Maybe tragedy was easily financed by kings and rich patrons, because it dealt with characters of high status, while funny characters were considered of lower value and not of much interest to those in power?

@Sven, in Ancient Greece Tragedy was used as a reaffirmation of the masculine power in the public domain (polis) over the other dimensions of society, particularly the domestic one (oikos). Comedy, on the other hand, was based inherently on the criticism toward a power, but this power didn't need to be necessarily the one that emanated from the establishment. Aristophanes, for example, wrote both conservative and subversive comedies. The greatest example of the former was "The Clouds", a satire targeting the impact on Socrates in society about a father who loses his authority over his son as he becomes an adept of Socrates. "Lysistrata" on the other hand, was a big criticism against the rulers of Greece's city-state who were in war against each other, as women decide to start a "sex strike" to make men stop war. Ironically "The Clouds" had more impact than "Lysistrata" since apparently Aristophanes's comedy was determinant to build a public opinion hostile toward Socrates and his idea, what resulted ultimately in his execution, while the Peloponnese war weakened Greek city-states' military forces, opening way to the Macedonian invasion.

What? Comedy was the Rodney Dangerfield topic in the Poetics -- it didn't get no respect? Or is it the case that the Poetics has come down to us today fragmented and incomplete? Hence, Aristotle's full discussion of comedy is missing. We can only speculate what his theory of comedy might have been. The legendary date for the "birth" of tragedy is cerca 535 BC. Comedy acquired official status on the stage in Athens half a century later in the Great Dionysia of 486 B.C. The Great Dionysia was the spring festival of Dionysus, god of fertility and wine. Fertility as in sex -- when the earth shakes off its winter slumber with wanton displays of sex organs -- spring flowers. And what was a central symbol for the Great Dionysia? The phallus. In Chapter 4 of the Poetics, Aristotle says that comedy as a dramatic form evolved as improvisation from "those of the phallic songs" -- a ubiquitous ceremonial pageant in those times. Furthermore, in his "The Death of Comedy", Erich Segal notes that "It is important to remember,that in Old Comedy the phallus was onstage at all times."( p 35). That includes the plays of Aristophanes. (That Erich Segal, the author of "Love Story"? Yes, he taught Greek and Latin literature at Harvard,Yale, and Princeton.) IOW: Comedy owes its origins to the worship and celebration of all things sexual -- and it has never disavowed its pedigree. Another characteristic of comedy from the git-go in ancient Greece was invective, verbal abuse, cursing. Hence, as Aristotle observes in Chapter 5, it is used to lampoon the defects of others. Thus, Socrates, because of his looks, was comic fodder for Aristophanes and others. Comedy has never disavowed that aspect of its pedigree either!

I've always thought it was both brilliant and profoundly humane of Aristophanes to use women as his protagonists, since they not only held the lowest status in Greek society, but also were the ones who suffered the most, along with children, from the conditions of ongoing war. And I also find it curious that we've never had a Hollywood version of "Lysistrata" (or, for that matter, of Sophocles' tragedy "Antigone"), though apparently there are Greek films of both plays? Just within this section, it sounds as if Aristotle objects to comedy somewhat on aesthetic grounds - that he thought the characters and the cathartic emotions audiences experienced via tragedy were of a higher order than the "mere" entertainment afforded by comedy. I also thought of two quotes I love when I first read this section: Edith Hamilton's definition of tragedy as "the beauty of intolerable truths" and also comedian Mike Myers' wonderful definition of comedy as "tragedy plus time." That resonated with what Aristotle said about it taking time for comedy to be taken seriously - which seems to imply it came up trailing in the shadow of tragedy. Even today, I think comedy often still challenges power, as Illimani said of the Greeks' comedies, and various versions of the status quo - movies like "Idiocracy," "Heathers," "Being There," and "Wag the Dog" come to mind... And I also think both Aristotle's and Mike Myers' definitions of comedy explain why some old dramatic/tragic movies may strike us as funny when we see them now, out of context - or why, in the case of a contemporary movie like "The Saddest Music in the World," the filmmaker's use of particular techniques, such as filming in black and white, gives us a distance that allows the movie to be startlingly funny when it should seem most tragic (the double amputation, and those replacement legs?!), and gives us permission to laugh - which we moderns also find to be quite cathartic.

