1
Plato
Plato’s indictment of poetry has been based on:
(1) Its intrinsic expression of falsehood:
Music, observes Socrates, includes tales and stories. Those currently being told, he urges, especially
those by Homer and Hesiod, should be suppressed on account of their degrading portrayal of the gods; or at
most, they should be allowed circulation among “a very small audience.” These include Hesiod’s account of
the struggles between Uranus and Cronus, and Homer’s depiction of Hera’s squabbles with Zeus. Even if
allegorical, such tales are impermissible since “the young are not able to distinguish what is and what is not
allegory” (II, 377c–378e). Such representations falsify the actual nature of God who is “good in reality” and
cannot, further, be the cause of evil things as these poets and Aeschylus suggest (II, 379b–e).
In addition to its confused conception of the gods, poetry is also charged with speaking falsehood “about
men in matters of the greatest moment,” portraying unjust men as happy, just men as wretched, and concealed
injustice as profitable. Such speech must be prohibited (III, 392b).
Poetry must also be prevented from presenting gods and men as greedy or bribable (III, 390e) and in fact
from representing “the evil disposition, the licentious, the illiberal, the graceless” (III, 401b). This will help
prevent the guardians from being “bred among symbols of evil” lest they “unawares accumulate and build
up a huge mass of evil in their own souls.” From earliest childhood, they must be “insensibly” guided “to
likeness, to friendship, to harmony with beautiful reason” (III, 401c–d).
(2) Its intrinsic operation in the realm of imitation:
………………
……………………
(3) Its combination of a variety of functions:
……………….
…………………….
(4) Its appeal to the lower aspects of the soul such as emotion and appetite:
……………………….
…………………….
(5) Its expression of irreducible particularity and multiplicity rather than unity:
…………………
………………..
(6) Its being the result of inspiration:
……………………..
…………………..
2
Aristotle
1- Important terms
2- The development of tragedy
3- Aristotle’s distinctions between different kinds of poetry
4- Tragedy is higher than epic poetry. Discuss, showing the similarities and differences
5- Tragedy’s definition and its seven parts
6- Discuss the six parts of a tragedy, showing the difference between thought and
character
7- Katharsis
8- Hamartia
9- Plot: complete & with magnitude
10-- Peripeteia & Anagnorisis
11-The kinds of plots to be avoided and the elements of a good plot 99
12-The requirements Aristotle lays out for a tragic hero 102
13-six different kinds of anagnorisis
14-Aristotle’s remarks on constructing the plot
Aristotle
Important Terms
Mimesis - Mimesis is the act of creating in someone's mind, through artistic representation, an idea or ideas
that the person will associate with past experience. Roughly translatable as "imitation," mimesis in poetry is
the act of telling stories that are set in the real world. The events in the story need not have taken place, but
the telling of the story will help the listener or viewer to imagine the events taking place in the real world.
Hamartia - This word translates almost directly as "error," though it is often rendered more elaborately as
"tragic flaw." Tragedy, according to Aristotle, involves the downfall of a hero, and this downfall is effected
by some error on the part of the hero. This error need not be an overarching moral failing: it could be a
simple matter of not knowing something or forgetting something. + 101
Anagnorisis - This word translates as "recognition" or "discovery." In tragedy, it describes the moment
where the hero, or some other character, passes from ignorance to knowledge. This could be a recognition
3
of a long lost friend or family member, or it could be a sudden recognition of some fact about oneself, as is
the case with Oedipus. Anagnorisis often occurs at the climax of a tragedy in tandem with peripeteia.
Mythos - When dealing with tragedy, this word is usually translated as "plot," but unlike "plot," mythos can
be applied to all works of art. Not so much a matter of what happens and in what order, mythos deals with
how the elements of a tragedy (or a painting, sculpture, etc.) come together to form a coherent and unified
whole. The overall message or impression that we come away with is what is conveyed to us by the mythos
of a piece.
Katharsis - This word was normally used in ancient Greece by doctors to mean "purgation" or by priests
to mean "purification." In the context of tragedy, Aristotle uses it to talk about a purgation or purification of
emotions. Presumably, this means that katharsis is a release of built up emotional energy, much like a good
cry. After katharsis, we reach a more stable and neutral emotional state. + 92:92
Peripeteia - A reversal, either from good to bad or bad to good. Peripeteia often occurs at the climax of a
story, often prompted by anagnorisis. Indeed, we might say that the peripeteia is the climax of a story: it is
the turning point in the action, where things begin to move toward a conclusion.
Lusis - Literally "untying," the lusis is all the action in a tragedy from the climax onward. All the plot
threads that have been woven together in the desis are slowly unraveled until we reach the conclusion of the
play.
Desis - Literally "tying," the desis is all the action in a tragedy leading up to the climax. Plot threads are
craftily woven together to form a more and more complex mess. At the peripeteia, or turning point, these
plot threads begin to unravel in what is called the lusis, or denouement.
=====
2Aristotle proposes to approach poetry from a scientific viewpoint, examining the constituent parts of poetry
and drawing conclusions from those observations. First, he lists the different kinds of poetry: epic poetry,
tragedy, comedy, dithyrambic poetry, and most flute-playing and lyre-playing. Next, he remarks that all of
these kinds of poetry are mimetic, or imitative, but that there are significant differences between them.
The first kind of distinction is the means they employ. Just as a painter employs paint and a sculptor
employs stone, the poet employs language, rhythm, and harmony, either singly or in combinations. For
instance, flute-playing and lyre-playing employ rhythm and harmony, while dance employs only rhythm. He
also addresses the question of non-poetic language, arguing that poetry is essentially mimetic, whether it is
in verse or in prose. Thus, Homer is a poet, while Empedocles, a philosopher who wrote in verse, is not.
