Peripeteia

Classical theories of tragedy

As the great period of Athenian drama drew to an end at the beginning of the 4th century BC, Athenian philosophers began to analyse its content and formulate its structure. In the thought of Plato (c. 427-347 BC), the history of the criticism of tragedy began with speculation on the role of censorship. To Plato (in the dialogue on the Laws) the state was the noblest work of art, a representation (mimesis) of the fairest and best life. He feared the tragedians' command of the expressive resources of language, which might be used to the detriment of worthwhile institutions. He also feared the emotive effect of poetry, the Dionysian element that is at the very basis of tragedy. Therefore, he recommended that the tragedians submit their works to the rulers, for approval, without which they could not be performed. It is clear that tragedy, by nature exploratory, critical, independent, could not live under such a regimen.

Aristotle's Poetics
Plato is answered, in effect and perhaps intentionally, by Aristotle's Poetics. Aristotle (384-322 BC) defends the purgative power of tragedy and, in direct contradiction to Plato, makes moral ambiguity the essence of tragedy. The tragic hero must be neither a villain nor a virtuous man but a 'character between these two extremes, [...] a man who is not eminently good and just, yet whose misfortune is brought about not by vice or depravity, but by some error or frailty [hamartia].' The effect on the audience will be similarly ambiguous. A perfect tragedy, he says, should imitate actions that excite 'pity and fear.' He uses Sophocles' Oedipus the King as a paradigm. Near the beginning of the play, Oedipus asks how his stricken city (the counterpart of Plato's state) may cleanse itself, and the world he uses for the purifying action is a form of the word catharsis. The concept of catharsis provides Aristotle with his reconciliation with Plato, a means by which to satisfy the claims of both ethics and art. 'Tragedy,' says Aristotle, 'is an imitation [mimesis] of an action that is serious, complete and of a certain magnitude [...] through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation [catharsis] of these emotions.' Ambiguous means may be employed, Aristotle maintains in contrast to Plato, to a virtuous and purifying end.
To establish the basis for a reconciliation between ethical and artistic demands, Aristotle insists that the principal element in the structure of tragedy is not character but plot. Since the erring protagonist is always in at least partial opposition to the state, the importance of tragedy lies not in him but in the enlightening event. 'Most important of all,' Aristotle said, 'is the structure of the incidents. For tragedy is an imitation not of men but of an action and of life, and life consists in action, and its end is a mode of action, not a quality [...].' Aristotle considered the plot to be the soul of a tragedy, with character in second place. The goal of tragedy is not suffering but the knowledge that issues from it, as the denouement issues from a plot. The most powerful elements of emotional interest in tragedy, according to Aristotle, are reversal of intention or situation (peripeteia) and recognition scenes (anagnorisis), and each is most effective when it is coincident with the other. In Oedipus, for example, the messenger who brings Oedipus news of his real parentage, intending to allay his fears, brings about a sudden reversal of his fortune, from happiness to misery, by compelling him to recognize that his wife is also his mother.

Later critics found justification for their own predilections in the authority of Greek drama and Aristotle. For example, the Roman poet Horace (65-8 BC), in his Ars poetica (Art of Poetry), elaborated the Greek tradition of extensively narrating offstage events into a dictum on decorum forbidding events such as Medea's butchering of her boys from being performed on stage. And where Aristotle had discussed tragedy as a separate genre, superior to epic poetry, Horace discussed it as a genre with a separate style, again with considerations of decorum foremost. A theme for comedy may not be set forth in verses of tragedy; each style must keep to the place allotted it.

Mediaeval theories
On the basis of this kind of stylistic distinction, the Aeneid, the epic poem of Virgil, Horace's contemporary, is called a tragedy by the fictional Virgil in Dante's Divine Comedy, on the grounds that the Aeneid treats only of lofty things. Dante (1265-1321) calls his own poem a comedy partly because he includes 'low' subjects in it. He makes this distinction in his De vulgari eloquentia (1304-05; 'Of Eloquence in the Vulgar') in which he also declares the subjects fit for the high, tragic style to be salvation, love, and virtue. Despite the presence of these subjects in this poem, he calls it a comedy because his style of language is 'careless and humble' and because it is in the vernacular tongue rather than Latin. Dante makes a further distinction:
Comedy [...] differs from tragedy in its subject matter, in this way, that tragedy in its beginning is admirable and quiet, in its ending or catastrophe foul and horrible [...] From this it is evident why the present work is called a comedy.

Dante's emphasis on the outcome of the struggle rather than on the nature of the struggle is repeated by Chaucer and for the same reason: their belief in the providential nature of human destiny. Like Dante, he was under the influence of De consolatione philosophiae (Consolation of Philosophy), the work of the 6th-century Roman philosopher Boethius (c. 480-524) that he translated into English. Chaucer considered Fortune to be beyond the influence of the human will. In his Canterbury Tales, he introduces 'The Monk's Tale' by defining tragedy as 'a certeyn storie [...] / of him that stood in greet prosperitee,/ And is y-fallen out of heigh degree/ Into miserie, and endeth wrecchedly.' Again, he calls his Troilus and Criseyde a tragedy because, in the words of Troilus, 'all that comth, comth by necessitee [...] / That forsight of divine purveyaunce/ Hath seyn alwey me to forgon Criseyde.'

Elizabethan approaches
The critical tradition of separating the tragic and comic styles is continued by the Elizabethan English poet Sir Philip Sidney, whose Defence of Poesie (also published as An Apologie for Poetrie) has the distinction of containing the most extended statement on tragedy in the English Renaissance and the misfortune of having been written in the early 1580s (published 1595), before the first plays of Shakespeare, or even of Marlowe. Nevertheless, Sidney wrote eloquently of 'high and excellent tragedy, that [...] with stirring the affects of admiration and commiseration teacheth the uncertainty of this world and upon how weak foundations gilden roofs are builded.'

Since the word admiration here means awe, Sidney's 'admiration and commiseration' are similar to Aristotle's 'pity and fear.' He differs from Aristotle, however, in preferring epic to tragic poetry. The Renaissance was almost as concerned as Plato with the need to justify poetry on ethical grounds, and Sidney ranks epic higher than tragedy because it provides morally superior models of behaviour.

Sidney goes further than mere agreement with Aristotle, however, in championing the unities of time and place. Aristotle had asserted the need for a unity of time: 'Tragedy endeavors, as far as possible, to confine itself to a single revolution of the sun, or but slightly to exceed this limit.' Sidney, following the lead of a 16th-century Italian Neoclassicist, Ludovico Castelvetro, added the unity of place: 'the stage should always represent but one place, and the uttermost time presupposed in it should be, both by Aristotle's precept and common reason, but one day [...]' Sidney also seconds Horace's disapproval of the mingling of styles, which Sidney says produces a 'mongrel tragicomedy.'