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.
