Aristotelian literary tradition In my B.A. syllabus

This blog is written as a task given by our respected Head of Department of English Prof. & Dr. Dilip Barad Sir. The task is to share our understanding of Aristotle’s Poetics and Plato’s views on poetry, and how these ideas are connected to the tragedies we studied in our B.A. English syllabus. Here is the link to the professor's blogs for background reading and YouTube video to understand: Clickhere

When I first heard the word tragedy, I thought it just meant a sad story where someone dies in the end. But during my B.A. studies at MKBU, I learned that tragedy is much more than that. It is about human emotions, difficult choices, and the consequences of our actions. It is about learning through someone else’s pain.

Two of the greatest thinkers of ancient Greece—Plato and Aristotle—shared different views on poetry and tragedy. I saw how their theories are reflected in the plays we studied: King Lear, Julius Caesar, and Death of a Salesman.

In this blog, I want to share what I learned about tragedy, how Plato and Aristotle thought about it, and how their ideas helped me understand the characters and stories in our syllabus in a deeper way.

Plato’s View on Poetry and Tragedy

Let’s start with Plato, the teacher of Aristotle. Plato was a great philosopher, but he did not like poetry, especially tragic drama. He believed that poetry is an imitation (mimesis), and that it is twice removed from truth. For him, truth existed in the world of ideas. Everything we see is just a shadow of that reality. When a poet imitates something, he is only imitating a copy of truth—not truth itself.

In The Republic, Plato said that poetry affects emotions and makes people weak. He thought that tragic stories made people cry, fear, and feel pity, but did not help them become better citizens. He believed poetry should teach morality, but tragedy only stirs up feelings without reason. That’s why, in his ideal society, he wanted to ban poets from the city.

When I first read this, I thought Plato was being too harsh. But I later understood that he was worried about how stories affect people’s minds, especially the young. Still, I personally believe stories and plays do help us grow emotionally.

Aristotle’s Response to Plato

Aristotle, Plato’s student, did not agree with him. In his book Poetics, Aristotle defended poetry and tragedy. He said tragedy is a serious art that imitates actions in a way that brings about pity and fear, leading to a kind of cleansing or healing of emotions. He called this process catharsis.

According to Aristotle, a good tragedy must have:

A tragic hero – someone who is good but not perfect, and falls due to a tragic flaw (hamartia).
A complete plot – with a clear beginning, middle, and end.
A chain of cause and effect – events should happen because of the character’s actions.
A purpose – to make the audience feel pity and fear, and then experience catharsis.

This made sense to me. When we watch or read a tragic play, we feel deeply, but we also learn. We understand that mistakes have consequences. It teaches us empathy and awareness of human weakness.

Tragedies I Studied in B.A. That Follow Aristotle

Two plays from our B.A. syllabus follow Aristotle’s ideas closely: Shakespeare’s King Lear and Julius Caesar.

1. King Lear

King Lear is a powerful king. He decides to divide his kingdom among his three daughters based on how much they flatter him. His youngest daughter, Cordelia, refuses to lie to him. Lear misjudges her and gives everything to the other two daughters, who later betray him. This is the beginning of his downfall.

Lear’s hamartia is his ego and pride. He wants praise more than truth. Because of this, he loses everything—his family, his power, and his peace of mind. As a reader, I felt pity for his suffering and fear of how quickly things can go wrong when we make emotional decisions. This is what Aristotle described as catharsis.

The play has a serious plot, filled with cause and effect. Each action leads to another problem. The story also has unity of action and ends in a complete, tragic way. So King Lear fits Aristotle’s definition well.

2. Julius Caesar

In Julius Caesar, even though the play is named after Caesar, the real tragic hero is Brutus. He is a noble man who loves Rome more than anything. But he is too idealistic and believes that killing Caesar will protect democracy. He is manipulated by others, especially Cassius, and ends up taking part in Caesar’s murder.

Brutus’s flaw is his blind trust and idealism. He believes everyone is as honest as he is. This leads to civil war and his own death.

Just like Lear, Brutus is not evil - he is just mistaken. His fall makes us feel both pity and fear, as Aristotle described. The plot is logically arranged, and every event connects to the next one. That’s why Julius Caesar is also a good example of an Aristotelian tragedy.

