Hemingway's Code Hero

The major characters in Hemingway’s novels and short stories are divided into two groups. There are certain round characters who find themselves at cross-ends with the world around them and they are tying to come to some convincing terms with their environment but do not know the way out. They learn with the passage of time and evolve a new set of values, which make their survival possible. There are certain other characters that do not need any education because when they appear before us they are perfect in themselves. These characters appear with different names in different novels. But they share so many characteristics in common that critics identify them collectively as the Code Hero or in Earl Rovit’s terms “the Tutor”.

Hemingway’s code hero is usually an older man, tremendously courageous and blindly confident who has realized his potentialities and know his area of operations. He is perfectly skilled and experienced in his art and executes his jobs full-boldly. He is usually a bullfighter, a fisherman, a veteran soldier or a prized fighter who is dead sure of his success and acknowledgement in his particular department.

Hemingway’s code hero is an incarnation of those values, which make for the void of life caused by the First World War. The code hero is fully aware of the fact that if a man wishes to live most intensely only in confrontation and death by showing his coolness, endurance, grace and discipline he can assert his moral integrity and manliness.

Wilson, Pedro Romero, Santiago etc. are different examples of the code hero. Santiago fights the battle with courage and dignity to defend his prize against the sharks in the big sea especially when the Marlin is bleeding but as to give is unmanly. So he sustains his stature in the face of heavy and even insurmountable odds. He proves that:

“Though the field is lost everything is not lost.”

And

“A man can be destroyed but not defeated.”

Romero, the code hero, in “The Sun Also Rises” is presented as the“Messiah” who has come to save not only full fighting from decadence but also“The Lost Generation”. He demonstrates to them through his actions how one can live with dignity and grace while facing death. Jake Barnes is greatly impressed by Romero when the former says:

“After Romero has kill his first bull “Montoya”, caught my eye and nodded his head. This was a real one. There had not

been a real one for a long time. He knows everything when he started. The other cannot learn what he was born with.”

The encounter of Robert Cohn and Pedro Romero, the encounter of the code hero and the romantic hero present the difference between physical and moral victory between chivalric stubbornness and real self respect. Thus Pedro fights to repair an affront to his dignity and though he is badly beaten yet his spirit is untouched by disappointment, whereas Cohn’s spirit is completely smashed. Though the next day Romero’s eyes were discolored, lips and face were swollen yet he beats Belmote in particularly every sphere of the sport. Cohn had based his skill at boxing or upon a women’s love, so he fails when neither love nor skill supports him but Romero’s manhood is a thing independent of women. Even in his courtship of Brett Ashley there is no loss of his pride and self respect.

He appears for a brief span of time but he has taught Jake Barnes to face the realities of life with stoic endurance and made Brett say:

“You know it makes one feel rather good deciding not to be a bitch.”

And

“It is sort of what we have instead of God.”

Brett’s declaration is a prove that Romero indeed had the greatness within the bullring and outside of it.

Hemingway's Hero

Barnes, Nick Adam, Frederic Henry, Robert Jordan etc. are all Hemingway’s typical heroes who remain continuously under great stress because they are living in absolutely unsatisfactory conditions. Hemingway’s hero is always in some war or war like conditions but the notable point is that he enters war without any social, political or ideological obligation. That is why he is basically a disinterested spectator of war instead of a vehement participant. Romantic ideals and abstractions like sacred, glory, bravery etc. do not fascinate him and we cannot help wondering why he offers himself to serve in war.

Hemingway’s hero leads a private life as an isolated individual because during war he very closely observes the nothingness of life, cruelty of man against man, temporality, emptiness and meaninglessness in human relationship and extremely realizes that looking for permanence in human relations is to meet utter disappointment. However, we should not assume that he is a misanthrope but he has a great ability to recognize another member of his breed and establishes an immediate understanding with him.

Although, he is a tough man and loves outdoor activities, yet he is equally sensitive and his wounds add fuel to fire to his sensitiveness. Secondly, he suffers from Nada which always keeps him restless and the darkness at night intensifies the feeling of nothingness in life. That is why he keeps on thinking and cannot sleep at night and even if he sleeps, he is disturbed by nightmares. However, it is worth mentioning that a typical Hemingway’s hero is not volunteer thinker or philosopher rather he wants to avoid these troublesome haunts. He takes pleasure in spending most of his time in going on for hunting or fishing trips, reaming about different restaurants and enjoying free sex or drinking. The restlessness of the typical Hemingway’s Hero continues until he searches out a solution of present agony. At last, he succeeds in formulation a code which may work effectively as a bolster for the dome of his life.

