Page 28 - DENG501_LITERARY_CRITICISM_AND_THEORIES

Literary Criticism and Theories

Notes Ch XII: Quantitative Parts of Tragedy
The quantitative sections of tragedy are matters of Greek theatrical convention, just as it is
conventional to divide modern dramas into Acts and scenes. Scholars have generally regarded the
chapter as interpolation, because it has little originality and is not connected in any way with the
main theme of the Poetics. Rather, it comes in the way of the smooth flow of thought from Chapter
XI to Chapter XIII. The quantitative sections of the tragedy listed by Aristotle are:
1. Prologue 2. Episode
3. Exode 4. Choric Song divided into
(i) Parode (ii) Stasimon, and (iii) Commos.
1. The Prologue is the entire part which precedes the Parode of the Chorus.
2. The Parode is the entrance song of the Chorus.
3. The Episode is that entire part of a tragedy which is between complete choric songs. Episode is the
equivalent of an Act in our Drama.
4. The Stasimon is a Choric ode.
5. The Commos is a joint lamentation of the Chorus and the actors together.
6. The Exode is the entire part of the tragedy after the last song of the Chorus.
Ch XIII: The Structure of a Perfect Tragedy—Ideal Tragic Hero
In the very beginning of the chapter, Aristotle expresses his preference for complex plots, which
he has already defined in Chapter XI. In his view, the distinctive tragic emotions are pity and fear,
and so the plot must be such as is likely to arouse these emotions.
It follows from this that three kinds of plots are to be avoided.
1. A perfectly good man must not be shown passing from happiness to misery, for such an action
will be disgusting and odius. It will not arouse the emotions of pity and fear.
2. A bad man, passing from misery to happiness is also not suitable for tragedy. Obviously such
a situation is not at all tragic.
3. An extremely bad man falling from happiness into misery is equally unfit. His face is well
deserved, and pity and fear are aroused by the undeserved suffering of one, like us. An extremely
bad man is not, ‘like us’, for human nature is a mingled yarn of good and bad.
There can also be a fourth situation in which a good man passes from misery to happiness, but
Aristotle makes no mention of it.
Having ruled out utter villains and men pre-eminently just and good as heroes proper to tragedy.
Aristotle proceeds to lay down the qualification of an ideal hero. In the first place, he must be a
person of an intermediate kind, neither an utter villain nor a man perfectly good and just. On the
whole, he should be a good man but with ordinary human weaknesses and frailties. In this way,
he would be like us and our pity and fear would be aroused by his misfortunes. His misfortunes
must not be wholly undeserved, they must result from his own actions. Here Aristotle uses the
word Hamartia, and this word has given rise to much hair-splitting among scholars. The consensus
of opinion is that it means an, “error of judgment” or, “miscalculation” rather than any moral
weakness or depravity. Secondly, the ideal tragic hero must be a person who enjoys prosperity,
name and fame. He must be a person highly placed in society, for the fall of such a person is more
likely to excite the tragic emotions than the fall of a person not so eminently placed. He must
belong to some great family, as was the convention of the Greek tragedy.
An ideal plot must have a single issue—it must depict the misfortunes of the hero. Aristotle puts
in the second rank a tragedy with a double issue, i.e. happiness for the good and misery for the
bad. The pleasure in such a case is not a pleasure proper to tragedy. Rather it is proper to comedy.
Aristotle thus rules out tragi-comedies, dramas which have double plots—a tragic or serious main plot, and
a comic sub-plot.

22 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY