00039--Bring out the differences between the thoughts of Plato and Aristotle./ Plato versus Aristotle/

Plato and Aristotle, two philosophers in the 4th century, hold polar views on politics and philosophy in general.  This fact is very cleverly illustrated by Raphael's "School of Athens" (1510-11; Stanza della Segnatura, Vatican), where Plato is portrayed looking up to the higher forms; and Aristotle is pointing down because he supports the natural sciences.  In a discussion of politics, the stand point of each philosopher becomes an essential factor.  It is not coincidental that Plato states in The Republic that Philosopher Rulers who possess knowledge of the good should be the governors in a city state.  His strong interest in metaphysics is demonstrated in The Republic various times: for example, the similes of the cave, the sun, and the line, and his theory of the forms.  Because he is so involved in metaphysics, his views on politics are more theoretical as opposed to actual.  Aristotle, contrarily, holds the view that politics is the art  of ruling and being ruled in turn.  In The Politics, he attempts to outline a way of governing that would be ideal for an actual state.  Balance is a main word in discussing Aristotle because he believes it is the necessary element to creating a stable government.  His less metaphysical approach to politics makes Aristotle more in tune with the modern world, yet he is far from modern.

      Plato's concept of what politics and government should be is a direct result of his belief in the theory of forms.  The theory of forms basically states that there is a higher "form" for everything that exists in the world.  Each material thing is simply a representation of the real thing which is the form.  According to Plato, most people cannot see the forms, they only see their representation or their shadows, as in the simile of the cave.  Only those who love knowledge and contemplate on the reality of things will achieve understanding of the forms.  Philosophers, who by definition are knowledge lovers, are the only beings who can reach true knowledge.  This concept has to be taken a step further because in The Republic, Plato states that philosophers should be the rulers since they are the only ones who hold the form of the good.  Plato seems to be saying that it is not enough to know the forms of tables or trees, one must know the greatest form--form of the good--in order to rule.  The reasoning is: if you know the good, then you will do the good. Therefore,  philosopher rulers are by far the most apt to rule.

 

      In The Republic, Plato builds around the idea of Philosopher Rulers.  Even though it is not his primary point, it certainly is at the core of his discussion of the ideal state.  The question that arises is, 'Why do you need ideal states which will have philosophers as rulers?'  There are many layers to the answer of this question.  The first thing is that a state cannot be ideal without having philosophers as rulers.  This answer leads to the question, 'Then why do you need ideal states to begin with?'  The Republic starts with a discussion of Justice which leads to the creation of the ideal state.  The reason why an ideal state is needed is to guarantee the existence of Justice.  This does not mean, though, that there cannot be states without Justice.  Actually, Plato provides at least two reasons why the formation of  a state cannot be avoided.  These are: 1. human beings are not self-sufficient so they need to live in a social environment, and 2. each person has a natural aptitude for a specified task and should concentrate on developing it (The Republic, pp 56-62).  Although a person is not self-sufficient, a composition of people--a state--satisfies the needs of all its members.  Furthermore, members can specialize on their natural fortitudes and become more productive members of society.

     

States are going to form, whether purposefully or coincidentally.  For this reason, certain rules have to be enacted for the well-being of the state.  The main way to institutionalize rules is through government and in the form of laws. Plato's The Republic is not an explication of laws of the people.  It is a separation of power amongst three classes--Rulers, Auxiliaries, Commoners--that makes the most of each person's natural abilities and strives for the good of the community.  The point is to create a harmonious unity amongst the three classes which will lead to the greater good of the community and, consequently, each individual.

     

The three classes are a product of different aptitude levels for certain tasks amid various individuals.  Plato assigns different political roles to different members of each class.  It appears that the only classes that are allowed to participate in government are the Auxiliaries and, of course, the Philosopher Rulers.  The lower class does not partake in politics because they are not mentally able.  In other words, they do not understand the concept of the forms.  Thus, it is better to allow the Philosophers, who do have this knowledge, to lead them.  Providing food and abode for the Guardians is the only governmental responsibility the lower class has.  The Auxiliaries are in charge of the military, police, and executive duties.  Ruling and making laws is reserved for the Philosopher Rulers whose actions are all intended for the good of the state.  To ensure that public good continues to be foremost on each Ruler's agenda, the Rulers live in community housing, hold wives/children in common, and do not own private property.  The separation of classes is understood by everybody Self-interest, which could be a negative factor in the scheme of things, is eliminated through a very moral oriented education system.  All these provisions are generated to maintain unity of the state.  The most extravagant precaution that Plato takes is the Foundation Myth of the metals.  By making the people believe, through a myth, that the distinction of each class is biological as well as moral, Plato reassures that there won't be any disruption in the harmony of the state.