While Empedocles writes in verse, his writing is not mimetic, and so it is not poetry. In tragedy, comedy,
and other kinds of poetry, rhythm, language, and harmony are all used. In some cases, as in lyric poetry, all
three are used together, while in other cases, as in comedy or tragedy, the different parts come in to play at
different times.
4
The second distinction is the objects that are imitated. All poetry represents actions with agents who are
either better than us, worse than us, or quite like us. For instance, tragedy and epic poetry deal with characters
who are better than us, while comedy and parody deal with characters who are worse than us.
The final distinction is with the manner of representation: the poet either speaks directly in narrative or
assumes the characters of people in the narrative and speaks through them. For instance, many poets tell
straight narratives while Homer alternates between narrative and accounts of speeches given by characters
in his narrative. In tragedy and comedy, the poet speaks exclusively through assumed characters.
===============
389
Aristotle stops short of saying that tragedy has achieved its complete and finished form. He lists four
innovations in the development from improvised dithyrambs toward the tragedies of his day. Dithyrambs
were sung in honor of Dionysus, god of wine, by a chorus of around fifty men and boys, often
accompanied by a narrator. Aeschylus is responsible for the first innovation, reducing the number of the
chorus and introducing a second actor on stage, which made dialogue the central focus of the poem.
Second, Sophocles added a third actor and also introduced background scenery. Third, tragedy developed
an air of seriousness, and the meter changed from a trochaic rhythm, which is more suitable for dancing, to
an iambic rhythm, which is closer to the natural rhythms of conversational speech. Fourth, tragedy
developed a plurality of episodes, or acts.
=======
4- Tragedy and epic poetry
89
While both tragedy and epic poetry deal with lofty subjects in a grand style of verse, Aristotle notes three
significant differences between the two genres. First, tragedy is told in a dramatic, rather than narrative,
form, and employs several different kinds of verse while epic poetry employs only one. Second, the action
of a tragedy is usually confined to a single day, and so the tragedy itself is usually much shorter than an epic
poem. Third, while tragedy has all the elements that are characteristic of epic poetry, it also has some
additional elements that are unique to it alone.
110:115
Aristotle turns his attention to epic poetry. While the mimesis of tragedy is in actions told in a dramatic
form, the mimesis of epic poetry is in verse told in a narrative form. Aristotle notes that there are a number
of similarities between tragedy and epic poetry.
First, epic poetry must maintain the unity of plot. In this it is allied with tragedy against history. History
tells us all that happened during a certain time period or to certain people, and as such it is often somewhat
disconnected. Epic poetry should focus on one particular story that remains an organic whole. Homer is an
5
excellent example of such an epic poet, as he tells a particular, connected story in the Iliad rather than trying
to narrate everything that happened during the Trojan War.
Second, epic poetry must share many of the elements of tragedy. Like tragedy, it should be either simple or
complex, and it should deal primarily either with a character or with suffering. Aside from spectacle and
melody, the six parts of tragedy are all present in epic poetry, and epic poetry can also feature peripeteia and
anagnorisis.
There are also two notable dissimilarities between epic poetry and tragedy. The first is the length: an
epic poem can reasonably last as long as a whole series of tragedies, provided it can be presented in one
hearing. The plot of an epic poem can be far more expansive because it is not limited by the stage. Epic
poetry can jump back and forth between events happening at the same time in different places in a way that
would be impossible on stage. Second, epic poetry should be narrated in heroic meter, while tragedy is
normally spoken in iambic meter.
Aristotle is clearly an admirer of Homer's, as almost all his examples of good epic poetry are drawn from
Homer. He praises Homer for reducing his own voice in the narrative and letting the actions and the
characters tell the story themselves. He uses Homer to show how epic poetry can recount exaggerated events
in a believable manner. A tragedy could never get away with such marvels, since they are less credible when
we see them performed. Having said this, he remarks that no plot should ever hinge on improbable events
but praises Homer for managing through his art to make this flaw in the Odyssey seem insignificant. He also
praises Homer as a master of using paralogisms (conclusions resulting from faulty or illogical arguments) to
make lies seem believable.
Aristotle cautions against an overenthusiastic use of elaborate diction. While it is pleasing when there is no
action to recount, and no character or thought to reveal, ornate diction can often obscure these more important
elements when they are found together.
Analysis
Aristotle seems to treat tragedy and epic poetry as largely similar. They are both meant to be imitations of
great deeds, noble heroes, and tragic suffering, the main difference being that tragedy conveys all this by
means of action, while epic poetry does so by means of language alone. They deal in the same genre, so the
only differences are determined by the different limitations imposed by the different media of expression. A
tragedy, for instance, cannot be as long as an epic, nor can it portray so many different happenings or get
away with as many fantastic events. On the other hand, tragedy is more focused, and epic poetry cannot
make use of the music or spectacle of stage performances.
Tragedy, it seems, is a more realistic medium. Because we see everything in a tragedy happening before our
eyes, the action is limited to the realm of human possibility. Admittedly, Greek stagecraft became
increasingly complex, allowing actors to fly about suspended from cranes, and so on, but too much of this
would be absurd. Indeed, Aristophanes, the great comic poet, made good comic use of such devices.
Epic poetry, on the other hand, is a purely narrative medium and as such is limited only by the imagination
of the poet and listener. Because we have no help in visualizing events, the epic poet can more easily recount
the improbable without disturbing us. Aristotle refers to the episode in the Iliad where Achilles chases Hector
three times around the walls of Troy. Homer makes no mention of the rest of the Greek army, which
6
presumably must have been sitting idly by, watching the chase. Such a picture would immediately seem
ridiculous if presented on stage, but because Homer can focus exclusively on the characters of Achilles and
Hector, we are liable not to notice this absurdity.
The larger-than-life qualities of epic poetry are also brought about by the heroic meter. This contrived and
elevated meter further removes the characters in the story from realistic portrayal, their extraordinary speech
meshing well with their extraordinary deeds. By contrast, tragedy employs an iambic meter that closely
resembles the rhythms of everyday speech.
In spite of these differences, Aristotle seems to think that epic poetry and tragedy can be judged according
to similar criteria. Most important to both is that they maintain unity of plot. Epic poetry, by virtue of its
length, is more suited to episode and digression, but these digressions must be tied to the plot as tightly as
the fewer digressions found in tragic poetry. Similar requirements regarding character presumably apply to
the epic hero as to the tragic hero. In spite of the differences in genre, it would seem that the basic criteria
for judging quality remain the same.
Chapters 25–26
Summary
Aristotle addresses a number of the criticisms that can be leveled against poetry. First among these is the
accusation that the events depicted are impossible. This criticism can fall under two categories. Less grave
describes the event if the impossibility arises from a lack of technical knowledge on the part of the poet. For
instance, he may describe a horse galloping with both front legs thrown forward, not realizing that horses do
not move like this. More grave describes the situation if the impossibility arises from the poet's inability to
give an accurate description of something he knows quite well.
Aristotle answers that, often, impossible events—such as Homer's description of Achilles' pursuit of Hector
in the Iliad —serve to heighten the astonishment and excitement of the story. When the poet can achieve
similar effects while staying within the realm of possibility, however, this route should be preferred. Aristotle
lays out the general principle that a poet should always aim for a convincing impossibility in favor of an
unconvincing possibility.
Further, not all poetry is meant to describe things as they are. Some poets describe things as they ought to
be, and others write to accord themselves with popular opinion rather than realism. For instance, Sophocles
claimed that while Euripides portrayed people as they are, he portrayed them as they ought to be. Other poets
stay true to popular myths rather than realism when depicting the gods.
As for events that are not impossible but merely improbable, the poet must show either that they accord with
opinion or that the events are not as improbable as they may seem.
Aristotle also discusses contradictions the poet might make in language, but this discussion is very difficult
to follow without a knowledge of ancient Greek. Basically, Aristotle suggests that what may at first seem to
be a contradiction in language may result from a metaphorical usage or some other poetic device.
7
While many errors are excusable or explainable, Aristotle asserts that the only excuse for an improbable plot
or unattractive characterization is if they are necessary or are put to good use. Otherwise, they should be
avoided at all costs.
In Chapter 26, Aristotle addresses the question of which is the higher form, tragedy or epic poetry. The
argument in favor of epic poetry is based on the principle that the higher art form is less vulgar and addressed
toward a refined audience. Tragedy is performed before large audiences, which results in melodramatic
performances or overacting to please the crowds. Epic poetry is more cultivated than tragedy because it does
not rely on gesture at all to convey its message.
Aristotle answers this argument by noting that the melodrama and overacting are faults of the performance
and not of the tragic poet himself. The recital of epic poetry could similarly be overdone without reflecting
poorly on the poet. Further, not all movement is bad—take dance, for instance—but only poorly executed
movement. Also, tragedy does not need to be performed; it can be read, just like epic poetry, and all its
merits will still be evident.
Further, he advances several reasons for considering tragedy superior. First, it has all the elements of an epic
poem and has also music and spectacle, which the epic lacks. Second, simply reading the play without
performing it is already very potent. Third, tragedy is shorter, suggesting that it is more compact and will
have a more concentrated effect. Fourth, there is more unity in tragedy, as evidenced by the fact that a number
of tragedies can be extracted from one epic poem.
Analysis
There are some seeming contradictions in Aristotle's view regarding impossible or improbable events. On
the one hand, he claims that they can enhance a story by making it more astonishing. He warns that they can
strain a story's credibility if overdone, but he does seem to applaud their prudent application. On the other
hand, Aristotle is firmly insistent on the unity of plot, which demands that events be connected by a probable
or necessary causal sequence. How, then, can improbable, or even impossible, events be an acceptable part
of this sequence? In Chapter 24, Aristotle asserts that a story should never contain improbable events. If a
plot would be ruined by removing these improbable events, then that just reflects poorly on the plot. If the
improbable events can be removed, then it is absurd to include them in the first place.
A clue to solving this problem lies in a claim Aristotle makes just before the passage alluded to in Chapter
24, and again near the end of Chapter 25: a convincing impossibility is preferable to an unconvincing
possibility. The key, it seems, is not so much that the sequence of the plot be true to life but that it be
plausible. When Aristotle condemns improbable events, he is primarily concerned with events in the plot
that seem out of place. Provided the plot maintains its own internal logic, it can get away with depicting the
improbable.
We might link this discussion of plot to what Aristotle says about inconsistency in character: a character
may behave inconsistently provided he is consistent in his inconsistency. That is, we should be able to
perceive an internal logic that drives the character to irrational behavior. Similarly, a plot may be improbable
provided it is convincing in its improbabilities. All good science fiction writers know that they can depict
the improbable provided they do so in a consistent and convincing manner.
8
Aristotle's argument in Chapter 26 that tragedy is superior to epic poetry comes in three waves. First, he
lists all the arguments given in favor of epic poetry. Second, he cancels all these arguments out, mostly by
showing that they are leveled against the performance of tragedy rather than anything in the genre itself.
Third, he lists the advantages that tragedy has over epic poetry, which can be boiled down to two main
points: (1) tragedy has all the elements of epic poetry and then some, and (2) tragedy is more condensed and
so has a more concentrated effect.
