to the ‘error of judgement’, arising indeed from the personality and moral calibre of the character.
If Oedipus’ false step is made in innocent ignorance, Macbeth’s is made in culpable ignorance. It
will be noted that ‘hamartia’ as error fits in with more tragedies than does ‘hamartia’ as moral
failing. Of course, in Shakespearean tragedy there is much more involved than simply ‘hamartia’.
(Hamartia works in close coordination with other forces, the weak and strong points of character,
and the particular set of circumstances, and the intermingling of character and fate).
In modern tragedy such as those of Ibsen, ‘hamartia’ becomes an intellectual mistake. In the
world of Ibsen, the root of evil is the failure to think out situations fundamentally—”the weakness
of relying on formulae, however noble, that brings to the precipice Brand and Mrs. Alving, Nora
and Rosmer and the Dead who awake too late.”
Hamartia: Modified to Suit Various Tragedies
Critics have interpreted ‘hamartia’ in such a way as to suit different tragedies. Macneile Dixon
has posed the problem of whether ‘hamartia’ means a moral or intellectual error, of the heart or,
head.” But there is really no doubt that in the strictly Aristotelian sense, the conception of

42
‘hamartia’ is devoid of moral consideration. It is an error which arises from the hero’s
unawareness or ignorance of some material fact or circumstance.
Perhaps because this seems a rather limited mainspring for tragic action, and because this
concept of ‘hamartia’ does not take into account the ethical fault, that ‘taint of nature’, which lies
at the root of so many modern tragedies, attempts have been made to reconcile the positions.
‘Hamartia’ has been made to mean a ‘defect of character’ and ‘an error of judgement’. In Butcher’s
opinion, ‘hamartia’ would mean any human frailty or moral weakness. Even Oedipus’ action of
slaying his father is morally culpable. Butcher feels that it is very difficult to draw a distinction
between a moral and intellectual error—”moral error easily shades off into- a mere defect of
judgement.” Gilbert Murray contends that there is a secondary meaning for ‘hamartia’, which is
an error of moral judgement. All this, frankly speaking, is reading more into the word than what
was meant by Aristotle. It is interpreting him in the light of later experience.
True, as literature develops, concepts are modified; indeed, they have to be modified. The
concept of “hamartia” is no exception. The different demands of societies in different ages have
modified the very concept, of tragedy. T.R. Henn’s observations on the concept of ‘hamartia’ have
to be taken in the light of the larger experience available today in the practice of tragedy as a
dramatic art.
According to Henn, the ‘error’ may be either moral or intellectual, in different tragedies, or
both combined. He explains his idea elaborately. Firstly, if applied, to a single act, it denotes an
error due to inadequate knowledge of particular circumstances. These circumstances are, strictly,
such as might have been known. This kind of error introduces an element of guilt; as for example,
when a military commander chooses to disregard the intelligence available to him.
If one applies it to unavoidable ignorance or ‘misfortune’, the error is blind and raises the
secondary question: how far is the individual to be held responsible for his ignorance. A
consideration of the ignorance of Othello suggests that we are driven back from this point into
psychological assessment of character, race and environment; and thence the problems which
involve psychology and criminology.
Yet another aspect involves the fault or error where the act is conscious and intellectual but
not deliberate. This invokes at once the moral questions.
Another explanation of the term involves a defect of character proper—the joint in the
harness, the vulnerable spot in the body; the flaw which is not in itself vicious, and which will only
becomes vulnerable and destructive through the unfortunate setting of the tragedy. The manner
is not simplified for the modern reader by the absence in Greek thought of anything approaching
the Christian doctrine of intention, though a clear-cut distinction does exist between culpable and
innocent ignorance. But the fact was part of the pattern of things, of the inevitable structure of
events. The doer must suffer. The dramatic importance of the ‘error’ is not based on any
conception of life’s justice. The law of the Universe are those of cause and effect, not of right and
wrong.
Conclusion
For a correct understanding of Aristotle’s doctrine, certain facts have to be remembered.
Aristotle’s theorizing was of a retrospective kind. He based his opinions (and these are never too
rigid), on the Greek drama with which he was familiar. He is, furthermore, dealing with what he
considers the ideal form of tragedy, and not with the only form of tragedy. It is also to be
remembered that his tragic theory has a unity, so that the clue to the tragic plot is also the clue to
the tragic hero. His ideal tragedy is the Tragedy of Error; and it, therefore, follows that the
‘hamartia’ stands for ‘an error of judgement’, and the tragic hero for one whose suffering are due

