The Great Catharsis: Aristotle & Death of a Salesman

1234 Words5 Pages
In 350bc, Aristotle wrote Poetics, and in that discourse he defined the elements of a tragedy as compared to other plays like Epic Poetry. According to Aristotle, “Every Tragedy…must have six parts, which parts determine its quality- namely, Plot, Character, Diction, Thought, Spectacle, Song.” When Arthur Miller’s play, Death of a Salesman, is compared to Aristotle’s definitions for tragedy, we can indeed put it in the ranks of Aristotelian tragedy in more of a modern form. My senses tell me that a Greek tragedy played out in exacting 350BC Greek style would seem strange to the modern viewer. Therefore I submit that, short of the modifications necessary to make a play interesting to a modern audience, Death of a Salesman indeed fits the spirit of Aristotelian tragedy in a modern style. According to Aristotle, the plot is “the soul of a tragedy.” The plot is “…the first and most important thing in tragedy.” Aristotle’s idea for the plot in tragedy is such that it has a beginning middle and end, that all parts follow each other in concise fashion, the parts should not be “…'episodic' in which the episodes or acts succeed one another without probable or necessary sequence.” Aristotle goes on to say that the events should not occur simultaneously like the “epic” play. “we must confine ourselves to the actions on the stage.” Miller’s play fits this entire criterion well. With the artistic development of the play stripped off (Miller’s version of Aristotle’s suggested arrangement “not on the simple but on the complex plan.”), we have, quite simply, a beginning where the hero becomes a successful salesman with family, a middle where our hero and his family go through the unsurprising and easily identifiable struggles and realities of being a salesman, and a classic tragic end wherein our hero dies. The sequence of Willy Loman’s life is indeed “probable” and all

More about The Great Catharsis: Aristotle & Death of a Salesman

Open Document