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 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 theatre 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 the 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:
Aristotle goes on to discuss the structure of the ideal tragic plot and spends several chapters on its
requirements. He says that the plot must be a complete whole — with a definite beginning, middle, and end
— and its length should be such that the spectators can comprehend without difficulty both its separate parts
and its overall unity. Moreover, the plot requires a single central theme in which all the elements are
logically related to demonstrate the change in the protagonist’s fortunes, with emphasis on the dramatic
causation and probability of the events
Aristotle has relatively 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. The plot is intended to illustrate matters of cosmic
rather than individual significance, and the protagonist is viewed primarily as the character who experiences
the changes that take place. This stress placed by the Greek tragedians on the development of plot and action
at the expense of character, and their general lack of interest in exploring psychological motivation, is one of
the major differences between ancient and modern drama.
The hero’s error or frailty (harmartia) is often misleadingly explained as his “tragic flaw,” in the sense of that
personal quality which inevitably causes his downfall or subjects him to retribution. However, overemphasis
on a search for the decisive flaw in the protagonist as the key factor for understanding the tragedy can lead
to superficial or false interpretations. It gives more attention to personality than the dramatists intended and
ignores the broader philosophical implications of the typical plot’s denouement. It is true that the hero
frequently takes a step that initiates the events of the tragedy and, owing to his own ignorance or poor
judgment, acts in such a way as to bring about his own downfall. In a more sophisticated philosophical sense
though, the hero’s fate, despite its immediate cause in his finite act, comes about because of the nature of the
cosmic moral order and the role played by chance or destiny in human affairs. Unless the conclusions of
most tragedies are interpreted on this level, the reader is forced to credit the Greeks with the most primitive
of moral systems.
It is worth noting that some scholars believe the “flaw” was intended by Aristotle as a necessary corollary of
his requirement that the hero should not be a completely admirable man. Harmartia would thus be the factor
that delimits the protagonist’s imperfection and keeps him on a human plane, making it possible for the
audience to sympathize with him. This view tends to give the “flaw” an ethical definition but relates it only
to the spectators’ reactions to the hero and does not increase its importance for interpreting the tragedies.