     

Whereas Plato's The Republic is a text whose goal is to define Justice and in doing so uses the Polis(Greek City-State), Aristotle's The Politics's sole function is to define itself--define politics.  Aristotle begins his text by answering the question: "Why does the state exist?"  His answer is that the state is the culmination of natural associations that start with the joining of man and woman ("pair"), which have a family and form a "household"; households unite and form villages; villages unite and form the state.  This natural order of events is what is best because it provides for the needs of all the individuals.  Aristotle, like Plato, believes that a person is not self-reliant.  This lack of sufficiency is the catalyst in the escalating order of unions among people. 

     

In The Politics, it appears that Aristotle is not very set on breaking down society.  His argument says that there are different classes in society, but they are naturally defined.  For example, he devotes a lot of time to an explanation of the "naturalness" of slaves and their role in society.  Aristotle is also very sexist and explicitly states so.  His view is that women are inferior to men in all senses.  Perhaps the most pertaining to our discussion is the citizen, whose role is purely political.  Both Plato and Aristotle seem to agree that some people are not capable of practicing an active role in political life.  Plato's reason is that the lower class is not mentally adept for the intricacies of higher knowledge on the good.  Aristotle seems to base his opinion on a more political issue.  He believes that only those that fully participate in their government should be considered citizens of the state.  For this reason, he excludes workers as citizens because they would not have the required time to openly participate in politicking.

     

The Aristotelian Polis, as opposed to Plato's, is a city with a large middle class which promotes stability and balances the conflicting claims of the poor and the rich.  Aristotle combines elements of democracy with elements of aristocracy, again to balance opposing claims.  Because he is aware that human interest is an inextricable  entity, the distribution of scarce and valuable goods is in proportion to contribution to the good of the Polis.  This system provides for the self interested who believe that those who work harder should receive more.   Another point is that the citizens rule and are ruled in turn, insofar as the mixed social system allows.  This is permissible because of the strong involvement of the citizens in government; it is what one would call a "true democracy."  Overall, a spirit of moderation prevails.

      The philosophies of Aristotle and Plato have been around for over sixteen centuries, yet today it is difficult to find specific instances where either philosophy is applied.  This may be a result of the fact that today's political philosophy differs from both philosopher's.  While Aristotle and Plato uphold the good of the community or state above individual good, today's constitution includes a bill of rights that guarantees the rights of each individual in the nation.  Having these individual rights is a necessity for today's citizens.  Going back in history to 1787 will show that one of the reasons there was controversy in the ratification of the constitution was that it did not include a Bill of Rights.  When the drafters promised that as soon as the constitution was ratified, a Bill of Rights would be added, the doubting states proceeded to ratify it.  According to Plato and Aristotle, a Bill of Rights is not necessary because it does not improve the good of the community.

      Another point of discrepancy between the philosophers and today's society involves the topic of slavery.  Aristotle argues for the naturalness of slavery in The Politics, yet slavery has been considered grotesque for quite some time.  In correlation to slavery, there is the undermining of the female population by Aristotle.  Although Plato is a lot less discriminatory, he also believes women are the sub-species.  While women have had to fight endless battles to achieve the recognition they deserve, today it is a well accepted fact (generally) that women are as capable as men in performing tasks.

      Naturally, since Aristotle and Plato have been around for such a long time, our society certainly contains some of their influences in a general sense.  For example, today it is believed that certain people are born with certain capacities.  Intelligence has been attributed to genetics.  Because of the different intelligence levels among people, we have different classes--for example: advanced, intermediate, and beginners.  In their appropriate level, each person develops his or her abilities to the highest potential.  This concept is sometimes at odds with the ideal of equality, ie. we are all human beings.  Yet, in essence, it does not take away from the ideal because we are all humans, but we differ in certain capacity levels to complete tasks.