These two points are quite valid when we bear in mind that both tragedy and epic poetry aim at arousing the
emotions of pity and fear. Music and spectacle can certainly add to emotional effect, which gives tragedy an
edge that epic poetry lacks. Also, if the effect of tragedy is more concentrated, it can provide a more powerful
emotional punch. Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address is so powerful partly because it is so short: there
are no boring bits, and the effect is immediate. We might say the same thing about the brevity of the Poetics
itself: it's a far better read than lengthy manuals on literary theory.
On the other hand, we might question Aristotle's dismissal of the arguments in favor of epic poetry. Granted,
they are all directed against the performance of tragedy while Aristotle is more interested in the poetry itself.
But we might ask to what extent the performance can be distinguished from the poetry. That is, if there is
better epic poetry around than tragedy, what meaning is there in arguing that tragedy is an inherently better
genre? For instance, we could make a number of arguments in favor of comic books as a genre. Just as
tragedy has all the elements of epic poetry and then some, comics have all the elements of prose fiction
(words) and then some (they have pictures as well). Comics are also usually much shorter than books,
meaning that they should be able to back a more concentrated punch. There are many more arguments we
could make in favor of comics as a genre, but the fact remains that very few comics approach the
sophistication or quality of a good novel. This should not reflect poorly on comics as a genre, but it might
lead us to question how valuable it is to praise a genre in the abstract without looking at the products of that
genre.
Of course, the fact is, Greek tragedy has produced a number of masterworks, and posterity suggests that no
Greek epic poet after Homer approached the great tragedians in terms of quality. But this seems to be more
of an argument in favor of the tragedies that have been written rather than favoring the genre in the abstract.
====
5122: 123
Tragedy is the imitation of an action; and an action implies personal agents, who necessarily possess
certain distinctive qualities both of character and thought; for it is by these that we qualify actions
themselves, and these—thought and character—are the two natural causes from which actions spring, and
on actions again all success or failure depends. Hence, the Plot is the imitation of the action: for by plot I
here mean the arrangement of the incidents. By Character I mean that in virtue of which we ascribe certain
qualities to the agents. Thought is required wherever a statement is proved, or, it may be, a general truth
enunciated. Every Tragedy, therefore, must have six parts, which parts determine its quality—namely,
Plot, Character, Diction, Thought, Spectacle, Song. Two of the parts constitute the medium of imitation,
one the manner, and three the objects of imitation. And these complete the list. These elements have been
9
employed, we may say, by the poets to a man; in fact, every play contains Spectacular elements as well as
Character, Plot, Diction, Song, and Thought.
91
Aristotle now narrows his focus to examine tragedy exclusively. In order to do so, he provides a definition
of tragedy that we can break up into seven parts: (1) it involves mimesis; (2) it is serious; (3) the action is
complete and with magnitude; (4) it is made up of language with the "pleasurable accessories" of rhythm
and harmony; (5) these "pleasurable accessories" are not used uniformly throughout, but are introduced in
separate parts of the work, so that, for instance, some bits are spoken in verse and other bits are sung; (6) it
is performed rather than narrated; and (7) it arouses the emotions of pity and fear and accomplishes a
katharsis (purification or purgation) of these emotions.
===
691
Aristotle asserts that any tragedy can be divided into six component parts, and that every tragedy is made
up of these six parts with nothing else besides. There is (a) the spectacle, which is the overall visual
appearance of the stage and the actors. The means of imitation (language, rhythm, and harmony) can be
divided into (b) melody, and (c) diction, which has to do with the composition of the verses. The agents of
the action can be understood in terms of (d) character and (e) thought. Thought seems to denote the
intellectual qualities of an agent while character seems to denote the moral qualities of an agent. Finally,
there is (f) the plot, or mythos, which is the combination of incidents and actions in the story.
Aristotle argues that, among these six, the plot is the most important. The characters serve to advance the
action of the story, not vice versa. The ends we pursue in life, our happiness and our misery, all take the
form of action. That is, according to Aristotle, happiness consists in a certain kind of activity rather than in
a certain quality of character. Diction and thought are also less significant than plot: a series of well-written
speeches have nothing like the force of a well-structured tragedy. Further, Aristotle suggests, the most
powerful elements in a tragedy, the peripeteia and the anagnorisis, are elements of the plot. Lastly, Aristotle
notes that forming a solid plot is far more difficult than creating good characters or diction.
Having asserted that the plot is the most important of the six parts of tragedy, he ranks the remainder as
follows, from most important to least: character, thought, diction, melody, and spectacle. Character reveals
the individual motivations of the characters in the play, what they want or don't want, and how they react to
certain situations, and this is more important to Aristotle than thought, which deals on a more universal
level with reasoning and general truths. Melody and spectacle are simply pleasurable accessories, but melody
is more important to the tragedy than spectacle: a pretty spectacle can be arranged without a play, and usually
matters of set and costume aren't the occupation of the poet anyway.
103:105
We might clarify the distinction between thought and character by saying that thought can be expressed
directly, whereas character must be inferred. Let us take as an example the famous "to be or not to be" speech
10
in Hamlet . Hamlet is debating whether or not he should commit suicide, reasoning on the one hand that this
life is full of pain and misery and death is a quick way out, but on the other hand that no one knows what
happens after death and that perhaps death is even worse than life. Thought is expressed in Hamlet's
reasoning: we can all understand his reasons, and we can then think for ourselves which reasons are good
and which are bad. Character is more subtle and complicated. The thoughts Hamlet expresses are universally
understood and recognizable, but the kind of character that Hamlet must have to enunciate these thoughts is
far from clear. Why is Hamlet contemplating suicide? What makes him offer these reasons and express them
in this way? Why does he find the reasons against suicide more compelling? What, ultimately, does he want
to do? Understanding thoughts is a simple matter of interpretation; understanding character is an uncertain
procedure that requires penetrating psychological insight. We might say that the character of an agent is
everything about the agent that cannot be put into words.
