Comparing and Contrasting The Definition of A Tragedy Between Aristotle and Arthur Miller
The definition of a tragedy differs greatly between the time periods that they are covered by each interpreter, causing a dramatically noticeable difference between their characteristics. Aristotle's definition of the word examines a plethora of controllable aspects of the mind, albeit Miller dwells on the burders of human nature. Contrary to this, they both hold the same principle that a hero of a tragedy may possess a tragic flaw that sets him/her apart from the common man, a subservient conformist fool, and within these boundaries, the tragic hero must suffer internally.
Aristotle associated most of his definition of a tragedy with the climax of enlightenment. In his analysis, Aristotle uses the the story of Oedipus as his paradigm of a tragedy of self-enlightenment: "And it is the ultimate experience we shall have if we have leisure at the point of death... It is what tragedy ultimately is all about: the realization of the unthinkable," (Aristotle). This can be interpreted ambiguously, both as the death of the soul and a physical death. This contradicts Arthur Miller's ideas of self-evaluation. Miller states, "Tragedy, then, is the consequence of man's total compulsion to evaluate himself." In this, Miller explains that tragic flaw continues as a cycle of experience throughout life, not as something one may just come to terms with on their deathbed long after all has been said and done.
Aristotle implies that because of a person's place in society, he or she may become inclined to rebel and defile the limitations of everything related to that person's time. Miller shared a similar, yet more contrasting, idea that we are raised to take that which causes humiliation of "the heart and the spirit of the average man" (Miller) and reach past it. A tragic hero, according ot Miller, is more of a person who is aware of his inability to excel to a divine state of being, reaching out beyond humanity, and will continue to err as a common man with preset personal patterns.
In his concept of a tragedy, Aristotle said, "The tragic hero is not a superman; he is fallible." This mode of character may lead the chracter to have hubris. But moreover, the character should be more in touch with their experience of tragic flaw. Miller's ideas could be taken as similar to Aristotle's, but Miller's were left at the belief that the tragic hero was just a person who has an "inherent unwillingness to remain passive in the face of what he conceives to be a challenge to his dignity." (Miller). This is linked to the hubris that Aristotle describes, but Miller never elaborates more on this character.
As noted, Aristotle's concept of the tragedy is skewed more towards the position of nobility in the tragic figure, while Miller's is based on the rebellion of that which does not appease us. Despite this, their two ideologies remain intact and like.
-Aimee Ault