Metabasis paradox
Apparent contradiction in Aristotle's Poetics / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The metabasis paradox is an instance in the received text of Aristotle's Poetics where, according to many scholars,[1][2][3][4][5] he makes two incompatible statements. In chapter 13 of the book, Aristotle states that for tragedy to end in misfortune is "correct,"[6] yet in chapter 14 he judges a kind of tragedy "best"[7] that does not end in misfortune.[8][9] Since the 16th century, scholars[10][11] in Classics have puzzled over this contradiction or have proposed solutions, of which there are three from the 21st century.[12][13][14] Gotthold Lessing's solution has been the most influential[15][16] yet there is not a consensus.
In chapter 13, Aristotle initially argues that tragedy should consist of a change of fortune from good to bad,[17] and mentions toward the end of the chapter that "ending in misfortune" is "correct".[18] In chapter 14, he identifies the incident that creates fear and pity, killing "among family," in which the killer could either kill or not, and either knowingly or unknowingly.[19] Yet in chapter 14 Aristotle finds that in the "best" version, the killer recognizes the victim and does not kill.[8] Since that narrative does not end in misfortune, scholars often conclude that chapter 14 seems to contradict 13.[20][21]
Arata Takeda has written a detailed history of the problem from the Renaissance up to the late 20th century, omitting 21st century work.[22] Takeda, however, does not offer the standard, consensus description of the solutions of André Dacier,[23] Gotthold Lessing,[24][25] and Stephen Halliwell.[26] Takeda proposed a name for the problem, "metabasis paradox," from metabasis, "change," Aristotle's term in the Poetics for change of fortune.[27]