43
to a false step blindly taken. If one reads more into the term ‘hamartia’ than this, one is modifying
Aristotle’s concept. Modifications are not in themselves bad, but they would have to be accepted
as such : it would be wrong to say that Aristotle’s concept included these modifications.
Write short notes on (i) Peripety (Reversal); (ii) Anagnorisis

(Discovery, Recognition).
Introduction: Simple and Complex Plots
In the Poetics, Aristotle devotes a major portion of his discussion of tragedy to ‘plot’.
Plot may be defined as a series of events in a narrative or drama—the series of events,
however, existing in a well-knit design or pattern. Aristotle makes a distinction between
the complex and simple plots. A simple plot, he says, is one in which the change of fortune
occurs without any sudden Reversals (Peripety) or Discoveries (Anagnorisis). Things
move directly to the end; in other words, simple plots are uninvolved actions.
The complex plot is one in which there is Peripety (reversal) or Angnorisis

(discovery or recognition), or both together. It is formed of an involved action. Aristotle
clearly indicates that the complex plot is the better one. In it there are the sudden
reversals of situations and the discovery of the truth. The Peripety is what gives to
tragedy the the essence of surprise. It is not the novelty of the story which makes the
reader or audience expectant and interested: most Greek tragedies were based on well-
know stories, and even the most original story would not remain ‘new’ forever. Thus the
element of surprise does not centre on the novelty of the story but on the peripety or
reversal involved in the complex plot. It is for this reason that Aristotle prefers the
complex plot. It is made clear that Peripety and Anagnorisis are parts of the plot. There
is the law of probability or necessity governing the whole plot, so that the reversal and
discovery come about in a natural and, for that reason, all the more striking manner.
Peripety or Reversal
‘Peripety’ has been generally translated as ‘reversal’. It is held to be a reversal of
situation, i.e., a situation changes to another which is the complete opposite of the first.
Yet, one may argue that this kind of ‘reversal’ occurs in every tragedy whether of simple
plot or complex. Why does Aristotle consider it to be the essence of the complex plot ? It
is with this idea in mind that some critics have advanced the theory that ‘peripety’ does
mean ‘reversal’, but it is the reversal of ‘intention’ rather than the reversal of ‘situation’.
In other words, the change in ‘situation’ is brought about when the reversal of ‘intention’
takes place. A reversal of the direction of the action takes place in the context of the plot:
A ‘Peripety’ is the change from the -state of things within the play to its opposite
of the kind described .... in the probable or necessary sequence of events.
In the word ‘peripety’ is contained the idea of the boomerang or recoil effect of one’s
actions. The action is complex because, as Humphry House says, it moves on two levels—
as it appears to the doer and as it really is. Also, the cause of the disaster is mixed up
with the good intentions and the right means to achieve them. By water, however, feels

44
that the meaning is, “a complete change of situation in the course of a single scene.” It is
a change which is the turning point in the plot, and which leads to the crisis of the play.
Even if we study the plays of ancientGreece, ‘reversal’ implies a sequence of events
bringing about an end, which is totally unexpected by the agent. The agent is
enmeshed in a set of circumstances with which he had so far been able to contend
successfully. But the moment occurs when the situation changes, all of a sudden, for the
opposite of what is expected. It is quite easy to read implication of ‘tragic irony’ into the
concept of ‘peripety’. The peripeties cited by Aristotle involve tragic irony. When the
messenger arrives from Corinth, his intention in giving his news is to cheer Oedipus and
dispel his fear of marrying his mother. But by revealing who Oedipus really is, he
produces exactly the opposite result. Peripety is connected with another aspect of
tragedy mentioned by Aristotle. Aristotle says that the best tragic situations arise when
destruction is wrought by one who is a friend or relative. ‘Peripety’ is all the more
striking and awe-inspiring if it is brought about by the good intentions of the hero or by
those who love him. A person is destroyed by the very people who wish him well, or is
crushed by himself.
Anagnorisis or Discovery
Discovery, says Aristotle, is a transition from ignorance to knowledge. A part of the
complex plot, it can occur either by itself, or in combination with peripety. Discovery
may be of the identity of certain persons. Or it may concern things, or situations. When
it concerns persons, it brings about a complete change in attitude between them; it
produces love or hate between them. Both peripety and anagnorisis are capable of
producing tragic emotions of pity and fear.
Recognition, as some people have translated ‘anagnorisis’, can involve people, like
the recognition of Orestes by Iphigenia and of Iphigenia by Orestes. But even inanimate
things can be the objects of’discovery’. We remember the handkerchief in Othello. The
discovery may involve the realisation of the true situation;e.g., in Othello we have the
true understanding of the facts, when Othello sees himself as one who has flung away,
like an ignorant savage, the priceless jewel of his own happiness.
The best form of Discovery is that which comes simultaneously with the Teripety,
says Aristotle. Indeed, this heightens the tragic effect. He cites Sophocles’ Oedipus as a
perfect example of the combined Peripety and Anagnorisis.
Forms of Discovery
Aristotle discusses several forms of Discovery involved in the complex plot. But there
is one obvious limitation in this discussion Aristotle mentions Discovery involving
inanimate things, even things of a very casual kind. But he restricts his discussion of the
various from of Discovery to the Discovery of the identity of persons.
There are six forms of Discovery listed by Aristotle. The least artistic, but the easiest
to manipulate, is the Discovery through tokens or signs. The example of the recognition
of Ulysses because of his scar, is cited. But these are mechanical devices, and do not
necessarily arise from the plot. The second form is that which is introduced by the poet.
This is an arbitrary practice and not artistic for that reason. The third form depends on

