ASSINGMENT OF LITERARY THEORY AND PRACTICE

SUBMITTED TO: MA’AM AYESHA AKRAM

SUBMITTED BY: YAMEENA YAR (17)
AMNA NOOR (19)
AROOJ FATIMA (36)
FAIQ AZAM (07)
ZAIN AMJAD (24)
STANDARD: ADP MORNING
SEMESTER: 7TH
Explain Aristotle’s Tragic Hero
The action of tragedy is generally dominated by the hero or the heroine. A tragic hero of the
Aristotelian description is a man who enjoy prosperity and renown, but he is found involved in
misfortune and suffering out of some great flaw in his characters or a fatal error in his judgment,
action or conduct.

Aristotle instances Oedipus and other similar illustrations figures as the ideal specimen of the
tragic hero, who despite their nobleness, are subjected to acquit suffering and misfortune.

The tragic hero, according to Aristotle, must have four characteristics. The first and the foremost
thing is that he should be good and this goodness is ethical goodness. Goodness is essential to
Aristotle’s tragic theory. A bad man does not enjoy our sympathy while a good man does. But a
perfectly blameless character is not fitted to be a tragic hero because unmerited suffering does
not rise pity and fear. Aristotle has pointed out that the blameless goodness is not dramatically
interesting.

Butcher, indifference of Aristotle, says, “Even where it (blameless goodness) has no lack of
strong initiative, its impersonal order in the cause of right has not the same dramatic fascination
as the spectacle of human weakness or passion for doing battle with the fate it has brought upon
itself.”
Aristotle also insists that the tragic hero must be appropriate. The character should not be at
variance with that of the class to which he belongs. The term “appropriate” has been interpreted
by F. L. Lucus as ‘a person true to type’. By ‘appropriateness’, Aristotle presumably means the
classification of human characters and these characters are mostly drawn from the epics and
legends.
The third point to be considered in the tragic character is ‘likenesses. Aristotle says, “The third is
to make them like.” But like what? Is it likeness to the ‘original’? It has been suggested that the
characters of the heroes should be like the reality. If the characters are to be like the original, the
original will obviously mean the characters as represented in history, legend and mythology. If
the characters are to be ‘true to life’, they are accepted to be natural.

The fourth characteristic of the tragic hero is that there must be consistency. The characters must
develop strictly according to certain principles. This consistency is based upon what Aristotle
calls probability and necessity which means rationality.
All these characteristics mentioned above are applied to all the tragic heroes as well as all the
tragic characters. The tragic hero may not be an embodiment of virtue and nevertheless, he must
have an element of greatness. If he is a man of high estate, his fate normally affects the welfare
of all the nation. He must enjoy greater reputation so that his misfortune may be regarded as
natural calamity. This also evokes our sense of pity.

John Johns regrets that we have imported the tragic hero into Aristotle’s ‘Poetics’. True the word
‘hero’ does not occur, yet the idea of the protagonist or the central figure does appear. Heroic
figures such as the Greeks and the Elizabethan could conceived are no more possible today.
Oedipus or Hamlet seems absurd today and any attempt to create such a figure is likely to give
rise to a mock heroic effect. Aristotle was right in his age, no doubt, but an old principle cannot
be true for all times. A tragic hero remains ultimately a hero and does not degenerate into a
villain though he is found even to sin against and deviate from the paths of morality.

In Poetics, Aristotle suggests that the hero of a tragedy must evoke a sense of pity and fear
within the audience, stating that “the change of fortune presented must not be the spectacle of a
virtuous man brought from prosperity to adversity."
In essence, the focus of the hero should not be the loss of his goodness. He establishes the
concept that pity is an emotion that must be elicited when, through his actions, the character
receives undeserved misfortune, while the emotion of fear must be felt by the audience when
they contemplate that such misfortune could possibly befall themselves in similar situations.
Aristotle explains such change of fortune "should be not from bad to good, but, reversely, from
good to bad.” Such misfortune is visited upon the tragic hero "not through vice or depravity but
by some error of judgment." This error, or hamartia, refers to a flaw in the character of the hero,
or a mistake made by the character.
Therefore, the Aristotelian hero is characterized as virtuous but not "eminently good," which
suggests a noble or important personage who is upstanding and morally inclined while
nonetheless subject to human error. Aristotle's tragic heroes are flawed individuals who commit,
without evil intent, great wrongs or injuries that ultimately lead to their misfortune, often
followed by tragic realization of the true nature of events that led to this destiny.[3] This means
the hero still must be – to some degree – morally grounded. The usual irony in Greek tragedy is
that the hero is both extraordinarily capable and highly moral (in the Greek honor-culture sense
of being duty-bound to moral expectations), and it is these exact, highly-admirable qualities that
lead the hero into tragic circumstances. The tragic hero is snared by his own greatness:
extraordinary competence, a righteous passion for duty, and (often) the arrogance associated with
greatness (hubris).