Given the difficulties of understanding character, Aristotle seems to treat it in a very uncomplicated way.
The first and second requirements basically demand that the tragic hero be of good and appropriate character.
That is, his motives, desires, ambitions, etc., ought to be admirable to some extent and well suited to his
station in life. Beyond that, they must be true to what the audience already knows of the hero (the third
requirement), and the hero's behavior must be consistent (the fourth requirement).
The demand that the characters be consistent is in many ways parallel to Aristotle's demand for the unity of
plot. Every action in the plot should be causally connected to every other action. The tragedy, viewed as a
whole, should have the internal consistency of a clock, so that we should see a near inevitability in the way
things turned out. Similarly, an agent should behave in such a way that every decision, every action, can be
read as a manifestation of a single, unified character. Characters, too, should have the regularity of a clock,
so that, when viewed as a whole, there should be a seeming inevitability in every decision the hero makes,
based on what we know of the hero's character.
Aristotle does not rule out entirely that a hero could behave inconsistently, but he demands that the play,
seen as a whole, should make this inconsistency comprehensible. Though in one instance the hero may
behave one way, and in another behave in a contradictory manner, this contradiction should be made clear
by the larger context. Aristotle condemns plays where inconsistent or puzzling behavior is never clarified.
Aristotle's hero must be of high rank, relatively virtuous, true to life, and consistent. These requirements
depend to some extent on a relatively transparent moral worldview and understanding of psychology. In a
world where motives are unclear and there are layers of psychology to work through, it might be difficult to
determine whether a character is ultimately "good," or what goodness consists of. Further, a character may
seem inconsistent, or at least ambiguous, if the agent's motives don't float to the surface by the end of the
play. Euripides in particular is known for writing plays full of moral and psychological ambiguity. Not
surprisingly, Aristotle seems to prefer the much cleaner Sophocles to Euripides. In retrospect, though, this
seems more a matter of taste than of irrefutable reasoning.
109
As we recall, Aristotle makes a distinction between the character and the thought of an agent. The thought
of an agent is everything he or she expresses verbally. This includes persuading, reasoning, and arousing
emotion, among other things. We might understand it as the impression an agent consciously tries to make
on others. What we might infer from his or her unspoken behavior is more a matter of character.
11
We recall that Aristotle mentions the arousal of pity and fear as the main purpose of tragedy and claims that
the tragic poet must aim to arouse such emotions in the audience primarily by means of the plot. In discussing
thought, he mentions that agents may arouse emotions in one another by means of language. We find, then,
an interesting parallel between the tragic poet and the characters he creates. The plot is an implicit means of
arousing emotion employed by the poet, and thought is an explicit means of arousing emotion employed by
the agents of the plot.
====
7- Katharsis
92
Aristotle's definition of tragedy at the beginning of this chapter is supposed to summarize what he has already
said, but it is the first mention of the katharsis. The Greek word katharsis was usually used either by doctors
to talk about purgation, the flushing of contaminants out of the system, or by priests to talk about religious
purification. In either case, it seems to refer to a therapeutic process whereby the body or mind expels
contaminants and becomes clean and healthy. Determining exactly what role katharsis is meant to play in
tragedy is somewhat more difficult.
First, we might ask what exactly katharsis is in reference to tragedy. The idea, it seems, is that watching a
tragedy arouses the emotions of pity and fear in us and then purges these emotions. But, by virtue of mimesis,
we aren't feeling real pity or real fear. I may feel pity for Oedipus when he learns that he has killed his father
and married his mother, but this is a different kind of pity than the pity I feel for the homeless or for those
living in war zones. I know that Oedipus is not a real person and that no one is really suffering when I watch
Oedipus suffer. As a result, I can empathize with the character of Oedipus without feeling any kind of guilt
or obligation to help him out. Watching tragedy has a cathartic effect because I can let go of the emotional
tension built up in me as I leave the theater. I am able to experience profound emotion without having its
consequences stay with me and harden me to subsequent emotional shocks.
Second, we might ask to what extent katharsis is the purpose of tragedy, and to what extent it is an occasional
effect of tragedy. The question of in what way art may be good for us is a very difficult question to answer.
The best art (and this applies to Greek tragedy) is not didactic: it does not try to tell us outright how we ought
or ought not to behave. At the same time, there is definitely a lot we can learn from a subtle appreciation of
art. The value of art, on the whole, seems to stem more from its ability to arouse emotion and awareness on
an abstract, general level, rather than to teach us particular truths. Oedipus Rex is valuable because it
engenders a certain state of mind, not because it teaches us to avoid marrying older women whose family
histories are uncertain.
Though katharsis may be an important effect of tragedy, it is hardly the reason for which poets write
tragedies. If that were so, poets would be little more than emotional therapists. Again, Aristotle is writing as
an observer more than as a theorist. He has observed that tragedy has a cathartic effect on its viewers, but he
is not trying to enunciate this as the end goal of all tragedy.
=======
8- Hamartia
12
101
The ethics the modern Western world has inherited from Christianity is an ethics of obligation. In this system,
there are certain moral laws, and we are obligated to obey them. A failure to obey these laws represents an
unwillingness on our part. If we go against the moral law, we are guilty of breaking that law. This conception
of guilt draws on an ethical system wherein morality is something that can be disobeyed or resisted.
Greek ethics are based more on the notion of virtue than obligation. The Greek conception of reality is
closely tied up to the concepts of goodness and harmony. This idea is clearly expressed in Plato's theory of
Forms: the real world is made up of perfect, unchanging Forms, and it is our duty to approximate this reality
as best we can. Virtue, for the Greeks, is a matter of attaining our real nature and of finding our true form.
