Aristotle's Poetics

THE EPIC AND THE TRAGEDY IN ARISTOTLES POETICS 

Introduction

In the Poetics, Aristotle has given a brief outline of how poetry could have evolved. We see from the beginning that Aristotle holds that the tragic evolved from the heroic strain, which in turn originated from the hymns of praise sung to the gods and the great men. Thus Aristotle establishes and affinity between the epic and the tragedy.

The Affinity between Tragedy and Epic

Aristotle’s treatment of the epic is slight as compared to his treatment of tragedy. But he makes a few general statements, which bring out the salient features of the epic, and establishes the affinity as well as the difference between epic and tragedy.
Both epic and tragedy are imitations of serious subjects, and deal with characters of the higher type. A number of elements are to be found common to both. These are Plot, Character, Thought and Diction. The structure in the case of both should show a unity, though in this matter, the epic is allowed more freedom than tragedy. The structure of the epic should be modeled on dramatic principles, according to Aristotle. Single actions should, as far as possible, be the proper content of the epic. The action should of course have a beginning, middle and end, be a complete organic whole, just as it should in tragedy. Aristotle expresses his admiration for Homer in this, as in all other respects. Homer chose a particular portion and not the whole of the Trojan war for his epic. It is only through such selection that the theme can be embraced in a single view.

Epic poetry is similar to tragedy in that it has as many species as tragedy. The epic plots can be complex or simple, full of suffering, or concentrate on Character. Homer is again cited as the perfect model. His diction and thought are also supreme. Further, says Aristotle, the epic poet should not speak directly. It is better that he should speak through his .characters. This is the dramatic slant 1 given to the epic by Aristotle.

Differences between Epic and Tragedy

The first difference that matter is that of length. Tragedy, by its very nature, is more concentrated and compact. Hence its size is much more limited than that of. the epic. The length of a tragedy is based on the principle that the work must be short enough to be grasped as an artistic whole. This holds good for the epic as well. But the length of the epic can be greater than that of the tragedy. The time limits of epic are not fixed. The epic has another advantage : it can relate a number of incidents happening simultaneously to different persons at the same time.

Tragedy cannot show more than one incident happening at one place at one time. This is what gave rise to the concept of the Unity of Place. Though Aristotle does not stipulate this Unity at any time, not even in the chapter concerning the epic and the tragedy, later critics have attributed it to him. All that Aristotle says, is that tragedy cannot represent more than one incident at one time, and that it cannot show incidents happening at different places at the same time. This is a common sense observation based on the practice of the Greek theater. The greater size (length) of the epic allowed it more grandeur and dignity in the treatment of its incidents. The incidents in tragedy have necessarily to “be shorter, and more concentrated. The introduction of the different episodes in an epic make it more interesting, as they relieve the dullness and monotony.

Tragedy can make use of a greater variety of meters, while the epic has to content itself with the heroic meter. The heroic meter, or the hexameter 1 is most dignified and stately. It can make use of rare and strange words.’ The tragic mode allows the use of metaphors, in the iambic* and trochaic 3 tetrameter 4. Nature, says Aristotle, has established the appropriate meters for all forms of poetry. The iambic verse is close to the speech of men, and suited to imitation of men in action.

The epic allows greater scope for the marvelous and the irrational. Tragedy, however, cannot make too much use of the marvelous within the action, for this would seem improbable and unconvincing. Epic .can relate improbable tales because it is not going to be presented on stage before the eyes of the spectators. The degree of the irrational can be greater because it is left to the imagination, and not placed before the eyes. Indeed, the element of marvelous adds to the artistic pleasure and wonder of the epic. Such incidents of the marvelous, which include the supernatural and the irrational, have to be placed outside the action of tragedy.