Jake Barnes is the typical Hemingway’s hero who leaves his own country America and lives in Paris and he works as a journalist in an American Newspaper. He voluntarily takes part in the First World War and, like other Hemingway’s heroes, is wounded. However, the nature of Barnes’ injury is quite different and unique because he is injured in such a way that he can feel sexual desire but consummation of this desire is not possible. To aggravate the situation, an English volunteer nurse Brett Ashley falls in love with him and ironically enough, she is near nymphomaniac. Jake is fully aware of the irony of fate and remains restless day and night. Brett Ashley moves from one man to another in pursuit of her physical satisfaction and Jake is a silent spectator.

He nervously moves from one hotel to another, one dancing club to another but to no avail. He cannot overcome his grief because it penetrates to the depth of his soul. In Hotel Monty at Pamplona in Spain he meets Pedro Romero, the greatest bullfighter who is born with great qualities of tolerance and patience. Romero is severely beaten by the boxing champion Robert Cohn, but his soul remains untouched and he des not loose his integrity and performs his duty in the ring stoically. In his fiesta in Pamplona Jake looses his sweetheart Brett Ashley and his friend Montoya, but he learns the greatest lesson of his life that a great amount of patience and tolerance is required to lead life and it is possible only through manly encounter with death. This is the lesson which enables him to receive a telegram from his disloyal beloved and respond to her stoically and patiently.

Aristotle's concept of catharsis

Aristotle writes that the function of tragedy is to arouse the emotions of pity and fear, and to affect the Katharsis of these emotions. Aristotle has used the term Katharsis only once, but no phrase has been handled so frequently by critics, and poets. Aristotle has not explained what exactly he meant by the word, nor do we get any help from the Poetics. For this reason, help and guidance has to be taken from his other works. Further, Katharsis has three meaning. It means ‘purgation’, ‘purification’, and ‘clarification’, and each critic has used the word in one or the other senses. All agree that Tragedy arouses fear and pity, but there are sharp differences as to the process, the way by which the rousing of these emotions gives pleasure.

Katharsis has been taken as a medical metaphor, ‘purgation’, denoting a pathological effect on the soul similar to the effect of medicine on the body. This view is borne out by a passage in the Politics where Aristotle refers to religious frenzy being cured by certain tunes which excite religious frenzy. In Tragedy:

“…pity and fear, artificially stirred the latent pity and fear which we bring with us from real life.”

In the Neo-Classical era, Catharsis was taken to be an allopathic treatment with the unlike curing unlike. The arousing of pity and fear was supposed to bring about the purgation or ‘evacuation’ of other emotions, like anger, pride etc. As Thomas Taylor holds:

“We learn from the terrible fates of evil men to avoid the vices they manifest.”

F. L. Lucas rejects the idea that Katharsis is a medical metaphor, and says that:

“The theatre is not a hospital.”

Both Lucas and Herbert Reed regard it as a kind of safety valve. Pity and fear are aroused, we give free play to these emotions which is followed by emotional relief. I. A. Richards’ approach to the process is also psychological. Fear is the impulse to withdraw and pity is the impulse to approach. Both these impulses are harmonized and blended in tragedy and this balance brings relief and repose.

The ethical interpretation is that the tragic process is a kind of lustration of the soul, an inner illumination resulting in a more balanced attitude to life and its suffering. Thus John Gassner says that a clear understanding of what was involved in the struggle, of cause and effect, a judgment on what we have witnessed, can result in a state of mental equilibrium and rest, and can ensure complete aesthetic pleasure. Tragedy makes us realize that divine law operates in the universe, shaping everything for the best.

During the Renaissance, another set of critics suggested that Tragedy helped to harden or ‘temper’ the emotions. Spectators are hardened to the pitiable and fearful events of life by witnessing them in tragedies.

Humphrey House rejects the idea of ‘purgation’ and forcefully advocates the ‘purification’ theory which involves moral instruction and learning. It is a kind of ‘moral conditioning’. He points out that, ‘purgation means cleansing’.

According to ‘the purification’ theory, Katharsis implies that our emotions are purified of excess and defect, are reduced to intermediate state, trained and directed towards the right objects at the right time. The spectator learns the proper use of pity, fear and similar emotions by witnessing tragedy. Butcher writes:

“The tragic Katharsis involves not only the idea of emotional relief, but the further idea of purifying the emotions so relieved.”

