Aristotle's Definition of Tragedy

Aristotle was one of the greatest philosophers of Ancient Greece. He didn't invent drama. But he took examples of drama from the ancient Greek playwrights to state his idea. Tragedy was considered to be the highest form of drama. Aristotle's definition of tragedy is accepted as the standard definition since his own times to the present.

Aristotle defines tragedy thus, "Tradegy is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, of a certain magnitude, in an appropriate and pleasurable language, in dramatic rather than narrative form, with incidents arousing pity and fear, wherewith to accomplish catharsis of these emotions." 

1. An imitation of an action that is serious, complete and of a certain magnitude: This means that the tragedy should deal with one issue which is very serious. We can't have a tragedy about a trivial issue like breaking a fingernail. The issue should also be very important. That's why, most of the tragedies deal with someone's death. Complete in itself means the play must stivk to one issue, otherwise the audience will get lost in the plot.

2. In an appropriate and pleasurable language: Ancient Greek tragedies had a chorus who commented on the actions of the play. They also sang their parts sometimes. Aristotle says that the language of the tragedy must be clear and it should have good rhythm and harmony.

3. In a dramatic rather than narrative form: To narrate means to simply tell a story. It's like telling a friend what you did over the weekend. But a tragedy must be dramatized or acted out.

4. With incidents arousing pity and fear: The audience must feel sorry for the main character. When he falls, the whole state will fall along with him. It should arouse the feelings of sorrow and fear in the audience's minds.

5. Wherewith to accomplish catharsis of these emotions: Catharsis is a term associated with Aristotle. He used the term purgation or purification in Greek to signify an emotional release that leaves the audience relieved and exalted. 

Allen Tate: Tension in Poetry

In his essay, 'Tension on Poetry', Tate talks about a distinct quality in all good poems, ehich he calls tension. He gives several examples of good and bad poetry to state his case.

Tate describes tension as a special metaphor derived by cutting off the prefixes of the terms 'intension' & 'extension'. He says that the meaning of poetry is its tension; a full organized body of all extensions and intensions that we can find in it.

The meaning that we derive at different points between extreme intension and extreme extension depends on our personal drives, approaches and interests. 

Cleanth Brooks: Notion of Paradox

Brooks in his essay, 'The Language Of Paradox', says that paradox is appropriate and inevitable to poetry. The truth that the poet utters can only be approached in terms of paradox. He continues to give several examples of poetry to state his case.

Brooks mentions the poetty of Wordsworth to emphasise his point. In one of his poems, he mentions that 'he is feeling an immense worship towards God's creativity when he looks at the beauty of nature'. At the same time, he says that, his companion who's a little girl, doesn't understand the concept of worship.

Coleridge in a poem utters:
He prayeth best, who loveth best
All things both great and small.

John Donne in a poem says:
We can die by it, if not live by love.

These examples prove that paradox has been used by poets across centuries to give their poems an all encompassing universality.

An Essay of Dramatic Poesie: John Dryden (Part II)

The French vs The English

Lisideius argues in favour of French drama and Neander (Dryden himself) argues in favour of English drama.
Lisideius says that the French dramatists like Boileau have reformed the French drama to such an extent that it stands exceptional in Europe.
French dramatists have strictly followed the Three Unities. The plays took place in a single location without moving from one country to another far-off country. It didn't try to compress geography.
The time of the play didn't exceed to thirty hours. The use of various plots and subplots is unheard of in French plays. One can't see a child growing up and becoming a king in French plays. One can't see mingling scenes of laughter and tragic sufferings in French play. The mongrel breed of Tragic-comedy can only be seen in English plays. Lisideius supports French historial tragedies because they're based on familiar history and are modified to suit dramatic purposes.
He says that Shakespeare's historical plays can't stand in comparison with French plays. Shakespeare's historical plays were based loosely on the lives of the kings. He showed 'business of thirty to forty years, cramped into a representation of two hours and a half'.
The French dramatists excell in narrative techniques. Their plays are dominated by the hero alone and all the other characters are of lesser stature. That's why, there's a great scope of treatment of emotions and passions. The narration is brief. Scenes like death scenes, duals and battles are not shown on the stage, in French plays, because they can't be realistically shown.
Lisideius mocks at English plays by saying that they represented two huge armies by showing two lean and lanky soldiers fighting on the stage with rusty swords. The death scenes are the most comic part of the English plays. Instead of evoking tears, it evokes laughter. The villains of English pkays transfrom themselves overnight. Such transformation is psychologically incredible.

