|Outline of Aristotle's Theory of Tragedy
Definition of Tragedy: Tragedy, then, is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude; in language embellished with each kind of artistic ornament, the several kinds being found in separate parts of the play; in the form of action, not of narrative; with incidents arousing pity and fear, wherewith to accomplish its katharsis of such emotions. . . . Every Tragedy, therefore, must have six parts, which parts determine its qualitynamely, Plot, Characters, Diction, Thought, Spectacle, Melody. (translation by S. H. Butcher; click on the context links to consult the full online text)
The treatise we call the Poetics was composed at least 50 years after the death of Sophocles. Aristotle was a great admirer of Sophocles Oedipus the King, considering it the perfect tragedy, and not surprisingly, his analysis fits that play most perfectly. I shall therefore use this play to illustrate the following major parts of Aristotle's analysis of tragedy as a literary genre.
Tragedy is the imitation of an action (mimesis) according to the law of probability or necessity. Aristotle indicates that the medium of tragedy is drama, not narrative; tragedy shows rather than tells. According to Aristotle, tragedy is higher and more philosophical than history because history simply relates what has happened while tragedy dramatizes what may happen, what is possibile according to the law of probability or necessity. History thus deals with the particular, and tragedy with the universal. Events that have happened may be due to accident or coincidence; they may be particular to a specific situation and not be part of a clear cause-and-effect chain. Therefore they have little relevance for others. Tragedy, however, is rooted in the fundamental order of the universe; it creates a cause-and-effect chain that clearly reveals what may happen at any time or place because that is the way the world operates. Tragedy therefore arouses not only pity but also fear, because the audience can envision themselves within this cause-and-effect chain (context).
Plot is the first principle, the most important feature of tragedy. Aristotle defines plot as the arrangement of the incidents: i.e., not the story itself but the way the incidents are presented to the audience, the structure of the play. According to Aristotle, tragedies where the outcome depends on a tightly constructed cause-and-effect chain of actions are superior to those that depend primarily on the character and personality of the protagonist. Plots that meet this criterion will have the following qualities (context). See Freytag's Triangle for a diagram that illustrates Aristotle's ideal plot structure, and Plot of Oedipus the King for an application of this diagram to Sophocles play.
Character has the second place in importance. In a perfect tragedy, character will support plot, i.e., personal motivations will be intricately connected parts of the cause-and-effect chain of actions producing pity and fear in the audience. The protagonist should be renowned and prosperous, so his change of fortune can be from good to bad. This change should come about as the result, not of vice, but of some great error or frailty in a character. Such a plot is most likely to generate pity and fear in the audience, for pity is aroused by unmerited misfortune, fear by the misfortune of a man like ourselves. The term Aristotle uses here, hamartia, often translated tragic flaw, has been the subject of much debate. The meaning of the Greek word is closer to mistake than to flaw, and I believe it is best interpreted in the context of what Aristotle has to say about plot and the law or probability or necessity. In the ideal tragedy, claims Aristotle, the protagonist will mistakenly bring about his own downfallnot because he is sinful or morally weak, but because he does not know enough. The role of the hamartia in tragedy comes not from its moral status but from the inevitability of its consequences. Hence the peripeteia is really one or more self-destructive actions taken in blindness, leading to results diametrically opposed to those that were intended (often termed tragic irony), and the anagnorisis is the gaining of the essential knowledge that was previously lacking (context). Application to Oedipus the King.
Characters in tragedy should have the following qualities (context):
Thought is third in importance, and is found where something is proved to be or not to be, or a general maxim is enunciated. Aristotle says little about thought, and most of what he has to say is associated with how speeches should reveal character (context 1; context 2). However, we may assume that this category would also include what we call the themes of a play.
Diction is fourth, and is the expression of the meaning in words which are proper and appropriate to the plot, characters, and end of the tragedy. In this category, Aristotle discusses the stylistic elements of tragedy; he is particularly interested in metaphors: But the greatest thing by far is to have a command of metaphor; . . . it is the mark of genius, for to make good metaphors implies an eye for resemblances (context). Application to Oedipus the King.
Song, or melody, is fifth, and is the musical element of the chorus. Aristotle argues that the Chorus should be fully integrated into the play like an actor; choral odes should not be mere interludes, but should contribute to the unity of the plot (context).
Spectacle is last, for it is least connected with literature; the production of spectacular effects depends more on the art of the stage machinist than on that of the poet. Although Aristotle recognizes the emotional attraction of spectacle, he argues that superior poets rely on the inner structure of the play rather than spectacle to arouse pity and fear; those who rely heavily on spectacle create a sense, not of the terrible, but only of the monstrous (context 1; context 2).
The end of the tragedy is a katharsis (purgation, cleansing) of the tragic emotions of pity and fear. Katharsis is another Aristotelian term that has generated considerable debate. The word means purging, and Aristotle seems to be employing a medical metaphortragedy arouses the emotions of pity and fear in order to purge away their excess, to reduce these passions to a healthy, balanced proportion. Aristotle also talks of the pleasure that is proper to tragedy, apparently meaning the aesthetic pleasure one gets from contemplating the pity and fear that are aroused through an intricately constructed work of art (context).
We might profitably compare this view of Aristotle with that expressed by Susanne Langer in our first reading (Expressiveness in Art, excerpt from Problems of Art: Ten Philosophical Lectures, New York, Scribner, 1957):
A work of art presents feeling (in the broad sense I mentioned before, as everything that can be felt) for our contemplation, making it visible or audible or in some way perceivable through a symbol, not inferable from a symptom. Artistic form is congruent with the dynamic forms of our direct sensuous, mental, and emotional life; works of art . . . are images of feeling, that formulate it for our cognition. What is artistically good is whatever articulates and presents feeling for our understanding. (661-62)November, 1999