Aristotle's Definition of Tragedy in the Poetics

Author(s): M. Pabst Battin

Source: The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 33, No. 3 (Spring, 1975), pp. 293-
302
Published by: Wiley on behalf of The American Society for Aesthetics
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/428355
Accessed: 19-01-2018 04:57 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

The American Society for Aesthetics, Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism

This content downloaded from 210.212.129.125 on Fri, 19 Jan 2018 04:57:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 M. PABST BATTIN

Aristotle's Definition of
in the Poetics

PART II definitions supplied by the tree read as fol-

lows, top to bottom:
THE FORMAL DEFINITION 1. "poetry-in-general" = df Those forms
of imitation which are?
OF TRAGEDY
2. "poetry-proper" = df those forms of
AT THIE BEGINNING of Chapter 6 (1449b24-
poetry-in-general which may use
28), Aristotle presents his formal
rhythm, definition
language, or harmony, singly
of tragedy. Careless commentators
or combined.have as-
sumed that this formal definition introduces 3. dithyrambic and nomic poetry, tragedy,
an entirely new topic; the more cautious and comedy (and epic) =df those forms
suspect that the formal definition of tragedy of poetry-proper which use all of the
is "somehow related" to the earlier distinc- three media.
tions made during the classification of poetry
4. tragedy and comedy (and epic) =df
in Chapters 1-3, but most are not quite sure those forms among dithyrambic and
how. Having traced the scheme according nomic poetry, tragedy and comedy (and
to which the classification has been made, epic) which use different means suc-
however, we are now in a position to see cessively.
precisely how the definition offered in Chap- 5. tragedy (and epic) =df those forms
ter 6 is related to the earlier chapters, and among tragedy, comedy (and epic)
how it "grows out of the previous classifica- which portray heroic men.
tion.
6. tragedy = df the one of tragedy and epic
One particular advantage of the tree dia- which is dramatized.
gram, as noted in the first part of this article
But while quite correct, the proper defini-
is that the definiens may be read off the tree
tion of tragedy-"the one of tragedy and epic
as the differentia specifica and the genus proximum
which is dramatized"-is not very informa-
for any species at any level in the entire tree. tive. Hence, Aristotle relies on an alternative
Thus, we may check the accuracy of our tree
procedure for obtaining a definition from a
by reading off from it the various definitions
series of distinctions, here represented by the
which it supplies, though this procedure is
predicate tree. What he obtains is a descriptive
made to seem cumbersome by the fact that
rather than a naming definition; let us see
class terms, or names of the genera and spe-
precisely how he composes it.
cies, have not always been provided. The
As we noted earlier, any species on a
M. Pabst Battin, of the Philosophy Department at
predicate tree may alternatively be defined
the University of California/Irvine, also writes not by using dzifferentia specifica and genus proxi-
fiction. mum, but by eliminating the proximate genus

This content downloaded from 210.212.129.125 on Fri, 19 Jan 2018 04:57:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 294 M. PABST BATTIN

and appending in its place all the differentiae mony, which uses them in succession, and
above that entry, in which case one "would which is dramatic."
not have left out anything, but would merely And indeed, this is just the way Aristotle
have mentioned the subordinate genus by an states his final, formal definition of tragedy
expression instead of by name" (Topics at the beginning of Chapter 6 (1449b24-28):
143a24-25). More precisely, one may define
SUTLY ovY rpazycSia ,ut 7LE 7rp^ews Trovsaias Kal
a species by using, instead of the proximate
TEXelas jfsyeFows iXoiwbs, r8vsw)iqv X6ycd xwpis eK4&E7Tr
genus and differentia specifica, all the differ- r6V el18v ' TOts pUoplots, 5p(vrwv Kal ob &' &rcrayyeXias,
entiae between that species and some genus ;' kXeov Kai cf,b3ov 2repaivovoa Tr,V rCa roi'vrcV
higher on the tree; such a definition will con- ra0O,Tuirv K&dapcflv.