      
Plato's and Aristotle's philosophy have helped shape present thought, though, by no means, mandate our practices.  The philosophers are very community oriented while we value the individual.  Besides differing with today's standards, each philosopher is in his own way distinct.  Plato is very attracted to metaphysical philosophy, while Aristotle is much more methodical.  

********************************************

00035--What is a Tragedy? What are the characteristics of a good tragedy? Historical formation of Tragedy. What are the elements of a Tragedy? How does Aristotle define aTragedy?

                        

The term is broadly applied to literary, and especially to dramatic, representations of serious actions which eventuate in a disastrous conclusion for the protagonist (the chief character).

More precise and detailed discussions of the tragic form properly begin—although they should not end—with Aristotle's classic analysis in the Poetics (fourth century B.C.). Aristotle based his theory on induction from the only examples available to him, the tragedies of Greek dramatists such as Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides.

In the subsequent two thousand years and more, many new and artistically effective types of serious plots ending in a catastrophe have been developed—types that Aristotle had no way of foreseeing. The many attempts to stretch Aristotle's analysis to apply to later tragic forms serve merely to blur his critical categories and to obscure important differences among diverse types of plays, all of which have proved to be dramatically effective. When flexibly managed, however, Aristotle's discussions apply in some part to many tragic plots, and his analytic concepts serve as a suggestive starting point for identifying the differentiae of various non-Aristotelian modes of tragic construction.

 

Aristotle defined tragedy as "the imitation of an action that is serious and also, as having magnitude, complete in itself," in the medium of poetic language and in the manner of dramatic rather than of narrative presentation, involving "incidents arousing pity and fear, wherewith to accomplish the catharsis of such emotions." Precisely how to interpret Aristotle's catharsis—which in Greek signifies "purgation," or "purification," or both—is much disputed. On two matters, however, a number of commentators agree. Aristotle in the first place sets out to account for the undeniable, though remarkable, fact that many tragic representations of suffering and defeat leave an audience feeling not depressed, but relieved, or even exalted. In the second place, Aristotle uses this distinctive effect on the reader, which he calls "the pleasure of pity and fear," as the basic way to distinguish the tragic from comic or other forms, and he regards the dramatist's aim to produce this effect in the highest degree as the principle that determines the choice and moral qualities of a tragic protagonist and the organization of the tragic plot.

Accordingly, Aristotle says that the tragic hero will most effectively evoke both our pity and terror if he is neither thoroughly good nor thoroughly bad but a mixture of both; and also that this tragic effect will be stronger if the hero is "better than we are," in the sense that he is of higher than ordinary moral worth. Such a man is exhibited as suffering a change in fortune from happiness to misery because of his mistaken choice of an action, to which he is led by his hamartia—his "error of judgment" or, as it is often though less literally translated, his tragic flaw. (One common form of hamartia in Greek tragedies was hubris, that "pride" or overweening self-confidence which leads a protagonist to disregard a divine warning or to violate an important moral law.) The tragic hero, like Oedipus in Sophocles' Oedipus the King, moves us to pity because, since he is not an evil man, his misfortune is greater than he deserves; but he moves us also to fear, because we recognize similar possibilities of error in our own lesser and fallible selves. Aristotle grounds his analysis of "the very structure and incidents of the play" on the same principle; the plot, he says, which will most effectively evoke "tragic pity and fear" is one in which the events develop through complication to a catastrophe in which there occurs (often by an anagnorisis, or discovery of facts hitherto unknown to the hero) a sudden peripeteia, or reversal in his fortune from happiness to disaster.

Authors in the Middle Ages lacked direct knowledge either of classical tragedies or of Aristotle's Poetics. Medieval tragedies are simply the story of a person of high status who, whether deservedly or not, is brought from prosperity to wretchedness by an unpredictable turn of the wheel of fortune. The short narratives in "The Monk's Tale" of The Canterbury Tales (late fourteenth century) are all, in Chaucer's own term, "tragedies" of this kind. With the Elizabethan era came both the beginning and the acme of dramatic tragedy in England. The tragedies of this period owed much to the native religious drama, the miracle and morality plays, which had developed independently of classical influence, but with a crucial contribution from the Roman writer Seneca (first century), whose dramas got to be widely known earlier than those of the Greek tragedians.

