KALINGA UNIVERSITY

RAIPUR

SESSION: 2020-2021

ASSIGNMENT ON

CRITICAL THEORY

ARISTOTLE: POETICS

GUIDED BY SUBMITTED BY

Dr. SHILPI BHATTACHARYA SONAL SINGH

Ma’am CLASS: MA ENG LIT

SEMESTER: 3rd
Q1. Write the definition of tragedy as stated by Aristotle.

In the poetics, Aristotle’s famous study of Greek dramatic art, Aristotle (384-322 B.C.)
compares tragedy to such other metrical forms as comedy and epic. He determines that
tragedy, like all poetry, is a kind of imitation (mimesis), but adds that it is has a serious
purpose and uses direct action rather than narrative to achieve its ends. He says that poetic
mimesis is imitation of things as they could be, not as they are- for example, of universals and
ideals- thus poetry is a more philosophical and exalted medium than history, which merely
records what has actually happened.

The aim of tragedy, Aristotle writes, is to bring about a “catharsis” of the spectators- to
arouse in them sensations of pity and fear, and to purge them of these emotions so that they
leave the theater feeling cleansed and uplifted, with a heightened understanding of the ways
of Gods and men. This catharsis is brought about by witnessing some disastrous and moving
change in the fortunes of drama’s protagonist (Aristotle recognized that the change might not
be disastrous, but felt this was the kind shown in the best tragedies- Oedipus at Colonus, for
example, was considered a tragedy by the Greeks but does not have an unhappy ending).

According to Aristotle, tragedy has six main elements: plot, character, diction, thought,
spectacle (scenic effect), and song (music), of which the first two are primary. Most of the
poetics is devoted to analysis of the scope and proper use of these elements, with illustrative
examples selected from many tragic dramas, especially those of Sophocles, although
Aeschylus, Euripides, and some playwrights whose works no longer survive are also cited.

Several of Aristotle’s main points are of great value for an understanding of Greek tragic
drama. Particularly significant is his statement that the plot is the most important element of
tragedy: Tragedy is an imitation, not of men, but of action and life, of happiness and misery.
And life consists of action, and its end is a mode of activity, not a quality. Now character
determines men’s qualities, but it is their action that makes them happy or wretched. The
purpose of action in the tragedy, therefore, is not he representation of character: character
comes in as contributing to the action. Hence the incidents and the plot are the end of the
tragedy; and the end is the chief thing to all.

Without action there cannot be a tragedy; there may be one without character. The plot,
then, is the first principle, and, as it were, the soul of a tragedy: character holds the second
place. He discusses about the ideal tragic plot. He says that the plot must be a complete
whole- with a definite beginning, middle, and end- and its length should be such that
spectators can comprehend without difficulty both its separate parts and its overall unity.

Aristotle has less to say about the tragic hero because the incidents of tragedy are often
beyond the hero’s control or not closely related to his personality. Aristotle says that “pity is
aroused by unmerited misfortune, fear by the misfortune of a man like ourselves.” He
surveys various possible types of characters on the basis of these premises, then defines the
ideal protagonist as

… a man who is highly renowned and prosperous, but one who is not pre-eminently virtuous
and just, whose misfortune, however, is brought upon him not by vice or depravity but by
some error of judgment or frailty; a personage like Oedipus.

In addition, the hero should not offend the moral sensibilities of the spectators, and as a
character he must be true to type, true to life, and consistent.

Q2. What do you understand by catharsis?

Catharsis (from Greek word Katharsis, meaning “purification” or “cleansing” or “clarification”)

is the purification and purgation of emotions- particularly pity and fear through art or any
extreme change in emotion that results in renewal and restoration. It is a metaphor originally
used by Aristotle in the Poetics, comparing the effects of tragedy on the mind of a spectator
to the effect of catharsis on the body.

The Importance of Catharsis

Aristotle was perhaps the greatest philosopher of the ancient world, and he was curious
about everything- biology, physics, politics, ethics, literature, etc. This powerful thinker raised
many insightful questions and tried to answer them through philosophy. One question that
particularly vexed Aristotle was: why do we enjoy watching or reading tragedies? Why do we
enjoy stories that make us sad?

It’s important to remember that ancient Greek culture had real tragedies, which modern
culture generally doesn’t. Hollywood seems to be addicted to happy endings, which means
almost none of our popular stories are really “tragic” in the true sense. After all, a real
tragedy is one in which the hero is ultimately destroyed and there is no happy ending to be
found. So when Aristotle pondered the question of tragedy, he was wondering why so many
people in his society preferred stories that had unhappy endings.

His theory, as we’ve seen, was that such stories are cathartic. We feel such tremendous
sympathy for the hero, such rage at the villain, such sorrow at the tragic ending, that we can
then walk out of the theater and back into our own lives with less “baggage”,- less pent-up
emotion threatening to boil over.

