What are the main features of Aristotle’s theory of tragedy?

Do you think the

theory is correct?

Written as a reply to Plato who banished the poets from his Republic, Aristotle‟s
Poetics carefully outlines and explains the elements needed to make a good tragedy, and
why such a tragedy is vital to society. While Plato condemns the poets, and consequently
the tragedies they author, Aristotle embraces them and recognizes that without tragedy,
society would have no outlet for emotion. He carefully defines tragedy as “the mimesis of
a serious and complete action…achieving, through pity and fear, the catharsis of such
passions”1, and it is within this core declaration that we find the main features of his
theory. Whilst Aristotle gives a clear and effective „recipe‟ for creating a tragedy based
on six elements (Plot structure, character, style, thought, spectacle, and lyric poetry)2, it is
only through understanding the fundamentals of his definition (“mimesis”, “serious”,
“action”, and “catharsis”) that we can comprehend the essential theory he is declaring.
For the purposes of this essay, we will explore the aforementioned words and their
modifying effect on Aristotle‟s definition of tragedy as a whole.

“Mimesis”, which implies a representation or imitation, is one of the pivotal

differences in Plato and Aristotle‟s theories. Plato firmly believes that “image making,
imitation, and every sort of copying is a perversion”3, whereas Aristotle considers
mimesis as a way of learning through simplification, making things easier to understand.4
Here we see Aristotle breaking away from the Platonic school of thought, as Plato firmly
states that there is nothing to learn from art.5 Aristotle‟s theory now becomes a cognitive
theory of art, as he believes that mimesis communicates knowledge. Aristotle‟s definition
of tragedy deals with a mimesis of action, which brings about his argument for truths
contained in tragedy. He argues that a mimesis of action equates to the plot of the
tragedy. From this, he states that a good plot consequently is one that clearly represents
the action (essentially, the action is more important than the agents carrying involved in

1
Aristotle, Poetics (1449b 24-28)
2
The Philosophy of Art p.492-493
3
The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics, p.19
4
The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics, p.19
5
Plato, The Republic (337-391), The Apology(22b-c) Ion(534a) [The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics,
p.16-17]

1
that action). In order to have a good plot there must be the right connections among the
various parts of the plot (that follow either from “necessity of probability”) and therefore,
tragedy that represents an action contains a general truth.6 Essentially, Aristotle‟s
argument here relies on mimesis as a process of selective representation (of events) that
leads to presentation of general truths. It is worth noting, however, that Aristotle does not
believe that poetry is the mimesis of a universal (unlike Plato).7

Having established that the „mimesis of action‟ to which Aristotle refers is the
plot of the tragedy, we come to his next modifier: seriousness. Aristotle uses this
umbrella term to modify the characters as well as the actions (plot). That is to say, within
„seriousness‟ Aristotle places a requirement that the characters be good, „serious‟ people,
and that the action be „serious‟, possessing moral significance8. „Serious‟ here is intended
to carry moral implications. Aristotle puts this caveat on the actions as well as the
characters in order to make it possible for the audience to sympathize, and eventually
reach their catharsis. The characters cannot fall into tragedy through a „tragic flaw‟,
because that would be anti-cathartic: the audience wouldn‟t feel pity or fear, since the
events would be a direct result of this „flaw‟, and therefore the suffering would not be
undeserved. 9 Similarly, a catharsis won‟t be reached if the suffering that occurs is
meaningless: it must carry some moral significance. The best way to achieve this is to
make a decent (serious and moral) character have a spell of bad luck as a deserving result
of their actions, whilst it not being a punishment for their wrongdoings.10 Seriousness
effectively modifies and allows us to select what kind of action undergoes the mimesis,
which eventually will lead to a successful catharsis.

The catharsis is the fulcrum on which tragedy‟s success rests. The tragedy is only
capable of being a good tragedy, Aristotle claims, if it is capable of causing the audience
to reach a catharsis. “Catharsis” has a few meanings which change the end result of
tragedy, depending on their connotation. One view is that catharsis is a purging, or

6
The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics, p.19
7
The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics, p.22
8
The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics, p.22
9
The Routledge Companion to Ethics, p.22
10
The Routledge Companion to Ethics, p.22

2
cleaning of emotions. That is, it expunges disorderly and unwanted passions by giving
them an outlet to flow freely.11 Another definition for catharsis is that it is a clarification
(or education). This follows with Aristotle‟s belief that mimesis leads to education.
Catharsis, in this sense, causes the audience to „practice‟ arousing similar emotions to
those which are experienced in life. This view carries with it several strong implications.
One of which is that it takes Aristotle‟s theory of tragedy and adds the foundation that
emotions in tragedy benefit ethical action (which runs contrary to Plato‟s belief that they
subvert it)12. That is to say, Aristotle is now claiming that we use tragedy to help us
reason about our emotions, making them more reasonable (whereas Plato would say that
tragedy creates emotions that overpower our capacity for reason).13 Taking into account
the aforementioned possible definitions for catharsis, we must examine how they modify
“pity and fear”. Aristotle believes that pity and fear are aroused by the correct
combination of characters and situations presented to the audience, which leads the
audience to reach the highest possible degree of emotion.14 He goes on to explain that the
actions must be “serious” since moral disgust will distract from feeling pure fear and
pity.15 From this we can conclude that the hero must by all accounts be moral.

Having established the main features of Aristotle‟s theory of tragedy (namely:

mimesis, action, seriousness, and catharsis) we can examine the shortcomings and reach a
conclusion about the effectiveness of his theory. Since his theory rests on, and works up
to reaching a catharsis, naturally the main criticisms will be found within its definitions.
When taking into account the first definition of catharsis (that it is a purging of emotion)
we come across a great deal of contradictions within Aristotle‟s other writings. Firstly,
Aristotle is an advocate of feeling emotions (such as fear and pity) at the appropriate
things, and thus it is inconsistent to want to purge these emotions, instead of training the
individual to feel them properly. Secondly, if catharsis is a purging of emotion, then a
virtuous person by all accounts will be unable to enjoy tragedy. A virtuous person,
according to Aristotle, is capable of feeling emotions appropriately (and does not have

11
The Routledge companion to Aesthetics, p.17, Lecture Notes
12
The Routledge companion to Aesthetics, p.17
13
The Routledge companion to Aesthetics, p.17
14
Arisotle, Poetics, 1453 a10
15
The Routledge companion to Aesthetics, p.17

3
them out of control), thus he does not require to purge them- and therefore does not reach
catharsis, which is where the pleasure of tragedy comes from. Another contradiction
becomes apparent when we question the goal of poetry. Aristotle believed the goal of
poetry is emotional impact16, which confounds the idea of purging emotions through
catharsis- catharsis becomes redundant.

If we examine the second definition of catharsis, that it is a clarification, we also

find a similar problem. If the virtuous person observes a tragedy, even with catharsis as a
clarification, they would not experience pleasure (or catharsis for that matter). If we
consider that a virtuous person already knows how to catalogue and feel emotions, then
they do not require the education that catharsis provides. On the other hand, it could be
argued that the virtuous person would receive a sort of catharsis (and consequently,
pleasure) from reaffirming knowledge. It could also be argued that it is implausible to
suggest that a person knows everything (with respect to emotion). Another criticism of
this definition is found between the coherence of tragedy when applied to life. If the
audience responded in reality the same way that they respond while observing a tragedy,
we would find ourselves in a disastrous state of moral depravity. That is to say, catharsis
as a clarification is really a „mis education‟. However, these criticisms assume that the
audience is incapable of discerning fiction from non fiction, and that they directly apply
that which they observe to reality. The main fault in the definitions of catharsis is that
they are centred on emotion and thusly don‟t address Plato‟s other criticisms, which was
Aristotle‟s primary concern.

To conclude, Aristotle‟s theory of tragedy is designed to solve the paradox of

tragedy, which declares that since pity and fear are (provide) painful emotions, it is
incoherent that they should also provide pleasure. Or in other words, “why do we enjoy
tragedy?” As a reply to Plato it has many failings as it only addresses a few of Plato‟s
main reasons for banishing the poets from his republic. As a solution to the paradox of
tragedy, it can also be found wanting. There are many solutions that provide adequate
reasoning for why we enjoy tragedy. Amongst them is the theory that we enjoy parts of

16
Aristotle, Poetics ch.25

4
tragedy (such as the writing, form, structure and craftsmanship) whilst disliking the
emotions it arouses (or contents). Another solution states that because tragedy is fictional,
it isn‟t morally compromising and can be enjoyed for its purpose, although this solution
does not address the connection between pity and fear with pleasure. Finally, Aristotle‟s
answer to the paradox of tragedy provides the most logically acceptable solution. It
makes sense to the audience that they enjoy a tragedy because it allows them to expel
through catharsis the emotions they have “bottled up” inside as a result of social
conformity.

5
 Bibliography and works consulted:

Blackburn, Simon. The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford University Press, 1996

Neill, Alex and Aaron Ridley. The Philosophy of Art- Readings Ancient And Modern. McGraw-Hill
Companies, 1995

Gaut, Berys and Dominic McIver Lopes (editors), The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics. Routledge 2002

Lecture notes