The epic uses the mode of the narrative, and tragedy the mode of the dramatic. The plot of epic, as of tragedy, must have unity.
Yet within the overall unity, the epic allows for more and longer incidents than does tragedy. The epic allows multiplicity of stories, which would be unthinkable in the tragedy.
The elements which are, however, only to be found in the tragedy, are Music and Spectacle. Tragedy has a vividness which is absent in epic. This is so, even if the tragedy is read and not acted out on stage

Tragedy is Superior to the Epic : Aristotle’s Conclusion

Aristotle considers the question of the relative value of epic and tragedy. In his opinion, though tragedy has been criticized as Vulgar’, this is not so. “Tragedy, he maintains, is richer in its effects, adding music and spectacle to epic resources; it presents its stories even when read no less vividly than the epic; it has a stricter unity; its methods are more concentrated; and it produces more effectively the requisite emotional result, i.e., the pleasure from a catharsis of pity and fear.”

#THANKS_FOR_READING  


Plato and Aristotle on Poetry
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
Philosophy -- superior to poetry
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Plato felt that philosophy was more suitable for nurturing and educating the young than poetry. It was philosophy which would cure society of depravity and corruption. Philosophy would offer a guide to good conduct. Plato conveniently ignores the fact that the 'imitation ' in poetry could stimulate and elevate human nature. He emphasizes the bad effects only. Citizens and rulers alike are advocated to read philosophy, for philosophy sees Truth in its ideal or pure form. Poetry, on the other hand, imitates shadows, and leads men to experience unreal feelings of pain and pleasure and makes men lose their hold over themselves.
The value of Plato's criticism
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Plato's criticism of poetry primarily stemmed from a desire to correct the prevailing tendency in Greece, of regarding poets as seers. At the time, Homer was not considered merely as a great poet;  he was regarded in more of a religious light. Plato felt that THIS WAS A DANGEROUS THING not only for the welfare of the state and society, but also from the point of view of the right appreciation of fine art.
Similarities between Plato and Aristotle
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Firstly, both Greek thinkers considered poetry to be an imitative art. Secondly, they agreed that poetry arouses emotions. Thirdly, that poetry produces pleasure ; and fourthly, that the poetry has an effect on the human personality. They also looked at poetry from a utilitarian perspective.
Aristotle's answer to Plato on poetry
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Though Plato used the word 'imitation' for poetry, he did so in a derogatory sense. Aristotle, too, considered poetry as imitation, but interpreted  it as a "creative " process. Plato considered imitation as a mere mimicry. Aristotle widens its scope and insists that it can never be mere mimicry but has to possess the basic essence of truth. Thus a poet is greater than a philosopher or historian, for he creates something new by imitating reality. And, within reality, there are also emotions.
While Plato compared poetry with painting, Aristotle compares it to music. It is thus that Aristotle successfully refutes Plato's charge of poetry imitating mere externalities;  for like music, poetry captures the soul, or essence of experience, internal as well as external.
Plato considered poetry to be a copy of nature as it is; Aristotle gives it the scope of being considered with "What ought to be " or  "what can be ". Thus poetry idealises the reality.
Plato condemns the very fact that poetry arouses emotions. He considered these emotions to be bad for humanity and, hence, to be curbed if not avoided. Aristotle, however, insists that these emotions should find ventilation --a saner view than Plato's.
Plato regarded poetry to have bad effects morally, intellectually and emotionally. But Aristotle proves that in all these respects, poetry is to be praised for its good and healthy effects. His theory of Catharsis tries to show that effects of poetry can be healthy.
Conclusion
•••••••••••••
Plato and Aristotle thus differed widely in their views. Though their basic premises were similar, they arrived at opposite conclusions because their methods and objectives were different. Aristotle proceeded from things to ideas, while Plato went from ideas to things. Aristotle was scientific; Plato was metaphysical.

