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.
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.
Context of the problem
In chapter 13, Aristotle discusses what combination of change of fortune, or μετάβασις 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 the wholly good man changing from good to bad fortune, the wholly bad man changing from bad to good fortune, and the wholly bad man changing from good to bad fortune. 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, and suffer a change of fortune from good to bad. He describes misfortune in tragedy, δυστυχία as "to suffer or inflict terrible disasters", 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" .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".
Aristotle notes four ways this incident may be treated. After naming them, he ranks them:
Killing averted by recognition is considered incompatible with chapter 13's claim that it is "correct" for tragedy to "end in misfortune."
Solutions
Piero Vettori
did not try to solve the problem but was first to publish about it, in his Latin commentary on the Poetics in 1560. André Dacier wrote more than a century later, as though unaware of Castelvetro's remarks on the problem, "The wise Victorius is the only one who has seen it; but since he did not know what was the concern in the Chapter, and that it is only by this that it can be solved, he has not attempted to clarify it."Lodovico Castelvetro
engaged the problem in his translation and commentary of 1570. He held that Aristotle rightly established ending in misfortune in chapter 13, and wrongly broke this rule in chapter 14, praising as best a kind of tragedy that, as Castelvetro put it, lacks "passion." Castelvetro proposed that a laudable action must involve passion: "y passione Castelvetro meant pathos, that is, suffering, not emotion--and more laudable is such action as involves more passion". And although for Castelvetro killing and recognizing later is no less ethical than killing averted by recognition, in the former the "passion is full and accomplished," whereas in killing averted by recognition passion is "short and threatened."André Dacier
In commentary accompanying his 1692 French edition of the Poetics, Dacier made the first known attempt to resolve the contradiction. As scholars normally understand Dacier, his theory was that Aristotle called Euripides' plays ending in misfortune "correct" because authoritative, traditional versions of these stories end in misfortune. Dacier believed that, in chapter 14, Aristotle considered stories that are open to change, hence the option of avoiding a death. As Dacier understood him, Aristotle meant that if the killing within family cannot be avoided, then the playwright moves to the next best, and so on. Dacier also shifted Aristotle's numbering by one. The altered numbering is killing knowingly, killing and recognizing later, killing averted by recognition, and failing to kill while knowing.Gotthold Lessing
responded to Dacier in one of his books, the Hamburg Dramaturgy. He maintained that Aristotle's preference for ending in misfortune was not relative to tradition. In Lessing's view, Aristotle meant that it is simply always better for tragedy to end in misfortune.Lessing's own solution is that in chapter 13 Aristotle establishes the best plot structure, and in 14 the best treatment of pathos, or scene of suffering. Lessing claimed that, regardless of Aristotle judging it "best," the scene where death is prevented could occur well before the end of a play. He proposed that this removes Aristotle's contradiction, because to use this kind of incident may leave the drama open to ending in good or bad fortune, at least in theory. Lessing wrote that "Change of fortune may occur in the middle of the play, and even if it continues thus to the end of the piece, it does not therefore constitute its end." He acknowledged the difficulty of ending in misfortune or death after it has been prevented. Yet he believed it was possible, combining the best pathos and best ending, which D.W. Lucas considered somewhat implausible. Lessing's solution has been the most influential, at least historically. Notable scholars have endorsed the idea during the 19th and 20th centuries, including Gustav Teichmüller, Johannes Vahlen, Daniel de Montmollin, Gerald Else, and D.W. Lucas.
Ingram Bywater was not persuaded by Lessing on this issue, and instead, he believed Aristotle had changed his mind. Bywater thought that in chapter 14 Aristotle became more concerned with avoiding what is shocking, and that he ultimately regarded the act of killing followed by recognition to be shocking. According to Bywater, this is why the fourth way, "where a timely Discovery saves us from the rude shock to our moral feelings...is pronounced to be κράτιστον." Bywater wrote:
John Moles also believed that the contradiction was due to a change of mind, as many secondary sources on Moles note. Moles wrote that "once Aristotle had embarked on his more detailed comparison of the different ways of handling the πάθος, he was induced to change his preference because at that particular point his more detailed approach necessarily involved taking a more restricted perspective."