sist of the remote genus and all the interven- Tragedy, then, is the imitation of an action that is
ing differentiae. In such definitions, the heroic, complete, and of a certain size, in language
embellished with all kinds of ornament, each used
higher genus serves grammatically as noun, separately in the different parts of the play, in
and the intervening differentiae as a string dramatic, not narrative form, and accomplishing
of adjectives modifying it. with pity and fear the catharsis of these emotions.
According to this alternative method of
Let me quote this definition again, italiciz-
definition, then, we should be able to define
ing the parts of which it is composed, and
tragedy not as "the one of tragedy and epic
giving in parentheses the number and name
which is dramatized," but in a phrase con-
of the various differentiae which these parts
sisting of the remote genus
record:
IMITATION "Tragedy, then, is the imitation [remote
genus] of an action [we shall presently conjec-
modified by all the differentiae below it on the
ture that his is (1), the unstated first differ-
tree:
entia] that is heroicl6 [this is (5), the differentia
1. ?
of object], complete and of a certain size [asso-
2. able to use rhythm, language, and har-
ciated with (1)], in language embellished with
mony
all kinds of ornament ["By 'language em-
3. uses all three of rhythm, language, and
bellished,' " he adds immediately below
harmony
(1449b28-29), "I mean that which has
4. successive
rhythm, harmony, and melody"; this covers
5. of heroic men
(2) and (3), the first two differentiae of
6. dramatic
means], each used separately in the diferent parts
Indeed, if the tree has been properly con-
of the play [i.e., successively; this is (4), the
structed, i.e., if that branch of the diaeresis
third differentia of means], in dramatic, not
which it records contains only essential
narrative form [(6) differentia of manner], and
predicates and contains all the essential
accomplishing with pity and fear the catharsis
predicates appropriate to its subject, then a
of these emotions."
phrase listing all the differentiae below a non-
But before we examine this formal defini-
proximate or remote genus is a complete and
tion in detail, let us be sure that Aristotle
perfectly accurate, if not compact, definition
has indeed drawn it systematically from his
of the bottommost species. Tragedy, thus,
diaeretic classification of poetry, one branch
may quite legitimately be defined as "an
of which we have represented with our pred-
imitation which 1) is?, 2) may use rhythm,
icate tree. To make clear that Aristotle is
language, and harmony, 3) which does use
quite purposefully using this systematic
all three of these media 4) in succession,
method of definition, let us examine the
which is 5) concerned with heroic men, and
sentence with which he introduces the defi-
is 6) dramatic." Now once the diaeresis has
nition:
been made and the differentiae taken up
from it, there is no reason why one cannot xrepl 8k Tpacy0clas Xyw@Crev avaa3ovres (Vahlen:
troXaf836vtres) airnys ec rCv elp7vfiCwv XV T&VFeOV
shuffle their order; an equally legitimate
opov T7iS obwvas (1449b22-24).
statement of the definition would be: "an
which Bywater has rendered as
imitation of heroic men which is ?, which can
and does use rhythm, language, and har- Let us proceed now to the discussion of Tragedy;

This content downloaded from 210.212.129.125 on Fri, 19 Jan 2018 04:57:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Aristotle's Definition of Tragedy in the Poetics 295

before doing so, however, we must gather up the less derogatory term, such as "systemati-
definition resulting from what has been said. cally"-out of phrases previously employed.
Aristotle's formal definition of tragedy is nothing
Aristotle is talking methodology here: he is re-
other than a systematic listing of the highest genus
ferring to the technique, which he has de- and all the differentiae from one branch of his
scribed in the Posterior Analytics and the
diaeretic classification of poetry. The order of the
Topics, of formulating a definition by "draw-
differentiae is slightly changed, but this of
ing it up from" a diaeretic classification. course has no effect upon the accuracy of the
Else, protesting the usual construal of rTv definition.
LV6.?EvOV OpoV TjS ov3itas as dependent on (K Of course there is nothing novel or pecu-
rGv eiprnM,vwv, translates this sentence: liarly Aristotelian about this method of
"gathering up" a definition from a series of
Let us now discuss tragedy, picking out of what
has been said the definition of its essential nature distinctions: as we noted earlier, the theory
that was emerging in the course of its develop- Aristotle expounds in the Posterior Analytics
ment. and Topics is really just a codification of
techniques used by Plato and the Academy.
"Definitions do not grow out of things We noted a conspicuous example in the
said," 17 Else insists; he says that the allusion Sophist, where definitions first of the angler
is to that process of historical and psycho- (221B) and, on the same model, the sophist
genetic development outlined in Chapters 4 (268C), are "taken up" from a series of dis-
and 5. While Else's thesis is original, I do not tinctions, and many more in the Politicus.
think it is right: definitions do grow out ofClearly, Aristotle's procedure for producing
what has been said, in a way in which we are definitions by division is Platonic in both
about to witness. Else perhaps senses that the theory and practice. The definition of tragedy
historical-psychogenic account Aristotle gives in the Poetics is constructed in this long-
does have something to do with the definitionfamiliar and thoroughly systematic way.l9
of tragedy, and in that he is right, but he But that is not quite the end of the matter.
does not see that the historical-psychogenic Aristotle has indeed used this familiar tech-
account is itself merely a reflection, or better, nique of definition, yes, but has he used it
an application, of a carefully systematic accurately?
classification. "It is a matter of ideas, not The answer is no. If a formal definition is
words," Else insists, "Aristotle's definition is
accurately "taken up" from a classification,
not assembled mechanically out of phrasesit will contain all and only those parts-the
previously employed ...." 18 Certainly it isremote
a genus, and all the intervening differ-
matter of ideas, not words; Aristotle has in-entiae-set forth in the classification. But the
deed rephrased certain concepts, as we shall formal definition of tragedy Aristotle offers
see, in the final, formal definition. But the does not quite conform to the classification of
definition is in fact assembled-"mechan- poetry upon which it is based. Let us look at
ically," if we must use that word, but we the formal definition again; here I separate
should prefer to substitute an equivalent but its parts for perspicacity (see below).
1. tragedy =df 1. "Tragedy, then is
2. remote genus: imitation 2. the imitation of