As opposed to his philosophic predecessor Plato, who feared the effect poetry could have on
moral education, Aristotle appreciated the difference between the Homeric epic hero who
grappled with mythic monsters and the tragic hero who struggled with the epistemological,
ethical, and existential truth about himself. The present study investigates the tragic hero, defined
in Aristotle's Poetics as "an intermediate kind of personage, not pre-eminently virtuous and just"
whose misfortune is attributed, not to vice or depravity, but an error of judgment. The hero is
fittingly described as good in spite of an infirmity of character. The aspects of the hero's
character are also seen as inseparable from the tragic action, which processes through the phases
of decision, illumination, and catharsis.
The definition of the hero leads to an examination of the Nicomachean Ethics in order to
discover exactly what Aristotle means by virtue, justice, intermediate morality, goodness of
character, and an error of judgment. This examination determines that, in erring against the
intellectual virtue of judgment by failing to discriminate the equitable, the tragic hero at the same
time errs against moral virtue since equity is a form of justice. Because he departs from the moral
mean in the direction of excess, but does not go the extreme of vice, he maintains his goodness.
He is, however, guilty of incontinence with qualification.
The final part of this project establishes Sophocles' King Oedipus as a tragic hero on the
Aristotelian model. The tragic action of Oedipus the King clearly follows the pattern of decision,
illumination, and catharsis. Oedipus' error of judgment leads to incontinence with qualification in
respect to anger. When he leaves Thebes at the end of the tragic action of Oedipus the King,
Oedipus sees with a deep inner vision, speaks with the voice of practical wisdom, and rightfully
claims a solitary self. Plato to the contrary, Aristotle's point that poetry does not work at cross-
purposes to philosophy is well taken. Tragic poetry complements philosophy by showing its
inner face.
Characteristics of a tragic hero

Here, we have basic characteristics of a tragic hero, as explained by Aristotle-

1. Hamartia: a tragic flaw that causes the downfall of a hero.
2. Hubris: excessive pride and disrespect for the natural order of things.
3. Peripeteia: the reversal of fate that the hero experiences.
4. Anagnorisis: a moment in time when hero makes an important discovery in the story.
5. Nemesis: a punishment that the protagonist can not avoid, usually occurring at the result
of his hubris.
6. Catharsis: feeling of pity and fear felt by the audience, for the inevitable downfall of
the protagonist.

Some examples of an ideal tragic hero-

Oedipus from `Oedipus Rex’

Oedipus is a perfect example of an ideal tragic hero. He is tragic because of his tragic flaws. His
first flaw is his stubbornness. He is also a high tempered person which causes his downfall.
Prince Hamlet from ‘Hamlet’

Hamlet is the Prince of Denmark, a man of high social status and noble by birth. He is almost
driven to madness by his father’s deathly ghost. Hamlet makes a plan to take revenge on his
father’s killer, but it blinded by his hamartia, neglecting his relations with other loved ones.
Hamlet’s hamartia is his constant contemplation and brooding, which causes him to delay the
final destruction.
Romeo from ‘Romeo and Juliet’

Romeo is a man of high social standing, who falls in love with a girl who is his family’s enemy.
Romeo’s tragic flaw is his fate. Julia acts like a dead so Romeo thinks her as a dead person. Then
Romeo stabs himself. His haste decision is also the cause of death and his doom.
Davy Jones from Pirates of the Caribbean’

Davy Jones is a modern tragic hero who falls in love with a sea goddess, Calipso. But the
goddess breaks Davy`s heart so he leads his -savage crew on raids in the entire sea but finally
killed by Will Spraw.
Besides these features, a tragic hero should be good, appropriate, brave, consistent in his oath.
On the whole, we see that Aristotle’s concept of the tragic hero is not
unacceptable. Tragedy isn’t possible with a villainous hero, which has been remarkably shown
by Renaissance dramatists, especially Shakespeare. Further, tragedy arises from hamartia.
However, the chief limitation of Aristotle`s concept is that it is based on one section of
world drama.

