Metabasis paradox

The metabasis paradox is an instance in the received text of Aristotle's Poetics where, according to many scholars, he makes two incompatible statements. In chapter 13 of the book, Aristotle states that for tragedy to end in misfortune is "correct," yet in chapter 14 he judges a type of plot in tragedy "best" that does not end in misfortune. Since the 16th century, scholars in Classics have puzzled over this contradiction or have proposed solutions, of which there are at least three from the 21st century alone. Gotthold Lessing's solution has been the most influential yet there is not a consensus.

In chapter 13, Aristotle argues that tragedy should consist of a change of fortune from good to bad. Subsequently, he writes also in chapter 13 that, while critics have judged Euripides harshly because "many" of his plays "end in misfortune," yet "this is, as we have seen, correct," referring to the change of fortune from good to bad. Then, 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. Aristotle finds that in the "best" version, the killer recognizes the victim and does not kill. Since that narrative does not end in misfortune, scholars often conclude that chapter 14 seems to contradict 13.

Arata Takeda [de] has written a detailed history of the problem from the Renaissance up to the late 20th century, omitting 21st century work. Takeda, however, does not offer the standard, consensus description of the solutions of André Dacier, Gotthold Lessing, and Stephen Halliwell. Takeda proposed a name for the problem, "metabasis paradox," from metabasis, "change," Aristotle's term in the Poetics for change of fortune. In a 2025 German book, Takeda has offered a comprehensive history of the problem from the Renaissance to the 21st century, following up on his earlier work. In German he has named the problem Glückswechselparadox (change of fortune paradox).

In chapter 13, Aristotle discusses what combination of change of fortune, or μετάβασις (metabasis) and character will create fear and pity, which turns out to involve a change of fortune from good to bad. He first rules out all scenarios involving a totally good or totally bad man. Omitting the good man passing from bad to good fortune, he evaluates (1) the wholly good man changing from good to bad fortune (Poetics 1452b34-5), (2) the wholly bad man changing from bad to good fortune (1452b37), and (3) the wholly bad man changing from good to bad fortune (1453a1). Aristotle finds that none of these three creates both fear and pity, and instead, the tragic hero should be ethically like the average person—not completely good or bad but a mean between the two (1453a7), and suffer a change of fortune from good to bad (1453a15). He describes misfortune in tragedy, δυστυχία (dustuchia "adversity, misfortune") as "to suffer or inflict terrible disasters" (1453a21), Aristotle then mentions that "so many" of Euripides's "plays end in misfortune." And he notes that he has just previously shown--"as was said"--that this kind of ending is "ὀρθόν" (orthon "correct") (1453a26).

In chapter 14, Aristotle considers the most "dreadful or rather pitiable" deed, "when for instance brother kills brother, or son father, or mother son, or son mother—either kills or intends to kill, or does something of the kind, that is what we must look for" (1453b20-21).

Aristotle notes four ways this incident may be treated. After naming them, he ranks them:

The worst of these is to intend the action with full knowledge and not to perform it. That outrages the feelings and is not tragic, for there is no calamity. So nobody does that, except occasionally, as, for instance, Haemon and Creon in the Antigone. Next comes the doing of the deed. It is better to act in ignorance and discover afterwards. Our feelings are not outraged and the discovery is startling. Best of all is the last; in the Cresphontes, for instance, Merope intends to kill her son and does not kill him but discovers; and in the Iphigeneia the case of the sister and brother; and in the Helle the son discovers just as he is on the point of giving up his mother (1453b37-54a8).

Killing averted by recognition is considered incompatible with chapter 13's claim that it is "correct" for tragedy to "end in misfortune."