3. ? 3. an action that is

4. 5th differentia; portrays heroic men 4. heroic,

5. ? 5. complete, and of a certain size,
6. 2nd and 3rd differentiae: can and does use all 6. in language embellished with all kinds of orna-
of language, rhythm, and harmony ment

7. 4th differentia: uses rhythm, language, and 7. each used separately in the different parts of
harmony successively the play,
8. 6th differentia: dramatizes 8. in dramatic, not narrative form,
9. ? 9. and accomplishing with pity and fear the ca-
tharsis of these emotions."

This content downloaded from 210.212.129.125 on Fri, 19 Jan 2018 04:57:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 296 M. PABST BATTIN

We see that this definition is indeed com- culty: since poetry-in-general

posed of all those differentiae we have iso- of imitations which does imitate human or
lated in the previous chapters, modifying the godly action, Aristotle will on this account
highest genus, but that it includes in addition be claiming that painting, sculpture, flute
three phrases not based on distinctions made and lyre music, shepherd's pipes, and dancing
during the classification: the statements that all imitate such action. Do we really want to
tragedy imitates action, that those actions are say that, for instance, flute music "imitates
complete and of a certain size, and that the action"? Perhaps, however, this difficulty will
incidents of tragedy arouse pity and fear for trouble only us moderns, accustomed as we
the purpose of catharsis. are to nonprogrammatic or abstract music
The first two of these, I think, will supply and art; we must remind ourselves that
us with the differentia missing from the first music, painting,23 and dances in classical
step of the predicate tree. Of course, recon- times were thought to represent, in some more
struction of an incomplete text is at best or less direct way, the actions of mortals or
gods. Of course the Greeks depicted animals;
precarious, and perhaps in most cases point-
less. But if we remember that Aristotle has but those animals were always portrayed in
produced his definition in a systematic way, connection with the activities of men or gods,
we may be impressed with the possibility orof
were themselves anthropomorphized (as
reconstructing the missing differentia, and in weAesop's fables). Landscapes and still lives,
may be convinced that certain kinds of in- except as backgrounds for the deeds of men
ternal evidence will allow us to do so. or gods, were virtually unknown. A school of
We find evidence of the missing differentia geometric vase-painting had flourished from
in the very first phrase of the formal defini- the end of the tenth century to the last quarter
tion, where it asserts that tragedy imitates of the eighth, but by Aristotle's time wholly
ipatfs, action.20 We find several later restate- nonrepresentational art had become rare.
ments of this portion of the definition: for Indeed, Ferguson suggests that the reason
example, at 1449b36 Aristotle says that Aristotle does not discuss this claim at all is
"tragedy is the imitation of an action," and that "it was a commonplace, in his time, that
at 1450al6-17 he claims that "tragedy is an the arts all (in some sense) imitate action." 24
imitation, not of men, but of an action and No doubt the reader can think of exceptions
of life." While these two assertions, as well as to these claims, but the point is that they are
that in the formal definition itself, appear to exceptions; generally, classical art and litera-
apply only to tragedy and not necessarily to ture were understood to represent human or
poetry as a whole, what we have here, I godly action.
think, are statements of the consequences for What is curious about the differentia "of
tragedy of some broader view: namely, that action" is not that it is included in the formal
all poetic imitation is imitation of action. definition, but rather that any discussion of
While we find no outright claim in the Poetics it is missing from the previous text. Indeed,
that all poetry is imitative of action,2' it is we should expect to find some assertion that
clear that Aristotle does hold that at least those items under discussion are imitations
some other forms of poetry also imitate ac-of action as early as the second sentence of the
tion: for instance, at 1459a17-20 he says text, say at 1447al3-16. But what do we find
here?-nothing other than Aristotle's clever
that epic, like tragedy, should imitate a single
action. Of course, we cannot consider this maneuver of listing representative forms of
evidence for the missing differentia conclu-poetry (epic, tragedy, comedy, dithyramb,
and music of the flute and lyre), which, we
sive, but I do find it persuasive; and I think
we can on this basis surmise that the missingsaw earlier, enabled him to avoid both nam-
differentia is "of action." 22 ing the genus under consideration and specify-
ing its precise extension. Now we can appre-
If this is right, then the genus of imitations
is to be bifurcated into two groups: those ciate a third accomplishment of this device:
which imitate human or godly action (i.e., since he does not merely name the subordi-
poetic imitations), and those which do not. nate species to the genus imitation, but rather
cites examples of forms that comprise poetry-
But this presents us with a considerable diffi-