The basic defect of ‘purgation’ theory and ‘purification’ theory is that they are too much occupied with the psychology of the audience. Aristotle was writing a treatise not on psychology but on the art of poetry. He relates ‘Catharsis’ not to the emotions of the spectators but to the incidents which form the plot of the tragedy. And the result is the “clarification” theory.

The paradox of pleasure being aroused by the ugly and the repellent is also the paradox involved in tragedy. Tragic incidents are pitiable and fearful.

They include horrible events as a man blinding himself, a wife murdering her husband or a mother slaying her children and instead of repelling us produce pleasure. Aristotle clearly tells us that we should not seek for every pleasure from tragedy, “but only the pleasure proper to it”. ‘Catharsis’ refers to the tragic variety of pleasure. The Catharsis clause is thus a definition of the function of tragedy, and not of its emotional effects on the audience.

Imitation does not produce pleasure in general, but only the pleasure that comes from learning, and so also the peculiar pleasure of tragedy. Learning comes from discovering the relation between the action and the universal elements embodied in it. The poet might take his material from history or tradition, but he selects and orders it in terms of probability and necessity, and represents what, “might be”. He rises from the particular to the general and so is more universal and more philosophical. The events are presented free of chance and accidents which obscure their real meaning. Tragedy enhances understanding and leaves the spectator ‘face to face with the universal law’.

Thus according to this interpretation, ‘Catharsis’ means clarification of the essential and universal significance of the incidents depicted, leading to an enhanced understanding of the universal law which governs human life and destiny, and such an understating leads to pleasure of tragedy. In this view, Catharsis is neither a medical, nor a religious or moral term, but an intellectual term. The term refers to the incidents depicted in the tragedy and the way in which the poet reveals their universal significance.

The clarification theory has many merits. Firstly, it is a technique of the tragedy and not to the psychology of the audience. Secondly, the theory is based on what Aristotle says in the Poetics, and needs no help and support of what Aristotle has said in Politics and Ethics. Thirdly, it relates Catharsis both to the theory of imitation and to the discussion of probability and necessity. Fourthly, the theory is perfectly in accord with current aesthetic theories.

According to Aristotle the basic tragic emotions are pity and fear and are painful. If tragedy is to give pleasure, the pity and fear must somehow be eliminated. Fear is aroused when we see someone suffering and think that similar fate might befall us. Pity is a feeling of pain caused by the sight of underserved suffering of others. The spectator sees that it is the tragic error or Hamartia of the hero which results in suffering and so he learns something about the universal relation between character and destiny.

To conclude, Aristotle's conception of Catharsis is mainly intellectual. It is neither didactic nor theoretical, though it may have a residual theological element. Aristotle's Catharsis is not a moral doctrine requiring the tragic poet to show that bad men come to bad ends, nor a kind of theological relief arising from discovery that God’s laws operate invisibly to make all things work out for the best.

Aristotle's concept of ideal tragic hero: Hamartia

No passage in “The Poetics” with the exception of the Catharsis phrase has attracted so much critical attention as his ideal of the tragic hero.

The function of a tragedy is to arouse the emotions of pity and fear and Aristotle deduces the qualities of his hero from this function. He should be good, but not perfect, for the fall of a perfect man from happiness into misery, would be unfair and repellent and will not arouse pity. Similarly, an utterly wicked person passing from happiness to misery may satisfy our moral sense, but will lack proper tragic qualities. His fall will be well-deserved and according to ‘justice’. It excites neither pity nor fear. Thus entirely good and utterly wicked persons are not suitable to be tragic heroes.

Similarly, according to Aristotelian law, a saint would be unsuitable as a tragic hero. He is on the side of the moral order and hence his fall shocks and repels. Besides, his martyrdom is a spiritual victory which drowns the feeling of pity. Drama, on the other hand, requires for its effectiveness a militant and combative hero. It would be important to remember that Aristotle’s conclusions are based on the Greek drama and he is lying down the qualifications of an ideal tragic hero. He is here discussing what is the very best and not what is good. Overall, his views are justified, for it requires the genius of a Shakespeare to arouse sympathy for an utter villain, and saints as successful tragic heroes have been extremely rare.

