Aristotle's Concept of Characterization,

Ideal Tragic Hero,

Concept of Hamartia.

Q.5.     Essentials of Successful Characterization, Characteristics of an Ideal Tragic Hero or the Concept of Hamartia.

Ans.    Before, discussing the four essentials of characterization and the ideal tragic hero, Aristotle discusses the idealization of reality. According to Aristotle, Tragedy idealizes, it imitates men as better whereas Comedy caricatures, it imitates men as worse than they actually are. Tragedy idealizes men and brings out the hidden possibilities embedded in them. Consequently, the characters in a tragedy are real men and women, but they are of the better sort. Furthermore, the good in characters is made more prominent and impressive and the reality is heightened by a judicious process of selection and elimination. As in painting, a skilful painter paints from reality, but the object painted by him is made to look more beautiful than the original one. In the same way, the poet uses reality as the basis of his art. He depicts real men and women, but at the same time he idealises so he represents men finer and nobler than they actually are.

Later, in the 15th Chapter of the Poetics, Aristotle discusses the art of characterization on an extended scale. He describes four essential elements of successful characterization:

I-                   Goodness

II-                Appropriateness

III-             Likeness

IV-             Consistency 

(i) The character must be ‘good’. A character is good, if his words, deeds and actions reveal that his purpose is good. In ancient Greece, women were considered as inferior human beings and slaves were considered as worthless. But Aristotle says that, when they (women and slaves) are introduced in a tragedy, even they must be shown to have some good in them. Entirely wicked characters, even assigned with minor roles, are unfit for a tragedy. Wickedness in a character may be introduced only when required by the necessities of the plot. But wanton or wilful introduction of wickedness must be avoided; even wicked characters must be made good in some respects. Wickedness must be mixed up with some good as in actual life both good and wickedness is found juxtaposed. In other words, Aristotle favours complex or round characters. Just as a successful painter makes his portrait more beautiful than the original, but he still retains its likeness to the original, in the same way the poet represents his characters in a better and more dignified way but it must still preserve its likeness to the original one.

What does Aristotle mean by 'good'? The word ‘good’ has variously been interpreted by various critics. While some critics have interpreted the word in the sense of general moral quality revealed in action, more specifically in the 'choices', the character makes. A critic, F.L. Lucas emphatically declares that from the context where this word has been used it becomes clear that "good", means 'fine' or, 'noble'; so the characters should be as fine as the plot permits. Another eminent critic, Humphrey House goes to the root of the matter and says that the word 'good' has been used here in the Greek sense, and not in the Christian sense. In the Greek sense, the word 'goodness' implies a number of virtues, such as courage, magnificence, temperance, liberality, friendliness, etc. Humphrey says:

"Aristotle's good man is not good, unless he desires specific, positive good ends, and works towards their attainment."

Goodness, according to the Greek conception does not lay in merely endurance or humility, but it lays in the strength and intensity of character, it lays in the greatness of soul, even in physical strength which enables a man to achieve his ends. The characters need not to be paragons of virtue in the Christian sense, but they must have 'grandeur', or they may be brave or upright and determined. Above all, they must not be weak, for weakness is the hardest thing to justify on the stage.

(2) Secondly, the characters must be ‘appropriate’, which means that they must be true to their 'type' or 'status'. For example, a woman must be shown as womanly and not 'manly', in the same way, a slave must be given a character which is appropriate to his 'status'. Manliness would not be appropriate in a woman, and dignity and nobility in a slave. If the character is taken from some known or popular myth or story, e.g. the story of King Oedipus, he must be true to tradition. He must behave as King Oedipus is traditionally supposed to have behaved. In this respect, Aristotle had in his mind, the practice of Greek dramatists, who chose their tragic themes from history, mythology, and other traditional sources.

Aristotle's criterion of appropriateness has come in for a big deal of criticism. It is said that Aristotle lays down the principles that the characters should be "true to type", that they must have the characteristics peculiar to their age, profession, sex, or social rank and status. They must be true and appropriate representatives of the class or group to which they belong. However, this does not mean that they should be mere types and not 'individuals'. Though they must have generic or typical qualities, yet they can also be, and must be, individualized at the same time. Their individuality is guaranteed by the fact that tragedy does not represent men, but, "men in action". The 'choice' which they make in a critical situation is bound to reveal their individual characters. The actions of even the personages of the same type are bound to differ from situation to situation; it is action which reveals their individuality. Aristotle's insistence on appropriateness is a sure safeguard against that oddity and eccentricity, that probing into the depths, which is a basic weakness in the characterisation of many a modern novel, and which comes in the way of the development of plot.