According to Aristotle, the function of tragedy is to arouse pity and fear in the audience so that
we may be purged, or cleansed, of these unsettling emotions. Aristotle's term for this emotional
purging is the Greek word catharsis. Although no one is exactly sure what Aristotle meant by
catharsis, it seems clear that he was referring to that strangely pleasurable sense of emotional
release we experience after watching a great tragedy?
For some reason, we usually feel exhilarated, not depressed, at the end. According to Aristotle, a
tragedy can arouse these twin emotions of pity and fear only if it presents a certain type of hero,
who is neither completely good nor completely bad. Aristotle also says that the tragic hero
should be someone "highly renowned and prosperous," which is Aristotle's day meant a member
of royalty. Why not an ordinary working person?
We might ask. The answer is simply that the hero must fall from tremendous good fortune.
Otherwise, we wouldn't feel such pity and fear. . . . The change of fortune presented must not be
the spectacle of a virtuous man brought from prosperity to adversity: For this moves neither pity
nor fear; it merely shocks us. Nor again, that of a bad man passing from adversity to prosperity:
For nothing can be more alien to the spirit of tragedy; . . . it neither satisfied the moral sense nor
calls forth pity or fear. Nor, again, should the downfall of the utter villain be exhibited. A plot of
this kind would, doubtless, satisfy the moral sense, but it would inspire neither pity nor fear; for
pity is aroused by unmerited misfortune, fear by the misfortune of a man like ourselves . . .
There remains, then, the character between these two extremes—that of 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.
Aristotle, from the Poetics, translated by S.H. Butcher Critics have argued over what Aristotle
meant by the tragic hero's "error or frailty." Is the hero defeated because of a single error of
judgment, or is the cause of the hero's downfall a tragic flaw—a fundamental character
weakness, such as destructive pride, ruthless ambition, or obsessive jealousy?
In either interpretation the key point is that the hero is on some level responsible for his or her
own downfall. The hero is not the mere plaything of the gods—the helpless victim of fate or of
someone else's villainy. By the end of the play, the tragic hero comes to recognize his or her own
error and to accept its tragic 2 consequences. The real hero does not curse fate or the gods.
The real hero is humbled—and enlightened—by the tragedy. Yet we, the audience, feel that the
hero's punishment exceeds the crime,that the hero gets more than he or she deserves. We feel
pity because the hero is a suffering human being who is flawed like us. We also feel fear because
the hero is better than we are, and still he failed. What hope can there be for us?
Aristotle was a great Greek philosopher, psychologist, logician, moralist, political thinker,
biologist and founder of literary criticism.  His analysis of the ideal form of tragic plays became
a guideline for later playwrights in western civilization.
“Tragedy is the imitation of an action that is serious and also, having magnitude complete in
itself; in language embellished with each kind of artistic ornament, each kind bought in
separately in the parts of the work; in dramatic, not in narrative form; with incidents arousing
pity and fear, wherewith to accomplish its catharsis of such emotions.”

According to him tragedy involves the imitation of men better than they are in actual life. 
Hence tragedy presents a character in idealized form. The characters are good in strictly moral
sense.  It merely means that characters live in a more complete and intense life than the real
man and women dare to in real world.

High birth: Aristotle believed that hero of tragedy should either King or Prince, a man
belonging to a noble family. Tragedy of a noble person affects more. So the hero should not
be a common man or layman or man of street.  According to A.C. Bradley:  “Tragedy of
noble man affects the welfare of the whole nation.”

Concept of Pity and fear: The main object of tragedy is to create the feelings of pity and fear. In
tragedy the fall of hero creates the feelings of pity and fear. Aristotle knew it very well that if a
thoroughly gentleman or saint like figure is moves from prosperity to adversity, we take pity on
him but we don’t feel fear. It indicates that a saint like person can’t be a tragic hero. This concept
of tragic hero is rejected by George Bernard Shaw. He wrote play “Saint John” in which he has
violated various concepts of tragic hero propounded by Aristotle.
Contrary to this, Aristotle believed that a ruffian rascal or murderer cannot be a tragic hero. If a
murderer is moving from prosperity to adversity, we don’t take pity on him but we feel only fear.
This same philosophy is also refuted by many Renaissance playwrights. William Shakespeare
violated concept of pity in his play “Macbeth”.

An Ideal Tragic Hero: An intermediate sort of person:  The person who stands between
complete villainy and complete goodness according to Aristotle is the ideal tragic hero, he is a
man like us, yet he has a moral elevation.  He is more intense person, his feelings are deeper.
But he is essentially a human.  So, that it is easy for us to identify ourselves with him and
sympathize with him.
According to Aristotle the tragic hero must be like: “The tragic hero must be an intermediate
kind of personage, a man not pre-eminently virtuous and just, whose misfortune however, is
brought upon him not by vice and depravity; but by some error of judgment (Hamartia). He must
be one of those enjoying great reputation and prosperity.”
A good man—coming to bad end. (It’s shocking and disturbs faith) A bad man—coming to
good end. (Neither moving nor moral) A bad man coming to bad end. (Moral, but not moving) A
rather good man—coming to bad end. (An ideal situation to arouse pity and fear)
Hamartia has been interpreted variously. Bradley interpreted Hamartia as “tragic flaw”. Hamartia
is not a moral falling but some error of judgment. The entire tragedy should rise from this minor
flaw or error of judgment. Critics like, Butcher, Bywater, Rostangi and Lucas agree that
Hamartia is not a moral drawback.
Hamartia, arises in three ways: 1. Ignorance of some material fact or circumstances. 2. Hasty or
careless view of given situation. One example is Othello. In his case the error was avoidable but
he does not avoid it 3. Error may be voluntary, though not deliberate. This happens in an act of
anger or passion. Lear commits such an error when he banishes Cordelia.
Conclusion:

On the whole we see that Aristotle concept of the tragic hero is not unacceptable. In some ways he
has a limited vision. Tragedy is possible with saints, as G.B Shaw and Eliot have shown. But this is
not a generally found fact. Tragedy is also much possible with villainous hero, has been remarkably
shown by Renaissance dramatists, especially by Shakespeare. Nevertheless the views of Aristotle
cannot be completely ignored.Many dramatists have learned much from his conception.