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 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).