1.0 Objectives
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Relevance of Classical Criticism
1.3 Plato’s Theory of Mimesis and Aristotle’s Defence
1.3.1 Aristotle's Reply to Plato's Objection
1.3.2 Aristotle's Objection to the Theory of Mimesis
1.4 Aristotle’s Concept of Tragedy
1.4.1 The Definition of Tragedy
1.4.2 Six Formative Elements of Tragedy
1.4.3 Plot and Character
1.4.4 The Tragic Hero
1.5.1 Unity of Action
1.5.2 Unity of Time
1.5.3 Unity of Place
1.6.1 Why Aristotle had adopted this theory
1.6.2 The Meaning of Catharsis
1.6.3 The Relevance of the Theory of Catharsis in the Present Scenario
1.7 Let us Sum up
1.9 Reading List
It should be remembered that Plato, his master, had attacked poetry in general including tragedy from moral and philosophical points of view. So Aristotle had to defend poetry against his master’s attack on the moral and philosophical grounds. He has to refute Plato’s charges. To quote F.L.Lucas: “Poetry, said Plato, makes men cowardly by its picture of the afterworld. No, replies Aristotle, it can purge men’s fears. Poetry, said Plato, encourages men to be hysterical and uncontrolled. On the contrary, answers his pupil, it makes them less, not more, emotional by giving a periodic healthy outlet to their feelings. In short, Aristotle’s definition of tragedy is half a defence.”(Pg. 57) But it is only half a defence. That is to say, the other half of the theory is possibly the result of a serious, analytical inquiry of Aristotle’s into the nature of tragic delight and its psychological effects. His Catharsis forms the most important part of his concept of tragedy as a positive, not pessimistic, drama which leaves wholesome effect, not mere disturbance, in the minds of the spectators.