Having rejected perfection as well as utter depravity and villainy, Aristotle points out that:

“The ideal tragic hero … must be an intermediate kind of person, a man not pre-eminently virtuous and just, whose misfortune, however, is brought upon him not by vice or depravity but by some error of judgment.”

The ideal tragic hero is a man who stands midway between the two extremes. He is not eminently good or just, though he inclines to the side of goodness. He is like us, but raised above the ordinary level by a deeper vein of feeling or heightened powers of intellect or will. He is idealized, but still he has so much of common humanity as to enlist our interest and sympathy.

The tragic hero is not evil or vicious, but he is also not perfect and his disaster is brought upon him by his own fault. The Greek word used here is “Hamartia” meaning “missing the mark”. He falls not because of the act of outside agency or evil but because of Hamartia or “miscalculation” on his part. Hamartia is not a moral failing and it is unfortunate that it was translated as “tragic flaw” by Bradley. Aristotle himself distinguishes Hamartia from moral failing. He means by it some error or judgment. He writes that the cause of the hero’s fall must lie “not in depravity, but in some error or Hamartia on his part”. He does not assert or deny anything about the connection of Hamartia with hero’s moral failings.

“It may be accompanied by moral imperfection, but it is not itself a moral imperfection, and in the purest tragic situation the suffering hero is not morally to blame.”

Thus Hamartia is an error or miscalculation, but the error may arise from any of the three ways: It may arise from “ignorance of some fact or circumstance”, or secondly, it may arise from hasty or careless view of the special case, or thirdly, it may be an error voluntary, but not deliberate, as acts committed in anger. Else and Martian Ostwald interpret Hamartia and say that the hero has a tendency to err created by lack of knowledge and he may commit a series of errors. This tendency to err characterizes the hero from the beginning and at the crisis of the play it is complemented by the recognition scene, which is a sudden change “from ignorance to knowledge”.

In fact, Hamartia is a word with various shades of meaning and has been interpreted by different critics. Still, all serious modern Aristotelian scholarship agreed that Hamartia is not moral imperfection. It is an error of judgment, whether arising from ignorance of some material circumstance or from rashness of temper or from some passion. It may even be a character, for the hero may have a tendency to commit errors of judgment and may commit series of errors. This last conclusion is borne out by the play Oedipus Tyrannus to which Aristotle refers time and again and which may be taken to be his ideal. In this play, hero’s life is a chain or errors, the most fatal of all being his marriage with his mother. If King Oedipus is Aristotle’s ideal hero, we can say with Butcher that:

“His conception of Hamartia includes all the three meanings mentioned above, which in English cannot be covered by a single term.”

Hamartia is an error, or a series of errors, “whether morally culpable or not,” committed by an otherwise noble person, and these errors derive him to his doom. The tragic irony lies in the fact that hero may err mistakenly without any evil intention, yet he is doomed no less than immorals who sin consciously. He has Hamartia and as a result his very virtues hurry him to his ruin. Says Butcher:

“Othello in the modern drama, Oedipus in the ancient, are the two most conspicuous examples of ruin wrought by character, noble indeed, but not without defects, acting in the dark and, as it seemed, for the best.”

Aristotle lays down another qualification for the tragic hero. He must be, “of the number of those in the enjoyment of great reputation and prosperity.” He must be a well-reputed individual occupying a position of lofty eminence in society. This is so because Greed tragedy, with which alone Aristotle was familiar, was written about a few distinguished royal families. Aristotle considers eminence as essential for the tragic hero. But Modern drama demonstrates that the meanest individual can also serve as a tragic hero, and that tragedies of Sophoclean grandeur can be enacted even in remote country solitudes.

However, Aristotle’s dictum is quite justified on the principle that, “higher the state, the greater the fall that follows,” or because heavens themselves blaze forth the death of princes, while the death of a beggar passes unnoticed. But it should be remembered that Aristotle nowhere says that the hero should be a king or at least royally descended. They were the Renaissance critics who distorted Aristotle and made the qualification more rigid and narrow.

Aristotle's theory of imitation

Aristotle did not invent the term “imitation”. Plato was the first to use the word in relation with poetry, but Aristotle breathed into it a new definite meaning. So poetic imitation is no longer considered mimicry, but is regarded as an act of imaginative creation by which the poet, drawing his material from the phenomenal world, makes something new out of it.