45
memory; i.e., the sight of someone or something, arouses the memory and leads to the
recognition. The fourth form of Discovery is made through the process of reasoning. The
fifth form of Discovery cited by Aristotle is slightly ambiguous. It is not clear what
exactly he means by “Discovery arising from bad reasoning on the side of the other
party”. The example he gives is obscure. Critics have interpreted it to be “discovery by
bluff”, like that one comes across in detective stories. Probably it means that the person
arrives at the right conclusion, and hence the Discovery, through a wrong process of
reasoning.
The sixth form of Discovery is considered to be the best by Aristotle. It is the
Discovery arising from the incidents themselves, when the great surprise comes about
through a probable incident. Such a Discovery happens in Sophocles’ Oedipus.
Aristotle’s Preference for the Complex Plot
‘Peripety’ and ‘Anagnorisis’ are basic ingredients of the complex plot. They may
occur singly, or in combination. The combination brings about greater tragic effect. The
complex plot thus has elements which heighten tragic effect. The ideal tragic story is one
that shows the working of both Peripety and Anagnorisis. “A deed done in blindness by
a friend or kinsman, should invite a sequel which is the reverse of what was expected,
and the persons involved should realize the truth late—as does Othello after the murder
of Desdemona; or Macbeth getting rid of Banquo in the sure expectation of final rest,
find that he has unwittingly roused the forces that ensure his own destruction; or
Claudius in Hamlet, poisoning the drink for Hamlet, but, in effect for himself and the
Queen. Peripety and Discovery are the things by which Tragedy most absorbs and grips
the mind”.
Conclusion
Tragedy, then, can have simple plot or a complex one. The complex is to be preferred
because it has the ingredients which heighten the tragic effect. ‘Peripety’ and
‘Anagnorisis’ are two basic parts of the complex plot. These elements arouse awe and a
sense of fatality about the action of tragedy. It goes without saying that they should
arise naturally from the sequence of events. We notice the Aristotle’s contention
regarding ‘Peripety’ and Discovery hold good even for a modern work like Ibsen’s Doll’s
House. In that play, Nora, trying to save her husband, thereby loses him; and the
ensuing cry of recognition rings clear in her own words: “It burst upon me that I had
been living here these eight years with a strange man.” In consequence, she herself
abandons the husband she had been struggling so desperately to keep. The Peripety is
complete.
It is also to be noted that just as Peripety is often closely linked with Discovery, so is
Discovery closely connected with ‘Hamartia’ or the error of judgement made by the
character in tragedy. As Humphry House has pointed out, Hamartia, Peripety and
Discovery all hang together in the ideal schematization of tragic plot.