Thus, moral failure is not a matter of guilty recalcitrance, but simply a matter of error, of shortcoming, or of
being unable for whatever reason to attain our true nature.
Hamartia, then, represents the Greek, and not the Christian, conception of moral failure. Greek heroes are
not bad people—Aristotle explicitly states that they cannot be bad people—but are simply good people who
fall short in some important respect. Tragedy is less a matter of showing how bad people are punished for
their crimes, and is more a matter of showing how ignorance and error can have disastrous effects. The action
is tragic precisely because we are all ignorant to some degree, all flawed, and we may all suffer deeply for
these errors. This is a cold, hard fact of nature, and not a matter of justice and retribution.
In these sections, Aristotle is much less of an observer and much more of a legislator. He is no longer simply
stating how tragedies tend to play themselves out but is now putting forward arguments as to what makes
the best tragic plot. He is explicitly asking how we can maximize the feelings of pity and fear, which he calls
"tragic pleasure." That he should refer to our pity and fear as "pleasure" is further evidence that he does not
mean the kind of pity and fear we might experience were the events real.
===
9- Plot
93:94
Aristotle elaborates on what he means when he says that the action of a tragedy is complete in itself and with
magnitude. For a plot to be a complete whole, it must have a beginning, middle, and end. The beginning is
a point that does not necessarily follow from anything else, which naturally has consequences following
from it. The end is a point that naturally follows from preceding events but does not have any necessary
consequences following it. The middle is a point that is naturally connected both to events before and after
it.
The magnitude of a story is important, as it is in any art. Paintings are neither infinitesimally small nor
monstrously big because they must be of such a size as to be taken in by the eye. Similarly, a tragedy must
be of a moderate length so as to be taken in by the memory. Usually, time limits are set by the audience or
other outside factors, but Aristotle suggests that the longer the play the greater the magnitude, provided the
poet can hold the tragedy together as one coherent statement. As a general rule of thumb, he suggests the
action should be long enough to allow the main character to pass through a number of necessary or probable
steps that take him from fortune to misfortune or vice versa.
13
In insisting upon the unity of plot, Aristotle makes it clear that he does not mean that it is enough to focus
the plot on the life of one individual. Our lives consist of all sorts of disconnected episodes, and the story of
a man's life would rarely have the completeness necessary for a unified plot. Rather, the poet must select
some series of events from a character's life—as Homer does in the Odyssey —and craft them into a coherent
whole. Any part of a story that could be added or removed without any great effect on the rest of the story
is superfluous and takes away from the unity of the piece.
125-126
These principles being established, let us now discuss the proper structure of the Plot, since this is the first
and most important thing in Tragedy.
Now, according to our definition, Tragedy is an imitation of an action that is complete, and whole, and of
a certain magnitude; for there may be a whole that is wanting in magnitude. A whole is that which has a
beginning, a middle, and an end. A beginning is that which does not itself follow anything by causal
necessity, but after which something naturally is or comes to be. An end, on the contrary, is that which itself
naturally follows some other thing, either by necessity, or as a rule, but has nothing following it. A middle
is that which follows something as some other thing follows it. A well constructed plot, therefore, must
neither begin nor end at haphazard, but conform to these principles.
Again, a beautiful object, whether it be a living organism or any whole composed of parts, must not only
have an orderly arrangement of parts, but must also be of a certain magnitude; for beauty depends on
magnitude and order. Hence a very small animal organism cannot be beautiful; for the view of it is confused,
the object being seen in an almost imperceptible moment of time. Nor, again, can one of vast size be
beautiful; for as the eye cannot take it all in at once, the unity and sense of the whole is lost for the spectator;
as for instance if there were one a thousand miles long. As, therefore, in the case of animate bodies and
organisms a certain magnitude is necessary, and a magnitude which may be easily embraced in one view; so
in the plot, a certain length is necessary, and a length which can be easily embraced by the memory. The
limit of length in relation to dramatic competition and sensuous presentment, is no part of artistic theory. For
had it been the rule for a hundred tragedies to compete together, the performance would have been regulated
by the water-clock,—as indeed we are told was formerly done. But the limit as fixed by the nature of the
drama itself is this: the greater the length, the more beautiful will the piece be by reason of its size, provided
that the whole be perspicuous. And to define the matter roughly, we may say that the proper magnitude is
comprised within such limits, that the sequence of events, according to the law of probability or necessity,
will admit of a change from bad fortune to good, or from good fortune to bad.
VIII
Unity of plot does not, as some persons think, consist in the Unity of the hero. For infinitely various are
the incidents in one man's life which cannot be reduced to unity; and so, too, there are many actions of one
man out of which we cannot make one action. Hence, the error, as it appears, of all poets who have composed
a Heracleid, a Theseid, or other poems of the kind. They imagine that as Heracles was one man, the story of
Heracles must also be a unity. But Homer, as in all else he is of surpassing merit, here too—whether from
art or natural genius—seems to have happily discerned the truth. In composing the Odyssey he did not
include all the adventures of Odysseus—such as his wound on Parnassus, or his feigned madness at the
mustering of the host—incidents between which there was no necessary or probable connection: but he made
the Odyssey, and likewise the Iliad, to centre round an action that in our sense of the word is one. As
therefore, in the other imitative arts, the imitation is one when the object imitated is one, so the plot, being
an imitation of an action, must imitate one action and that a whole, the structural union of the parts being
such that, if any one of them is displaced or removed, the whole will be disjointed and disturbed. For a thing
whose presence or absence makes no visible difference, is not an organic part of the whole.
