Aristotle's Concept of Tragedy, Its Nature, Its Theory and Conception, Sources of Tragic Pleasure difference between Epic and Tragedy

Q.     Definition of Tragedy, Its Nature, Its Theory and Conception, Sources of Tragic Pleasure difference between Epic and Tragedy.

Ans.    The Poetics is chiefly concerned with Tragedy, which is regarded as the highest form of poetry. First of all Aristotle distinguishes tragedy from other poetic form. 

Aristotle begins by pointing out that imitation is the common basis of all the fine Arts, which, however, differ from each other in their medium of imitation, object of imitation and manner of imitation. The medium of the poet and the painter are different. The painter’s medium of imitation is colour and form. The poet’s medium is rhythm and harmony. In its manner of imitation, tragedy is different from the epic. The epic uses the manner of narrative, while tragedy represents life through acting. Tragedy also employs embellishments or pleasurable accessories of different kinds-songs and spectacles. Its objects of imitation are serious actions. Tragedy, then, differs from comedy, because its object of imitation is a serious action. While comedy imitates a grotesque action. In this way, Aristotle establishes the unique nature of Tragedy and differentiates it from the other kinds of poetry.

After distinguishing the different kinds of poetry, Aristotle proceeds to trace the origin and development of poetry. In the beginning, poetry was of two kinds:

1.                  Iambs or Invectives, for satiric and comic purpose.

2.                  Hymns and panegyrics, ‘Hymns for the gods and panegyrics for great men or heroes. 

The first, 'iambs', or, 'invectives' developed into satiric poetry, and the ‘hymns or panegyrics’ developed into epic, or heroic poetry. Tragedy developed out of heroic poetry, and comedy developed out of satiric poetry. As Tragedy is a later development, it is, therefore, a higher kind than the epic. In Chapter 26 of "the Poetics", Aristotle, compares Tragedy with Epic in a number of respects and demonstrates its superiority. Both Epic and Tragedy imitate serious subjects in a grand kind of verse, but they differ from each other as Epic imitates only one kind of verse both for its choral odes and for its dialogue, it is more lengthy and so more comprehensive and varied; but the Tragedy has greater concentration so it is more effective. Besides, a tragedy has all the constituent elements which an epic has, while there are many elements of tragedy which an epic does not have. The epic lacks in music and spectacle which are important constituents of the tragedy, and which enhance its effect. Furthermore, the tragedy also has reality of presentation and unity of action both which the epic lacks in, so, tragedy is superior to epic, because,

"all the parts of an epic are included in tragedy; but those of tragedy are not found in epic."

After this preliminary discussion of distinguishing tragedy from other poetic forms and also showing its superiority from an Epic, Aristotle comes to the consideration of the nature and function of a tragedy. He defines:

“a tragedy is the imitation of an action, serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude, in a language beautified in different parts with different kinds of embellishment, through action and not narration, and through scenes of pity and fear bringing about the 'Catharsis' of these or such emotions."

 This definition has wide implications; it falls naturally into two parts. The first part starts from "the imitation of an action" to "and not narration", is concerned with Tragedy as one of the imitative arts and throws light on its medium, objects, and manner of imitation. The second part is concerned with the function and emotional effects of tragedy.

As regards the function of a tragedy, Aristotle points out that the function of a tragedy is to arise scenes of 'fear and pity', and thus to bring about a Catharsis of these emotions. But unfortunately Aristotle does not supply any explanation of catharsis which is the function of tragedy. Hence critics have advanced a number of different explanations, and the term has been variously interpreted. But what Aristotle exactly meant by the term (Catharsis) can only be understood with reference to his other works, more specially the Rhetoric, the Politics and the Ethics. The whole question is a complex one, but it would be suffice to say that by Catharsis he means the equilibrium or restoration of the emotions of pity and fear, to the right proportions, to the ‘desirable mean’, to the 'golden means' which is the basis of his discussion of human qualities in the Ethics.

After examining the definition, nature, and function of Tragedy, Aristotle comes to a consideration of its constituent or formative parts. In this regard he enumerates six formative elements of a Tragedy: Plot, character, diction, thought, spectacle and song. He says two of these parts relate to the 'medium' of imitation, one to the 'manner' of imitation, and three to the 'objects' of imitation.