(3) The third essential element of successful characterisation is that characters must have, 'likeness', i.e., they must be like ourselves or true to life. In other words, they must have the virtues and weaknesses, joys and sorrows, loves and hatreds, likes and dislikes of average human being. Such likeness is essential, for we can feel pity only for a person who is like ourselves, and only his misfortunes can make us fear for ourselves. This essential element in itself rules out the existence of the perfectly good, or utterly wicked and depraved characters. Such characters will not be like us so they will be unreal and unconvincing. Therefore, the characters must be of an intermediate sort, mixtures of good and evil, virtues and weaknesses, like us.

(4) Fourth essential is that the characters must be ‘consistent’. They must be true to their own natures, and their actions must be consistent. Thus a rash and impulsive person should act rashly and impulsively throughout the play. There should be no sudden changes in character. If the dramatist has to introduce an inconsistent person, he must be "consistently inconsistent". Aristotle emphasises the point further by saying that the actions of a character must be the necessary and probable outcome of his nature. He says that a character should act as we may logically expect a man of his nature to act, under the given circumstances. The incidents must be causally (with a cause) connected with each other. They must be logically interlinked with his earlier actions, and must not contradict the impression produced earlier.

In short, there is to be uniformity in behaviour unless there is a proper motivation for any deviation any change or development in character has to take place logically.

THE IDEAL TRAGIC HERO

No passage in the Poetics, with the exception of the Catharsis phrase, has attracted so great deal of critical attention as his concept of an ideal tragic hero. The function of a tragedy is to arouse the emotions of pity and fear in the spectators, and Aristotle deduces the qualities of his hero from this essential function. An ideal tragic hero should be good, but not too good or perfect, for the fall of a perfectly good man from prosperity to adversity, would be odious and repellent for the spectators. His fall will also not arouse the proper sentiment of pity, for he is not like us and his undeserved fall would only shock and disgust. Moreover, his martyrdom is a spiritual victory and the sense of moral triumph drowns the feeling of pity. The perfectly good man or the saint is self-effacing and unselfish, so he tends to be passive and inactive. Drama, on the other hand, requires for its effectiveness a militant and combative hero. However, in quite recent times, both Bernard Shaw and T.S. Eliot have achieved outstanding success with saints as their tragic heroes. Similarly, the spectacle of an utterly wicked person passing from prosperity to adversity may satisfy our moral sense, but lacks in arousing the proper tragic sentiments of pity and fear. Because such a person is not like us, and his fall seems to be well-deserved and in accordance with the requirement of 'justice', so it excites neither pity nor fear. Thus according to Aristotle, perfectly good, as well as utterly wicked persons are not at all suitable to be heroes of tragedies. However, Elizabethan tragedy has demonstrated that even villains, like Macbeth, can serve as proper tragic heroes and their fall can arouse the specific tragic emotion of pity. It needs, however, the genius of Shakespeare to evolve tragic villains of this type. His wickedness is on a grand level; it is intellectual and resolute, it arises the criminal above the commonplace and gives to him a sort of dignity. The fall of such a power evokes a certain tragic feelings in us, or at least a tragic sympathy. It is not the pity one feels for the unmerited sufferer. But it is a sense of loss and regret over the waste or misuse of such splendid gifts.

"Provided a person has some redeeming quality - courage, intellect, beauty, wit, passionate devotion".

 Here again, one might perhaps, offers a defence of Aristotle, as he has said that completely a depraved person is not fit to be a tragic hero. One could easily agree that Macbeth was not completely depraved, for he possessed inordinate courage.

In this connection, it would be pertinent to remember that Aristotle's conclusions are based on the Greek drama with which he was familiar, and secondly, that he lays down the qualifications of an ideal tragic hero, and here he discusses what is the best, not what is good. On the whole, his views are justified, for it requires the genius of a Shakespeare to arouse sympathy for an utter villain or a saint.