14
=====
10- Peripeteia & Anagnorisis
96:98
Aristotle introduces the concepts of peripeteia (reversal of fortune) and anagnorisis (discovery or
recognition) in his discussion of simple and complex plots. All plots lead from beginning to end in a probable
or necessary sequence of events, but a simple plot does so without peripeteia or anagnorisis while a complex
plot may have one or both of these elements. The peripeteia or anagnorisis of a complex plot should
themselves be necessary or probable consequences of what came before so that they are a part of the plot
and not unnecessary add-ons.
Peripeteia is the reversal from one state of affairs to its opposite. Some element in the plot effects a reversal,
so that the hero who thought he was in good shape suddenly finds that all is lost, or vice versa.
Anagnorisis is a change from ignorance to knowledge. This discovery will bring love and happiness to
characters who learn of good fortune, and hatred and misery to those who discover unhappy truths. The best
kind of anagnorisis accompanies peripeteia. That is, a reversal of fortune effects a discovery or vice versa.
For instance, Oedipus' discovery of who his mother is effects a reversal of fortune from proud king to horrible
disgrace. Aristotle suggests that anagnorisis is possible by a number of other means as well, but it is most
intimately connected to the plot when it accompanies peripeteia. The two together will help to arouse pity
and fear and will also help to draw the play to its conclusion.
In addition to peripeteia and anagnorisis, Aristotle defines a third part of the plot—suffering—as actions of
destructive or painful nature, such as murders, torture, and woundings.
In Chapter 12, Aristotle discusses the quantitative elements of tragedy—the different parts of the
performance. These are the Prologue, Episode, Exode, and a choral portion consisting of Parode and
Stasimon. In addition, some tragedies have songs from the stage and a Commos, a lamentation sung by both
actor and chorus. The Parode is the first full statement of the chorus; everything that precedes it is Prologue.
The Stasimon is a choral song in a certain meter, while action that takes place between choral songs is
Episode. Everything that follows the last choral song is Exode.
Analysis
Peripeteia and anagnorisis are fancy Greek words, but we are all quite familiar with the concepts. Anyone
who has watched the eighties television show The A-Team is quite familiar with peripeteia. Every episode,
the A-Team thinks they have the bad guys stumped, but then the tables are turned (the first peripeteia), and
the team is captured. Of course, the bad guys always lock them up in a warehouse full of welding equipment,
and the A-Team builds a big machine, breaks out, and busts the bad guys (the second peripeteia). This
example may seem silly, but the point is that peripeteia is not an archaic concept but an incredibly potent
literary device that is used effectively in almost every genre at almost every level.
Anagnorisis is similarly ubiquitous. The discovery can be a simple matter of seeing clearly a pattern in
events that had seemed obscure before, or it can be a moment of recognition that alters the character's
behavior and sense of self. To draw two examples from the movie The Empire Strikes Back, we find a simpler
15
kind of anagnorisis in Luke's discovery that the little green guy is Yoda and the more complex kind in Luke's
discovery that he is Darth Vader's son.
The difference between these examples from popular culture and the best of Greek tragedy is the way in
which peripeteia and anagnorisis are integrated into the plot of a tragedy. Aristotle insists that these elements
not be included unless they are an inevitable part of the necessary or probable sequence of events that leads
from beginning to end. The reversals in each episode of The A-Team are hardly necessitated by events; they
usually seem forced and improbable. They are simply cheap devices to keep the audience guessing.
The unity of plot in Greek tragedy is meant to clarify a pattern in events that helps us to understand the
consequences of our thoughts and actions. Peripeteia and anagnorisis essentially help us to recognize why
these patterns are not immediately evident to anyone with a little life experience. Life is not a simple progress
from A to B, but it involves reversals that upset our best laid plans. Further, we are far from aware of the
many factors—both in ourselves and in the world around us—that determine our fate, and we often only
learn of some important factor through a moment of belated recognition. A tragedy that includes peripeteia
and anagnorisis allows us to see the inevitability of certain fates and also makes us understand why we are
so often unable to perceive these fates.
Chapter 12 is an odd intrusion that interrupts Aristotle's discussion of plot. There is some question as to
whether this chapter is in fact Aristotle's, or at least whether he intended it to be inserted into the discussion
where it is. It seems oddly limiting in a way quite different from the discussion of the unity of plot. The call
for a tightly structured plot may be applied to some extent to modern tragedy, but the requirement that there
be a certain number of choral songs hardly seems to be a necessary element. Again, we should recall that
Aristotle is primarily an observer and only sometimes a legislator. In discussing the quantitative parts of a
tragedy, he may be simply remarking on what he has observed.
At the very least, this chapter helps us understand how the choral songs and speeches by actors are meant to
frame one another. We have a spoken Prologue and Exode that frame all the choral songs and the Episodes
that are inserted between choral songs. We might think of the choral songs as being like the refrain in a pop
song, and the spoken bits as being like the verses. The spoken bits advance the action and deal with the
particulars of the play, while the choral songs frame the action and discuss the overall themes of the play.
====
1199
Aristotle suggests that the best kinds of plot are complex plots that arouse fear and pity. He thus concludes
that three kinds of plot should be avoided. First, we should avoid plots that show a good man going from
happiness to misery, since such events seem more odious than fearful or pitiable. Second, we should avoid
plots that show a bad man going from misery to happiness, since this arouses neither pity nor fear and appeals
to none of our emotions. Third, we should avoid plots that show a bad man going from happiness to misery,
since it will also not arouse the feelings of pity or fear. We feel pity for undeserved misfortune (and a bad
man deserves his misfortune), and we feel fear if the person we pity is something like ourselves.
