A Discussion of Aristotle’s Definition of Tragedy Applied to Oedipus the King (Nov 2008)

In Poetics, Aristotle seems to investigate tragedy with methods similar to those he uses to investigate the natural world. In the work, he proposes a definition of tragedy and explains why it affects us the way it does. Although its modern relevance as a whole is debatable, the work does make some brief statements influential to later aestheticians and is an indispensable tool for understanding ancient Greek tragedy. It is worth our attention for a better appreciation of this remarkable literary niche, of which Sophocles’ Oedipus the King is a standard reading. Aristotle had this play specifically in mind referring to it ten times. In modern times, it has been widely written about by many other great thinkers making it a prerequisite to a rich tradition of aesthetical and psychological literature. The most context can be gained through an active reading of Poetics, where we apply Aristotle’s definition of tragedy to Oedipus the King. Their conformity is not always perfect, but Aristotle’s definition generally fits.

To understand this definition, we must first understand his broader view of art. Aristotle said a poet “is an imitator just like a painter or other maker of images,” a conclusion developed by Plato in The Republic and Ion. Mimesis is an ancient Greek word both philosophers use to describe this notion of imitation. Aristotle doesn’t give us a good definition of mimesis in Poetics, so it is assumed he means the term in the Platonic sense. Just like an image a painter paints is not the actual thing depicted, but merely an imitation of what he sees, so too are poems imitations except in language. The performance of a play is not an actual event taking place, but merely an imitation of one that might take place.

According to Aristotle in chapter 6 of Poetics, tragedy is, “a mimesis of a high, complete action… in speech pleasurably enhanced, the different kinds occurring in separate sections, in dramatic, not narrative form, effecting through pity and fear the catharsis of such emotions.” Each term of this definition has a specific meaning that will be explained throughout the essay. Along with this definition are the six elements of a tragedy. They are plot, mimesis of character, verbal expression, mimesis of intellect, spectacle, and song-writing. Some of these elements are not necessary for the play’s full effect, but are there merely to enhance the play. Aristotle claims a tragedy can be effective lacking specifically mimesis of character and the spectacle, although there are other elements that a tragedy could conceivably lack. In chapter 14, Aristotle mentions Oedipus the King as specifically having the kind of plot that would make one shudder just by hearing of the events that take place. Any element that can’t be experienced from a private reading of the play may not be strictly necessary, although these elements would have been expected in an ancient public performance.

The elements of lesser importance are the song-writing, spectacle, verbal expression, and mimesis of intellect. Song-writing includes the music to which choral parts are set. Song-writing may not be a strictly necessary element, since tragedies are enjoyed by readers and modern audiences lacking the songs. The spectacle includes anything having to do with the live performance of the play, including the actors and set. Verbal expression includes the writing of the verse parts in a meter appropriate to tragedy. This ability is mastered much earlier than the ability to arrange the actions of the plot. It is less important because it does not have a direct effect on plot. How Oedipus the King may include these elements is self-explanatory. Mimesis of intellect refers to the characters’ speeches in which they use rhetoric that makes their principles clear or makes a logical argument. However, it does not include the moral beliefs of a character. An example would be Oedipus’ speech declaring he must find Laius’ killer in order to save the city or Creon defending himself against Oedipus’ allegations of treachery.

Mimesis of character is the second most important element of the tragedy. Mimesis of character is the mimesis of virtue, vice, and other personal qualities of a character. It is second most important because a tragedy is, by definition, a mimesis of an action in which the characters are merely engaged. The only way we can know the moral principles of a character are through their actions, which is determined by the plot. All characters should be suitable according to his role in society, life-like, and consistent. It should be necessary or probable that these would be the kinds of people that would take the actions they do in the plot. A main character should be morally better than most people. There are no villains in tragedy. However, a character cannot be too much better than people in the real world. He must be at least somewhat similar to us in order to rouse feelings of fear for his misfortune. Oedipus is certainly better than those found in the real world. He overcame overwhelming adversity by fate to become the foreign savior of Thebes and her beloved despot. Of his similarity to us, Freud said of Oedipus,

“His destiny moves us only because it might have been ours – because the oracle laid the same curse upon us before our birth as upon him. It is the fate of all of us, perhaps, to direct our first sexual impulse towards our mother and our first hatred and our first murderous wish against our father. Our dreams convince us that this is so.”

Freud thought Oedipus was so similar to us that he named a psychoanalytical childhood stage of development after him which if not properly resolved, would result in neurosis.

Of primary importance to Aristotle is the plot. Aristotle begins outlining a proper tragic plot in chapter 7. A plot must be a “complete action” meaning it must have a proper beginning and a proper ending both of which must be connected by a middle wherein events follow each other probably or necessarily. Although Oedipus the King leaves much to be said about the protagonist’s history, the particular action of the plot remains complete. Since the myth of Oedipus was popular in the Greek oral tradition, and even briefly mentioned in the Iliad, it would be reasonable to assume the average ancient Greek tragedy patron would already be somewhat familiar with Oedipus. The play must be short enough to be understood as a whole in one sitting, but long enough to include all the necessary plot elements so they follow necessarily or probably, and the longer a play is that fits these requirements, the better.