In Aristotle's view, principle of imitation unites poetry with other fine arts and is the common basis of all the fine arts. It thus differentiates the fine arts from the other category of arts. While Plato equated poetry with painting, Aristotle equates it with music. It is no longer a servile depiction of the appearance of things, but it becomes a representation of the passions and emotions of men which are also imitated by music. Thus Aristotle by his theory enlarged the scope of imitation. The poet imitates not the surface of things but the reality embedded within. In the very first chapter of the Poetic, Aristotle says:

“Epic poetry and Tragedy, Comedy also and Dithyrambic poetry, as also the music of the flute and the lyre in most of their forms, are in their general conception modes of imitation. They differ however, from one another in three respects – their medium, the objects and the manner or mode of imitation, being in each case distinct.”

The medium of the poet and the painter are different. One imitates through form and colour, and the other through language, rhythm and harmony. The musician imitates through rhythm and harmony. Thus, poetry is more akin to music. Further, the manner of a poet may be purely narrative, as in the Epic, or depiction through action, as in drama. Even dramatic poetry is differentiated into tragedy and comedy accordingly as it imitates man as better or worse.

Aristotle says that the objects of poetic imitation are “men in action”. The poet represents men as worse than they are. He can represent men better than in real life based on material supplied by history and legend rather than by any living figure. The poet selects and orders his material and recreates reality. He brings order out of Chaos. The irrational or accidental is removed and attention is focused on the lasting and the significant. Thus he gives a truth of an ideal kind. His mind is not tied to reality:

“It is not the function of the poet to relate what has happened but what may happen – according to the laws of probability or necessity.”

History tells us what actually happened; poetry what may happen. Poetry tends to express the universal, history the particular. In this way, he exhibits the superiority of poetry over history. The poet freed from the tyranny of facts, takes a larger or general view of things, represents the universal in the particular and so shares the philosopher’s quest for ultimate truth. He thus equates poetry with philosophy and shows that both are means to a higher truth. By the word ‘universal’ Aristotle signifies:

“How a person of a certain nature or type will, on a particular occasion, speak or act, according to the law of probability or necessity.”

The poet constantly rises from the particular to the general. He studies the particular and devises principles of general application. He exceeds the limits of life without violating the essential laws of human nature.

Elsewhere Aristotle says, “Art imitates Nature”. By ‘Nature’ he does not mean the outer world of created things but “the creative force, the productive principle of the universe.” Art reproduce mainly an inward process, a physical energy working outwards, deeds, incidents, situation, being included under it so far as these spring from an inward, act of will, or draw some activity of thought or feeling. He renders men, “as they ought to be”.

The poet imitates the creative process of nature, but the objects are “men in action”. Now the ‘action’ may be ‘external’ or ‘internal’. It may be the action within the soul caused by all that befalls a man. Thus, he brings human experiences, emotions and passions within the scope of poetic imitation. According to Aristotle's theory, moral qualities, characteristics, the permanent temper of the mind, the temporary emotions and feelings, are all action and so objects of poetic imitation.

Poetry may imitate men as better or worse than they are in real life or imitate as they really are. Tragedy and epic represent men on a heroic scale, better than they are, and comedy represents men of a lower type, worse than they are. Aristotle does not discuss the third possibility. It means that poetry does not aim at photographic realism. In this connection R. A. Scott-James points out that:

“Aristotle knew nothing of the “realistic” or “fleshy” school of fiction – the school of Zola or of Gissing.”

Abercrombie, in contrast, defends Aristotle for not discussing the third variant. He says:

“It is just possible to imagine life exactly as it is, but the exciting thing is to imagine life as it might be, and it is then that imagination becomes an impulse capable of inspiring poetry.”

Aristotle by his theory of imitation answers the charge of Plato that poetry is an imitation of “shadow of shadows”, thrice removed from truth, and that the poet beguiles us with lies. Plato condemned poetry that in the very nature of things poets have no idea of truth. The phenomenal world is not the reality but a copy of the reality in the mind of the Supreme. The poet imitates the objects and phenomena of the world, which are shadowy and unreal. Poetry is, therefore, “the mother of lies”.

Aristotle, on the contrary, tells us that art imitates not the mere shows of things, but the ‘ideal reality’ embodied in very object of the world. The process of nature is a ‘creative process’; everywhere in ‘nature there is a ceaseless and upward progress’ in everything, and the poet imitates this upward movement of nature. Art reproduces the original not as it is, but as it appears to the senses. Art moves in a world of images, and reproduces the external, according to the idea or image in his mind. Thus the poet does not copy the external world, but creates according to his ‘idea’ of it. Thus even an ugly object well-imitated becomes a source of pleasure. We are told in “The Poetics”:

“Objects which in themselves we view with pain, we delight to contemplate when reproduced with minute fidelity; such as the forms of the most ignoble animals and dead bodies.”