16
Aristotle concludes that the best kind of plot involves the misfortune of someone who is neither particularly
good nor particularly bad and whose downfall does not result from some unpleasantness or vice, but rather
from hamartia—an error in judgment. A good plot, then, consists of the following four elements: (1) It
must focus around one single issue; (2) the hero must go from fortune to misfortune, rather than vice versa;
(3) the misfortune must result from hamartia; and (4) the hero should be at least of intermediate worth, and
if not, he must be better—never worse—than the average person. This explains why tragedies tend to focus
around a few families (there are many tragedies about the families of Oedipus and Orestes among others):
they must be upstanding families that suffer great misfortune from an error in judgment rather than a vice.
Only second-rate plots that pander too much to public taste focus on a double issue where the good fare well
and the bad fare poorly.
===
12102
Aristotle turns his attention toward the character of the tragic hero and lays out four requirements. First,
the hero must be good. The character of the hero denotes the hero's moral purpose in the play, and a good
character will have a good moral purpose. Second, the good qualities of the hero must be appropriate to the
character. For instance, warlike qualities can be good, but they would be inappropriate in a woman. Third,
the hero must be realistic. In other words, if he is drawn from myth, he should be a reasonable semblance of
the character portrayed in myths. Fourth, the hero must be consistent (by which Aristotle means the hero
must be written consistently, not that the hero must behave consistently). He accepts that some characters
are inconsistent but that they should be written so as to be consistent in their inconsistency. Like the plot
itself, the behavior of the characters should be seen as necessary or probable, in accordance with the internal
logic of their personality. Thus, a character may behave inconsistently so long as we can perceive this
inconsistency as stemming from a personality that is internally consistent.
====
13105
Aristotle distinguishes between six different kinds of anagnorisis. First, there is recognition by means of
signs or marks, such as when Odysseus's nurse recognizes him by virtue of a characteristic scar. Aristotle
considers this the least artistic kind of anagnorisis, usually reflecting a lack of imagination on the part of the
poet. Second, also distasteful to Aristotle, is a recognition contrived by the author. In such a case, the poet
is unable to fit the anagnorisis into the logical sequence of the plot, and so it seems extraneous. Third is
recognition prompted by memory. A disguised character may be prompted to weep or otherwise betray
himself when presented with some memory from the past. Fourth, the second best kind of anagnorisis, is
recognition through deductive reasoning, where the anagnorisis is the only reasonable conclusion of an
agent's thought. Fifth, there is recognition through faulty reasoning on the part of a disguised character. The
disguised character might unmask himself by exhibiting knowledge that only he could know. Sixth, the best
kind of anagnorisis, is the kind of recognition that is naturally a part of the logical sequence of events in the
play, such as we find in Oedipus Rex .
17
===
14105:107
Aristotle makes seven final remarks about how a poet should go about constructing a plot: (1) The poet
should be sure to visualize the action of his drama as vividly as possible. This will help him spot and avoid
inconsistencies. (2) The poet should even try acting out the events as he writes them. If he can himself
experience the emotions he is writing about, he will be able to express them more vividly. (3) The poet
should first outline the overall plot of the play and only afterward flesh it out with episodes. These episodes
are generally quite brief in tragedy but can be very long in epic poetry. As an example, Aristotle reduces the
entire plot of the Odyssey to three sentences, suggesting that everything else in the poem is episode. (4)
Every play consists of desis, or complication, and lusis, or denouement. Desis is everything leading up to
the moment of peripeteia, and lusis is everything from the peripeteia onward. (5) There are four distinct
kinds of tragedy, and the poet should aim at bringing out all the important parts of the kind he chooses. First,
there is the complex tragedy, made up of peripeteia and anagnorisis; second, the tragedy of suffering; third,
the tragedy of character; and fourth, the tragedy of spectacle. (6) The poet should write about focused
incidents, and not about a whole epic story. For instance, a tragedy could not possibly tell the entire story of
the Iliad in any kind of satisfying detail, but it can pick out and elaborate upon individual episodes within
the Iliad. (7) The chorus should be treated like an actor, and the choral songs should be an integral part of
the story. Too often, Aristotle laments, the choral songs have little to do with the action at all.
Analysis
The discussion of anagnorisis is an elaboration on what we already found in Chapters 10 and 11. There,
Aristotle suggested that anagnorisis is most effective when it is connected with peripeteia, as the two
combined bring out a powerful tragic reversal that can arouse the emotions of pity and fear. Aristotle's sixth
category of anagnorisis seems to suggest as much. The more tightly the moment of recognition is tied to the
plot, the more effective it will be. For this reason, he opposes moments of recognition that are forced or
contrived.
The seven points Aristotle makes at the end are, for the most part, either uninteresting or reiteration
of what he has said before. For instance, a tragic poet likely knows far more about the actual process of
writing a play than Aristotle does and hardly needs a philosopher's advice on visualizing and acting out the
drama before writing it, which is what we find in (1) and (2). Points (3), (6), and (7) are further elaborations
on the unity of plot, ensuring that the action and the chorus remain focused on the unified plot. Aristotle's
discussion in (5) of the different kinds of tragedy is peculiar. It seems to contradict some of what he has said
before, and he does little more than list these different types, leaving us to wonder exactly what he means
by "tragedy of suffering" or "tragedy of character."
Of the seven points, by far the most interesting is (4), which concerns desis and lusis. The Greek word
desis literally means "tying" and lusis means "untying," as does "denouement," the word we borrow
from French. These two words give us a vivid metaphor for Aristotle's understanding of how a tragedy
works: the plot is like a piece of string that is twisted up into a complex knot and then untied. The plot is
thus structured around the moment of peripeteia, or reversal, where the knot begins to unravel. Every event
18
before the peripeteia should serve to complicate the plot, and every event from the peripeteia onward should
serve to untie these complications.
We also speak of knots to refer metaphorically to tension. A tragic plot builds up tension only to release it
subsequently. This release of tension we find in the lusis might explain why Aristotle treats katharsis as a
desired effect of tragedy.