Character in Tragedy

In respect of Character there are four things to be aimed at. First, and most important, it must be good. Now any speech or action that manifests moral purpose of any kind will be expressive of character: the character will be good if the purpose is good. This rule is relative to each class. Even a woman may be good, and also a slave; though the woman may be said to be an inferior being, and the slave quite worthless. The second thing to aim at is propriety. There is a type of manly valour; but valour in a woman, or unscrupulous cleverness, is inappropriate. Thirdly, character must be true to life: for this is a distinct thing from goodness and propriety, as here described. The fourth point is consistency: for though the subject of the imitation, who suggested the type, be inconsistent, still he must be consistently inconsistent. As an example of motiveless degradation of character, we have Menelaus in the Orestes: of character indecorous and inappropriate, the lament of Odysseus in the Scylla, and the speech of Melanippe: of inconsistency, the Iphigenia at Aulis,—for Iphigenia the suppliant in no way resembles her later self.

There are four things to aim for in portraying character. First, and most important, the character must be good. Any speech or action that shows a moral purpose of any kind expresses character. The character will be good if the purpose is good. This rule depends on the class to which a person belongs. Even a woman can be good, as can a slave. Yet a woman may be said to be an inferior being, and a slave entirely worthless. The second thing to aim for is propriety. There is a kind of courage suited to a man. But courage or unscrupulous cleverness is inappropriate in a woman. Third, character must be true to life. This is distinct from goodness and propriety, as described here. Fourth, character must be consistent. Even if the person portrayed is inconsistent, that person must still be consistently inconsistent. Menelaus in the Orestes is an example of a character made worse without reason. Examples of improper and inappropriate character are Odysseus’s lament in the Scylla and Melanippe’s speech. An example of inconsistency is found in the Iphigenia at Aulis. Iphigenia as a suppliant is in no way like her later self.

As in the structure of the plot, so too in the portraiture of character, the poet should always aim either at the necessary or the probable. Thus a person of a given character should speak or act in a given way, by the rule either of necessity or of probability; just as this event should follow that by necessary or probable sequence. It is therefore evident that the unravelling of the plot, no less than the complication, must arise out of the plot itself, it must not be brought about by the 'Deus ex Machina'—as in the Medea, or in the Return of the Greeks in the Iliad. The 'Deus ex Machina' should be employed only for events external to the drama,—for antecedent or subsequent events, which lie beyond the range of human knowledge, and which require to be reported or foretold; for to the gods we ascribe the power of seeing all things. Within the action there must be nothing irrational. If the irrational cannot be excluded, it should be outside the scope of the tragedy. Such is the irrational element in the Oedipus of Sophocles.

Just as in structuring the plot, the poet should portray character according to necessity or probability. A person of a given character should speak or act as necessity or probability requires. Likewise, one event should follow another in a necessary or probable sequence. The resolution of the plot, like its complication, must therefore arise from the plot itself. It must not be brought about by the 'Deus ex Machina', as in the Medea or the Return of the Greeks in the Iliad. The 'Deus ex Machina' should be used only for events outside the drama. These are earlier or later events that lie beyond human knowledge and need to be reported or foretold. For we attribute the power to see all things to the gods. Nothing irrational should occur within the action. If the irrational cannot be excluded, it should lie outside the tragedy itself. This is true of the irrational element in Sophocles' Oedipus.

Again, since Tragedy is an imitation of persons who are above the common level, the example of good portrait-painters should be followed. They, while reproducing the distinctive form of the original, make a likeness which is true to life and yet more beautiful. So too the poet, in representing men who are irascible or indolent, or have other defects of character, should preserve the type and yet ennoble it. In this way Achilles is portrayed by Agathon and Homer.

Again, because Tragedy imitates people who are above the ordinary level, poets should follow the example of good portrait painters. These painters capture a person’s distinctive features while making the likeness both true to life and more beautiful. In the same way, a poet may portray people who are quick-tempered, lazy, or have other character flaws. The poet should preserve those traits while making the characters more noble. This is how Agathon and Homer portray Achilles.

These then are rules the poet should observe. Nor should he neglect those appeals to the senses, which, though not among the essentials, are the concomitants of poetry; for here too there is much room for error. But of this enough has been said in our published treatises.

These, then, are the rules the poet should follow. The poet should not neglect the appeals to the senses that accompany poetry, though they are not essential to it. There is also much room for error here. But enough has been said about this in our published works.