Every tragedy falls into two parts, Complication
and Unravelling or Dénouement.
Incidents extraneous
to the action are frequently combined with a portion of
the action proper, to form the Complication; the rest is
the Unravelling. By the Complication I mean all that
extends from the beginning of the action to the part
which marks the turning-point to good or bad fortune.
The Unravelling is that which extends from the
beginning of the change to the end.
Thus, in the
Lynceus of Theodectes, the Complication consists of the
incidents presupposed in the drama, the seizure of the
child, and then again * *
from the accusation of murder to the end.
There are four kinds of Tragedy,
the Complex, depend-
ing entirely on Reversal of the Situation and Recognition;
the Pathetic (where the motive is passion), such as the
tragedies on Ajax and Ixion;
the Ethical (where the
motives are ethical), such as the Phthiotides and the
Peleus.
The fourth kind is the Simple.
exclude the purely spectacular element>, exemplified by
the Phorcides, the Prometheus, and scenes laid in Hades.
The poet should endeavour, if possible, to combine all
poetic elements; or failing that, the greatest number and
those the most important; the more so, in face of the
cavilling criticism of the day. For whereas there have
hitherto been good poets, each in his own branch, the
critics now expect one man to surpass all others in their
several lines of excellence.
In speaking of a tragedy as the same or different, the
best test to take is the plot. Identity exists where the
Complication and Unravelling are the same.
Many poets tie the knot well, but unravel it ill.
Both arts, however, should always be mastered.
Again, the poet should remember what has been often
said, and not make an Epic structure into a Tragedy—
by an Epic structure I mean one with a multiplicity of
plots—as if, for instance, you were to make a tragedy
out of the entire story of the Iliad.
In the Epic poem,
owing to its length, each part assumes its proper
magnitude. In the drama the result is far from
answering to the poet's expectation.
The proof is that
the poets who have dramatised the whole story of the
Fall of Troy, instead of selecting portions, like Euripides;
or who have taken the whole tale of Niobe, and not a
part of her story, like Aeschylus, either fail utterly or
meet with poor success on the stage. Even Agathon
has been known to fail from this one defect. In his
Reversals of the Situation, however, he shows a marvellous
skill in the effort to hit the popular taste, —to produce a
tragic effect that satisfies the moral sense.
This effect is
produced when the clever rogue, like Sisyphus, is out-
witted, or the brave villain defeated.
Such an event is
probable in Agathon's sense of the word: 'it is probable,'
he says, 'that many things should happen contrary to
probability.'
The Chorus too should be regarded as one of the
actors; it should be an integral part of the whole, and
share in the action, in the manner not of Euripides but
of Sophocles.
As for the later poets, their choral songs
pertain as little to the subject of the piece as to that of
any other tragedy. They are, therefore, sung as mere
interludes, a practice first begun by Agathon. Yet
what difference is there between introducing such choral
interludes, and transferring a speech, or even a whole act,
from one play to another?
Poetics. Aristotle. S. H. Butcher (Translator). London. 1911.
Sponsored by Perseus Project, Tufts University.
Funding provided by The National Endowment for the Humanities.