Senecan tragedy was written to be recited rather than acted; but to English playwrights, who thought that these tragedies had been intended for the stage, they provided the model for an organized five-act play with a complex plot and an elaborately formal style of dialogue. Senecan drama, in the Elizabethan Age, had two main lines of development. One of these consisted of academic tragedies written in close imitation of the Senecan model, including the use of a chorus, and usually constructed according to the rules of the three unities, which had been elaborated by Italian critics of the sixteenth century; the earliest English example was Thomas Sackville and Thomas Norton's Gorboduc (1562). The other and much more important development was written for the popular stage, and is called the revenge tragedy, or (in its most sensational form) the tragedy of blood. This type of play derived from Seneca's favorite materials of murder, revenge, ghosts, mutilation, and carnage, but while Seneca had relegated such matters to long reports of offstage actions by messengers, the Elizabethan writers usually represented them on stage to satisfy the appetite of the contemporary audience for violence and horror. Thomas Kyd's The Spanish Tragedy (1586) established this popular form; its subject is a murder and the quest for vengeance, and it includes a ghost, insanity, suicide, a play-within-a-play, sensational incidents, and a gruesomely bloody ending. Christopher Marlowe's The Jew of Malta (c. 1592) and Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus (c. 1590) are in this mode; and from this lively but unlikely prototype came one of the greatest of tragedies, Hamlet, as well as John Webster's fine horror plays of 1612-13, The Duchess of Malfi and The White Devil.

Many major tragedies in the brief flowering time between 1585 and 1625, by Marlowe, Shakespeare, George Chapman, Webster, Sir Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher, and Philip Massinger, deviate radically from the Aristotelian norm. Shakespeare's Othello is one of the few plays which accords closely with Aristotle's basic concepts of the tragic hero and plot. The hero of Macbeth, however, is not a good man who commits a tragic error, but an ambitious man who knowingly turns great gifts to evil purposes and therefore, although he retains something of our sympathy by his courage and selfinsight, deserves his destruction at the hands of his morally superior antagonists.

Shakespeare's Richard III presents first the success, then the ruin, of a protagonist who is thoroughly malign, yet arouses in us a reluctant admiration by his intelligence and imaginative power and by the shameless candor with which he glories in his ambition and malice. Most Shakespearean tragedies, like Elizabethan tragedies generally, also depart from Aristotle's paradigm by introducing humorous characters, incidents, or scenes, called comic relief which were in various ways and degrees made relevant to the tragic plot. There developed also in this age the mixed mode called tragicomedy, a popular non-Aristotelian form which produced a number of artistic successes. And later in the seventeenth century the Restoration Period produced the curious genre, a cross between epic and tragedy, called heroic tragedy.

Until the close of the seventeenth century almost all tragedies were written in verse and had as protagonists men of high rank whose fate affected the fortunes of a state. A few minor Elizabethan tragedies, such as A Yorkshire Tragedy (of uncertain authorship), had as the chief character a man of the lower class, but it remained for eighteenth-century writers to popularize the bourgeois or domestic tragedy, which was written in prose and presented a protagonist from the middle or lower social ranks who suffers a commonplace or domestic disaster. George Lillo's The London Merchant: or, The History of George Barnwell (1731), about a merchant's apprentice who succumbs to a heartless courtesan and comes to a bad end by robbing his employer and murdering his uncle, is still read, at least in college courses.

Since that time most successful tragedies have been in prose and represent middle-class, or occasionally even working-class, heroes and heroines. The great and highly influential Norwegian playwright, Henrik Ibsen, wrote in the latter nineteenth century tragedies in prose, many of which (such as A Dolls House, Ghosts, An Enemy of the People) revolve around an issue of general social or political significance. One of the more notable modern tragedies, Arthur Miller's The Death of a Salesman (1949), relies for its tragic seriousness on the degree to which Willy Loman, in his bewildered defeat by life, is representative of the ordinary man whose aspirations reflect the false values of a commercial society; the effect on the audience is one of compassionate understanding rather than of tragic pity and terror. The protagonists of some recent tragedies are not heroic but antiheroic, in that they manifest a character that is at an extreme from the dignity and courage of the protagonists in traditional dramas while in some recent works, tragic effects involve elements that were once specific to the genre of farce.