Illimani, that is truly fascinating. So broadly speaking and in terms of character archetypes, in ancient Greece, could we typify Tragedy as Mentor and Comedy as Trickster? I'm thinking of the functions of the sage counsel for the king, emperor, leader in contrast to the court jester whose job, in part, was to 'prick' the leader, their decisions and policies [again I am speaking VERY broadly]. Does this also speak to class? Whereas the Upper / Learned Class, benefiting from political decisions and power, would lean to Tragedy especially if, as you suggest, it "reaffirms" masculine power, the Lower Class, who might suffer from those policies might be drawn to Comedy as it made fun and derided leaders, policies, etc. I'm thinking Dr. Strangelove here...

Scott, those are very interesting questions (and tough ones), but I will give my best to answer or at least give my irresponsible opinion. :) I think in the very core we could think about tragedies as mentors. A cruel one since the first message that almost every Greek tragedy sells is that we can't fight fatality, no matter how unfair it is and how accidental or compulsory is our denial to the laws of the Polis. I'm not so sure if the Trickster could represent the (Greek) Comedy though, but maybe it's because I have a very personal perspective as an aspirant comedy writer. To make it short I believe that the very core of comedy is (the assumption of) truth while tragedy's bedrock is (the assumption of) power (I'm planning to present my perspective on comedy with more details after I'm done writing this answer here: http://theblackboard.blcklst.com/forums/topic/joe-moran-on-what-makes-great-comedy/ ) So maybe the Shadow would be a more accurate archetype. The truths delivered by a jester are crude and direct, while the truths in a Comedy are indirect. Maybe the trickster archetype would apply more for stand up comedy (and the fictional comedy that is directly derived from it)? If I remember my readings well the Greek upper-class had a preference for tragedies while the lower-class had a preference for comedies, and this structure makes historical sense when we think that Socrates was sentenced to death by the people, not the elites. This people might have their judgement influenced by "The Clouds". But I think a tragedy speaks to every class in a democratic society like Athens (where power emanates from everybody in theory), while a comedy talks to everybody who is not targeted by it. And yes, Dr. Strangelove is essentially a movie that targets the truth behind power. It makes it a tragicomedy maybe. :)

Well, if there is an historical connection between comedy and sex / phallus, then the new Seth Rogen & Jay Baruchel movie may be the Mt. Olympus of comedies because there are - literally - penises all through it, accompanied by every variety of sex / sex organ talk imaginable. It also happens to be extremely funny! Wow, I am so glad to be doing this series on Aristotle, especially with the gathering of commenters that has emerged. Terrific conversation!

Melanie, your comments brought to mind this scene from Crimes and Misdemeanors, where Alan Alda's character pontificates precisely about the point of comedy = tragedy plus time. For some reason, my mind goes to Life Is Beautiful in which the comedy intensifies the tragic, yes, driving home the power of your quote from Hamilton, "the beauty of intolerable truths." Guido using comedy and storytelling to create an alternate 'reality' for young Joshua, to protect the boy from one intolerable truth [death camps], yet making another intolerable truth [Guido's death] that much more bittersweet.

There's a also this great quote supposedly by Charlie Chaplin: "Life is a tragedy when seen in close-up, but a comedy in long-shot." Aristotle calls the comedy characters 'ludicrous' and their quality a harmless kind of 'ugliness'. Maybe there's less of an identification with the characters that makes us free to laugh about them. When they feel pain, we know it's not real pain. When they get everything in life thrown against them, we know it's not 'serious'. Maybe that's the reason why we are free to laugh about these characters and cleanse ourselves from similar emotions they might feel?

Assigning tragedy the role of the mentor, and comedy the role of the trickster is intriguing. The latter seems obvious in terms of both Jung's analytical psychology (the role of the trickster-shadow ) and psychoanalysis ( Freud: "Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious"). But if tragedy served the role of mentor to the audience then (and does so now), what is it mentoring? The intellect, the emotions? Or...?