I- The most important constituent element of a Tragedy, according to Aristotle, is plot. It is the very soul of tragedy. By plot, Aristotle means the arrangement of incidents. And incidents mean action and a tragedy is an imitation of actions, both external and internal i.e. it also imitates the mental processes of the character or dramatis personae. Aristotle says that the plot of a tragedy is like a living organism, and it must be a complete whole, with a certain magnitude or length. An ideal plot must have the unity of a living organism. Just as in a living organism every part is essential to the life of the whole organism, so also in a tragedy there should be nothing superfluous at all; every incident must take the action a step further, and it should not be possible to remove any single incident without causing injury to the entire action.

So a plot consists of a logical and inevitable sequence of events. The 'action' it imitates is its plot. The action must be complete, i.e., it must have a proper beginning, a middle and an end. The beginning is that from which further action flows out, and which is intelligible in itself, and which is not consequent or dependent on any previous situation. A satisfying end is that which follows inevitably from what has gone before, but which does not lead to further action. It marks the completion of the tragic action. The middle is which follows inevitably upon what has gone before, and also leads to an inevitable conclusion. At all points,

"Aristotle emphasises that the tragic action must be in accordance with the laws of probability and necessity."

The action in the plot of a tragedy must be of a certain 'magnitude' means 'size' or 'length'. It must be long enough to permit an orderly (systematic) development of action to a catastrophe or fall. Too short an action cannot be regarded as proper and beautiful, for its different parts will not be clearly visible, as in the case of a very small living creature. Neither should it be too long, for in that case it will not be taken in as an artistic whole by the memory of the spectators. The action should be proportionate in the relation of the different parts to each other and to the whole. It must be an ‘organic whole’. Further, Aristotle divides the plot of a Tragedy into two kinds, simple plot and complex plot. He calls a plot simple, when the change in the fortunes of the hero takes place without peripety and discovery; and the plot is complex when it involves one or the other (peripety and discovery), or both. The ‘peripety’ is the change in the fortune of the hero, and the ‘discovery’ is a change from ignorance to knowledge. However, Aristotle prefers a complex plot, for it startles and captures attention of the spectators, and so is likely to perform the tragic function more effectively than a simple plot. But Aristotle disregards the use of episodic plot, i.e., a plot in which the different episodes have neither probability nor necessity. Aristotle regards this kind of plot as the worst of all. No doubt, throughout "The Poetics", Aristotle lays great emphasis on the probability and necessity of the action of a tragedy. There must be a causal connection between the various events and incidents and they must follow each other naturally and inevitably. No incident or character should be superfluous. The events introduced must be such as are probable under the circumstances.

II- As regards characterisation in general, Aristotle describes four essential qualities. First, the characters must be good, secondly, they must be appropriate, thirdly, they must have likeness, and fourthly, they must have consistency. The characters should be good but not too good or perfect to believe. Aristotle Says that wicked characters may be introduced, if required by the plot, but he is against the wanton introduction of evil and wickedness. By appropriateness, he, means that they must be true to type i.e. they must have the characteristics which are common to the profession, rank or class, to which a particular character belongs. And by likeness Aristotle may mean either of these two things: first, the characters must be life-like, they must be true representatives of actual human nature; or, secondly, they must be like the traditional or historical personage on whom they are created or modelled and whose name they bear. Lastly the characters must show a consistent development; Aristotle says if there is an inconsistent character, he must be represented as thoroughly inconsistent, it means he must be consistently inconsistent. There must be no sudden, unexpected and unaccountable changes in his character; whatever the character says or does the demands of necessity and probability must be satisfied at all costs.

While coming to a consideration of the ideal tragic hero, Aristotle says that he should neither be perfectly good nor utterly bad, a man neither of a blameless character, nor a depraved villain, he should be a man of ordinary weaknesses and virtues like ourselves, however, leaning more to the side of good than of evil, occupying a position of eminence, falling from prosperity to adversity, not because of any deliberate wickedness, but because of some error of judgment on his part. In short, he should be a man suitable to help the tragedy in performing its proper function i.e. bringing about a Catharsis of the emotion of pity and fear. Obviously, we feel pity and fear only for a man like us.

As regards the comparative importance of Plot and Character, Aristotle is quite emphatic that Plot is more important than Character. He goes to the extent of saying that

"there can be a tragedy without character, but none without plot."

