“There remains, then, … that of a man who is not eminently good and just,-yet whose misfortune is brought about not by vice or depravity, but by some error or frailty.” 

High Status and Noble Character: The hero should be a king, prince, or respected figure (like Oedipus or Macbeth). Their high status makes their fall dramatic. Ordinary people's struggles do not inspire the same pity and fear. Aristotle argues that tragedy imitates "serious" actions. So the hero's position must reflect this gravity. However, their nobility also highlights their hamartia. For example, Macbeth's ambition is worse because he's a brave general, not a common man.

Single, Tragic Ending: Aristotle prefers tragedies where the hero falls from good to bad fortune (e.g., Oedipus's exile). He criticizes "double endings" (where good/bad characters get opposite fates) as less tragic. Happy endings, he says, belong to comedy. A true tragedy must end in suffering to achieve catharsis. Euripides' unhappy endings are actually ideal. The hero's irreversible ruin makes the story more powerful.

Audience Connection: The hero must be relatable enough to inspire fear ("This could be me") but noble enough to inspire pity ("They didn't deserve this"). For example, Oedipus's love for his family makes his downfall heartbreaking. Aristotle rejects purely evil or perfect heroes because they can not create this balance. The audience should see themselves in the hero's flaws, but also admire their virtues. This connection is why tragedies like “Hamlet” or “Antigone” remain timeless.

In conclusion, Aristotle's ideal tragic hero is a noble but flawed person. His hamartia leads to his downfall. This balance creates pity and fear. Heroes like Oedipus or Macbeth work because they're neither saints nor villains. Their mistakes feel human, their suffering feels unfair, and their status makes their fall dramatic. Aristotle's theory still shapes storytelling today. His view reminds us that tragedy reflects life's complexity.