Example
Catharsis may help to explain why we enjoy negative emotions in music. Many people enjoy
music that is sad, angry, or dark- they get pleasure from listening to such music. Why is this?
It might be because such music helps the listener purge negative emotions from their system.
If you listen to a death metal song in which singer screams the lyrics, it might help lessen your
own feelings of needing to scream.

Examples of Catharsis in Literature

1.Romeo and Juliet is a great example of a tragedy, and its popularity might be explained by
the idea of catharsis. In the end, the young lovers end up dead because they made the
mistake of following their childish passions instead of being rational and patient. (It was
intended as a cautionary tale, not a celebration of romantic love!) As an audience, we feel
sympathy and pity for Romeo and Juliet, but we may also feel some relief at the end due to
the effects of catharsis.

2. In Things Fall Apart, Chinua Achebe takes the structure of a classical tragedy and applies it
to African culture. He tells the story of a powerful village leader whose arrogance drives away
his supporters. He is ultimately brought so low that he kills himself. Catharsis, along with
Achebe’s skill as a writer, may help to explain why this story is so popular.

Examples of Catharsis in Popular Culture

1.The movie Citizen Kane is one of the few unambiguous modern tragedies. Over the course
of the movie, we watch an incredibly talented and ambitious man rise to the heights of fame
and glory, while slowly losing the fight against his own inner demons until he ends up utterly
alienated and dies alone in his mansion. The story makes viewers feel a combination of pity
for Kane, frustration at his wrongful actions, and sorrow at his fate. But in the end, we are
supposed to walk away feeling cleansed.

2. The idea of catharsis is often used to explain the popularity of violent video games: such
games can be thought as an “outlet”, where frustrated adolescents can pour all their rage and
pain without hurting anyone. Through playing violent games, they may actually become less
violent. However, there is also the possibility that playing violent video games makes people
more violent, which would seriously undermine the theory of catharsis, at least where
interactive storytelling is involved. The social science is not clear on this question, but the
most likely answer is that there is no one answer: that different people react differently to
the simulated violence of video games.
Q3. As per Aristotle, what does Embellishment mean?

The literal meaning of embellishment is decoration which means a decorative detail or

feature added to something to make it more attractive. But in literature embellishment
means to decorate or beautify the language by means of using heavy words, rhyming etc.
Aristotle in his Poetics said that poetry is simply an imitation of an action and he considers
poetry better than tragedy. Poetry and tragedy should be written in verse.

In tragedy the plot is divided into two parts:

Simple tragic plot- When there is a change in fortune in absence of peripeteia and discovery.

Complex tragic plot- When there is a change in fortune in presence of peripeteia and
discovery.

Aristotle said that in tragedy, dialogue of action is important and there should be causal
connection between events and accidents. He kept on emphasizing on the unity of action
which means from where the action starts (having a beginning, middle, and an end) for
instance Shakespeare’s ‘Tempest’. He considers unity of action as a strong plot and plurality
of action as weak plot because plurality of action starts with some action and ended with
other thing.

Aristotle said that for unity of action, embellishment is important because we need verse
(dialogue) and songs (chorus) to embellish in tragedy. For instance Shakespeare’s ‘Macbeth’.
Verse and songs beautifies tragedy and gives pleasure. Though he defined embellishment in
tragedy and described its importance but nevertheless he does not regard embellishment as
an essential part.

Q4. Discuss the shortcomings in Aristotle’s Poetics.

The Poetics is a short treatise of twenty-six chapters. It is neither exhaustive nor coherent.
The handling of the subject is disproportionate. Lyric poetry has been practically ignored and
so has been ignored descriptive poetry of nature. The treatment of comedy and tragedy is
incomplete. The larger part of the discussion is devoted to tragedy. Tragedy was regarded in
the age as the form in which all earlier poetry culminated and this accounts for the style
being telegraphic and highly concentrated.

The work is not self-explanatory and self-sufficient. It must be interpreted by the other works
of the Greek philosopher, more specially his ethics, politics and the lost dialogue on the poet.
It is a work obviously not meant for publication. There are irregularities and anomalies,
constant digressions, omissions, contradictions, repetition, showing haste and lack of
revision.
Often there are signs of hesitation and uncertainty in the use of terminology. Aristotle’s
theories are not wholly the result of free and dispassionate reflection. His views are
conditioned by contemporary social and literary influences. The main trend of his argument
determined by Plato’s attack on poetry. Aristotle takes up the challenge of Plato at the end
of Republic, and proceeds to establish the superiority of poetry over philosophy and its
educational value.