---------------------------------------------------------

Aristotle’s Defense of Poetry :

Aristotle’s poetics is a logical and convincing response or answer to Plato’s charges against poetry. Aristotle’s definition and defense of poetry can be best viewed in the context of Plato’s charges against poetry. Before discussing Aristotle’s defense of poetry we need to recall Plato’s charges against poetry and poets.
Plato puts following major charges against poetry.
Poetry is a slavish imitation of the world of appearances and thus twice removed from reality.
Poetry is mother of lies and poets are liars.
Poetry is inferior to history in its function.
Being a pack of lies, Poetry leaves unhealthy influence on the morality of the young.
Poetry cause emotional disequilibrium.
Firstly we take the first and most important charge of Plato against poetry. According to Plato poetry is a mere slavish representation of surface reality and thus twice removed from reality. Aristotle defends poetry against this charge strongly and logically. Aristotle says poetry is not a mere mimicry or photographic representation of phenomenal world. Poetry is not a process of slavish copying of the external appearances of the things. Aristotle says that no doubt poetry is an imitation but a creative imitation. It involves the effort of the imagination and intellect. It thus presents a higher truth, the truth of imagination. It universalizes the particular. Poetic imagination shifts and orders its material, disregards the non essential, the purely accidental. Thus the process of poetic imitation is a process of idealization, of reaching the higher reality. According to Aristotle poetry is not removed from reality rather the very reality, the highest truth.
Secondly, Aristotle argues that poetic truth is much higher and universal than that of history. Poetry is more conducive to understanding than even philosophy. He says that it is not the function of a poet to relate what has happened, but what may happen; what is possible according to the laws of probability and necessity. The poet and the historian differ not by their writing in prose or in verse. The true difference is that one relates what has happened, the other what may happen. History is based of facts and actual occurrences while poetry transforms those particular facts into universal truths through poetic creativity. In this regard poetry and philosophy are akin.
Thirdly, Aristotle defends poetry against the charges of untruths and impossibilities. Plato’s fundamental objection against poetry is that poetry presents not facts but fiction, such things as never happened, such things as never lived. On this basis Plato called poetry untrue and unreal. Aristotle’s answer to these charges is that poetry is not reality but a higher reality, what ought to be not what is. Poetry gives not reality but the idea of reality in the poet’s mind. Poetry rather gives us Ideal reality. The rules of ordinary experience do not govern the higher creation of poetry. Poetry imitates the essence not the appearance. Aristotle further elaborates that poetic truth may be different from apparent and phenomenal world but it is never at variance with the law of logicality, probability and necessity.
Fourthly, Aristotle defines poetic imagination and its role. He says that the poet may take his material from the rich store house of tradition, myth and legend because what has happened dose not exclude what may happen. However when the poet borrows his material from reality he must take care to universalize the particular. He must free it from much that is dross, the incidental and the nonessential. The shaping power of imagination must work upon reality and transmute it into imaginative truth. So it is the shaping power of imagination which is important and which differentiates poetic truth from the truth of history.

To sum up; poetry is not a photographic imagination of reality nor its trivialities and accidents. Poetic truth is of much higher order. The poet deals with reality but with a reality which is shown off the particular and the non-essential. In this way poetic truth is permanent and universal. The poet deals with the permanent and universal facts of nature, he idealizes reality but in doing so he still remains true to principles and laws of Nature. Poetic truth is much higher than that of history, and it has greater organic unity because the no-essential and accidental is eliminated from it. History deals with what is and poetry what ought to be. Poetry is higher than history because it deals with the universal and manifests the cause or the first principles of the things. Aristotle has successfully and logically defended poetry against the charges of falsehood and untruthfulness. He has defined not only the process of poetic imitation but also the very nature of poetic truth.

-------------------------------------------

Aristotle's Concept of Tragic Hero: 

First Aristotle talks of the characters of tragedy in general and then comes to the hero.

1)He says that the characters or the people who appear in tragedy must be good. He means by character only the moral aspect of man .The character has to do with choice,decision, judgment and if the motivates of the character are good and he makes right decision and acts according to it, then he is a good character(man).Tragedy deals with people above average. Even women and slaves can be goos.But one is inferior and the other is only worthless, according to Aristotle.

2) The second thing he says is that the characters must be appropriate. It is talked not so much about individuals but of universal. We have characters of different professions .if we talk of solider ,the idea of bravery comes into our mind .we associate bravery and courage to solider. This is implied in the world solider. If the solider is coward ,then it will be inappropriate. We have this in comic characters but not in tragedy. Similarly Aristotle says that a manly women is inappropriate because manliness is something which we cant associate with a women at the universal level at the level of the idea of women .so the characters must be appropriate.

