The Poetics of Aristotle

As the sequel to what has already been said, we must proceed to consider what the poet should aim at, and what he should avoid, in constructing his plots; and by what means the specific effect of Tragedy will be produced.

A perfect tragedy should, as we have seen, be arranged not on the simple but on the complex plan.  It should, moreover, imitate actions which excite pity and fear, this being the distinctive mark of tragic imitation.  It follows plainly, in the first place, that the change, of fortune presented must not be the spectacle of a virtuous man brought from prosperity to adversity:  for this moves neither pity nor fear; it merely shocks us.  Nor, again, that of a bad man passing from adversity to prosperity:  for nothing can be more alien to the spirit of Tragedy; it possesses no single tragic quality; it neither satisfies the moral sense nor calls forth pity or fear.  Nor, again, should the downfall of the utter villain be exhibited.  A plot of this kind would, doubtless, satisfy the moral sense, but it would inspire neither pity nor fear; for pity is aroused by unmerited misfortune, fear by the misfortune of a man like ourselves.  Such an event, therefore, will be neither pitiful nor terrible.  There remains, then, the character between these two extremes,- -that of a man who is not eminently good and just,-yet whose misfortune is brought about not by vice or depravity, but by some error or frailty.  He must be one who is highly renowned and prosperous,—­a personage like Oedipus, Thyestes, or other illustrious men of such families.

A well constructed plot should, therefore, be single in its issue, rather than double as some maintain.  The change of fortune should be not from bad to good, but, reversely, from good to bad.  It should come about as the result not of vice, but of some great error or frailty, in a character either such as we have described, or better rather than worse.  The practice of the stage bears out our view.  At first the poets recounted any legend that came in their way.  Now, the best tragedies are founded on the story of a few houses, on the fortunes of Alcmaeon, Oedipus, Orestes, Meleager, Thyestes, Telephus, and those others who have done or suffered something terrible.  A tragedy, then, to be perfect according to the rules of art should be of this construction.  Hence they are in error who censure Euripides just because he follows this principle in his plays, many of which end unhappily.  It is, as we have said, the right ending.  The best proof is that on the stage and in dramatic competition, such plays, if well worked out, are the most tragic in effect; and Euripides, faulty though he may be in the general management of his subject, yet is felt to be the most tragic of the poets.

In the second rank comes the kind of tragedy which some place first.  Like the Odyssey, it has a double thread of plot, and also an opposite catastrophe for the good and for the bad.  It is accounted the best because of the weakness of the spectators; for the poet is guided in what he writes by the wishes of his audience.  The pleasure, however, thence derived is not the true tragic pleasure.  It is proper rather to Comedy, where those who, in the piece, are the deadliest enemies—–­like Orestes and Aegisthus—­quit the stage as friends at the close, and no one slays or is slain.