Much of Poetics is in the nature of special pleading on behalf of poetry, and so has all the
defects of such an advocacy. “Even to accomplished scholars the meaning is often obscure.”
Interpretations differ from critic to critic, to the great confusion and bewilderment of the
student. Aristotle’s theories are based exclusively on Greek poetry and drama with which he
was familiar. Many of his views have grown outdated and unfit for universal application.

Hamilton Fyfe has pointed out two defects in the Poetics. According to him, the Poetics is not
upto the mark because Aristotle has overlooked the religious origin of Greek drama. “An
advocate might argue that English drama had a similar origin in the church and that an
exponent of Shakespeare may well be aware of the fact yet find no need to stress it.
Aristotle’s theory here remains a puzzle. It is as if a writer on primitive Italian painting,
observing that the painters took all their subjects from the Bible, should offer as an
explanation that nowhere else could they find subjects proper for painting.

We can only suppose either that the religious function of tragedy was less obvious in the
fourth century B.C. than it seems to us, or else that this was another of the very few matters
in which Aristotle took no interest.”

Secondly, the weakest feature of the Poetics is the treatment of literary style. ‘Style’, says
Cardinal Newman; “is the shadow of personality, and Longinus finds in the sublime language
of great literature ‘the true ring of a great soul’. To Aristotle all that would sound
sentimental. In considering the subject-matter of tragedy he was not concerned to recognize
dramatists as prophets whose themes were the major problems of human destiny. He gives
no hint that Aeschylus had a sweep and grandeur, infinitely greater than his fourth century
successors, so in dealing with style he has no concern with personality or souls.

Points to Remember

The Shortcomings of ‘The Poetics’:-

1.Too brief; neither exhaustive nor coherent.

2. Disproportionate handling of the subject; no treatment of lyric poetry.

3. Neither self-explanatory nor self-sufficient.

4. Full of irregularities, anomalies, digressions, omissions, contradictions, repetitions.

5. Views conditioned by contemporary social and literary conditions.

6. Advocacy of poetry: hence one sided; partial.

7. Overlooks the religious origin of the drama.

8. Inadequate treatment of style.

9. Too primitive.

Conclusions: All these shortcomings should not be allowed to belittle Aristotle’s greatness.
These crept into it because the Poetics was not attempted as a book but was produced by
scholars of later generations from Aristotle’s lecture-notes. Many links were either not
available or were lost or were not intelligible.

Q5. Discuss the structure of Poetics.

Introduction: Critics have stipulated that the Poetics was really intended to be an answer to
Plato’s attack on poetry. At any rate, it is obvious that the work was not intended for
publication, or it would, not perhaps be so disjointed and ‘lopsided’ in its emphasis.

The General Plan (Structure) and Theme

The Poetics is divided into twenty six chapters. The book seems fragmentary and gives
support to the theory that a part of it was lost. The part probably contained a theory of
Comedy and Satire, and possibly, an explanation of that controversial term, ‘Catharsis’. It is
possible to divide the “Poetics” into six parts:

(i)The first five chapters, (1-5), are in the nature of an introduction to the main treatise, a
discussion of poetry and its different kinds. Aristotle summarizes on the different imitative
arts, gives an outline on the origin of poetry, and the development of its main forms, namely
tragedy and comedy.

(ii) Chapters 6-19 deals with tragedy. Aristotle defines tragedy, and discusses its elements. A
major portion is accorded to the discussion of plot, with one chapter given to character (15)
and two chapters to suggestions to poets on their art (17 and 18).

(iii) Chapters 20-22 are given to the discussion of diction.

(iv) Chapter 23 deals with the narrative poetry, and compares it with tragedy.
(v) Chapters 24 and 26 deal with the epic, and consider the relative merits and superiority of
the two. The treatment, thought brief is concise and full of meaning.

(vi) Chapter 25 deals with the critical problems, and the principles on which the objections
can be resolved.

The Poetics is restricted to the discussion of certain kinds of Greek poetry, or literature.
Aristotle groups these into two pairs. The grouping is made on the basis of their historical and
aesthetic connections. The origin of poetry, according to Aristotle, tended to be in two
directions. There is the ‘heroic’ poetry; and the ‘satiric poetry developed comedy. Since then,
the nature of poetry disposed itself into two pairs or kinds.

It would thus be seen that the principles valid for epic would, with certain modifications, be
valid for judging tragedy; and those applicable to satire will be applicable to comedy.
Aristotle was of the opinion, however, that the later kind in each pair was superior to the
earlier one. The later kind represented a higher development of poetic art. It fifteen thus that
they would deserve a fuller discussion than the earlier kind.

The Poetics is incomplete. As such, the scheme of treatment of the subject is indicated, and
not proved. We have only the discussion of tragedy and its comparison with the epic. The
part which has been lost probably contained a similar discussion of comedy and satire.