Tragedy since World War I has also been innovative in other ways, including experimentation with new versions of ancient types. Eugene O'Neill's Mourning Becomes Electra (1931), for example, is an adaptation of Aeschylus' Oresteia, with the locale shifted from Greece to New England, the poetry altered to rather flat prose, and the tragedy of fate converted into a tragedy of the psychological compulsions of a family trapped in a tangle of Freudian complexes . T. S. Eliot's Murder in the Cathedral (1935) is tragic drama which, like Greek tragedy, is written in verse and has a chorus, but also incorporates elements of two early Christian forms, the medieval miracle play (dealing with the martyrdom of a saint) and the medieval morality play. A recent tendency, especially in the critics associated with the new historicism, has been to interpret traditional tragedies primarily in political terms, as incorporating in the problems and catastrophe of the tragic individual an indirect representation of contemporary social or ideological dilemmas and crises.

00009—Hamartia, Hubris and Catharsis—Aristotle

Hamartia, Hubris and Catharsis—Aristotle

Aristotle lays down the general rule that characters in a tragedy should be good but not extremely good.  The hero of a tragedy is a human being of average stature.  He must not be a perfect character but he must have inherent nobility in him.  He is never mean or deliberately villainous.  His fall must be the consequences of a basic flaw(weakness) in character which Aristotle calls ‘Hamartia’. 

The ideal tragic hero is a man who stands between the two extremes.  He is not eminently good or just, though he is inclined to the side of goodness.  He brings, misfortune abut  himself as a result of his own actions for which he alone is responsible.  One common form of Hamartia in Greek tragedies was ‘Hubris’, that is pride or over-weaning self confidence which leads a protagonist to  disregard a divine warning or to violate an important moral law.  The misfortunes are always out of proportion to his faults.  The deserved punishment for an evil deed has no pathos in it.  The undeserved suffering of a virtuous person is revolting.  The sufferings of a person which are out of proportion for committing an error of judgement arouses pity and fear in the audience.  Those who witness the tragedy will guard themselves against such error in real life. 

According to Aristotle a tragedy should contain “incidents arousing pity and fear, wherewith to accomplish the catharsis of such emotions.”  Catharsis in Greek signifies “purgation”.  Many tragic representations of suffering and defeat leave an audience feeling not depressed but relieved or even exalted.    

****************************************

00008--Simple and Complex Plot—Aristotle

Simple and Complex Plot

.

The plot may be simple or complex.  In a simple plot there are no puzzling situations that enter into a complex plot in particular Peripetia and Anagnorisis.  PERIPETEIA is generally explained as ‘reversal of the situation’ and ANAGNORISIS as ‘recognition’ or ‘discovery’.

By ‘a reversal of the situation’  Aristotle means ‘a reversal of intention’, a deed done in blindness defeating its own purpose: a move to kill an enemy recoiling on one’s own head, the effort to save turning into just its opposite, killing an enemy and discovering him to a kinsman.  The discovery of these false moves, taken in ignorance, is ANAGNORISIS—a change from ignorance to knowledge. 

.

Both PERIPETEIA and ANAGNORISIS please because there is an element of surprise in them.  A plot that makes use of them is complex and ‘a perfect tragedy’ should be arranged not on the simple but on the complex plan.

00007--Characteristics of an Ideal Tragic Hero according to Aristotle

The characteristics of an Ideal Tragic Hero according to Aristotle  are :

a) He must be an eminent man.

b) He must be a good man (should be neither immoral nor vicious).

c) His character must be appropriate to his station in his life.

d) He must possess a likeness to human nature.

e) He must be consistent even in his inconsistency.

The ideal tragic hero, according to Aristotle, should be, in the first place a man of eminence.  The actions of an eminent man would be 'serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude,' as required by Aristotle.  Further, the hero should not only be eminent but also a good man, though not absolutely virtuous.  The sufferings, fall and death of an absolutely virtuous man would generate feelings of disgust rather than those of 'terror and compassion' which must be the real production of a tragic play.