The real and the ideal from Aristotle's point of view are not opposites; the ideal is the real, shorn of chance and accident, a purified form of reality. And it is this higher ‘reality’ which is the object of poetic imitation. Idealization is achieved by divesting the real of all that is accidental, transient and particular. Poetry thus imitates the ideal and the universal; it is an “idealized representation of character, emotion, action – under forms manifest in sense.” Poetic truth, therefore, is higher than historical truth. Poetry is more philosophical, more conducive to understanding than Philosophy itself.

Thus Aristotle successfully and finally refuted the charge of Plato and provided a defence of poetry which has ever since been used by lovers of poetry in justification of their Muse. He breathed new life and soul into the concept of poetic imitation and showed that it is, in reality, a creative process.

Aristotle's concept of tragedy

“The Poetics” is chiefly about Tragedy which is regarded as the highest poetic form. Abercrombie says:

“But the theory of Tragedy is worked out with such insight and comprehensions and it becomes the type of the theory of literature.”

Aristotle reveals that imitation is the common basis of all the fine arts which differ from each other in their medium of imitation, objects of imitation and manner of imitation. Poetry differs from music in its medium of imitation. Epic poetry and dramatic poetry differs on the basis of manner of imitation. Dramatic poetry itself is divisible in Tragic or Comic on the basis of objects of imitation. Tragedy imitates men as better and comedy as worse then they are. Thus, Aristotle establishes the unique nature of Tragedy.

Aristotle traces the origin and development of poetry. Earlier, poetry was of two kinds. There were ‘Iambs’ or ‘Invectives’, on one hand, which developed into satiric poetry, and ‘hymns’ on the gods or ‘panegyrics’ on the great, on the other, which developed into Epic or heroic poetry. Out of Heroic poetry developed Tragedy, and out of satiric came the Comedy. Both Epic and Tragedy imitate serious subjects in a grand kind of verse but they differ as Epic imitates only in one kind of verse both for Choral odes and dialogue. The Epic is long and varied but the Tragedy has greater concentration and effectiveness. The Epic lacks music, spectacle, reality of presentation and unity of action which the Tragedy has.

“All the parts of an epic are included in Tragedy; but those of Tragedy are not all of them to be found in the Epic.”

Aristotle comes to a consideration of the nature and function of tragedy. He defines tragedy as:

“the imitation of an action, serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude, in a language beautified in different parts with different kinds of embellishment, through actions and not narration, and through scenes of pity and fear bringing about the ‘Catharsis’ of these emotions.”

The definition separates tragedy from other poetic forms. Firstly, its objects of imitation are serious actions unlike Comedy which imitates the non-serious. ‘Serious’ means important, weighty. Secondly, Tragedy on the basis of manner differs from Epic which narrates and does not represent through action. Thirdly, on the basis of medium it differs from Lyric. It employs several kinds of embellishments.

Aristotle considers plot as the soul of tragedy. Tragedy imitates ‘actions’ and its plot consists of a logical and inevitable sequence of events. The action must be a whole. It must have a beginning, a middle and an end.

The tragic plot must have a certain magnitude or ‘length’. ‘Magnitude’ here means ‘size’. It should be long enough to allow the change from happiness to misery but not too long to be forgotten before the end. Action, too short, cannot be regarded as proper and beautiful for its different parts will not be clearly visible. Its different parts must be well-related to each other and to the whole. It must be an ‘organic’ whole.

Aristotle divides the tragic plot into ‘Simple’ and ‘Complex’. In Simple Plot the change in the fortunes of hero takes place without Peripety and Discovery; while the Complex Plot involves one or the other, or both. The Peripety is the change in the fortunes of the hero, and the Discovery is a change from ignorance to knowledge. Aristotle prefers complex plot for it startles, captures attention and performs the tragic function more effectively. He regards episodic plot, lacking probability and necessity, as worst of all.

Aristotle lays great emphasis on the probability and necessity of the action of a tragedy. It implies that there should be no unrelated events and incidents. They must follow each other inevitably. No incident or character should be superfluous. The events introduced must be probable under the circumstances.

