The Hamartia of Aristotle

Abstract

The term hamartia, as it appears in Aristotle s Poetics, has baffled critics. Two schools of thought have dichotomized the meaning of the word. While the first attempts to explain it in terms of moral evil and proposes tragic suffering as the retributive consequence of a "tragic flaw" in the individual's character, the second rejects this moral interpretation but is unable to find a suitable interpretation or explanation for the word. The moral schools interpretation of hamartia is based on a perceived direct link between tragic character and tragic purpose, with tragic action being assigned a subordinate status. However, a careful scrutiny of the Poetics reveals that tragic flaw or moral weakness is not one of the requirements of tragedy and that a hero's misfortune is due, not to his nature, but to the wrong he has committed, either through ignorance or out of duty. Moreover, to Aristotle the requisite for consideration is positive, not negative character traits as in a tragic flaw, and tragic acts are committed not in character but out of character. A tragic hero, by his hamartia, brings a dislocation in the natural order. When he is punished, the disruption is removed and harmony is restored to the universe.