Aristotle’s concept of tragedy.

Md. Al Amin

          The very word ‘tragedy’ brings to mind Aristotle and the Poetics. Aristotle defines tragedy as, “a representation of an action that is worth serious attention, complete in itself, and of some amplitude; in language enriched by a variety of artistic devices appropriate to the several parts of the play; presented in the from of action not narration; by means of pity and fear bringing about the purgation of such emotions”. This definition has wide implications. The definition clearly falls into two parts. The first part tells us about the nature of tragedy, its object, manner, and medium of imitation; the second part points out the function of tragedy.

After having given a definition of tragedy, Aristotle comes to the consideration of the formative elements of tragedy. He gives six formative elements of tragedy which determine its quality, namely —Plot, Character, Thought, Diction Spectacle and Song. Three of these i.e. Plot, Character, and Thought are internal aspects; three, namely, Diction, Spectacle, and Song, are external aspects.

Next, Aristotle examines the plot of Tragedy. Tragedy imitates ‘actions’ and its plot consists of a logical and in evitable sequence of events. The action must be complete, i. e. it must have a beginning, middle and an end. The beginning is that from which further action flows out, and which is intelligible, and not consequent of dependent on any previous situation. A satisfying end is that which follows inevitably from what has gone before, but which dose not lead to further action. The middle is that which follows inevitably upon what has gone before, and also leads on to an inevitable conclusion.

The action of a tragedy must be of a certain, ‘magnitude’, and the word may be taken to have been used in the sense of, ‘size’ or, ‘length’. It must be long enough to permit an orderly development of action to a catastrophe. Too short an action cannot be regarded as proper and beautiful. Neither should it be too long.

Aristotle divided the plot of tragedies into two kinds 1) simple and 2) complex. A simple plot is that in which the change in the fortune of the hero takes place without property and discovery. A complex plot is that in which change of is accompanied by a discovery or a reversal or both. Aristotle prefers a complex plot, for it startles and captures attention most effectively.

The function of tragedy, Aristotle says, is to present scenes of “fear and pity”, and thus to bring about a ‘catharsis’ of these emotions. But he does not supply any expiation of this function, so it is variously interpreted. Characterization has been placed next to plot in “The poetics”, perfect. Aristotle is ambiguous in relation to the term “appropriateness of the characters”. Either they must be life like or true representative of actual human nature.

As regards the characters in a Tragedy, Aristotle likes the playwright to aim at four things. First, the character should be good. Secondly, the portrayal should be appropriate. Thirdly, the characters should be life-like. Last , the characters should have consistency. In general, the ideal tragic hero should be neither too good nor too bad. He should be the intermediate kind of personage, one not pre-eminently virtuous and just whose misfortune is brought about by hamartia, i. e. an error of judgment.

Aristotle’s conception of the tragic hero finds in Chapter XIII of the poetics. The feelings of pity and fear, according to Aristotle, are the distinctive mark of tragic imitation. It therefore follows that the change of fortune in tragedy must not be the spectacle of a virtuous man falling from prosperity to adversity because this kind of thing would merely shock us and would excite neither pity nor fear. Similarly, a bad man must not be shown in tragedy as passing from adversity to prosperity because this sort of thing would be absolutely alien to the spirit of tragedy.

The Greek conception of tragedy was different from the modern conception. Today, we regard Tragedy as a story with an unhappy ending. But this was not the Greek conception. Greek tragedies were serious in tone, but many of them had happy endings.

In conclusion, it should be noted that Aristotle’s theory of Tragedy is entirely based on the Greek drama with which he was familiar. Hence, lies view are sometime limited and not universal. But he is in the real sense, the founder of literary views and theories upon which the subsequent literary aesthetics have more securely based themselves. His views on tragedy are the ‘history’ of tragedy.