By various embellishments in various parts, Aristotle means verse and song. Tragedy imitates through verse in the dialogue and through song in the Choric parts. Verse and song beautify and give pleasure. But Aristotle does not regard them as essential for the success of a tragedy.

Aristotle points out that the function of tragedy is to present scenes of ‘fear and pity’ and to bring about a Catharsis of these emotions. It would be suffice to say that by Catharsis of pity and fear, he means their restoration to the right proportions, to the desirable ‘golden means’.

Aristotle lists six formative or constituent parts of Tragedy; Plot, character, diction, thought, spectacle and song. Two of these parts relate to the medium of imitation, one to the manner of imitation, and three to the object of imitation. Song is to be found in the Choric parts of a tragedy. The Spectacle has more to do with stagecraft than with the writing of poetry.

'Thought' is the power of saying what can be said, or what is suitable to the occasion. It is the language which gives us the thoughts and feeling of various characters. The language of Tragedy must be unusually expressive. The Language of Tragedy ‘must be clear, and it must not be mean’. It must be grand and elevated with familiar and current words. ‘Rare’ and ‘unfamiliar’ words must be set in wisely to impart elevation.

Aristotle stresses four essential qualities for characterization. First, the characters must be good, but not perfect. Wicked characters may be introduced if required by the plot. Secondly, they must be appropriate. They must have the traits of the profession or class to which they belong. Thirdly, they must have likeness. By likeness he means that the characters must be life-like. Fourthly, they must have consistency in development. There should be no sudden and strange change in character.

Aristotle lays down that an ideal tragic hero should not be perfectly good or utterly bad. He is a man of ordinary weakness and virtues, like us, leaning more to the side of good than of evil, occupying a position of eminence, and falling into ruin from that eminence, not because of any deliberate sin, but because of some error of judgment of his part, bringing about a Catharsis of the emotion of pity and fear.

The plot should arouse the emotions of pity and fear which is the function of tragedy. A tragic plot must avoid showing (a) a perfectly good man passing from happiness to misery (b) a bad man rising from misery to happiness (c) an extremely bad man falling from happiness to misery.

While comparing the importance of Plot and Character, Aristotle is quite definite that Plot is more important than Character. He goes to the extent of saying that there can be a tragedy without character but none without plot.

Aristotle emphasizes only one of the three unities, the Unity of Action; he is against plurality of action as it weakens the tragic effect. There might be numerous incidents but they must be related with each other, and they must all be conducive to one effect. As regards the Unity of Time, Aristotle only once mentions it in relation to dramatic Action. Comparing the epic and the Tragedy, he writes:

“Tragedy tries, as far as possible, to live within a single revolution of the sun, or only slightly to exceed it, whereas the epic observes no limits in its time of action.”

According to Aristotle, the end of poetry is to give pleasure, and tragedy has its own pleasure beside. Proper aesthetic pleasure can be possible only when the requirements of morality are satisfied. Verse and rhyme enhance the pleasure of poetry. Peripeteia and Anagnorisis heighten the seductive power of the action. Pure pleasure results from the exercise of our emotions and thoughts on the tragic action.

Such are the main features of Aristotle's theory of Tragedy. Aristotle knew only Greek Tragedy. His conclusions are based entirely on the drama with which he was familiar and often his views are not of universal application. His view might have been challenged but their history is the history of Tragedy.

Aristotle's plot

Aristotle devotes great attention to the nature, structure and basic elements of the ideal tragic plot. Tragedy is the depiction of action consisting of incidents and events. Plot is the arrangement of these incident and events. It contains the kernel of the action. Aristotle says that plot is the first principle, the soul of tragedy. He lists six formative elements of a tragedy – Plot, character, thought, melody, diction, spectacle and gives the first place to plot.

The Greek word for ‘poet’ means a ‘maker’, and the poet is a ‘maker’, not because he makes verses but he makes plots. Aristotle differentiates between ‘story’ and ‘plot’. The poet need not make his story. Stories from history, mythology, or legend are to be preferred, for they are familiar and understandable. Having chosen or invented the story, it must be put to artistic selection and order. The incidents chosen must be ‘serious’, and not ‘trivial’, as tragedy is an imitation of a serious action that arouse pity and fear.