Aristotle says that the tragic hero will most effectively evoke both our pity and terror if he is neither thoroughly good nor thoroughly bad but a mixture of both; and also that this tragic effect will be stronger if the hero is "better than we are," in the sense that he is of higher than ordinary moral worth. Such a man is exhibited as suffering a change in fortune from happiness to misery because of his mistaken choice of an action, to which he is led by his hamartia—his "error of judgment" or, as it is often though less literally translated, his tragic flaw. (One common form of hamartia in Greek tragedies was hubris, that "pride" or overweening self-confidence which leads a protagonist to disregard a divine warning or to violate an important moral law.) The tragic hero, like Oedipus in Sophocles' Oedipus the King, moves us to pity because, since he is not an evil man, his misfortune is greater than he deserves; but he moves us also to fear, because we recognize similar possibilities of error in our own lesser and fallible selves. Aristotle grounds his analysis of "the very structure and incidents of the play" on the same principle; the plot, he says, which will most effectively evoke "tragic pity and fear" is one in which the events develop through complication to a catastrophe in which there occurs (often by an anagnorisis, or discovery of facts hitherto unknown to the hero) a sudden peripeteia, or reversal in his fortune from happiness to disaster.  

His character must be appropriate to his station in his life which means that his character is the result of his social and cultural background.  He must also possess a likeness to human nature; he shouldn't behave like gods, which will not create a feeling of sympathy in the mind of the viewer when the hero suffers tragedy, and the very purpose of the tragedy will be at risk.    he must also possess likeness to human nature.  He should have the weakness that we do generally have apart from the fine qualities he possess as a hero. He must have consistency. He must be consistent even in his INCONSISTENCY.

*******************************************

00006--The Structure of the Plot--Aristotle

The plot being 'the soul of a tragedy', the artistic arrangement of its incidents is of the prime importance.  A tragedy should have:

a) Unity of Action,

b) Unity of Time, and,

c) Unity of Place.

Unity of Action

Unity of actions means only those actions, and not all, in the life of the hero which are intimately connected with one another and appear together as one whole.  Aristotle says that 'the structural union of the parts being such that, if any one of them is displaced or removed, the whole will be disjointed and disturbed.  There may be many more actions in the life of the hero --there are in every man's life--but unless they have something to do with the tragedy that befalls him, they are not relevant to the plot and will all have to be kept out.  FOR A THING WHOSE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE MAKES NO VISIBLE DIFFERENCE, IS NOT AN ORGANIC PART OF THE WHOLE.  

Unity of Time  

Unity of Time is the conformity between the time taken by the events of the play and that taken in their representation on the stage.  "Tragedy," he says, "endeavours, as far as possible, to confine itself to a single revolution of the sun, or but slightly to exceed this limit; whereas the epic action has no limits of time.'  By this Aristotle doesn't mean to confine the whole play into an event or events that happened within twenty four hours or so in life.  He merely states the prevailing practice but is not unaware of the fact that, in this particular matter, 'at first the same freedom was admitted in tragedy as in epic poetry.'

Unity of Place

Unity of Place is the conformity between the scene of the tragic event or events and the time taken by them to happen.

For a good tragic plot to arouse the emotions of pity and fear in the spectator or reader.  Pity, as has been said, happens for the undeserved sufferings of the hero, and fear of the worst that may happen to him.  The change of fortune therfore should not be from bad to good, but reversely, from good to bad.  A happy ending may please us more but it will not afford the true tragic pleasure-- that aroused by the emotions of pity and fear.

The plot, finally, is divisible into two parts complication, and its unraveling or denouement.  The former ties the event into a tangled knot, the latter unties it.  The first is commonly called rising action and the second falling action.

***********************************************************************************

00005-- What is Plot [general concept]

Plot is the pattern of events and situations in a narrative or dramatic work, as selected and arranged both to emphasize relationships—

usually of cause and effect—between incidents and to elicit a particular kind of interest in the reader or audience, such as surprise or suspense.

Although in a loose sense the term commonly refers to that sequence of chief events which can be summarized from a story or play, modern criticism often makes a stricter distinction between the plot of a work and its STORY: the plot is the selected version of events as presented to the reader or audience in a certain order and duration, whereas the story is the full sequence of events as we imagine them to have taken place in their 'natural' order and duration. The story, then, is the hypothetical

'raw material' of events which we reconstruct from the finished product of the plot. The critical discussion of plots originates in Aristotle's Poetics (4th century BCE), in which his term mythos corresponds roughly with our 'plot'.

Aristotle saw plot as more than just the arrangement of incidents: he assigned to plot the most important function in a drama, as a governing principle of development and coherence to which other elements (including character) must be subordinated. He insisted that a plot should have a beginning, a middle, and an end, and that its events should form a coherent whole. Plots vary in form from the fully integrated or 'tightly knit' to the loosely EPISODIC.

