CONCEPT OF TRAGEDY

1. Definition:

1.      The word ‘tragedy’ brings to mind Aristotle and Poetics. Some aspects of the definition and discussion of tragedy in that treatise may be considered controversial, unacceptable, or outdated, but its influence is everlasting. Tragedy, for sure, is the central issue of poetics. The tragedy is treated by Aristotle to be the uppermost poetic form. His definition and theory of tragedy present notable insight and knowledge. Aristotle's famous definition of tragedy says:

“Tragedy is the imitation of an action that is serious and also having magnitude, complete in itself, in language with pleasurable accessories, rot in a narrative form, with incidents arousing pity and fear.”

The definition clearly falls into two parts. The first part expresses to us the nature of tragedy, its entity, manner, and medium of imitation. The second part reveals the function of tragedy.

2.  Tragedy like all other forms of art, is a form of imitation. It alters from other arts in the object aspect and medium of imitation.

2. Hamartia:

The passage in the Poetics which pacts with the optimal tragic hero, has ardent a great accord of critical attention. Aristotle is clearly not in favor of two kinds of tragic heroes: one is the perfect man, and the other is the utterly depraved or bad man. In either case identification of the spectator or reader with the hero is not possible, and identification is necessary for the feeling of pity and fear. Thus, the ideal hero of a tragedy is to be neither too good nor depraved, but an intermediate sort of person. His misfortune is to be brought about not by some vice or depravity but by some error or fertility and it is called Hamartia. He should also be one who is highly eminent and booming.

3. Pity and Fear:

Aristotle's concept of tragedy is that it arouses pity and fear in the spectator. But a perfectly good man who suffers from prosperity to misery will not arouse pity or fear. He would simply shock the spectators' sense of justice. The shock arises from the fact that a completely virtuous man is suffering, the suffering is wholly misled. It is irrational suffering. So, the concept of a tragic hero is incomplete if it presents only goodness in character. A perfect person would be one who had his desires under control, and whose mind is able to form the right calculations. A blameless virtuous character cannot be dramatically effective and blameless; goodness is not the proper stuff for drama.

4. No Saints:

We cannot single out ourselves with such a saintly character. It is true that in recent times Shaw and Eliot have made successful dramas with saints as their tragic heroes.

5. Greek Drama:

Aristotle was talking about the show he knew i.e., the Greek show and holy people, taking everything into account, have been barred from the circle of dramatization. One might say that blameless goodness is not proper, stuff for drama, be perfect goodness tends to bring 'action to a standing shield (But it would not completely right to say that the sufferings of a right man shock rather than arouse pity. Desdemona, Cordelia, and Antigone surely arouse pity). The sense of outraged justice is there but it does not exclude pity. So, a tragic hero must be good but not perfect. Only such a man can arouse pity and fear in his fall from prosperity to misfortune.

6. An Utter Villain:

Another, type of character excluded by Aristotle from the sphere of tragedy is that of utter villain. The completely bad man falling from prosperity to adversely, says Aristotle, would merely satisfy no sense of justice. There would be no pity or fear. The suffering is deserved and we cannot pity the suffering Similarly, we cannot tolerate the idea of a bad man rising from adversity to prosperity. It would also satisfy our sense of justice.

7. Crime:

The exclusion of the villain from the sphere of tragedy is debatable. In this connection, Aristotle seems to show a limited vision. True, crime as crime has no part in dramatic art. But if presented in another way it becomes valid in drama. Macbeth affronts hospitality as well as devotion by killing his guest and king under his own roof. Webster's Victoria is a 'white devil. But these people arouse pity. However, it needs the genius Shakespeare created tragic villains for this king. Only he could create a Macbeth or a Richard II. The fall and breakdown of a supreme personality create certain tragic feelings in us or tragic sympathy. It is not the compassion one feels for the unmerited sufferer. But it is a sense of loss and regret over the waste of such splendid gifts.

After all, he says that a totally lewd person is not fit to be a tragic hero.

8. The Golden Man:

The person who stances between complete atrocity and complete mercy, according to Aristotle, is the optimal tragic hero. He is a man like ourselves, yet has a moral elevation. He is a more intense person and his feelings are deeper. But he is essentially human. So, it is easy for us to identify ourselves with him and sympathize with him. Thus "an ideal hero of a tragedy is to be neither too marvelous nor lewd but a transitional sort of person. His misfortune is brought about not by some vice or, depravity but by some error of judgment or Hamartia.

9. Hamartia:

Hamartia has been interpreted in various. Broadly, loosely interpreted it as a tragic flaw. This interpretation has confused the true meaning of the term. Hamartia is not a proper failing as the head 'tragic flaw implies. Aristotle makes it clear that Hamartia is some error of judgment that the fall of the hero comes out not because of some depravity but from some error on his part. It may be connected with a moral hitch but it is not itself a moral glitch.

10. Error of Judgement:

The Hamartia is an error or miscalculation. It may arise in three ways.

Firstly; it may be aroused from ignorance of some material fact or circumstances. Secondly, the error of judgments may arise from hastiness or carelessness. This type of error is illustrated by Othello. In this case, the error was avoidable but the hero did not avoid it. Thirdly, it may arise from voluntary and passionate acts. Lear commits such an error when he banishes Cordelia. In the case of Oedipus, all three flaws are counted. The defects of Oedipus lie in his proud self-assertion. But the sum brought upon him is through the force of circumstances. The Hamartia in his case includes a defect of character, a passionate act, and ignorance, the tragic irony lies in the fact that the hero commits this error in blindness and innocence without any evil intention. But the result is disastrous. This is closely connected with the production of results. Then comes the discovery of truth. In this connection Butcher remarks:

Othello in the modern drama and Oedipus in the ancient are the two most evident examples of the ruin wrought by characters, imperial indeed, but not without defects, acting in the dark and as it seemed for the best.

11. Greek Heroes:

The heroes in Greek drama are men of eminence and nobility. They held a high position in society. When such a man falls from greatness and misery, a nation as a whole is affected. The fall seems to be more striving because of the hero's prominent position in society. This concept is acceptable in a situation in which men of nobility were to be representatives of the society. This concept is, however, outdated today.

12. Other Dramatists:

On the whole, we see that Aristotle's concept of the tragic hero is not unacceptable. In some ways, he has limited vision. The tragedy is possible with Saint as Shaw and Eliot have shown. The renaissance dramatists, especially Shakespeare have shown that tragedy is very much possible with a villainous hero. Further, the tragedy arises from Hamartia. This, too, is practiced by many of our best tragedies. These tragedies are called tragedies of error (of judgment).