3) The third thing he says is that the characters should be consistent same throughout. We should read that character in the permanent disposition of mind. It is something which has been developed over the years. What ever the character be,it must remain the same from the beginning of the play to the end of the play. For example, if he is brave in the beginning, he should remain the same till the end. Aristotle says that some people are inconsistent by nature. If the character is inconsistent I.e.his behaviour is inconsistent, then it must be consistently inconsistent.

4) The fourth thing is that characters must be realistic, must be life like.Their mental, moral, moral constitution must be like the moral and mental constitution of the living people. Human nature is common. One thing that the playwright should never do is that he should not distort human nature. Yet he says that characters must be idealized because tragedy deals with people who Aristotle superior and grandeur. Though the character are life-like, yet it should be better than real people.Aristotle gives the example of a portrait-painter. He has a women before him and is painting the portrait of that women. That women has some very attractive features but she has also some ugly features. The portrait-painters of Greece highlighted the attractive features and turned down the ugly ones. So in the portrait she looked more attractive than in real life .Her beautiful features were highlighted .so this is true of the characters of tragedy. They should be idealized and made more impressive and attractive than the people in real life.This is the way a tragedy writer should draw his characters.

 #Hero:
Then coming to the hero, he says that the hero of tragedy must not be absolutely love good or absolutely bad.Of course the tragic fall of a good man will not arouse pity and fear, rather we will be shocked. And because of the manner in which he faces the calamities and difficulties arouses not pity but admiration.So an absolutely good man should not be made hero.This is proved not only by Greek tragedies but all the subsequent tragedies with few exceptions. In Greece ,Antigone is an exception. She is an absolutely good women .in later tragedies in the 2th century, we have this exception in the Murder in the Cathedral in which the hero is an absolutely good man.But in all other tragedies whether Greek, French, Roman, Elizabethan or of any period ,the heroes are not to absolutely good.
Similarly thetragic hero must not be absolutely bad, because the downfall of an absolutely bad man will not arouse pity and fear but rather satisfaction. We would say justice has been done. It would make us happy, yet there is an exception to this rule also. Shakespeare's Richard 111, it is absolutely a bad man. It required his genious to do a bold thing like this. That is also just in one play. The reason is that this man is extraordinarily intelligent person. He impresses us and the artistic manner in which he carries out his plan is really admiring .When he falls, we feel pity fo him.
So this leaves the third possibility that the character must neither be absolutely good nor absolutely bad.He must to be on the whole good., a person that we respect him for his noble qualities ,for his courage and strength. But he must not be flawless.

2) Secondly the tragic hero must be greater than the average man.He must be a man in high position and a man of the upper class.He must be a man of pseen, and importance. He must be a king,prince, great general. Why ? There is a line in Julius Caesar:

When beggars die, there are no comets seen,
Then heavens themselves blaze for the death of princes.

The third interpretation is that Hamartia is error of judgment of"single act" .A single act done consciously but deliberately .something done in fit of anger or passion. This is also a 'moral act'.

The fourth interpretation is that Hamartia is not a single act ,it  is a tragic flaw in character, the permanent disposition of mind. It is a permanent flaw. It is this flaw that is responsible for tragedy .Then it is  a tragedy of character but not the tragedy of fate.
Examples , , Othelo by Shakespeare, Macbeth,  Oedipus Rex...

👉🏻👉🏻👉🏻Aristotle’s view about Hamartia, Anagnorisis, Peripeteia and Catharsis according to Poetics👈👈👈👈

Aristotle’s Theory of Tragedy:

According to Aristotle Tragedy could be defined as:
“A tragedy, then, is the imitation of an action that is serious and also, as having magnitude, complete in itself; in language with pleasurable acces­sories, each kind brought in separately in the parts of the work; in a dramatic, not in a narrative form; with in­cidents arousing pity and fear, wherewith to accomplish its catharsis of such emotions.”
Following are some important terms explained by Aristotle relating tragedy in his Poetics.

Hamartia: 

Aristotle discusses hamartia in Poetics not as an aspect of character but rather as an incident in the plot. What Aristotle means by hamartia might better be translated as "tragic error". Caught in a crisis situation, the protagonist makes an error in judgment or action, "missing the mark," and disaster results.
Hamartia can be further explained as the fall of a noble man caused by some excess or mistake in behavior, not because of a willful violation of the gods' laws. Hamartia is related to hubris, which was also more an action than attitude. The "mistake" of the hero has an integral place in the plot of the tragedy. The logic of the hero's descent into misfortune is determined by the nature of his or her particular kind of hamartia.
Aristotle claimed that the hamartia must bring about the reversal of fortune for the tragic hero, and that this hero must be neither completely good nor completely bad so that the audience can identify with the character’s plight. Therefore, the audience members experience a feeling of pity for the character, as well as a sense of fear that the same downfall might afflict them someday.
Hamartia, in most ancient tragedies, causes the protagonist, or main character, to break a divine or moral law, which leads to disastrous consequences. Despite the horrible events befalling the tragic hero, tragedies celebrate the human spirit, in the confrontation of difficult situations and the accountability of a character for his or her own actions.

👉🏻👉🏻👉🏻Examples:

In The King Oedipus, a tragic situation possible was the unwitting murder of one family member by another. Mistaken identity allows Oedipus to kill his father Laius on the road to Thebes and subsequently to marry Jocasta, his mother; only later does he recognize his tragic error. However, because he commits the crime in ignorance and pays for it with remorse, self-mutilation, and exile, the plot reaches resolution or catharsis, and we pity him as a victim of ironic fate instead of accusing him of blood guilt.
Hamlet, for example, suffers from the tragic flaw of indecision. He hesitates to kill his cruel and villainous uncle, which leads to the ultimate tragedy of the play. By struggling with an inherent moral flaw, Hamlet brings about his own destruction. His hesitation, therefore, is the action to which the term hamartia is applied.

Anagnorisis:

Anagnorisis, also known as discovery, originally meant recognition in its Greek context, not only of a person but also of what that person stood for, what he or she represented; it was the hero's suddenly becoming aware of a real situation and therefore the realization of things as they stood; and finally it was a perception that resulted in an insight the hero had into his relationship with often antagonistic characters within Aristotelian tragedy.
👉🏻In Aristotelian definition of tragedy it was the discovery of one's own identity or true character or of someone else's identity or true nature by the tragic hero. In his Poetics, Aristotle defined anagnorisis as "a change from ignorance to knowledge, producing love or hate between the persons destined by the poet for good or bad fortune".

Examples:

Aristotle was the first writer to discuss the uses of anagnorisis, with peripeteia caused by it. He considered it the mark of a superior tragedy, as when Oedipus killed his father and married his mother in ignorance, and later learned the truth, or when Iphigeneia in Tauris realizes that the strangers she is to sacrifice are her brother and his friend in time to refrain from it. These plots, he considered complex and superior to simple plots without anagnorisis or peripetia, such as when Medea resolves to kill her children, knowing they are her children, and does so.
Another prominent example of anagnorisis in tragedy is in Aeschylus's "The Choephoroi", when Electra recognizes her brother, Orestes, after he has returned to Argos from his exile, at the grave of their father, Agamemnon, who had been murdered at the hands of Clytemnestra, their mother. Electra convinces herself that Orestes is her brother with three pieces of evidence: a lock of Orestes's hair on the grave, his footprints next to the grave, and a piece of weaving which she embroidered herself. The footprints and the hair are identical to her own. Electra's awareness of her brother's presence, who is the one person who can help her by avenging the death of their father.

Peripeteia:

Peripeteia is a reversal of circumstances, or turning point. The term is primarily used with reference to works of literature. The English form of peripeteia is peripety. Peripety is a sudden reversal dependent on intellect and logic.