Having rejected perfection as well as utter depravity and villainy, Aristotle points out that the ideal tragic hero,

"must be an intermediate kind of person, a man not pre-eminently just and virtuous, whose misfortune, however, is brought upon him not by vice or depravity but by some error of judgment."

In short, the ideal tragic hero is a man who stands midway between the two extremes. He is not eminently good or just, though he inclines to the side of goodness. He is like us, he has so much of common humanity to arouse our interest and sympathy, but he is an idealised one. Aristotle says that the tragic hero is not depraved or vicious, he is also not perfect at the same time, his misfortune is brought upon him by some fault of his own. In this connection the Greek word used here is "hamartia". The root meaning of Hamartia is "missing the mark". So the tragic hero falls not because of some vice or depravity, but because of "miscalculation" on his part. Hamartia is not a moral failing, but unfortunately it has been translated rather loosely as, "tragic flaw", by Bradley. Aristotle himself distinguishes hamartia from moral failing, and makes it quite clear that he means by it some error of judgment. Butcher, Bywater, and Rostangi, all these critics agree that 'Hamartia' is not a moral failing; but an error of judgment which a man commits unconsciously or innocently. However, Humphrey House tells that Aristotle neither does assert nor deny anything about the connection of hamartia with moral failings in the hero. He says: "It may be accompanied by moral imperfection, but it is not in itself a moral imperfection."

Thus Hamartia is an error of judgement or miscalculation, it may arise from any of the three ways: First, it may arise from "ignorance of some material fact or circumstance", or secondly, it may be an error arising from hasty or careless view of a given situation, or thirdly, it may be an error voluntary but not deliberate, as in the case of acts committed in anger or passion. In "King Lear", Lear commits such an error when he banishes Cordelia. And in the case of Oedipus all three errors are included. The defect of Oedipus lies in his proud self-assertion. All serious modern Aristotelian critics agree that Hamartia is not moral imperfection, though it may be allied with moral faults, yet it is an error of judgment, whether arising from ignorance or from some passion. It may even be a character trait, and he may commit not only one error, but also a series of errors. This conclusion is borne out by the play Oedipus Tyrannus to which Aristotle refers again and again, and which may be taken to be his ideal. In this play, the life of the hero is a chain of errors, the most fatal of all being his marriage with his mother. The tragic irony lies in the fact that hero may err innocently, unknowingly, without any evil intention at all, yet his doom is no less than those who sin consciously. According to Butcher,

"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."

Aristotle lays down another qualification for the tragic hero. He says an ideal tragic hero must be “enjoyment great reputation and prosperity.” In other words, he must be a person who occupies a position of lofty eminence in society. He must be a highly placed and well-reputed individual. This is so because Greek tragedy, alone, with which Aristotle was familiar, was written about a few distinguished royal families.

But Modern drama has demonstrated that even a common individual can serve as a tragic hero. They think that the rank and nobility of birth are now irrelevant. But the common man, who is selected as the tragic hero, should have uncommon qualities himself. He should have some sort of dignity so that his fall may arouse the sense of pity in the spectators.

However, Aristotle's dictum is quite justified on the principle that, "higher the state, the greater the fall that follows," or “heavens themselves blaze forth the death of princes, while the death of a beggar passes unnoticed.” But it should be remembered that Aristotle nowhere says that the hero should be a king or at least royal descended, they were the Renaissance critics who distorted Aristotle and made the qualification more rigid and narrow.

On the whole, we can conclude that Aristotle's concept of the tragic hero is not unacceptable. Though, in some ways he had a limited vision. Tragedy is even possible with saints, as Shaw and Eliot have shown. It is also very much possible with a villainous character, remarkably shown by the Renaissance dramatists, especially Shakespeare. However, the chief limitation of Aristotle's concept is that it is based on only one section of world drama, i.e. Greek drama.

Points to Remember:

1.                  Introduction.

2.                  Tragedy idealizes, comedy caricatures.

3.                  Four essentials of characterization.

4.                  Ideal tragic hero.

5.                  Definition of ideal tragic hero.

6.                  Concept of hamartia.

7.                  Modern drama.

8.                  Conclusion.

*****