A Modern Tragedy That Breaks the Rules

One play from our syllabus does not follow Aristotle’s rules, but it is still powerful and emotional. That play is Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller.

3. Death of a Salesman

Willy Loman is not a king or a noble man. He is an ordinary salesman who dreams of success. His hamartia is his false belief in the American Dream—he thinks that being liked and popular is more important than being honest or skilled. He cannot accept reality, and this leads to his mental breakdown and suicide.

Arthur Miller believed that common men can also be tragic heroes. He said tragedy should not be limited to kings. Even ordinary people suffer deeply, and their stories matter.

This play does not follow the unities of time and place. It moves between past and present, between dreams and reality. It also doesn’t create the same kind of catharsis that Aristotle talked about. Instead of feeling fear and pity, we feel a mix of sadness, frustration, and sympathy.

Still, it made me think a lot. I could see my own father, relatives, or even myself in Willy’s struggles. So even though it is a modern tragedy, it has the same power to touch the heart.

What Was the Hamartia in These Plays?

In every tragedy we studied in our B.A. course, I saw one common thing: the central character was never entirely evil or cruel. They were human - flawed, proud, confused, or even too kind. Their lives didn’t fall apart because of something the gods did. It was because of something inside them. This is what Aristotle calls hamartia—a small but powerful mistake or weakness that brings a big fall. When I understood this idea, I started looking at people differently. We all carry our own hamartia. That’s what makes these stories feel so real.

1. King Lear – His Ego Blinded Him

In King Lear, the king’s downfall begins the moment he demands love in return for power. He asks his daughters to prove their love with words. Cordelia, the one who truly loves him, refuses to flatter. Instead of understanding her honesty, Lear becomes angry and disowns her. This is the turning point.

Lear’s flaw is his pride. He wants to be worshipped and obeyed even after giving away his crown. He trusts empty words over truth. And when reality hits—when his other daughters betray him—he loses his mind. Watching Lear cry in the storm or carry Cordelia in his arms after she dies—it moved something deep inside me. His pain felt like something anyone could feel: being wrong, being too late, and realizing it when everything is already broken.

2. Brutus – Too Noble for a Dirty World

In Julius Caesar, Brutus is not a villain. He’s thoughtful, gentle, and wants the best for Rome. But his flaw is his idealism. He believes killing Caesar will protect democracy. He thinks everyone else in the conspiracy is motivated by noble reasons, just like he is. But they’re not.

Brutus trusts the wrong people, and he allows Mark Antony to speak at Caesar’s funeral. That one decision flips the entire story. Civil war begins, and Brutus ends up killing himself—not just because he lost, but because he lost the dream of a better Rome. His story made me think: Can being “too good” also be dangerous? In a way, yes. Sometimes, being blind to the reality around us—even with good intentions—can destroy everything.

3. Willy Loman – A Dream That Lied to Him

Death of a Salesman was different from the other two plays. It wasn’t about kings or soldiers. It was about a man like my father or uncle—a middle-class man who works hard but feels like he’s always behind. Willy Loman’s flaw is his belief in a false dream. He thinks success means being well-liked, good-looking, and popular. He teaches this to his sons. But the world changes, and he doesn’t.

Willy lies to himself to stay hopeful. He says “everything’s fine” even when it’s not. He can't accept that his dream was wrong. And that slowly breaks him. He ends up taking his own life, thinking it will give his family money and respect. Watching Willy’s story made me feel a different kind of sadness. It wasn’t just about death—it was about disappointment, loneliness, and how society sometimes fails people like him.

Each of these characters had a small flaw, but that small thing caused everything to fall apart. That’s why these stories stay with us. They are not just about kings and speeches. They are about us—our pride, our hopes, our mistakes.

Did These Tragedies Follow Aristotle’s Plot Rules?

Aristotle didn’t just define tragedy by the character’s flaws. He also believed that the plot—the way the story is told—must be complete, meaningful, and logical. It should feel like one thing leads to another, not just random bad luck. The story must have a beginning, middle, and end, and should make us feel pity and fear—so that by the end, we feel lighter, wiser, and maybe even healed.

When I looked back at the plays in our syllabus, I realized how differently each one followed (or broke) these rules.