Aristotle defines it as "a change by which the action veers round to its opposite, subject always to our rule of probability or necessity." According to Aristotle, peripeteia, along with discovery, is the most effective when it comes to drama, particularly in a tragedy.
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.
According to Aristotle, the change of fortune for the hero should be an event that occurs contrary to the audience's expectations and that is therefore surprising, but that nonetheless appears as a necessary outcome of the preceding actions.

Examples:

In Sophocles' Oedipus Rex, the peripeteia occurs towards the end of the play when the Messenger brings Oedipus news of his parentage. In the play, Oedipus is fated to murder his father and marry his mother. His parents, Laius and Jocasta, try to forestall the oracle by sending their son away to be killed, but he is actually raised by Polybus, a shepherd, and his wife Merope.
The instantaneous conversion of Paul on the road from Damascus to Tarsus is a classic example of peripateia, which Eusebius presented in his Life of Constantine as a pattern for the equally revelatory conversion of Constantine.
👉🏻👉🏻In Shakespeare’s tragedy Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, the peripeteia occurs when Hamlet sees King Claudius praying alone. It is the perfect opportunity to avenge his father and kill Claudius. Hamlet draws his sword, but then hesitates. He realizes that, since Claudius is praying, he would go to heaven if killed, thus Hamlet's father would not be avenged.

Catharsis:

Aristotle describes catharsis as the purging of the emotions of pity and fear that are aroused in the viewer of a tragedy. Debate continues about what Aristotle actually means by catharsis, but the concept is linked to the positive social function of tragedy. Aristotle writes that the function of tragedy is to arouse the emotions of pity and fear, and to affect the catharsis of these emotions.
Aristotle has used the term catharsis only once, but no phrase has been handled so frequently by critics, and poets. Catharsis has three meaning. It means ‘purgation’, ‘purification’, and ‘clarification’, and each critic has used the word in one or the other senses. All agree that Tragedy arouses fear and pity, but there are sharp differences as to the process, the way by which the rousing of these emotions gives pleasure.
Catharsis has been taken as a medical metaphor, ‘purgation’, denoting a pathological effect on the soul similar to the effect of medicine on the body. This view is borne out by a passage in the Politics where Aristotle refers to religious frenzy being cured by certain tunes which excite religious frenzy.

In Tragedy:

“…pity and fear, artificially stirred the latent pity and fear which we bring with us from real life.”
In the Neo-Classical era, Catharsis was taken to be an allopathic treatment with the unlike curing unlike. The arousing of pity and fear was supposed to bring about the purgation or ‘evacuation’ of other emotions, like anger, pride etc.

As Thomas Taylor holds:

“We learn from the terrible fates of evil men to avoid the vices they manifest.”
According to ‘the purification’ theory, Catharsis implies that our emotions are purified of excess and defect, are reduced to intermediate state, trained and directed towards the right objects at the right time. The spectator learns the proper use of pity, fear and similar emotions by witnessing tragedy.

Butcher writes:

“The tragic Catharsis involves not only the idea of emotional relief, but the further idea of purifying the emotions so relieved.”

According to Aristotle the basic tragic emotions are pity and fear and are painful. If tragedy is to give pleasure, the pity and fear must somehow be eliminated. Fear is aroused when we see someone suffering and think that similar fate might befall us. Pity is a feeling of pain caused by the sight of underserved suffering of others. The spectator sees that it is the tragic error or Hamartia of the hero which results in suffering and so he learns something about the universal relation between character and destiny.
Aristotle's conception of Catharsis is mainly intellectual. It is neither didactic nor theoretical, though it may have a residual theological element. Aristotle's Catharsis is not a moral doctrine requiring the tragic poet to show that bad men come to bad ends, nor a kind of theological relief arising from discovery that God’s laws operate invisibly to make all things work out for the best.

Conclusion:

Aristotle has explained Tragedy in his Poetics and he has given his point of view about Hamartia, Anagnorisis, Peripeteia and Catharsis. According to Aristotle in a tragedy a hero suffers due to hamartia and then knowledge comes of ignorance followed by a reversal in fortune with a feeling of purification in the character.