According to Aristotle, a tragedy is a story in which a man, such as one described above, comes to misfortune by some fault (harmatia). This fault cannot come from a vicious character flaw, but rather must be an action which is somehow a mistake. Oedipus made many mistakes from his ignorance, starting with the failure to realize the man he would kill at the crossroads was his father, Laius. Oedipus’ search for Laius’ killer was also a fault, since it led to his misfortune. Often, the mistake is perpetuated by the same strength responsible for a character’s high status. Oedipus used his keen intellect to become ruler of Thebes by solving the riddle of the sphinx, but this same cunning led him to the truth of his identity and his subsequent demise. Since there was no way Oedipus could have known these were faults at the time, and he was the kind of person who would do these things with this lack of information, the actions of the play would necessarily or probably happen as a result. Therefore, Oedipus, and all tragic heroes, is simply the victim of bad luck or fate. When the fate of a character is undeserved, it inspires our pity.

A complex plot, as described in chapter 10, will include a peripety (peripeteia) and a recognition which arise probably or necessarily from the arrangement of the plot. In chapter 6, Aristotle offers this definition: “A peripeteia occurs when the course of events takes a turn to the opposite.” The peripety of Oedipus the King came from the recognition of the true identities of Jocasta and Oedipus as mother and son, first by the herdsman, then by Jocasta and Oedipus themselves. This is truly a reversal because Oedipus’ seeking of the herdsman had the exact opposite effect of what he really desired, that is a happy outcome for himself and the city. Instead, the effect was a loss to both. Oedipus realized that he had not avoided his fate after all, making the horror of his situation clear. Following the recognition and the peripety comes the dénouement. The dénouement is the falling effect after the climax, when the outcome of the story is a forgone conclusion and all conflicts are resolved. The dénouement of Oedipus the King occurs when we learned Oedipus’ fate was to wander the earth banished from Thebes as a pariah, without even his sight to distract him from reflecting upon his misfortune.

Unlike the inquiries of history, which make particular statements of events, tragic poetry makes general statements about the sort of thing that would happen, and thus attempts to illuminate the nature of and reason for human suffering. Ancient Greeks used their poetry as a kind of moral philosophy, looking to the theater not just for entertainment, but to find messages, morals, and a view of life. Their sense of aesthetic pleasure and sense of morals were nearly inseparable. To them, that which is aesthetically pleasing must also be morally good. A moralist might say the general statement Oedipus the King makes about life is that we cannot avoid our fate to suffer. We must be humble before the gods and accept our insignificance. Perhaps Oedipus’ biggest fault was his initial rejection of the prophecy of the Oracle, as acceptance would have saved him the humiliating public spectacle of his downfall. When Oedipus found this truth we too, as the audience, find this truth vicariously. To the extent that we do, this brings about what Aristotle called a catharsis of our emotions.

Aristotle uses the word ‘catharsis,’ which in its literal, medical sense means the purging of bodily fluids, in its religious context as an idiom for purification. In the case of tragedy, the purification is of our emotions of fear and pity. Aristotle gives us little in the way of defining catharsis concerning poetry, although his elucidation with respect to music may be revealing. “When they have made use of the melodies which fill the soul with orgiastic feeling, they are brought back by these sacred melodies to a normal condition as if they had been medically treated and undergone a purge [catharsis]. Those who are subject to the emotions of pity and fear and the feelings generally will necessarily be affected in the same way.” This purification may be said to “purge” us of the excess of these passions and bring them back to their virtuous means as he described them in Nicomachean Ethics. The idea of catharsis can be seen as a metaphor within the play as well. When Oedipus committed the impure act of incest and patricide within Thebes, the city required a catharsis, or purification, through his punishment, which presumably ended the plague.

Oedipus the King may or may not conform perfectly to every one of Aristotle’s elements of a tragedy, but I think they correspond enough at least to make a study of the one beneficial to the study of the other. The subject has been written about by many scholars and there are many conflicting points of view. I believe the two works generally accord. Understanding them both is necessary for any serious investigation of ancient Greek tragedy.

Bibliography
Barnes, Jonathan. The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995)
Bowra, C.M. Sophoclean Tragedy. (London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1944)
Brunius, Teddy. “Catharsis.” Dictionary of the History of Ideas. accessed 11/03/08
Cooper, David E. Aesthetics: The Classic Readings. (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1997)
Freud, Sigmund. The Interpretation of Dreams. (Franz Deuticke, 1899)
Knox, Bernard. Sophocles’ Tragic Hero and his Time. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957)
Woodward, Thomas. Sophocles: A Collection of Critical Essays (Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall, 1966.) 23
Lucas, F.L. Tragedy in Relation to Aristotle’s Poetics. (London: Hogarth Press, 1927)
Morrisey, Christopher S. “Oedipus the Cliché: Aristotle on Tragic Form and Content.” Anthropoetics--The Journal of Generative Anthropology. 9.1 (2003)