Etymology and Origins of Tragedy

The word's origin is Greek tragōidiā (Classical Greek τραγῳδία) contracted from
trag(o)-aoidiā = "goat song" from tragos = "goat" and aeidein = "to sing". This dates
back to a time when religion and theatre were more or less intertwined in early ritual
events. Goats would be traditionally sacrificed, as an early precursor to the Greek
Chorus would sing a song of sacrifice-- a "Goat Song". This may also refer to the
horse or goat costumes worn by actors who played the satyrs in early dramatizations
of mythological stories, or a goat being presented as a prize at a song contest and in
both cases the reference would have been the respect for Dionysus.

Origin

The origins of tragedy are obscure, but the art form certainly developed out of the
poetic and religious traditions of ancient Greece. Its roots may be traced more
specifically to the chants and dances called dithyrambs, which honored the Greek god
Dionysus (later known to the Romans as Bacchus). These drunken, ecstatic
performances were said to have been created by the satyrs, half-goat beings who
surrounded Dionysus in his revelry.

Phrynichus, son of Polyphradmon and pupil of Thespis, was one of the earliest of the
Greek tragedians. "The honour of introducing Tragedy in its later acceptation was
reserved for a scholar of Thespis in 511 BC, Polyphradmon's son, Phrynichus; he
dropped the light and ludicrous cast of the original drama and dismissing Bacchus and
the Satyrs formed his plays from the more grave and elevated events recorded in
mythology and history of his country", and some of the ancients regarded him as the
real founder of tragedy.[7] He gained his first poetical victory in 511 BC. However,
P.W. Buckham asserts (quoting August Wilhelm von Schlegel) that Aeschylus was the
inventor of tragedy. "Aeschylus is to be considered as the creator of Tragedy: in full
panoply she sprung from his head, like Pallas from the head of Jupiter. He clad her
with dignity, and gave her an appropriate stage; he was the inventor of scenic pomp,
and not only instructed the chorus in singing and dancing, but appeared himself as an
actor. He was the first that expanded the dialogue, and set limits to the lyrical part of
tragedy, which, however, still occupies too much space in his pieces." [8]

Later in ancient Greece, the word "tragedy" meant any serious (not comedy) drama,
not merely those with a sad ending.

Aristotle is very clear in his Poetics that tragedy proceeded from the authors of the
Dithyramb.[9] There is some dissent to the dithyrambic origins of tragedy mostly based
in the differences between the shapes of their choruses and styles of dancing. A
common descent from pre-Hellenic fertility and burial rites has been suggested.
Nietzsche discussed the origins of Greek tragedy in his early book, The Birth of
Tragedy (1872).
Shakespearean Tragedy

Shakespeare wrote tragedies from the beginning of his career. One of his earliest
plays was the Roman tragedy Titus Andronicus, which he followed a few years later
with Romeo and Juliet. However, his most admired tragedies were written in a seven-
year period between 1601 and 1608. These include his four major tragedies Hamlet,
Othello, King Lear and Macbeth, along with Antony & Cleopatra and the lesser-
known Timon of Athens and Troilus and Cressida.

Many have linked these plays to Aristotle's precept about tragedy: that the protagonist
must be an admirable but flawed character, with the audience able to understand and
sympathize with the character. Certainly, all of Shakespeare's tragic protagonists are
capable of both good and evil. The playwright always insists on the operation of the
doctrine of free will; the (anti)hero is always able to back out, to redeem himself. But,
the author dictates, they must move unheedingly to their doom.
Tragic Heroes

Tragic heroes are exceptional beings: this is the fundamental trait—

Tragic heroes contribute to their own destruction by acts in which we see a flaw in their
character, or, by tragic error—

The difficulty is that the audience must desire the defeat/destruction of the tragic hero, but this in
itself does not constitute tragic feeling

THEY ARE EXCEPTIONAL BEINGS

Being of high estate is not everything. The tragic hero's nature is also exceptional, and generally
raises him in some respect much above the average level of humanity. Shakespeare's tragic
heroes are made of the stuff we find in ourselves and within the persons who surround him. But,
by an intensification of the life which they share with others, they are raised above them; and the
greatest are raised so far that, if we fully realize all that is implied in their words and actions, we
become conscious that in real life we have scarcely known anyone resembling them.

They have a fatal gift that carries with it a touch of greatness (fierce determination, fixed ideas);
and when nobility of mind, or genius, or immense force are joined to it, we realize the full power
and reach of the soul, and the conflict in which it engages acquires that magnitude which stirs not
only sympathy and pity, but admiration, terror, and awe.

THEY WILL HAVE A TRAGIC FLAW

The flaw often takes the form of obsession. In the circumstances where we see the hero placed,
this tragic trait, which is also his greatness, is fatal to him. To meet these circumstances,
something is required which a smaller man might have given, but which the hero cannot give. He
errs, by action or omission; and his error, joining with other causes, brings on his ruin.

