It seems to be an illusion to think that all the tragedies are tragic, that is, that it has a critical one that it will be able to recognize them or not tragic, according to some criterion of ' ' tragicidade' '. To this form, we approach in them to a very complex question on the concept of tragic and if it would englobaria what he brings the tragedies, or the tragedy being a literary creation, would be subjects to the ability of its author. The literary critic/philosopher or even though the proper reader would be the last ones to diagnosis the tragic one in a tragedy. This approach of concepts between tragic tragedy and leaves in them to understand that in the tragedy it will have to contain the tragic one. For Most, it is not accidental that the tragic term is freed of its linking with a literary form and generalized to apply to the condition human being at the accurate moment of history, in the turn of century XIX, when the sort of the tragedy leaves of to be a dominant literary way. Currently, tragedies in the theaters are almost not staged, but, in our roads, them they are produced always.
Already the tragic word tries to define the state/invariant character of the man. In the literary critical philosophy and the old ones it seems not to have had nothing corresponding to the modern philosophical notion of ' ' trgico' ' as a basic dimension of the experience human being, but in its place only theories of ' ' tragdia' ' as a specific sort. Perhaps either therefore that the story of Aristotle on the historical evolution of the tragedy if refuses to mention the traditional inventor of the sort: Tspis, therefore, when trying suprimiz it, Aristotle makes the sort to seem Athenian occidental person and, more inevitable and human less.