46
Critically evaluate Aristotle’s concept of imitation. (P.U.

2005)
Aristotle took the word “imitation” from Plato, but read a new and wider
significance into it. However, his theory of imitation, too, is not without difficulties. It
includes both presentation of objects with a photographic realism and the reproduction
of emotional states which cannot be realistic in a photographic sense. It includes
presentation, both idealistic and caricature. Aristotle does not fully explain or resolve
the ambiguities involved in the term, “imitation”. As a consequence, his theory requires
extension and limitations.
Aristotle declares that poetry imitates men in action. Such a statement seems to
exclude all expressive or lyrical forms of poetry which apparently do not seelc to imitate
men in action. The theory seems to fit the representational or the dramatic mode alone.
In this context, the theory of imitation has to be extended by trying to understand its
implications. The actions of men are really the external manifestation of their inner
motives—feelings, passion, thoughts and will. The phrase “imitation of men in action”
can be understood as imitation of the inner forces which determine a man’s behaviour.
Thus Aristotle’s theory can be extended to include lyric as well, for this form “imitates”
the feelings and emotions of man.
The idea of “imitation” in literature was rather uncertainly suggested by Aristotle,
as Graham Hough remarks. Aristotle suggests that it is the “mimetic quality” which
distinguishes poetry from other forms of discourse. But actually, the point is not that
literature imitates objects in the real world—for that is done even by history and
scientific writing. The .point is that literature creates fictitious objects. The “mimetic
quality” that distinguishes poetry from history is clearly not imitative in the sense of
presenting actual facts which exist or have happened in the world around us. It is the
fictional or imaginary quality which differentiates poetry from history. It is thus that
Homer ‘imitates’ the shield of Achilles though no such shield has ever existed. Thus the
“imitation” involved in literature is concerned not so much with things “as they are” as
with things which “can be” or .ought to be”.
“The first essential” says Aristotle the life and soul, so to speak of
tragedy is the plot; character comes second”. How far can this
statement be defended? (P.U. 2007) Discuss his views on Plot and
Character Relationship
Aristotle considers plot to be the most important element in Tragedy. Tragedy is the
imitation of men in action and thus an imitation of human life which consists in action.
It includes feelings and thoughts which are incorporated into an action.

47
Plot is Soul of Tragedy

Plot is the action. In tragedy, the plot involves the change in fortunes, preferably
from happiness to misery. It involves an arrangement of incidents in a sequence which
projects a sense of the inevitable. The character is revealed to us through their actions.
Thus the plot is of supreme importance.
Character Comes Next in Importance to Plot
Introduction
Now, when Aristotle says that there can be a tragedy without character but none
without plot, he obviously does not intend “character” to mean dramatic characters, for
that would make his statement absurd. The term, “character’, apparently means moral
bent or tendency. What Aristotle means, is that dramatic action does not mainly aim at
the presentation of character or nature of a human beings, but present the action or
incident. It is thus that Characterization is not as important as plot.
The Validity of Aristotle’s View

Modern drama has opened out a richer and more varied inner life to us. Sense of
personality has deepened. Thus Aristotle’s view is not much in favour today. Character
and plot, in fact, are connected in a causal manner. Action itself implies feelings,
emotions, thoughts and decisive power, which are obviously human qualities of
character. Situation and character are shown to interact and it is in the resulting clash
and conflict that great tragedy could be written, as Shakespeare showed. Aristotle does
not discuss the element in conflict. However, drama cannot be successful with a total
concentration on the inner life of man. At least a suitable balance has to be maintained
between character-analysis and plot. To that extent we can say that Aristotle was
correct to say that there can be drama without characterization, but that without a plot
it would fail.
What, according to Aristotle, is the nature of Poetic Truth?
Poetic Imitation: Its Universality

Plato and Aristotle both agreed that poetry like other fine arts was imitative. They
differed, however, in their concept of the nature of imitation. Plato considered poetry to
be a servile copy of the phenomenal world, and hence, twice removed from reality.
Reality lay in the ‘idea’. Aristotle declared that the imitation involved in poetry was
‘creative’. The poet draws material from the world around him but creates something
new out of it—he imitates his idea of certain things or thoughts. Further, poetry imitates
things not as they are existing but as they are thought to be or as they ought to be.