Aristotle says that the tragic plot must be a complete whole. It must have a beginning, a middle and an end. It must have a beginning, i.e. it must not flow out of some prior situation. The beginning must be clear and intelligible. It must not provoke to ask ‘why’ and ‘how’. A middle is consequent upon a situation gone before. The middle is followed logically by the end. And end is consequent upon a given situation, but is not followed by any further incident. Thus artistic wholeness implies logical link-up of the various incidents, events and situations that form the plot.

The plot must have a certain magnitude or ‘length’. ‘Magnitude’ here means ‘size’. It should be neither too small nor too large. It should be long enough to allow the process of change from happiness to misery but not too long to be forgotten before the end. If it is too small, its different parts will not be clearly distinguishable from each other. Magnitude also implies order and proportion and they depend upon the magnitude. The different parts must be properly related to each other and to the whole. Thus magnitude implies that the plot must have order, logic symmetry and perspicuity.

Aristotle considers the tragic plot to be an organic whole, and also having organic unity in its action. An action is a change from happiness to misery or vice versa and tragedy must depict one such action. The incidents impart variety and unity results by arranging the incidents so that they all tend to the same catastrophe. There might be episodes for they impart variety and lengthen the plot but they must be properly combined with the main action following each other inevitably. It must not be possible to remove or to invert them without injuring the plot. Otherwise, episodic plots are the worst of all.

'Organic unity' cannot be provided only by the presence of the tragic hero, for many incidents in hero’s life cannot be brought into relation with the rest. So there should be proper shifting and ordering of material.

Aristotle joins organic unity of plot with probability and necessity. The plot is not tied to what has actually happened but it deals with what may probably or necessarily happen. Probability and necessity imply that there should be no unrelated events and incidents. Words and actions must be in character. Thus probability and necessity imply unity and order and are vital for artistic unity and wholeness.

'Probability' implies that the tragic action must be convincing. If the poet deals with something improbable, he must make it convincing and credible. He dramatist must procure, “willing suspension of disbelief”. Thus a convincing impossibility is to be preferred to an unconvincing possibility.

Aristotle rules out plurality of action. He emphasizes the Unity of Action but has little to say about the Unity of Time and the Unity of Place. About the Unity of Time he merely says that tragedy should confine itself to a single revolution of the sun. As regards the Unity of Place, Aristotle said that epic can narrate a number of actions going on all together in different parts, while in a drama simultaneous actions cannot be represented, for the stage is one part and not several parts or places.

Tragedy is an imitation of a ‘serious action’ which arouses pity and fear. ‘Serious’ means important, weighty. The plot of a tragedy essentially deals with great moral issues. Tragedy is a tale of suffering with an unhappy ending. This means that the plot of a tragedy must be a fatal one. Aristotle rules out fortunate plots for tragedy, for such plot does not arouse tragic emotions. A tragic plot must show the hero passing from happiness to misery and not from misery to happiness. The suffering of the hero may be caused by an enemy or a stranger but it would be most piteous when it is by chance caused by friends and relatives who are his well-wishers.

According to Aristotle, Tragic plots may be of three kinds, (a) Simple, (b) Complex and (c) Plots based on or depicting incidents of suffering. A Simple plot is without any Peripety and Anagnorisis but the action moves forward uniformly without any violent or sudden change. Aristotle prefers Complex plots. It must have Peripeteia, i.e. “reversal of intention” and Anagnorisis, i.e. “recognition of truth”. While Peripeteia is ignorance of truth, Anagnorisis is the insight of truth forced upon the hero by some signs or chance or by the logic events. In ideal plot Anagnorisis follows or coincides with Peripeteia.

'Recognition' in the sense is closely akin to reversal. Recognition and reversal can be caused by separate incidents. Often it is difficult to separate the two. Complex plots are the best, for recognition and reversal add the element of surprise and “the pitiable and fearful incidents are made more so by the shock of surprise”.

As regards the third kind of plot, Aristotle rates it very low. It derives its effect from the depiction of torture, murder, maiming, death etc. and tragic effect must be created naturally and not with artificial and theatrical aids. Such plots indicate a deficiency in the art of the poet.

In making plots, the poets should make their denouements, effective and successful. Unraveling of the plot should be done naturally and logically, and not by arbitrary devices, like chance or supernatural devices. Aristotle does not consider Poetic Justice necessary for Tragedy. He rules out plots with a double end i.e. plots in which there is happiness for one, and misery for others. Such plots weaken the tragic effect. It is more proper to Comedy. Thus Aristotle is against Tragi-comedy.