In general, though, most plots will trace some process of change in which characters are caught up in a developing conflict that is finally resolved.

00004--Catharsis, Aristotle

Catharsis is the the effect of' purgation' or 'purification' achieved by tragic drama, according to Aristotle's argument in his Poetics. Aristotle wrote that a TRAGEDY should succeed 'in arousing pity and fear in such a way as to accomplish a catharsis of such emotions'. There has been much dispute about his meaning, but Aristotle seems to be rejecting Plato's hostile view of poetry as an unhealthy emotional stimulant. His metaphor of emotional cleansing has been read as a solution to the puzzle of audiences' pleasure or relief in witnessing the disturbing events enacted in tragedies. Another interpretation is that it is the PROTAGONIST'S guilt that is purged, rather than the audience's feeling of terror. Adjective: cathartic.

Precisely how to interpret Aristotle's catharsis—which in Greek signifies "purgation," or "purification," or both—is much disputed. On two matters, however, a number of commentators agree. Aristotle in the first place sets out to account for the undeniable, though remarkable, fact that many tragic representations of suffering and defeat leave an audience feeling not depressed, but relieved, or even exalted. In the second place, Aristotle uses this distinctive effect on the reader, which he calls "the pleasure of pity and fear," as the basic way to distinguish the tragic from comic or other forms, and he regards the dramatist's aim to produce this effect in the highest degree as the principle that determines the choice and moral qualities of a tragic protagonist and the organization of the tragic plot. 

Accordingly, Aristotle says that the tragic hero will most effectively evoke both our pity and terror if he is neither thoroughly good nor thoroughly bad but a mixture of both; and also that this tragic effect will be stronger if the hero is "better than we are," in the sense that he is of higher than ordinary moral worth. Such a man is exhibited as suffering a change in fortune from happiness to misery because of his mistaken choice of an action, to which he is led by his hamartia—his "error of judgment" or, as it is often though less literally translated, his tragic flaw. (One common form of hamartia in Greek tragedies was hubris, that "pride" or overweening self-confidence which leads a protagonist to disregard a divine warning or to violate an important moral law.) 

The tragic hero, like Oedipus in Sophocles' Oedipus the King, moves us to pity because, since he is not an evil man, his misfortune is greater than he deserves; but he moves us also to fear, because we recognize similar possibilities of error in our own lesser and fallible selves. Aristotle grounds his analysis of "the very structure and incidents of the play" on the same principle; the plot, he says, which will most effectively evoke "tragic pity and fear" is one in which the events develop through complication to a catastrophe in which there occurs (often by an anagnorisis, or discovery of facts hitherto unknown to the hero) a sudden peripeteia, or reversal in his fortune from happiness to disaster.

00003-- Aristotle-- Constituent Parts of a Tragedy

                                 Aristotle         

According to Aristotle TRAGEDY has six formative parts.  They are :

1) Plot(muthos),  

2) Character(ethos), 

3) Thought(dianoia), 

4) Diction(lexis), 

5) Song(melos), and, 

6) Spectacle(opsis).

Plot

The most important element of tragedy is plot. Plot is the soul of tragedy.  Plot means 'the arrangement of the incidents.'  Normally the plot is divided into five acts, and each act is further divided into several scenes.  The dramatist's main skill lies in dividing the plot -- acts and scenes-- in such a way that they may produce the maximum scenic effect in a natural development.

Character

Characters are the men and women who act.  The hero and heroine are two important figures among the characters.  The characteristics of an ideal tragic hero, according to Aristotle  are:

a) He must be good,

b) His character must be appropriate to his station in his life,

c) He must possess a likeness to human nature, and,

d) His character must be consistent.  He must be consistent even in his inconsistency.

Thought

Thought means what the characters think or feel during their career in the development of the plot.  The thought is expressed through their speeches or dialogues.

Diction

Diction is the medium of language or expression through which the characters reveal their thoughts and feelings.  The diction should be powerful enough to do the task.

Song and Spectacle

Spectacle and song are part of the stage equipment.  Grand make-up and costumes are used by actors.  The tragic character usually wore a particular kind of boots to appear taller.  Music is related mainly to chorus singing.

                                                            **********