This content downloaded from 210.212.129.125 on Fri, 19 Jan 2018 04:57:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Aristotle's Definition of Tragedy in the Poetics 297

in-general, Aristotle also avoids explicitly the formal definition in the Poetics consists in
claiming that all poetic works are imitative just this sort of cashing-out or expanding
of action. In this way he avoids both the predicates of the definition, though at much
possibly troublesome business of defining,greater
at length.
that point, just what he means by "action,"Now that we have reconstructed the differ-
and possible objections that some particular entia missing from the first step of the diaere-
piece of poetry-say, a geometric vase-paint- sis, we can also supply the proper concise
ing or a sequence of lyre music-does not definition, per genus proximum et diffJerentia
imitate action. We've just seen the kinds of speciJica, for poetry-in-general: poetry-in-
difficulties to which the claim that all poetry general is (the class of) imitations of (human
imitates human or godly action leads, and or godly) action. Note that this definition
while one might not wish to be so irreverentsatisfies the requirement that the definiens be
as to suggest that Aristotle-or some well- given in two terms or phrases.
meaning student of his-tried to conceal these We can now redraw the first step of the
difficulties, the fact remains that the explicitpredicate tree:
claim is conspicuously absent. Nevertheless,
imitations
of course, this claim is presupposed in the
1. unstated
later discussions of tragedy; it is, as we shall
find Solmsen saying,25 the foundation of the differentia
portions on pi6os.
Now if a poetic work imitates action, Aris-
totle holds, it will be complete or unified;
this is so because "the imitation is one when
the object imitated is one" (1451a30-32),26
and the kinds of action portrayed by poetry
are actions that are "in our sense of the word"
one. He explains in some detail what it means actions
for a poetic work to be "one," that is, unified poetry-in-general
and complete: it will have a nonarbitrary
beginning, middle, and end (1450b25-35), and produce a final version of the complete
and it will be of a certain magnitude-it will tree. (See the following page).
be, so to speak, medium-sized (1450b35- The second departure of the formal defini-
1451al4), and of a length appropriate to the tion from the classification on which basis it
action imitated. Of course some forms of is constructed is the famous phrase that
poetry-for example, epic-imitate more tragedy contains incidents arousing pity and
than one action (so also, Aristotle says at fear, with which to accomplish catharsis of
1456al5-18, do some unsuccessful tragedies),these emotions. Over this last qualification
but all forms of poetry imitate some action have been performed perhaps more scholarly
and, consequently, are complete or unified gyrations than over any other single line of
to some degree and are of some magnitude the Poetics, and indeed the notion of tragedy
as catharsis, whether understood as purga-
or other. Being complete or unified and hav-
ing a length are inseparable from imitatingtion, purification, or clarification, is an in-
teresting and illuminable one, particularly
action, and the mention in the formal defini-
tion that the actions imitated are complete when contrasted with Plato's views on the
and of some length is just an expanded way value and desirability of the literary arts.
of saying that they are actions. This expansionBut it has quite a curious status here: it is
of the predicate "of action" does not violatenot obtained in the way prescribed by Aris-
Aristotle's injunction against redundancy, we totle's explicit theory of definition by divi-
may suppose on the basis of a similar case hesion, although it does appear in the formal
argues at Topics 140b33-141a2, because while definition constructed by this method. The
the same concept is "uttered twice" in de- notion of catharsis, it seems, is simply added,
scribing something, it is predicated of its sub-without any prior justification.
ject only once. A good deal of what follows This is no minor point. Although we have

This content downloaded from 210.212.129.125 on Fri, 19 Jan 2018 04:57:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 imitations
unstated
1. differentia