This fatal imperfection or error is of differing kinds and degrees. At one extreme stands the excess
and precipit- ancy of Romeo, which scarcely diminishes our regard for him. At the other extreme
is the murderous ambition of Richard III. In most cases, the tragic error involves no conscious
breach of right; in some (Brutus and Othello), it is accompanied by a full conviction of right.
Only Richard III and Macbeth do what they themselves know to be villainous. So why are we
affected by such villains? Shakespeare gives Richard a power and audacity which excite
astonishment and a courage which extorts admiration. He gives to Macbeth a similar, though less
extra- ordinary greatness, and adds to it a conscience so terrifying in its warnings and so
maddening in its reproaches that the spectacle of inward torment compels a horrified sympathy
and awe which balance at the least, the desire for the hero's ruin.

 Shakespeare's tragic heroes need not be "good," though they generally are good--
 Shakespeare's tragic heroes project that man is not small or contemptible, no matter
how rotten he can be--
 Shakespeare's tragic heroes illustrate the center of the tragic impression: the sense of
waste--
 Shakespeare's tragic heroes live for what seems to be a type of the mystery of the whole
world.

THEY NEED NOT BE "GOOD":

But it is necessary that the tragic hero should have so much of greatness that in his error and fall,
we may be vividly conscious of the possibilities of human nature. Hence, in the first place, a
Shakespearean tragedy is never depressing. No one ever closes the book with the feeling that man
is a poor, mean creature. Man may be wretched and he may be awful, but he is not small. His lot
may be heart-rending and mysterious, but it is not contemptible.

CONNECTED TO THE GREATNESS IS A SENSE OF WASTE:

What a great man the tragic hero could have been, indeed, should have been! With Shakespeare,
at any rate, the pity and fear which are stirred by the tragic story (Aristotelian requirements of
tragedy) seem to unite with, and even merge in, a profound sense of sadness and mystery which is
due to this impression of waste. With Hamlet, we say, "What a piece of work is man," so much
more beautiful and so much more terrible than we knew. And from this comes the mystery, the
existential question Lear would also come to understand so well: Why should man be so, if this
beauty and greatness only tortures itself and throws itself away?

THE MYSTERY OF THE WHOLE WORLD IN TRAGEDY?

We seem to have before us a type of the mystery of the whole world, the tragic fact that extends
far beyond the limits of tragedy. Everywhere, from the crushed rocks beneath our feet to the soul
of man, we see power, intelli- gence, life, and glory which astound us and seem to call for
admiration. And everywhere, we see men perishing, devouring one another, and destroying
themselves, often with dreadful pain, as though they came into being for no other end. Tragedy is
the typical form of this mystery because the greatness of soul which it shows oppressed,
conflicting, and destroyed is the highest existence in our minds. It forces the mystery upon us,
and it makes us realize vividly the worth of that which is wasted, and that such waste of potential
greatness, nobililty of soul, of humanity is truly the tragedy of human existence. Out of all of this,
a tragic pattern emerges.
Tragic Structure

As a Shakespearean tragedy represents a conflict which ends in catastrophe, any such tragedy
can be divided into 4 parts:

 EXPOSITION
 DEVELOPMENT/RISING ACTION
 DEVELOPMENT/FALLING ACTION
 RESOLUTION

EXPOSITION

This first part sets forth or expounds the situation or state of affairs, out of which the conflict
arises. Thus, exposition is the task of the first act and often part or most of the second act. Here
we are made aware of the general setting, the persons, character traits, problems of the play, the
conflicts or potential conflicts. Usually, by the time the second act is completed, we know what the
overriding problem of the play is, what the major conflict is and who the players in the conflict
are, who our protagonist or tragic hero is, and often what seems to be his tragic flaw is already in
place.

DEVELOPMENT: RISING ACTION

This second part of the structure deals with a definite beginning, the growth and nature of the
conflict, and forms the bulk of the play, comprising the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th acts, usually part of the
1st act, and part of the 5th act. This division unveils the developing complications arising from
the conflicts as the problem intensifies. Time and a sense of urgency become increasingly
important as the speed of the action increases. A sense of inevitability begins to advance as we
watch the tragic hero alienating his allies and closest supporters, until he is all alone and with his
back to the wall in the 5th act.

DEVELOPMENT: FALLING ACTION

Usually, from act 2 onwards, we see the action rising, with the tragic hero powerful, advancing,
scattering the opposition until, late in the 4th act, when a reversal of the situation starts taking
place. Opposing forces begin to openly resist and to make plans for the removal of the tragic
hero, and the hero's power is obviously declining as the opposition's power advances.

TRAGIC RESOLUTION

In the final acts, then, the opposition reaches its full strength and defeats/destroys the isolated,
weakened hero. This is where Tragic Recognition takes place, and the final scenes of the play are
normally such that we become aware again of the greatness of the soul that has just been
dispatched. Macbeth is dead; Hamlet is dead; Lear is dead: and though we can see the justice of
it, the usual feeling of satisfaction at the death of a tyrant or killer (an Iago, for example) is
conspicuously lacking.