48
In each case a transformation is implied. What poetry recreates, is the permanent and
universal aspect of human nature. Thus, from the real phenomenal world the poet
creates something ideal and universal.
Poetry more Philosophical than History
Poetry deals with an idealised presentation of reality, i.e. with what may happen or
what is possible within the laws of probability and necessity. Thus poetry is different
from history, for the latter relates what has already happened. The historian confines
himself to particular happenings and hence he deals with a superficial and factual
reality. The poet, like the philosopher, deals with ultimate truth, while the historian deals
with ephemeral particular, facts. Poets can invest universality to particular facts. It is
thus that the Trojan War has been given a universal and permanent value and meaning
through poetry by Homer in his Iliad. Thus poetry is more philosophical than history
and embodies the “highest reality”.
Willing Suspension of Disbelief: Rules of Probability
Poetry imitates men in action. It has to follow the rules of probability and necessity.
In other words, the incidents should seem believable: they should also be so connected
that their order seems inevitable. Further, the character should be true to their natures
and act in a credible manner. The truth depicted by poetry is an ideal truth—i.e. if the
represented situation became real, the represented sequences of incidents would also
become inevitable. It is the poet’s law of probability that makes even the impossible seem
probable. Indeed, Aristotle prefers the “probable impossibility” to the “improbable
possibility.” It is the poet’s ability to apply the rule of probability that creates “willing
suspension of disbelief” in the audience or reader. It is a shrewd judgement by Aristotle.
Conclusion
Aristotle thus defends poetic truth and places it on a higher level than. History,
which merely presents factual truth. The poet relates what may happen, within the laws
of probability. He universalizes particular facts and invests permanence on transient
happenings.

Poetics 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Poetics 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Introduction to Aristotle and his Poetics

The Second Phase : Away From Athens

The Last Years and Death

Facebook Page MA English University of Sargodha Pakistan

1. Organon, or the Instrument of Correct Thinking.

Facebook Page MA English University of Sargodha Pakistan

Facebook Page MA English University of Sargodha Pakistan

The Value of Plato’s Criticism

5. Plato classifies poetry into dithyrambic, epic, and dramatic,

6. Plato favoured decorum, austerity, order an M restraint in

7. Though Plato took delight in the comedies of Aristophanes,

Facebook Page MA English University of Sargodha Pakistan

8. Plato gives a moral basis to good art.Good art imitates truly,

Facebook Page MA English University of Sargodha Pakistan

2. Plato and Aristotle were different by temperament on account

Facebook Page MA English University of Sargodha Pakistan

observation and analysis, the tools of the scientist by which he could

3. Coming after Plato, and possessing a scientific mind, Aristotle

Nature, Plan and Merits of Aristotle's Poetics

Facebook Page MA English University of Sargodha Pakistan

The General Plan and Theme

Facebook Page MA English University of Sargodha Pakistan

Facebook Page MA English University of Sargodha Pakistan

Facebook Page MA English University of Sargodha Pakistan

Aristotle’s Concept of Tragedy

The Greek Conception of the Term “Tragedy”

Facebook Page MA English University of Sargodha Pakistan

Facebook Page MA English University of Sargodha Pakistan

Facebook Page MA English University of Sargodha Pakistan

Facebook Page MA English University of Sargodha Pakistan

Facebook Page MA English University of Sargodha Pakistan

Facebook Page MA English University of Sargodha Pakistan

Character : The Four Essentials

Facebook Page MA English University of Sargodha Pakistan

Limitations in Aristotle’s Concept of Tragedy

Aristotle’s Concept of the Ideal Tragic Hero

Facebook Page MA English University of Sargodha Pakistan

have proved to be quite controversial. Different critics have interpreted them in

The Main Features of the Tragic Character

Facebook Page MA English University of Sargodha Pakistan

Aristotle’s dictum of ‘goodness’ in the tragic character has given rise to a

Facebook Page MA English University of Sargodha Pakistan

Facebook Page MA English University of Sargodha Pakistan

(iv) Consistency. The fourth essential with regard to character

Facebook Page MA English University of Sargodha Pakistan

It is completely right to say that the spectacle of a perfect man suffering

Facebook Page MA English University of Sargodha Pakistan

The Tragic Hero : An Intermediate Sort of Person

Facebook Page MA English University of Sargodha Pakistan

Hamartia can Arise in Three Ways

truth. In this connection Butcher remarks : “Othello in the modern

Facebook Page MA English University of Sargodha Pakistan

The Relative Importance of Plot and Character in Poetics by

The Necessity of Plot

Facebook Page MA English University of Sargodha Pakistan

Facebook Page MA English University of Sargodha Pakistan

Facebook Page MA English University of Sargodha Pakistan

Facebook Page MA English University of Sargodha Pakistan

Aristotle’s Conception of Tragic Catharsis in Poetics by

The Place of Catharsis in the Definition of Tragedy

Facebook Page MA English University of Sargodha Pakistan

The Place of Pity and Fear in Catharsis