C,
CM
-?) \
/ t rQ \
/ H- ' ' imitations
not of actions

poetry-in-general
2. first differentia
of means

poetry-proper

mimes of Sophron and Xenarchus

Socratic dialogues
flute and lyre music
shepherd's pipes
dancing

4. third differentia
of means

dithyrambic and
nomic poetry

5. differentia of
object

comedy
comedy

tragedy [epic]
6. differentia
of manner

epic

tragedy

This content downloaded from 210.212.129.125 on Fri, 19 Jan 2018 04:57:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Aristotle's Definition of Tragedy in the Poetics 299

tried to account for the extra claim that the than a passing observation, or an explanatory
action portrayed is of limited size and com- expansion.
plete in itself as the statement of a differentia Of the commentators, some few have noted
overlooked or presupposed in the original that the theory of catharsis is not a part of
classification, we cannot so easily dispose of the original classification. Allan, for instance,
the clause concerning catharsis. Having al- says of the clause concerning pity and fear:
ready supplied the only missing differentia,
. . . whether this is really part of the definition is
we know that the predicate tree is complete, somewhat uncertain . . . Perhaps Aristotle thought
since its bottommost form, tragedy, stands that without this addition tragedy was not yet
alone, in a class by itself. And since the tree is sufficiently marked off from comedy .. .27
understood to consist of differentiae which
But one does not simply "think tragedy is not
are essential predicates, we know that each of
yet sufficiently marked off from comedy" if
these predicates is a necessary part of the
one has been constructing a rigorous and
complete definition, and cannot be omitted
methodical definition. One differentia is all
or replaced. If the classification of poetry has
that is necessary to mark tragedy off from
been accurately made, then, a listing of the
comedy, and Aristotle has already provided
differentiae from that branch which termi-
it: tragedy imitates heroic men, men of higher
nates in tragedy is sufficient-according to the
type, while comedy chooses inferior objects.
theory Aristotle puts forth in the Posterior
That differentia alone should be quite suffi-
Analytics and the Topics-for an accurate, cient to discriminate between the two.
essential definition. We have seen that Aris-
Solmsen sees clearly that there is some dis-
totle proceeds in a systematic way to construct
crepancy between the formal definition of
a definition of tragedy, but now we note that
tragedy and the classificatory considerations
when he has finally completed his classifica-
which lead up to it. He says:
tion and is able to simply read off the differ-
entiae which are predicable of tragedy, which Both reXcLOV and-to a still greater extent-oXov
are the foundation of the following treatise on ,4vOos.
ought thus to form an essential definition of
They pretend to be elements of the definition,
tragedy, he adds something: the tag about which for its own part claims to be the outcome
catharsis of pity and fear. of the preceding differentiation of the ,uryo-aers but
We might wish to claim that the clause they are actually neither deduced from nor led up
concerning catharsis is simply a bit of addi- to in I-V, and the one of them that crept into the
definition did so not because of but in spite of
tional description, much as, at the end of
the assertion that the definition was a&eiXtre^v, eK
Chapter 5, tragedy and epic were said to
lrv Tporkpcv.28
differ not only in the essential respect of
Slightly later, he says:
dramatization, but additionally insofar as
tragedy confines itself within a single circuit Nearly the same is true with regard to the KaOapcns
of the sun. But if the clause concerning pity TrcL0rOfLTuwv and the whole theory of TraOrSara.
Chaps. XIII and XIV are based upon the convic-
and fear were simply a bit of additional de- tion that tragedy has to be a j4ijrnUos 4fof3epc.v Ka2
scription, it would not be an essential char- kX\eeiLvv. Aristotle here tries to develop the conse-
acteristic of tragedy, and would not be part quences implied in this fundamental conviction.
of the formal definition. After all, the mere But this conviction itself is nowhere actually de-
duced nor in any way proved. The definition of
observation that tragedy confines itself to a
tragedy finished at 1449b27 in vl' iXeov Kal d60ou
single circuit of the sun finds no place in the 7repalvovaa rcLv TWV TOLOVTWrV ira.Opa4rwv KaIdapafv but
formal definition, so why should a similarly that results eK rw,v fdpri'evov as little as 7rpateos
incidental observation that it causes pity and reXLtas Kai 6X75129

fear be included? Nor can the catharsis clause

Solmsen is quite right about all of this, but
be understood as a simple expansion or he does not go far enough. He sees that the
cashing-out of some essential term properly clauses on completeness and unity and on
part of the definition, for of what term in the
catharsis are not "gathered up from what has
definition could the notion of catharsis pos- been said," but I do not think he fully appre-
sibly be an expansion? Clearly, the catharsis ciates the rigor of the method by which they
clause represents to Aristotle something more were to have been gathered up. He does not

