Editing Tragedy (section)

==Theories==
Defining tragedy is no simple matter, and there are many definitions, some of which are incompatible with each other. Oscar Mandel, in ''A Definition of Tragedy'' (1961), contrasted two essentially different means of arriving at a definition. First is what he calls the ''derivative'' way, in which the tragedy is thought to be an expression of an ordering of the world; "instead of asking what tragedy expresses, the derivative definition tends to ask what expresses itself through tragedy". The second is the ''substantive'' way of defining tragedy, which starts with the work of art which is assumed to ''contain'' the ordering of the world. Substantive critics "are interested in the constituent elements of art, rather than its ontological sources". He recognizes four subclasses: a. "definition by formal elements" (for instance the supposed "three unities"); b. "definition by situation" (where one defines tragedy for instance as "exhibiting the fall of a good man"); c. "definition by ethical direction" (where the critic is concerned with the meaning, with the "intellectual and moral effect); and d. "definition by emotional effect" (and he cites Aristotle's "requirement of pity and fear").<ref>{{Cite book |last=Mandel |first=Oscar |url=https://archive.org/details/definitionoftrag00mand |title=A Definition of Tragedy |publisher=New York University Press |year=1961 |location=New York |pages=[https://archive.org/details/definitionoftrag00mand/page/10 10–11] |url-access=registration}}</ref>

===Aristotle===
{{further|Poetics (Aristotle)}}

[[Aristotle]] wrote in his work [[Poetics (Aristotle)|''Poetics'']] that
tragedy is characterised by seriousness and involves a great person who experiences a reversal of [[luck|fortune]] (''[[Peripeteia]]''). Aristotle's [[definition]] can include a change of fortune from bad to good as in the ''[[The Eumenides|Eumenides]]'', but he says that the change from good to bad as in ''[[Oedipus Rex]]'' is preferable because this induces [[pity]] and [[fear]] within the spectators. Tragedy results in a [[catharsis]] (emotional cleansing) or healing for the audience through their experience of these emotions in response to the suffering of the characters in the drama.

According to Aristotle, "the structure of the best tragedy should not be simple but complex and one that represents incidents arousing [[fear]] and [[pity]]—for that is peculiar to this form of art."{{sfn|Aristotle|1932|loc=Section 1452b}} This reversal of fortune must be caused by the tragic hero's ''[[hamartia]]'', which is often translated as either a [[character flaw]], or as a mistake (since the original Greek etymology traces back to ''hamartanein'', a sporting term that refers to an [[archery|archer]] or [[spear]]-thrower missing his target).<ref>{{Cite book |last=Rorty |first=Amelie Oksenberg |title=Essays on Aristotle's Poetics |publisher=Princeton University Press |year=1992 |page=178}}</ref> According to Aristotle, "The misfortune is brought about not by [general] vice or depravity, but by some [particular] error or frailty."<ref>''Poetics'', Aristotle</ref>{{Nonspecific|date=September 2022}} The reversal is the inevitable but unforeseen result of some action taken by the hero. It is also a misconception that this reversal can be brought about by a higher power (e.g. the law, the gods, [[destiny|fate]], or society), but if a character's downfall is brought about by an external cause, Aristotle describes this as a [[Accident|misadventure]] and not a tragedy.{{sfn|Aristotle|1932|loc=Section 1135b}}

In addition, the tragic hero may achieve some revelation or recognition ([[anagnorisis]]—"knowing again" or "knowing back" or "knowing throughout") about human fate, destiny, and the will of the gods. Aristotle terms this sort of recognition "a change from ignorance to awareness of a bond of love or hate."

In ''Poetics'', Aristotle gave the following definition in [[ancient Greek]] of the word "tragedy" (τραγῳδία):{{sfn|Aristotle|1932|loc=Section 1449b}}

{{blockquote|Tragedy is an imitation of an action that is admirable, complete (composed of an introduction, a middle part and an ending), and possesses magnitude; in language made pleasurable, each of its species separated in different parts; performed by actors, not through narration; effecting through pity and fear the purification of such emotions.}}

Common usage of tragedy refers to any story with a sad ending, whereas to be an [[Aristotelianism|Aristotelian]] tragedy the [[narrative|story]] must fit the set of requirements as laid out by ''Poetics''. By this definition social drama cannot be tragic because the hero in it is a victim of circumstance and incidents that depend upon the society in which he lives and not upon the inner compulsions—psychological or religious—which determine his progress towards self-knowledge and death.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Chiari |first=J. |title=Landmarks of Contemporary Drama |publisher=[[Jenkins (publisher)|Jenkins]] |year=1965 |location=London |page=41}}</ref> Exactly what constitutes a "tragedy", however, is a frequently debated matter.

According to Aristotle, there are four species of tragedy:

# Complex, which involves [[Peripety]] and [[Discovery (fiction)|Discovery]]
# Suffering, tragedies of such nature can be seen in the Greek mythological stories of Ajaxes and Ixions
# Character, a tragedy of moral or ethical character. Tragedies of this nature can be found in Phthiotides and [[Peleus]]
# Spectacle, that of a horror-like theme. Examples of this nature are [[Graeae|Phorcides]] and [[Prometheus]]

===Hegel===
[[G.W.F. Hegel]], the German philosopher most famous for his dialectical approach to [[epistemology]] and history, also applied such a methodology to his theory of tragedy. In his essay "Hegel's Theory of Tragedy," [[A.C. Bradley]] first introduced the English-speaking world to Hegel's theory, which Bradley called the "[[tragic collision]]", and contrasted against the Aristotelian notions of the "[[tragic hero]]" and his or her "hamartia" in subsequent analyses of the Aeschylus' ''Oresteia'' trilogy and of Sophocles' ''Antigone''.{{Sfn | Bradley | 2007 | pp = 114–56}} Hegel himself, however, in his seminal "[[The Phenomenology of Spirit]]" argues for a more complicated theory of tragedy, with two complementary branches which, though driven by a single dialectical principle, differentiate Greek tragedy from that which follows Shakespeare. His later lectures formulate such a theory of tragedy as a conflict of ethical forces, represented by characters, in ancient Greek tragedy, but in Shakespearean tragedy the conflict is rendered as one of subject and object, of individual personality which must manifest self-destructive passions because only such passions are strong enough to defend the individual from a hostile and capricious external world:
{{Blockquote |The heroes of ancient classical tragedy encounter situations in which, if they firmly decide in favor of the one ethical pathos that alone suits their finished character, they must necessarily come into conflict with the equally [''gleichberechtigt''] justified ethical power that confronts them. Modern characters, on the other hand, stand in a wealth of more accidental circumstances, within which one could act this way or that, so that the conflict is, though occasioned by external preconditions, still essentially grounded in the character. The new individuals, in their passions, obey their own nature... simply because they are what they are. Greek heroes also act in accordance with individuality, but in ancient tragedy such individuality is necessarily... a self-contained ethical pathos...  In modern tragedy, however, the character in its peculiarity decides in accordance with subjective desires... such that congruity of character with outward ethical aim no longer constitutes an essential basis of tragic beauty...{{Sfn | Hegel | 1927 | pp = 567–8}}}}

Hegel's comments on a particular play may better elucidate his theory: "Viewed externally, Hamlet's death may be seen to have been brought about accidentally... but in Hamlet's soul, we understand that death has lurked from the beginning: the sandbank of finitude cannot suffice his sorrow and tenderness, such grief and nausea at all conditions of life... we feel he is a man whom inner disgust has almost consumed well before death comes upon him from outside."{{Sfn | Hegel | 1927 | p = 572}}