Classic to Modern English Literature

Else's 1986 (p. 159) claims that most interpretations of Aristotle assert he requires some form of pity, fear, and catharsis to be produced in audiences. Because most of these interpretations do not explicitly address the question we aim to answer in this paper, there is some risk of misinterpreting most Aristotle commentators as supporting the position we oppose. However, the overall impression is so strong that we confidently refer to this view as the "common" interpretation. As an analysis of tragedy, the common interpretation is unsatisfactory. It is well-known that people's emotional reactions to the events they witness or hear about depend on their emotional states at the time. If Aristotle truly believed certain emotional responses in audiences were necessary for tragedy, or good tragedy, he would have dedicated at least some pages to preparing people so that exposure to dramatic tragedy would effectively arouse the correct emotions. This Aristotle does not do.

In defining dramatic tragedy, Aristotle appeals in part to the psychological notions of pity, fear, and catharsis. The question to be addressed in this paper is whether, in Aristotle's analysis, the production of pity, fear, and a catharsis of these emotions in audiences—readers, auditors, or viewers—is essential to works of dramatic tragedy, or at least good works of dramatic tragedy. We follow Else (1956, 1986) in holding that it is not. Topics concerning pity, fear, and especially catharsis are some of the most frequently discussed in the literature on Aristotle's analysis of tragedy. However, very rarely in this literature is it explicitly stated that the above question is the one under discussion. Fortenbaugh (1975) and Randall (1960) definitely come down on the opposite side, interpreting Aristotle as holding that the production of these psychological effects by a dramatic work is essential to its being at least a good tragedy. Many commentators, among them Brunius (1966)