This content downloaded from 210.212.129.125 on Fri, 19 Jan 2018 04:57:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 300 M. PABST BATTIN

see, in other words, the continuity from the But Hardison offers what he thinks is a
&aipEaLs tLuti4roTv through to the definition of solution to this problem: he finds anticipa-
tragedy. To put it another way, he does not tions of the catharsis clause after all in the
see that the definition is obtained "mechan- early chapters of the Poetics. He says:
ically" from a continued branch of the diae-
Aristotle has not discussed the function of tragedy
retic classification. And because he does not previously, but he has discussed the function of
feel the rigor of the method by which the imitative art in general. At the beginning of Chap-
definition is constructed, he cannot fully ter IV, he asserts that imitative art produces
pleasure. . . "Pleasure" emerges as the fourth
appreciate the fact that the predicates pro-
basic element of imitative art, comparable to the
posed as differentiae are to be understood as Aristotelian final cause. Since Aristotle's formal
essential predicates, and that the list of them definition of tragedy in Chapter VI incorporates
obtained from the classification was to have the first three basic elements (means, object,
been exhaustive. Though he sees clearly that manner), we would expect him to incorporate the
fourth one also. He evidently does this in the
the clause concerning fear and pity is simply catharsis clause. Catharsis should therefore be
tacked on to the end of the definition, and in understood as the tragic variety of the pleasure
so doing comes very close to understanding associated with imitation in general, and equated
the structure of the beginning of the Poetics, with the function (ergon) of tragedy mentioned at
he does not appreciate just how odd this fact the beginning of Chapter XIII.31
is. In an essential definition, there can no
An interesting speculation, and one which
more be superfluities than omissions; indeed,
I think is right, at least insofar as it holds
Aristotle says in the Topics (155alO), "if that the clause concerning catharsis serves in
something in the description does not belong, the definition to state the function of tragedy,
the definition is demolished." Something is its final cause. But while Hardison does find
very wrong, it seems, with the definition, withanticipations of the catharsis clause in the
the classification, or perhaps with the method early chapters, we must notice-this is of
of drawing up a definition from a classifica-crucial importance-that the preliminary re-
tion.
marks he cites are not part of the diaeresis
Hardison comes just as close to seeing what mimeseon, but rather serve to introduce the
is peculiar about the definition, though he too historical-psychogenic account of poetry. In-
fails to see that it is a systematic construc- deed, it cannot be the case that there are an-
tion according to a prescribed procedure. ticipations of the catharsis clause in the di-
Hardison writes:
aeresis itself, because we found that only one
differentia was missing from the classification,
"The most important hint that Aristotle gives re-
garding how the [catharsis] clause should be in- and have already reconstructed it from the
terpreted is his statement that his definitionother of apparently superfluous part of the defi-
tragedy is based on "...what we have already
nition, the clause on actions having size and
said" (I.4). If we take this statement seriously, we
must begin our analysis with comments found incompleteness. No other differentiae are miss-
Chapters I-V. If we can find no relevant com- ing from the classification; we know this is so
ments, we will be forced to conclude that catharsisbecause (at least in Aristotle's opinion) the
is not inherent in the broad theory of literature
branch of the classification we are considering
already developed. Because catharsis is generally
considered a central Aristotelian idea, this would is effective: it terminates in a class containing
represent a serious defect in method. Catharsisjust one kind of item, namely tragedy. Were
would have to be considered an afterthought-a some differentia still missing, the last term-
key idea that is not implicit in what has gone be-
and here we cite his account of definition by
fore." 80
division in the Posterior Analytics-"would be
"A serious defect in method": I think divisible into species" (97b6), which "tragedy"
Hardison is exactly right about this. When is we
not. Hence the catharsis clause cannot be
compare the formal definition to the classifi-the statement of a missing or suppressed
just
differentia from the diaeresis, because no
cation on the basis of which it is formulated,
other differentia is missing. The clause on
we find that the notion of catharsis does seem
pity
to be an "afterthought," since it appears no-and fear cannot have been part of the
where in the classification. classification, for the classification is effective