Aristotle says that plot is the fundamental thing and he compares the Plot to the outline sketch of a painter. He says just as colours, however beautiful they are, have no meaning and significance without the outline, so the tragedy has 'no soul', no significance without the Plot. It is Plot, which like the outline of the painter, gives meaning and significance to a character.

III-Song or the Lyrical element is to be found in the Choric parts of a tragedy, five odes by chorus, as in Oedipus Rex, is the 'embellishment' which distinguishes the tragedy from the epic. It is one of the sources of the pleasure of tragedy.

IV-The Spectacle or the scenic effects have more to do with stagecraft than with the writing of poetry, hence Aristotle is of the view that the dramatist must depend on his own powers for his effects of stage, rather than on Spectacle. He writes though "fear and pity can be produced by spectacular means, yet it is much better to produce them by the way of writing the play.” Aristotle warns in these words that there can be no worse enemy of the art of the dramatist, than the theatre-manager, and reliance on the theatrical and the sensational effects have spoiled many excellent plays.

V-Thought is the intellectual element in a tragedy, and it is expressed only through the speech of a character. This implies that only such speeches are significant in a tragedy, as express the views and feelings of a character. This in itself brings out the importance of language and diction in tragedy.

VI-It is the use of proper language or diction which gives the thoughts and feeling of the various dramatic personae, and it is through speech that their character is first revealed, that is why the language of the tragedy must be unusually expressive. Aristotle is the first writer to emphasise the expressive value or metaphorical language in the tragedy. As a general rule, the language of Tragedy, "must be clear, and it must not be mean at all" the language must be clear, but also dignified and elevated at the same time. In the interest of clarity, it must use familiar and current words, but 'rare' and 'unfamiliar' words must be introduced judiciously to impart elevation in the tragedy.

As regards the function of tragedy, Aristotle says that the end of poetry is to give pleasure, and tragedy has its own distinctive pleasure, as well as the pleasure which is common to all poetry. According to Aristotle, the function of poetry is to give a certain refined pleasure, and in this sense, even he goes counter to the view that the poet is primarily an ethical teacher, according to Aristotle; pleasure is primary while ethic is secondary or it may come ultimately. Aristotle points out that it brings us a sense of relief through Catharsis.

i- The pleasure is derived partly from our natural sense of harmony and rhythm.

ii- It is also derived partly from the instinct of imitation because it satisfies our basic instinct of imitation.

iii- It increases our knowledge and to know and to learn, is pleasure. Tragedy gives pleasure because it results in enhanced understanding of life and its problems. It provides a kind of inner illumination. But these two sources of pleasure are common to all poetry. The peculiar pleasure of tragedy is caused by the Catharsis of the emotions of pity and fear.

iv- Tragedy imitates action and life, its pain and misery, and if this imitation is well-done, it is gripping and absorbing. There is a total emotional identification of the spectator with the person who suffers on the stage. In this way, we smile through our tears.

v- The unity of the plot, the diction, and the spectacle, etc., are other sources of pleasure in a tragedy.

As regards the three unities, Aristotle emphasises only one of the three unities it is the Unity of Action; he is against plurality of action as it weakens the tragic effect. There might be a number of incidents but they must be causally connected with each other. As regards the Unity of Time, Aristotle only once mentions it in relation to dramatic action. He writes, "Tragedy tries, as far as possible, to live within a single revolution of the sun, or only slightly to exceed it, whereas the epic observes no limits in its time of action." However, it is merely a suggestion; there is nothing that can be called a rule. But he never mentions the Unity of Place at all, or even says that it is desirable to confine the action to a single place. He is not the author of three unities; it was foisted on him by Renaissance critics of Italy and France.

To conclude we can say that the theory of tragedy might have its weaknesses; because Aristotle knows only Greek Tragedy, so his conclusions are based entirely on the drama with which he was familiar, and hence often his views are not of universal application. But, despite all that can be said against it, "Aristotle's theory of Tragedy is the foundation on which all subsequent discussions of literary aesthetics have most securely based itself." Aristotle's views might have been challenged, but their history is the history of Tragedy.

Points to Remember:

1.                  Introduction.

2.                  Medium, mode and manner of imitation.

3.                  Tragedy different from epic.

4.                  Six formative or constituent elements of poetry.

5.                  Conclusion.

*****