A Study of Aristotelian tragedy in Oedipus Essay

A Study of Aristotelic tragedy in Oedipus - Essay ExampleOne of Aristotles most influential works concerning literary theory is his Poetics. In it he articulates with eloquence and clarity various facets of good theatre. Tragedy is acknowledged as a powerful genre of drama. Aristotle goes on to set out various rules of thumb for making aesthetically and emotionally satisfying tragedies. His concise definition of tragedy is that it is an imitation of an action that is serious ... with incidents arousing pity and fear, in order to accomplish the catharsis of such emotions. (Botton 20) He was in opposition to Platos critical and knock view of theater. Plato had earlier set the debate rolling in The Republic, stating that poets and other artists should be banned from obliging society because they induced excessive emotional responses in audiences which countered calm reasoning. Aristotle rebutted this assertion in Poetics, stating that although watching tragedies increase emotions , it also purged them. An audience would come away from Oedipus humbled, keen to be better and wiser. (Botton 20)In many ways, Oedipus satisfies the Aristotelian conception of the tragic hero. For example, the tragic hero is someone who feels responsible for his actions and is conscious of ethical merits and demerits associated with them. In Sophocles Oedipus, we let out that the author does not contemplate either the acknowledgement of guilt or the blinding. Instead, awargonness and blinding provide be present in Aeschylus because his Oedipus must not see both what he suffered and the bad he did. According to the author, the individual responsibility celebrated by tragedy is the expression of a people who do not tell history any more, but are aware of making it a dish up that Plato could not-or did not want to-recognize, claiming to read tragedy homogeneous the continuation of old myths and of old stories, rather than like a new way to tell them again, to involve oneself and t o involve us with them in a dissimilar way. ... ould not-or did not want to-recognize, claiming to read tragedy like the continuation of old myths and of old stories, rather than like a new way to tell them again, to involve oneself and to involve us with them in a disparate way. (Goretti 1305) What we also witness in Oedipus is a dimension of the tragic hero engaged in praxis. In Aristotles conception of tragedy there is an underlying conflict between absolute necessity and granting immunity. This is amply evident in crucial life events of Oedipus, who, as the story progresses, is compelled to implement his let demise. For Aristotle, tragedy allows Greeks to bear the unbearable contradiction that for thought would remain incomprehensible the attestation, even in the loss of freedom, of this resembling freedom. (Goretti 1306)Though we do not find direct mention of concepts such as will and responsibility in the Poetics, when Aristotle must indicate the ones who act the tragic a ction, for him hoi prattonese is not sufficient, but he adds kai drontes. The worry of freedom involves the problem of evil the evil one does, the evil one suffers or the evil that is anyway committed. (Goretti 1306) In the depicted object of Oedipus, he is clearly aware of how evil forces are acting upon his life some of which is caused by his own agency. To the coryphaeus who questions him on what a horrible action he has committed and on which god has induced him, Oedipus answers, It was Apollo, and then, a little afterwards, It was me, miserable, who did it. (Jones 45) According to Aristotle, a sense of foreboding and inevitability makes for effective tragedy. Throughout the story, there are numerous crucial decisions taken by Oedipus, which led up to his inevitable demise. Oedipus is not himself