This content downloaded from 210.212.129.125 on Fri, 19 Jan 2018 04:57:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Aristotle's Definition of Tragedy in the Poetics 301

and complete without it. The notion of But his admission that the definition pro-
catharsis is demonstrably "extra," but that duced by the diaeretic method is inadequate
does not mean it is merely an afterthought. is itself crucial. Having inherited from the
Academy a method which was unable to
CONCLUSION supply a definition he thought correct, Aris-
totle was faced with a choice: he could doubt
The preceding evidence does not, of course,
his intuitions about the correctness of the
in any way belittle the importance of catharsis
definition, or reject the method he had in-
in Aristotle's conception of tragedy. Quite
herited. He honors his intuitions and rejects
the contrary: the fact that he was willing, so
the method of his teachers. I suspect that the
to speak, to spoil an otherwise perfectly
early books of the Poetics mark a critical
straightforward and rigorous definition to
point in Aristotle's transition from pupil of
include the notion of catharsis suggests that
Plato to philosopher in his own right.32
he accorded it more than ordinary impor-
tance, and surely considered it a central fea-
ture of tragedy. Though of course the evi-
dence I have presented here does not take 16 I have translated oirovaiadS, following Fyfe, as
sides in the debate, I suppose, somewhat "heroic" and not as the more commonly used
"serious." Zrovsaias is used in the original distinc-
apologetically, that this demonstration that
tion between tragedy and comedy at 1448a2, where
the status of catharsis clause is unique can men are said to be either crrovbalovs or faviXous, of
only add fuel to the already overlong debate higher, more heroic, or inferior type, and thus sub-
on whether catharsis is to be understood as jects for tragedy or comedy.
17 Op. cit., p. 222.
purgation, purification, or clarification. Were
18 Ibid., p. 224.
that the only purpose of this paper, I should
" Solmsen (op. cit., p. 196) says that "there are
perhaps have thought better of it. But I even
havesome hints in Plato's dialogues that the Academy
another purpose in mind. had worked out amongst other 65aipfiseis also some
I would like to suggest that what we have LaipiOeLs ML/^oecrOas," and cites as references Sophist
witnessed here-Aristotle's formulation and 235C ff, 267A ff; Cratylus 423 ff; and Republic III,
392D f.
use of the method of division to produce a 20o IIpas includes the action of both mortals and
definition, and his subsequent discovery that gods, but not (as in English) that of natural physical
that method did not produce a completely processes, as suggested in "glacial action formed
cirques in the higher mountains." It is widely agreed
satisfactory definition, is one of the instances
that led him in his later work to revise and by commentators on the Poetics that -n-pais does not
refer simply to deeds or behavior, but also to the mo-
in part reject the Platonic method for con- tivation that results in deeds. S. H. Butcher, in his
structing definitions. Using the Platonic Aristotle's Theory of Poetry and Fine Art (New York:
method, Aristotle constructed a definition of 1951, p. 335), for instance, speaks of 7rpa^is as "that
kind of action which, while springing from the in-
tragedy which failed to account for what he
ward power of will, manifests itself in external do-
considered an essential feature: its final cause,
ing." Of course, the exact interpretation we give to
the catharsis of pity and fear. He has tried 1rpatLs
to makes no difference to our case that it is the
patch up the account in the Poetics, of course,
missing differentia.
but it is obvious that the definition is patched.21 At 1451b28-29 Aristotle appears to make the
general claim that all poetry imitates action; the
He has been constructing a definition which
poet, he says, "is a poet because he imitates, and what
was to be essential-which was to be based he imitates are actions," but it is likely that he is
on all those essential predicates germane to here using "poet" to refer only to the tragedian.
the subject, and only on essential predicates- 22 One might also claim, as I mentioned when we
and what happens? It is somehow incomplete considered the initial step of the tree (see fn. 8, Pt.
I), that "imitation" is the differentia, and that it is
or imperfect, and he must tack a further the genus under which poetry-in-general falls that is
qualification on the end of it. All the syste- omitted. Were this so, a likely guess (it's Charles
matic, constructive effort of the first three Young's) at the genus might be rkeXvr; the full con-
chapters of the Poetics leads to a definition cise definition, then, would run "poetry-in-general
is (the) imitative art." TkX*V, we might argue, follow-
which Aristotle finds in the end unsatisfac-
ing John Lyons' Structural Semantics (Publications of
tory, and he admits its inadequacy by adding the Philological Society XX, Oxford: 1969; see Part
a rider before he presents it. II, esp. Ch. VII), is freqently "understood" in certain