Neander comes forward to argue in favour of English drama. He says that French drama ardently follows the Three Unities and so they lack passion and humour. French drama has the beauty of a statue and not of a human being with flesh and blood.
He defends the mixing of tragic scenes and comic scenes by saying that they're true to life. In reality, our eyes get tired of unpleasant scenes and try to shift their attention to things that are lovable and pleasant. He supports Shakespeare's intermingling of tragic and comic.
He is in favour of using subplots and underplots. He says that there's nothing wrong with having many characters in the play unless we are avoiding confusions.
He says that the hero of French tragedies made very long speeches which is unbearable after a certain limit is reached.
He defends English plays by saying that English tragedies are suited to the character of the English. The English are very fond of horseplay and too much action on stage. In reply of Lisideius's mockery, he says that just as the audience can imagine an actor to be a king, the same way, they can imagine two soldiers to be two big armies.
According to him, only death scenes shouldn't be shown on stage. All the other scenes can be represented through in conformity with the limitations of the stage.
English drama had too much action and French, too little. A middle path should be chosen between the two. The indolent and incredible should be avoided and what is beautiful must only be shown.
He gived examples of the plays of Shakespeare, Beaumont and Fletcher and Ben Jonson. Neander praises Shakespeare ardently. He says that Shakespeare is a man, who of all the ancient and modern poets, had the largest and the most comprehensive soul. By comprehensive, he means encompassing all objects and all experices.
Neander also praises Ben Jonson because og his representation of remarkable humor. His language was borrowed from Latin and Greek like a monarch.

An Essay of Dramatic Poesy: John Dryden (Critical Analysis Part I)

An Essay of Dramatic Poesy by Dryden is in the form of a conversation between four friends, namely: Crites (Representing Dryden's brother-in-law, Sir Robert Howard), Lisideius (Representing Sir Charles Sedley), Eugenius (Lord Buckhurst) and Neander (Representing Dryden himself) who are drifting in a barge down the river Thames, waiting to hear the new of the Great Naval Battle with the Dutch on 3rd June, 1665. Dryden has used the dialogue method to discuss a problem from different angles and leaving the reader to come up with a conclusion. 

1. Ancient Drama Vs Modern Drama 

Crites is in favour of the Ancients while Eugenius is in favour of the Moderns. 

Crites says that drama was born and perfected in Ancient Greece, The Ancient Greek dramatists excelled because they were 'faithful imitators and wise observers' of nature. But the Moderns were 'ill-copiers' of nature. They depicted nature in a 'monstrous and disfigured' manner. 

He says that Ancient dramatists like Aristotle and Horace had framed rules of drama. But the Moderns have not added anything of their own to these rules. 

However, Crites supported the Three Unities of Action, Place & Time. He says that they are Ancient rules and Modern dramatists fail because of the violation of these unities. 

He praises the Ancients because of their 'superlative power of expression'. He praises Ben Jonson because the latter scrupulously followed the rules of the Ancients. 

Eugenius comes forward to speak in favour of the Moderns. His first counter-argument is that the Moderns are not totally averse to the rules of the Ancients and have followed some of them with success. The Moderns have improved upon the Ancients. 

His second counter-argument is that the Ancients used only stale plots. All their tragedies were based on the hackneyed tales of Thebes & Troy so much so that even before the play began, the audience foretold what it was all about. Their plays lacked in the elements of surprise and often fell flat on the audience. Their comedies were also lacking in variety. The comedy playwrights were confined to a narrow set of themes. They imitated nature not comprehensively, but partially. It was as if the painter painting only a hand or an eye, and not the full body.

Eugenius says that only the Unity of Action was given by Aristotle in in 'Poetics'. But the Unity of Place & Time were put forward by the drama critics of Italy & France, and so they're not Ancient rules as they belong to a later era. 

The biggest argument of Eugenius is that the Ancients lacked in moral teaching. They didn't care to show a world governed by poetic justice. They showed virtue suffering and vice triumphing.
Eugenius praises the Modern playwrights for their mixing of comic and tragic elements in their plays. The same modern playwright wrote both tragedy and comedy. Eg: Shakespeare who began his career by writing comedy, but later also wrote tragedy. But this is not the case with the Ancients. Euripides, Sophocles and Aeschylus wrote nothing but tragedy. Aristophanes, Plautus and Terence wrote nothing but tragedy.
A glaring defect of the Ancient plays is that they didn't depict tender love and compassion. The Ancient plays focused mainly on cruelty, revenge, lust, ambition, etc., and the bloody consequences that followed out of these terrible passions.  

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