This content downloaded from 210.212.129.125 on Fri, 19 Jan 2018 04:57:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 302 M. PABST BATTIN

kinds of contexts, and the opening passage of the what terms appear in the very highest levels of the
Poetics is just this kind of context. Of course, Lyons definitional tree for tragedy have no bearing on the
is working with Plato, not Aristotle, but since Aris- formal definition given in the Poetics. To produce a
totle is using in the early portions of the Poetics a definition by the method of gathering up predicates
classification that is clearly Platonic, much of what from a tree one assembles predicates lower than some
Lyons says may well be supposed to apply to Aris- upper genus, but this genus need not be the highest
totle's work too. On Lyons' account, occupation genus. In the list on p. 293, for instance, the
forms in -uio may be used indifferently with or with- concise proper definitions given for the lower parts
out rx-yo. When rkXwYz is supplied, an -LKi form of the tree do not contain terms (differentiae or
func-
tions as a feminine adjective; when Trex is omitted, genera) appearing higher in the tree, though Aris-
it serves as a noun. Because of this, one can plausibly totle might well claim that such a definition is not
hold that when Aristotle announces at the beginning altogether clear unless one can supply more famniliar
of the Poetics that he plans to speak irepp 7rorrTK7s predicates which have appeared higher in the tree
acris, his statement is equivalent to announcing that (see e.g. Topics 1416). He might even claim (though
he will speak repi T7)s troLr?/17cs rkEX^zS. This may well this is mere conjecture) that even the formal defi-
be the case, but it is not grounds for concluding that nition for tragedy given in the Poetics cannot be
the missing term is irexvt. Were we to make that entirely clear to us, since we do not know what
assumption, we would have two further problems in terms (such as rkxV) would appear at the very
accounting for the divergence of the formal definition highest levels of its definitional tree, and do not even
from the classification. First, we would have to ex- know under which Category it falls. However, the
plain why iXwyi7 is omitted from the formal definition, possibility that the definition is not fully clear to us
since the grammar of that definition is such that itin no way affects its accuracy as given.
cannot be simply understood. It is true that rexvn 23At 1450bl, Aristotle appears to argue that the
might be used to pick up or replace ^.juioois, but wefact that a chalk outline of a portrait gives more
cannot hold that 4lM-as is actually an adjective pleasure than "beautiful colors laid on confusedly"
modifying rkx7vn which happens to function as a shows that painting is properly representational of
noun when r7kvo is omitted: UtI.i7aLs is always a noun action and the agents of action. Contemporary critics
and doesn't modify anything, explicit or otherwise. would, no doubt, dispute both the fact and its inter-
We have no grounds for claiming, then, that TkXvP ispretation. See Hermann Abert Die Lehre vom Ethos
in some way "understood" in the passage in the in der Griechischen Musik (Leipzig, 1899), for a full
formal definition, though it may well be "under- account of the way in which music was thought to
stood" in the opening sentence of the Poetics. Hence, represent human character and action.
if TkXvr were intended as part of the formal defini- 24 Francis Ferguson, Introductory essay in Aristotle's
tion, it would have to be stated explicitly. Secondly, Poetics, trans. S. H. Butcher (New York, 1961), p. 4.
we would have no way to explain the mention of "8 I will quote this passage later on; see p. 299.
action in the formal definition. Yet we cannot simply 26Notice that Aristotle makes it perfectly clear
say that the clause on action too, like the clause on here that this claim applies not only to tragedy or
catharsis, is an added afterthought, because the epic but to all forms of poetry.
clause on action, unlike that on catharsis, appears 27D. J. Allan, The Poetics of Aristotle (London,
early in any definition and is well embedded in its 1970), p. 149.
phrasing. Although I argue that it is not the genus 2 Op. cit., p. 197.
which is missing, and that imitation is not the differ- 29Ibid.,p. 197.
entia of any missing genus rTXVt1, I do not thereby80 O. B. Hardison, Jr. Commentary on Aristotle's
wish to claim that poetic imitation cannot be counted Poetics, trans. Leon Golden (Englewood Cliffs, 1968),
among the rxXvat. Presumably, the predicate treepp. 114-115.
extends upward so that its summum genus is one of 81 Ibid., p. 115.
the Categories; hence, while I do not think reXYvf2 This speculation of course requires that the
serves as genus in that portion of the tree we are first chapters of the Poetics be dated much earlier
considering, it is quite possible that it serves as genus than is commonly supposed. Solmsen (op. cit., p. 201)
at the next (or some still higher) level above our claims that both the classification and the definition
portion of the tree. In the Poetics, at least, Aristotleof tragedy belong "to the earlier stratum," in contra-
gives us no clues as to how we might reconstruct thedistinction to later additions. I have claimed here
uppermost levels of the tree, but it is not at all im- that the classification is still earlier than the defini-
plausible to suggest that reXTvr serves as genus at sometion; perhaps, indeed, the diaeresis dates from Aris-
level between imitation and the uppermost Category. totle's days in the Academy, or was adopted from
It is important to understand, however, that just some source there.

This content downloaded from 210.212.129.125 on Fri, 19 Jan 2018 04:57:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms