ARISTOTLE
Q.1. Definition of Tragedy—Its Nature—Theory and Conception— Sources
of Tragic Pleasure—Epic and Tragedy
The Poetics is concerned chiefly with
Tragedy, which is regarded as the highest poetic form. "But the theory of Tragedy
is worked out", says Abercrombie, "with such insight and
comprehension, that it becomes the type of the theory of literature."
Tragedy Distinguished from Other Poetic Forms
Aristotle begins by pointing out that
imitation is the common basis of all the fine Arts, which, however, differ from
each other in their medium of imitation, their objects of imitation, and their
manner of imitation. Thus poetry differs from painting and music in its medium
of imitation. Poetry itself is divisible into epic and dramatic on the basis of
its manner of imitation. The Epic narrates, while the Dramatic represents
through action. The Dramatic poetry itself is distinguished as Tragic or Comic
on the basis of its objects of imitation. Tragedy imitates men as better, and
comedy as worse, then they really are. In this way, does Aristotle establish
the unique nature of Tragedy and differentiates it from the other kinds of
poetry.
A Superior
Form
Next, Aristotle proceeds to trace the origin
and development of poetry. In beginning, poetry was of two kinds. There were
'Iambs' or 'invectives', the one hand, and hymns on the gods or panegyrics on
the great, on the ~~. The first, 'Iambs', or, 'invectives' developed into
satiric, and the hymns panegyrics into Epic, or Heroic poetry. Out of Heroic
poetry developed Tragedy, and out of satiric came the Comedy. As Tragedy is a
later development, it is, therefore, a higher kind than the Epic. In Chapter
XXVI of Poetics, the Greek philosopher
compares Tragedy with Epic in a number respects and demonstrates this superiority.
Both Epic and Tragedy imitate serious subjects in a grand kind of verse, but
they differ in as much as Epic imitates only in one kind of verse both for its
Choral odes and its dialogue. Epic is more lengthy and so more comprehensive
and varied; but the Tragedy has much greater concentration and so is more
effective. Besides the Tragedy has all the elements which the Epic has, while
there are ain elements of Tragedy
which the Epic does not have. The Epic lacks music and spectacle which are
important constituents of Tragedy, and which enhance its effect. It has also
reality of presentation and unity of action both which the epic lacks. The
Tragedy is superior, because, "All the parts of an epic
are included in Tragedy; but those of Tragedy are not all of them to be mill in the Epic."
Its Definition
After this
preliminary discussion, Aristotle comes to a consideration of nature and
function of Tragedy. He defines tragedy, as, "the imitation of
action, serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude, in a language beautified
in different parts with different kinds of embellishment, through, action and not narration, and through
scenes of pity and fear bringing about the 'Catharsis' of these (or such like)
emotions." This definition has Wide implications. It falls
naturally, into two parts. The first part, from "The Imitation of an
action" to, "and not narration", is concerned with Tragedy as One of the imitative
arts, and points out its medium, objects, and manner of imitation. The second
part is concerned with the function and emotional •fleets of Tragedy.
Ill Objects of Imitation
Further, the
definition first distinguishes tragedy from other forms of poetry (1)
Its objects of
imitation are, 'serious actions\ and hence it is different
from Comedy which imitates the non-serious. Humphrey House explains
the
word, "serious"
as
meaning weighty or important. Secondly, Tragedy on
the basis of its manner of imitation is distinguished from the Epic Which
'narrates' and does not represent through action. Thirdly, on the basis of Its
medium it is distinguished from the lyric. It employs several kinds of mix
embellishments in different parts, i.e., verse in dialogue and
song in the choric pulls.
Its
Plot
Next, Aristotle examines the plot of Tragedy. Tragedy
imitates 'actions' and its plot consists of a logical and inevitable sequence
of events. The 'action' it imitates is its plot. The action must be complete, i.e., it
must have a beginning, a middle and an end. 'The beginning is that from which
further action flows out, and which is intelligible in itself, and not
consequent or dependent on any previous situation. A satisfying end is that
which follows inevitably from what has gone before, but which does not lead to
further action. It marks the completion of the tragic action. The middle is
that which follows inevitably upon what has gone before, and also leads on to
an inevitable conclusion. At all points, "Aristotle
emphasises that the tragic action must be in accordance with the laws of
probability and necessity."
The
action for plot of a tragedy must be of a certain 'magnitude' and
the word has been used in the sense of 'size'
or 'length'. It
must be long enough to permit an orderly development of action to a
catastrophe. Too short an action cannot be regarded as proper and beautiful,
for its different parts will not be clearly visible, as in the case of a very
small living creature. Neither should it be too long, for in that case it will
not be taken in as an artistic whole by the memory. The action should be
proportionate in the relation of the different parts to each other and to the
whole. It must bean 'organic' whole.
Later
on, Aristotle divides the plots of Tragedy into two kinds, Simple and
Complex. He calls a plot simple, when the change in the fortunes of
the hero takes place without Peripety
and Discovery; and
the plot is complex when it involves one or the other, or both. The Peripety is
the change in the fortunes of the hero, and the Discovery is
a change from ignorance to knowledge. Aristotle prefers a complex plot, for it
startles and captures attention, and so is likely to perform the tragic
function more effectively than a simple plot. He regards the episodic plot, i.e., a
plot in which the different episodes introduced by the dramatist have neither
probability nor necessity, as the worst of all.
Indeed,
throughout The Poetics, Aristotle lays great emphasis on the probability and
necessity of the action of a tragedy. There must be a causal connection between
the various events and incidents and they must follow each other naturally and
inevitable. No incident or character should be superfluous. The events
introduced must be such as are probable under the circumstances. Similarly,
Aristotle emphasises Unity of Action; he
is against plurality ofaction as it weakens the final effect ofthe Tragedy.
Its
Embellishments
'
By the various embellishments in various parts, Aristotle means verse and song.
Tragedy imitates through verse in the dialogue, and through song in the Choric
parts. Verse and song beautify and decorate and give pleasure, but Aristotle
does not regard them as essential or indispensable for the success of a
tragedy.
Its
Function
As regards the function of tragedy, Aristotle points
out that it is to present scenes of 'fear and pity', and thus to bring about a Catharsis of
these emotions. But he does not supply any explanation of this function of
tragedy. Hence critics have advanced a number of explanations, and the term has
been variously interpreted. What Aristotle exactly meant by the term can only
be understood with a reference to his other works, more specially the Rhetoric, The Politics and the Ethics. The whole question is a complex one, and a number of
interpretations are possible. But for our purposes it would suffice to say that
by the Catharsis of such emotions as pity and fear, he means their
restoration to the right proportions, to the desirable 'mean', to the 'golden
means' which is the basis of his discussion of human qualities in the Ethics.
Formative
or Constituent Parts
Having
examined the definition, nature, and function of Tragedy, Aristotle comes to a
consideration of its formative or constituent parts. He enumerates six
formative elements of a Tragedy: Plot, character, diction,
thought, spectacle and song. Two
of these parts relate to the medium of imitation, one to the manner of
imitation, and three to the objects of imitation. Song or the Lyrical element
is to be found in the Choric parts of a tragedy, it is the 'embellishment'
spoken of earlier which distinguishes the tragedy from the epic. It is one of
the sources of the pleasure of tragedy. The Spectacle or the scenic
effects have more to do with
stagecraft than with the writing of poetry, and hence Aristotle is of the view
that the dramatist must depend for his effects on his own powers, rather than
on Spectacle. He writes, "Fear and pity can be
produced by spectacular means, but it is much better to produce them by the way
you write your play." This is
one of those platitudes of Aristotle which human nature has always ignored, and
the wisdom of which it has to learn again and again through experience. There
can be no worse enemy of the art of the dramatist, than the theatre-manager,
and reliance on the theatrical and the sensational has spoiled many an
excellent play.' Thought, "is the power of saying
whatever can be said, or what is appropriate to the occasion." Thought
is required where a statement is made, or some statement is proved or
disapproved. Thought is the intellectual element in a
tragedy, and it is expressed
through the speech of a character. This implies that only such speeches are
significant as express the views and feelings of a character. This in itself
brings out the importance of language of Diction in
tragedy. It is the language which
gives us the thoughts and feeling of the various Dramatic Personae, and it is
through speech that their character is first revealed, that is why the language
of Tragedy mu*st be unusually expressive. Aristotle discusses the question at
length in all its aspects and is the first writer to emphasise the expressive
value or metaphorical language. He considers, "the gift of
metaphor", as "the greatest of
all". Metaphor is the source of the beauty and vividness of language. As a
general rule, the language of Tragedy, "must be clear, and it must not be
mean". The language must he clear, but also dignified and elevated. In the
interest of clarity, it must use familiar and current words, but 'rare', and 'unfamiliar'
words must be introduced
judiciously to impart elevation.
Characterisation
As regards characterisation
in general, Aristotle lays down four essential qualities. First, the characters
must be good, secondly, they must be appropriate, thirdly, they must have
likeness, and fourthly, they must have consistency. The characters should be
good but not too good or perfect. Wicked characters may be introduced, if required by the
plot; Aristotle is only against the wanton introduction of evil and wickedness.
By appropriateness Aristotle means that they must be true to type i.e. they must have the characteristics which are
common to the profession, rank or class, to which a particular character
belongs. By likeness Aristotle may mean either of two things: first, the characters must be
life-like, they must be true representatives of actual human nature; or, secondly,
they must be like the traditional or historical personage on whom they are
modelled and whose name they bear. The characters must show a consistent development, it
there is an inconsistent character, he must be represented as inconsistent throughout. There must
be no sudden
and unaccountable changes in character; in whatever the character says or does
the demands of necessity and probability must be satisfied.
Tragic
Hero
Coming to a consideration
of the ideal tragic hero, Aristotle lays down that he should neither be
perfectly good nor utterly bad. He should be a man neither of a blameless character, nor
a depraved villain.
He is a man of
ordinary
weaknesses and virtues, like ourselves, leaning more to the side of good than of evil, occupying
a position of eminence, mid Culling into ruin from that eminence, not because of any
deliberate wickedness, but because of some error of judgment on his part. In
short, he should be a man such as is likely to help the tragedy in performing its proper function
i.e. that of bringing about a Catharsis of the emotion of pity and feat. Obliviously,
we feel pity and fear at the spectacle of a man like us, suffering, not because of some deliberate villainy, but
because of some error of judgment
The
Plot: Its Vital Significance
While all the six elements
listed above are essential lo tragedy and have always been employed by poets,
the most important constituent of Tragedy, according to Aristotle, is plot. It
is the very soul of tragedy My plot Aristotle means the arrangement of
incidents. Incidents mean action, mid tragedy is an imitation of actions, both
external and internal i.e., it also imitates the mental processes of the dramatis
personae. He likens the plot of a tragedy. to a living organism, and says it must
be a complete whole, like a living organism, and like it also of a certain magnitude or
length. It must have the unity of a living organism. Just as in a living
organism every part is essential to the life of the whole, so also in a tragedy there should
be nothing superfluous; every incident must take the action a step further, and it
should not be possible to remove any single incident without causing injury to
the entire action. In a successful plot, the various incidents are causally
related to each other, and are also probable and necessary under the circumstances.
Play of chance may be allowed, but only to a limited extent, and only in case of incidents
which are not
actually represented on the stage. Further, Aristotle clearly states that this
unity of plot cannot arise merely by the presence of a single hero. A wide variety of incidents might
befall a single individual in life, and all of them cannot go into the making of the plot. The artist must
properly select and order his material, and
thus impart artistic unity-to it. Plurality of action characterises the epic, but in tragedy it weakens
the tragic effect and so must be
avoided.
The plot should be so
framed that it arouses the emotions of pity and fear among the spectators which
is the function of tragedy. A tragic plot, therefore, must avoid (a) showing a
perfectly good man passing from happiness to misery, (b) showing a bad man rising from misery to
happiness, and (c) showing an
extremely bad man falling from happiness to misery. The best tragic plot is one which shows a good man, but
not, a perfectly good one, suffering
as a consequence of some error or fault, Hamartia, on his own part.
Plot
and Character: A Comparative Study
As regards the comparative
importance of Plot and Character, Aristotle is quite emphatic that Plot is more
important than Character. He goes to the extent of saying that there can be a
tragedy without character, but none without plot. In order to explain that plot is the
fundamental thing, the Greek philosopher compares Plot to the outline sketch of a
painter. Just as colours, however beautiful, have no meaning and significance
without the outline, so also the tragedy has, 'no soul', no significance
without Plot. It is Plot, which like the painter's outline, gives meaning and
significance to character.
The
Unities
Aristotle emphasises only
one of the three unities, the Unity of Action; he is against plurality of
action as it weakens the tragic effect. There might be a number of incidents but
they must be causally connected with each other, and they must all be conducive to one
effect, the effect aimed at by the dramatist. As regards the Unity of Time, Aristotle
only once mentions it in relation to dramatic Action. Comparing the epic and the Tragedy, he
writes, "Tragedy tries, as far as possible, to live within a single revolution of the
sun, or only slightly
to exceed it, whereas the epic observes no limits in its time of action." It is merely a suggestion,
"tries as far as possible"; there is nothing here that can be called a
rule; and, indeed, several of the Greek tragedies with which Aristotle must have been
familiar far exceed this time-limit. He never mentions the Unity of Place at
all, or even says that it is desirable to confine the action to a single place. The
doctrine of the three unities, which has figured so much in literary criticism
since the Renaissance, cannot be laid to his account. He is not the author of
it; it was foisted on him by Renaissance critics of Italy
and France
Sources of Tragic Pleasure
The end of poetry is to
give pleasure, and tragedy has its own distinctive pleasure, as well as the pleasure
which is common to all poetry. According to Aristotle, the function of poetry is
to give a certain refined pleasure, and in this he goes counter to the view
that the poet is primarily an ethical teacher. Each kind of poetry has its own
aesthetic pleasure. However, this proper aesthetic pleasure can be possible
only when the requirements of morality are satisfied. Thus he considers pleasure
as essential and moral function as only incidental. Aristotle recognised the
value of the emotional effects of poetry. Plato had condemned poetry because of
its disturbing emotional effects. Aristotle points out that it brings us a
sense of relief through Catharsis. The sources of tragic pleasure pointed out
by him, may be listed as follows:
The pleasure is derived
partly from our natural sense of harmony and rhythm. Verse and rhyme are not necessary, but they
certainly enhance the pleasure of poetry.
It is also derived partly
from the instinct of imitation; it is pleasure arising from seeing a thing, or
action, well-imitated. A successful tragedy gives pleasure, because it satisfies
our basic instinct of imitation.
Poetry is imitation, and
imitation of something with which we are not familiar increases our knowledge,
and to know, to learn, is pleasure.
But these two sources of pleasure are common to
all poetry. What about the distinctive
pleasure of tragedy ? The peculiar pleasure of tragedy is caused by the Catharsis of the emotions of
pity and fear.
Tragedy imitates action and
life, its pain and misery, and if this imitation is well-done, it is gripping
and absorbing. There is a total emotional identification of the spectator with
the person who suffers on the stage. Peripeteia and Anagnorisis are
commended by Aristotle because they heighten the seductive power—the gripping interest—of the
action. Pure pleasure
results from the exercise of our emotions, senses and thoughts on the tragic
action. In this way, we smile through our tears.
Tragedy gives pleasure
because it results in enhanced understanding of life and its problems. It provides
a kind of inner illumination.
The unity of the plot, the diction, and the
spectacle, etc., are other sources of
pleasure in a tragedy.
Conclusion
Such are the main features
of Aristotle's theory of Tragedy. The theory might have its weaknesses; Aristotle
knows only Greek Tragedy, his conclusions are based entirely on the drama with which
he was familiar, and hence often his views are not of universal application. But, despite all
that can be said against it, "Aristotle's theory of Tragedy is the
foundation on which all subsequent discussions of literary aesthetics has most securely
based itself." Aristotle's views might have been challenged, but their history is the
history of Tragedy
Poetry is thus a creative
process, giving us the poet's conception of truth, telling us what according to him,
"men ought to the according to the law of probability and necessity." The
real and the ideal from Aristotle's point of view are not opposites, the ideal is
the real, shorn of chance and accident, a purified form of reality. And it is
this higher 'reality' which is the object of poetic imitation. Idealisation,
and universality, is achieved by divesting the real of all that is accidental,
transient and particular. Poetry thus imitates the ideal and the universal, it is an
"idealised representation of character, emotion, action—under forms manifest
in sense." Poetic truth, therefore, is higher than historical truth.
Poetry is more philosophical, more conducive to understanding than Philosophy
itself.
Thus Aristotle successfully and finally refuted the charge of Plato, and provided a defence of poetry which has ever since been used by lovers of poetry in
justification of their Muse. He breathed new life and soul into the concept of poetic imitation, enlarged its scope, and
showed that it is, in reality, a creative process.
Q.2 The Plot of Tragedy—-Its Structure-—Constituent Elements—Kinds
of Plots—Peripeteia—Anagnorisis
The Plot: Its Nature and Significance
Aristotle devotes
considerable attention to ;m examination of the nature, structure and
constituent elements of the ideal tragic plot, Tragedy is the representation of action,
and action consists of incidents and events. Plot is the arrangement of these
incidents and events. Plot, thus, contains the kernel of the action, which it
is the business of the tragedy to represent. Hence the primary importance of plot and the
extended treatment which it receives at the hands of the Greek philosopher. Plot,
he says, is the first principle, the soul of tragedy, and that there can be no
tragedy without plot. He lists six formative elements of a tragedy—Plot,
character, thought, melody, diction, spectacle— and of these six he assigns the first
place to plot. More space has been devoted to a discussion of the nature,
structure, kinds, and the constituent elements of an ideal plot, than to any other of
the six formative elements of Tragedy.
Plot Distinguished from
Story
The Greek word for 'poet' means a 'maker',
and the poet is a 'maker', not because he
makes verses, but because he makes plots. Aristotle differentiates between 'story' and 'plot'. The
poet need not make his story; indeed,
it would be better if he chooses a traditional story and then proceeds to make out of it his own plot. Stories taken
from history, mythology, or legend
are to be preferred, for they are familiar and easy to understand, and they serve as guide-lines for characterisation.
Having chosen his story or having
invented it, the artist must subject it to a process of artistic selection and
ordering. Only relevant incidents and situations are to be selected, and they are to be so arranged that they seem to
follow each other necessarily and inevitably.
Moreover, the incidents chosen must be 'serious', that is to say, 'weighty', of some importance, and not 'trivial',
as tragedy is an imitation of a serious
action. Therefore, the incidents should be 'serious', such as are likely to arouse the tragic emotions of pity and fear.
The Plot: Its Wholeness
Next, Aristotle lays down
that the tragic plot must be a complete whole. , By 'complete' he means that the
plot must have a beginning, a middle, and an end. It must have a beginning, i.e., it must not
necessarily flow out of some previous
situation. There might be earlier parts of the story, the antecedents, and they may be communicated by the dramatist in
due course. But the beginning must be clear and intelligible even without them.
It must not provoke us to ask 'why'
and 'how'. The common Greek practice was to give the antecedents through the Prologue—a soliloquy spoken by some
character who does not appear again in
the play. A Greek Tragedy, says Humphrey House, started much later than a
Shakespearean one, so that there may be greater unity and concentration. The antecedents were related in due
course. An effective beginning is
the sure test of a dramatist's skill.
O.B. Hardison discusses
the question of an effective beginning in detail and concludes that the 'beginning' of
a plot is the incident which initiates a process of change, and this process
concludes with the 'end' of the tragedy. This view harmonises with Aristotle's
statement that tragedy depicts a change from happiness to misery. The beginning
or the initiating incident begins this process of change, and the process thus
initiated reaches its culmination at the end.
After 'the beginning'
comes 'the middle'. A middle is something that is consequent upon a situation
that has gone before, and which is followed by the catastrophe. The middle is
everything between the first incident and the last. The middle is followed by
the end. An end is that which is consequent upon a given situation, but which
is not followed by any further incident or situation. The middle must follow
naturally and inevitably upon the beginning, and must logically lead to the end, or the
catastrophe. Thus artistic wholeness implies logical link-up of the various
incidents, events and situations that form the plot.
Its Magnitude
Aristotle then comes to
the question of Magnitude. The plot must have a certain magnitude. It must have a
certain "length". 'Magnitude' here means 'size'. It should be neither too small
nor too large. It should be long enough to allow the process of change from
happiness to misery initiated by 'the beginning', to be properly and completely
developed, but not too long for memory to encounter it as a whole. If it is too
long, the beginning would be forgotten before the end. If it is too small, its
different parts will not be clearly distinguishable from each other, as in the case of a
living organism. Within these limits, the plot should be as large as possible, larger the
belter. In this connection
O.B. Hardison writes, "The precise rule is that the magnitude should be whatever is
required for a change to occur from bad fortune to good, or from good fortune to bad
through a series of incidents that are in accordance with probability or
necessity." In other words, it is the action itself, not the audience or the
judges, that should determine the magnitude or size of the plot. Each drama is
a unique problem in poetic craftsmanship, and what is valid for one may be invalid
for another. Magnitude also implies order and proportion, and as in the case of
a living organism, beauty and order depend upon magnitude. The different parts must be
properly related to each other and to the whole. Thus magnitude implies that the plot must
have order, logic symmetry and perspicuity.
Organic Unity—Episodic Plots
Aristotle conceives of the
plot of a tragedy as an organic whole, and also as having organic unity in its action. An action is a
process of change from happiness to misery or
vice versa, and tragedy must depict only one such action. There may be a number of incidents and
events, but together they must constitute
one, and only one, action. The incidents impart variety, and unity results from the fact that the incidents are so
arranged that they all tend to the same
end or catastrophe. The plot must also have the organic unity, i.e., the
unity which a living creature has.
The unity which he prescribes is not a mere mechanical, formal unity of parts, an outward symmetry of form, "but
an inward principle, capable of
admitting the complexity of living things, while possessing also the vital
relation of their parts"—(Atkins). Thus the plot may have variety, but still be a Unity. This unity
arises from the fact that first, every
event, every incident, has a logical connection with the rest of the action, and secondly, none of them is irrelevant, i.e.,
such that its presence or absence
will make no difference to the plot. There might be episodes— indeed, episodes are necessary, for they impart
variety and serve to lengthen out the plot—but then they must be properly
integrated with the main action. It
must not be possible to remove them or even to transpose them without causing injury to the plot. They must be
necessary, and they must follow each other inevitably. Just as every part of
the body of a living creature is essential for its life, and cannot be removed without injury to it, so every
incident and episode must be
necessary for the whole. Otherwise, episodic plots are the worst of all.
This organic unity cannot
be provided merely by the presence of the tragic hero, for many incidents may happen
in the life of the hero which cannot
be brought into relation with the rest. So there should be proper shifting and ordering of material. As O.B.
Hardison points out, // is not necessary for the poet to proceed
chronologically, as is necessary for a biographer. He can handle time much
more freely. He may begin in the middle
of the life history of the hero, instead of beginning at the very beginning of his life and continuing till the end.
Probability
and Necessity
Further, Aristotle couples
organic unity of plot with probability and necessity. The plot must deal with an action—incidents and
situations— which is possible according to
the laws of probability and necessity. The plot is not tied to what has actually happened, but he deals with what may probably or necessarily happen under the given
circumstances. Now probability and
necessity imply, that there should be no unrelated events and incidents, i.e., the various events must be
inter-related with a sort of artistic logic.
They must follow each other inevitably, and further that nothing should be left to chance or to the 'marvellous', at
least in the essential parts of the action.
If at all, the marvellous should be used only in connection with events that happened in the remote, past, or for what
has to be foretold. The concept of
probability and necessity also implies that words and actions must be in character—they must be probable or necessary
outcome of the character of a dramatic
personage. Thus probability and necessity imply co-herence and order and are essential for artistic unity and
wholeness.
Moreover, probability
implies that the tragic action must be convincing or credible. If the poet
deals with something improbable, he must have the skill to make it convincing and
credible. The dramatist must procure, "willing suspension of disbelief, for the events and incidents which
form his plot. Thus a convincing impossibility is to be preferred to an
unconvincing possibility.
The Unities
The above discussion makes
it clear that Aristotle rules out plurality of action. He emphasises the Unity of
Action but has little to say about the Unity of Time and the Unity of Place. About
the Unity of Time he merely says in The Poetics that tragedy should confine itself as far as possible, to a
single revolution of the sun. No law is
implied here. Aristotle has simply made a suggestion, he has simply
hinted what is desirable and he has added the saving
clause, "as far as possible". As regards the so-called Unity of
Place, Aristotle only mentioned
once, when comparing the epic and the tragedy, that epic can narrate a number of actions going on
simultaneously in different parts, while in a drama simultaneous actions cannot
be represented, for the stage is one
part (place) and not several parts, or places. In this respect also, Aristotle
was much misunderstood by Renaissance critics, and later French critics, who deduced from what Aristotle has said,
the rigid unity of Place.
Fatal Versus
Fortunate Plots
Aristotle says that tragedy is an imitation of a 'serious
action', and that its purpose is to arouse pity and fear. Now 'serious' means important,
weighty. The
plot of a tragedy must be comprised of serious incidents, because for Aristotle tragedy is
essentially a play which deals with great moral issues, matters of utmost
importance to human life. Moreover, the incidents comprising the plot should be such as
are likely to arouse the feelings of 'pity and fear'. Now this means that
tragedy is a tale of suffering with an unhappy ending, because it is only such a tale
that is likely to arouse both pity and fear. This means, in other words, that the
plot or a tragedy must be a fatal one. Aristotle rules out fortunate plots
for tragedy, because such a plot is not likely to arouse the proper tragic emotions.
A tragic plot must depict the hero passing from happiness to misery, and not rising from
misery to happiness. The suffering or misery of the hero may be caused either
by the action of an enemy, or by the action of a stranger, but it would be most piteous
when it is unintentionally caused by friends and relatives who are his
well-wishers. It is then that we get the ideal tragic plot, the plot which is likely to
arouse pity and fear
the most of all.
The Plot: Its Three Kinds
According to Aristotle, Tragic plots may be of three
kinds, (a) Simple, (b) Complex, and (c) Plots based on or
depicting incidents of suffering, and depending for their effect on such depiction. The
words Simple and Complex, here have technical terms. A Simple
plot is one which does not have any Peripety and Anagnorisis, but
the action moves forward uniformly without any violent or sudden change. Aristotle prefers Complex
plots. An ideal tragic plot, according to
Aristotle, must not be Simple. It must be Complex, i.e., it must have Perepeteia, i.e., "reversal of
intention", and Anagnorisis, i.e., "recognition of
truth". It is the unexpected catastrophe resulting from a deed done with the best of intentions that arouses
'pity and fear' to the greatest
possible extent. The ideal Tragedy is one which results from human error, error on the part of friends and relatives,
error on the part of the hero himself.
The ideal Tragedy is a story in which the calamity is due to a false move blindly made by a friend or kinsman or by the
hero himself. "It is a tragedy brought about, not by the deliberate
purpose of some evil agent, nor yet by mere chance, but by human
error"—(Atkins). F.L. Lucas agrees with Atkins and says, "there is nothing more brilliant in 'the
Poetics' than this recognition by Aristotle of the Tragedy of Error, of the
Peripeteia, as the deepest of
all." Peripeteia implies a
recognition by Aristotle of the irony of circumstances or life. While Perepeteia implies ignorance of truth, Anagnorisis is the realisation of truth forced
upon the hero by some marks or signs,
or by chance, or better still, by the logic events. An ideal plot is one which
Anagnorisis follows or even coincides with perepeteia, i.e., with the false step taken by the hero or his well-wishers.
In Aristotle's conception, "Hamartia, Perepeteia,
and Anagnorisis all hang together in the ideal schematisation of the tragic
plot"—(Humphrey
House). Hamartia is the tragic Error and is related to the character of
the hero, but
in a successful plot it is so closely worked into the plot as to be inseparable from it. The
miscalculation of the hero causes a chain of incidents which result in the change from good
fortune to bad which the tragic plot depicts. Both Perepeteia and Anagnorisis
are incidents, and so parts of the plot. The Perepeteia is the fatal working of the
plot to a result the opposite of that intended; the Anagnorisis is the recognition
of truth; it is, "the change from ignorance to knowledge", brought about as far
as possible by the incidents of the plot. It must be the "necessary and probable",
result of the incidents
that have preceded it. It results in a change from friendship to hostility, and vice
versa. "After the recognition, the plot must veer off in a new direction." Recognition in the sense
is closely akin to reversal. Recognition and reversal can be caused by
separate incidents; often, however, it is difficult to separate the two. They may be
easily combined in the same incident, and Aristotle considers this combined form
to be the most, effective. Aristotle himself
cites King Oedipus as the best example of this combined "reversal-recognition" or, "compound
recognition", as it is called. Complex plots, i.e., plots with reversals and recognitions are the best,
for recognition and reversal add the
element of surprise and, "the pitiable and fearful incidents are made more so by the shock of surprise." The action has been moving forward and then quite suddenly the unexpected
happens. There is sudden change of
direction; this generates surprise, and the inherent pity and fear of the incidents are enhanced.
As regards the third kind of plot, the plot depending
for its effect on incidents of suffering, Aristotle rates it very low. It is the plot
which derives its
effect from the depiction of torture, murder, maiming, violence, death, etc., and says Aristotle, tragic effect must be
created naturally, and not with artificial
and theatrical aids. Such plots indicate a deficiency in the art of the poet.
The Denouement
In
making their plots, the poets should take great care to make their denouements or
'resolutions', effective and successful. Unravelling of the plot should be done
naturally and logically, and not by the use of arbitrary devices, like chance,
supernatural intervention, etc. "Gods should intervene only where it becomes
necessary to explain the past, or announce future events external to the action"—(Atkins). Aristotle
does not consider Poetic Justice as necessary for Tragedy. He regards it more in
keeping with the spirit of comedy.
Poetic justice implies that rewards and punishments are meted out according to the deserts of the Dramatic
personages, while the essence of tragedy
is that suffering is far in excess of the fault or error of the hero. Similarly, Aristotle rules out plots with a
double end, i.e., plots in which there is happiness for some of the
characters, and misery for others. Such a double-ending weakens the tragic effect, and hence must be avoided. It is more proper to Comedy. Thus Aristotle is against
Tragi-comedy. 6. Essentials of Successful Characterisation—Ideal Tragic
Hero—Hamartia
Idealisation of
Reality
According
to Aristotle, Tragedy idealises—imitates men as better (or higher)—and Comedy caricatures, i.e., shows
men as worse (or lower) than they actually are. Tragedy idealises and brings
out the hidden possibilities embedded
in men. The characters in a tragedy are real men and women, but they are of the
better sort, and further by a judicious process of selection and elimination,
the reality is heightened, and the good in them is made more prominent and impressive.
A skilful painter paints from reality, but the object painted is made to look
more beautiful than the original. It is still reality, but reality idealised. In the same way, the poet has
reality as his basis. He depicts real men and women, but he idealises reality,
and so represents men finer and nobler
than they actually are.
Four Essentials of Characterisation
In Chapter XV of the Poetics, Aristotle deals with
the art of characterisation
on an extended scale. He lists four essentials of successful characterisation:
(1) The characters must be good. A character is
good, if his words and actions reveal that his purpose is good. In ancient Greece
But what does Aristotle mean by 'good' ? The word has
variously been interpreted
by various critics. While some critics have interpreted the word in the sense
of general moral quality revealed in action, more specifically in the 'choices', the character makes, F.L. Lucas
emphatically declares that from the context
it becomes clear that "good", means 'fine' or, "noble"; the
characters should be as fine as the
plot permits. Humphrey House goes to the root of the matter and says that the word 'good', has been used here in
the Greek sense, and not in the
Christian sense. In the Greek sense, the word 'goodness' implies a number of virtues, such as courage,
magnificence, temperance, liberality, friendliness, etc. In any case, a
negative, cloistered virtue is not
meant, but a zealous and energetic goodness. "Aristotle's good man
is not good, unless he is desiring specific, positive, good ends, and working towards their attainment." Goodness, according to the Greek conception, lay not in endurance or humility, but
in strength and intensity of character,
in the greatness of soul, even in physical strength which enables a man to achieve his ends. The characters need not
be paragons of virtue in the Christian
sense, but they must have 'grandeur', or they may be brave or
upright, or determined. Above all, they must not be
weak, for weakness is the hardest to justify on the stage.
(2) Secondly, the characters must be appropriate, that is to say they must be true to 'type' or 'status'. For
example, a woman must be shown as womanly and not 'manly', a slave must be
given a character which is appropriate
to his 'status'. Manliness would not be appropriate in a woman, and dignity and nobility in a slave. If the
characters are taken from some known
myth or story, say the story of King Oedipus, then they must be true to tradition. They must behave as King Oedipus is
traditionally supposed to have
behaved. In this respect, Aristotle had the practice of Greek dramatists in mind, who chose their tragic themes from
history, myth, and other traditional
sources.
Aristotle's criterion of appropriateness has come in for
a good deal of criticism.
It is said that Aristotle lays down that the characters should be "true to type", that they
must have the characteristics peculiar to their age, profession, sex, or social rank and
status. They be true and appropriate representatives of the class or group to which they belong.
However, this does not mean
that they should be mere types and not 'individuals'. They must have generic or typical qualities, but they
can also be, and must be, individualised
at the same time. Their individuality is guaranteed by the fact that tragedy
represents not men, but, "men in action". The actions of even the personages of the same type are bound to differ
from situation to situation, it is
action which is bound to reveal their individuality. The 'choice' which they make in a critical situation is bound to reveal
their individual characters. Aristotle's
insistence on appropriateness is a sure safeguard against that oddity and eccentricity, that probing into the
depths, which is a basic weakness in
the characterisation of many a modern novel, and which comes in the way of the development of plot.
(3) The third essential
of successful characterisation is that characters must have, 'likeness', i.e., they must be like ourselves or true to
life. In other words, they must have the virtues and weaknesses,
joys and sorrows, loves and hatreds,
likes and dislikes, of average humanity. Such likeness is essential, for we can feel pity only for one who
is like ourselves, and only his misfortunes
can make us fear for ourselves. This in itself rules out perfectly good, or utterly wicked and depraved characters.
Such characters will not be like us.
They will be unreal and unconvincing. The characters must be of an intermediate sort, mixtures of good and evil, virtues and
weaknesses, like us.
(4) Fourthly, the characters must be consistent. They must be true to their own natures, and their actions must be in
character. Thus a rash, impulsive person
should act rashly and impulsively throughout. There should be no sudden changes in character. If the
dramatist has to represent an inconsistent
person, then he must be "consistently inconsistent".
Aristotle emphasises the point further by saying that the
actions of a character must be the
necessary and probable outcome of his nature. He should act as we may logically
expect a man of his nature to act, under the given
circumstances. Just as the incidents must be causally connected with each other, so also the various actions of a
character must be the necessary and
probable consequence of his character, and the situation in which he is placed.
They must be logically interlinked with his earlier actions, and must not contradict the impression produced earlier.
THE IDEAL TRAGIC HERO
Having examined the art of characterisation in general,
Aristotle proceeds
to examine the qualities which the ideal tragic hero must have. No passage in the Poetics, with
the exception of the Catharsis phrase, has attracted so much critical attention
as his ideal of the tragic hero.
His Qualities
The function of a tragedy is to arouse the emotions of
pity and fear, and Aristotle deduces the qualities of his hero from this function. He
should be good, but not too good or perfect, for the fall of a perfectly good
man from happiness
into misery, would be odious and repellent. His fall will not arouse pity, for he is not like us
and his undeserved fall would only shock and disgust. Similarly, the spectacle of
an utterly wicked person passing from happiness to misery may satisfy our moral sense,
but is lacking in the proper tragic qualities. Such a person is not like us, and his
fall is felt to be well-deserved and in accordance with the requirement of 'justice'. It excites neither pity nor fear. Thus
according to Aristotle, perfectly good, as well as utterly wicked persons, are
not suitable to be heroes of tragedies. However, Elizabethan tragedy has demonstrated
that, given the necessary skill and art, even villains, like Macbeth, can serve
as proper tragic heroes and their fall can arouse the specific tragic emotions.
"There is, no doubt, that there is something terrible and sublime in mere
will-power working its evil way, dominating its surroundings with a superhuman
energy"—(Butcher). The wreck of such power excites in us a certain tragic
sympathy; we experience a sense of loss and regret over the waste or misuse of
gifts so splendid.
Similarly, according to Aristotelian canon, a saint—a
character perfectly good—would be unsuitable as a tragic hero. He is on the side of the
moral order
and not opposed to it, and hence his fall shocks and repells. Moreover, his martyrdom is a
spiritual victory and the sense of moral triumph drowns the feeling of pity for his physical suffering. The
saint is self-effacing and unselfish, and
so he tends to be passive and inactive. Drama, on the other hand, requires for its effectiveness a militant
and combative hero. However, in
quite recent times, both Bernard Shaw and T.S. Eliot have achieved outstanding success with saints as their tragic
heroes. In this connection, it would be pertinent to remember, first, that
Aristotle's conclusions are based on
the Greek drama with which he was familiar, and secondly, that he is laying down the qualifications of an ideal tragic hero,
he is here discussing what is the
very best, and not what is good. On the whole, his views are justified, for it requires the genius of a Shakespeare to arouse
sympathy for an utter villain, and
saints as successful tragic heroes have been extremely rare.
Having rejected perfection as well as utter depravity and
villainy, Aristotle
points out that the ideal tragic hero, "must be an intermediate kind of person, a man not
pre-eminently virtuous and just, whose misfortune, however, is brought upon him
not by vice or depravity but by some error of judgment." The ideal tragic hero is a
man who stands midway between the two extremes. He is not eminently good or just, though he
inclines Jo the side of goodness. He is like us, but as Butcher points out, raised above
the ordinary
level by a deeper vein of feeling, or heightened powers of intellect or will.
He is idealised, but still he has so much of common humanity as to enlist our
interest and sympathy.
Hamartia
The tragic hero is not depraved or vicious, but he is
also not perfect, and his misfortune is brought upon him by some fault of his own. The Greek
word used here
is "hamartia". The root meaning of Hamartia is "missing
the mark".
He falls
not because of the act of some outside agency or vice or depravity, but because of Hamarlia
or "miscalculation" on his part. Hamartia is not a moral failing,,
and hence it is unfortunate that it has been translated rather loosely as,
"tragic flaw", as has been done by Bradley. Aristotle himself
distinguishes hamartia from moral failing, and makes it quite clear that
he means by it some error of judgment. He writes that the cause of the hero's fall must lie, "not in
depravity, but in some error or Hamartia
on his part." Butcher, Bywater, and Rostangi, all agree that 'Hamartia' is not a moral state; but
an error of judgment which a man nukes or commits. However, as Humphrey House tells us, Aristotle does not assert or deny anything about the
connection of hamartia with moral failings in the hero. "// may be
accompanied by moral imperfection, but it is not itself a moral imperfection, and in
the purest tragic situation the suffering hero is not morally to blame."
Thus Hamartia is an error or miscalculation, but
the error may arise from any of the three ways: It may arise from
"ignorance of some material fact or circumstance", or secondly, ft
may be an error arising from hasty or careless view of the special case, or
thirdly, it may be an error voluntary, but not deliberate, as in the case of acts
committed in anger or passion. Else and Martin Ostwald, both critics of eminence, interpret Hamartia
actively arid'-say that the hero has a tendency to err, created by lack of
knowledge, and he may commit a series of errors. They further say that the tendency to
err characterises
the hero from the beginning—{it is a character-trait^^-and that at the crisis of the play,
it is complemented by the recognition scene. (Anagnorisis), which is a sudden change,
"from ignorance t& knowledge".
As a matter of fact, Hamarlia is a word which
admits of various shades of meaning, and hence it has been differently interpreted by
different critics. However, all serious modern Aristotelian scholarship is agreed that Hamartia
is not
moral imperfection—though it may be allied with moral faults—that it is an error of judgment, whether arising from
ignorance "of some material circumstance,
or from rashness and impulsiveness, of temper, or from some passion. It may even be a character-trait, for the
hero may have a tendency to commit
errors of judgment, and may commit not one, but a series of errors. This last
conclusion is borne out by the play Oedipus Tyrannus to which Aristotle
refers again and again, and which may be taken to be his ideal. In this play, the life of the hero is a chain of
errors, the most fatal of all being his marriage with his mother. If King Oedipus is Aristotle's ideal hero, we
can say with Butcher that, "his
conception of Hamartia includes all the three meanings mentioned above, which in English cannot
be covered by a single term."
Hamartia is an error, or a
series of errors, "Whether morally culpable or not," committed by an otherwise noble person, and these errors
derive him to his doom. The tragic
irony lies in the fact that hero may err innocently, unknowingly, without any evil intention at all,
yet he is doomed no less than those
who are depraved and sin consciously. He has hamartia, he commits error or errors, and as a result his very virtues
hurry him to his ruin. Says Butcher,
"Othello in the modern drama, Oedipus in the ancient, are the two most conspicuous examples of ruin wrought by
characters, noble indeed, but not
without defects, acting in the dark and, as it seemed, for the best."
His Eminence
Aristotle lays down another qualification for the tragic
hero. He must be, "of the number of those in the enjoyment of great reputation and
prosperity." In other words, he must be a person who occupies a position of lofty eminence in society. He
must be a highly placed individual, well-reputed. This is so because Greek tragedy, with
which alone Aristotle was familiar, was written about a few distinguished royal
families. Aristotle, basing his qualification of the tragic hero on what he was familiar
with, considers eminence
as essential for the tragic hero. But Modern drama has demonstrated that the meanest
individual can serve as a tragic hero as well as a prince of the blood royal, and that
tragedies of Sophoclean grandeur can be enacted even in remote country
solitudes.
However,
Aristotle's dictum is quite justified on the principle that, "higher the state, the greater the fall that
follows," or because heavens themselves
blaze forth the death of princes, while the death of a beggar passes unnoticed. But it should be remembered that
Aristotle nowhere says that the hero
should be a king or at least royally descended. As in other matters, so in this respect also, they were the Renaissance
critics who distorted Aristotle and
made the qualification more rigid and narrow.
Q.3: Plot and Character—Their Comparative
Importance—Plot as the "Soul"
of Tragedy.
Tragedy not Possible
without Plot
Aristotle
regards tragedy as made up of six elements, and of these elements he considers the plot as the most
important. He says that Plot is the first
principle, the primary thing, the fundamental thing, "the soul of
tragedy", and character is only of a secondary importance. He goes
to the extreme extent of saying that, "A
tragedy is impossible without plot, but there may be one without
character." No statement in The Poetics has raised such a storm
or protest and criticism as the
present one. It has been said that the statement is absurd and that it does not make sense. Let us first dispassionately
examine the statement and then draw
our own conclusions.
Reasons for the View
Tragedy, according to Aristotle, is not an imitation of
men, but of men in action. Action implies a process, the process of change from happiness
to misery, and
every such action is made up of a number of events and incidents. Plot is the organisation
of the incidents and events which make up the action of a tragedy. Further, action, in the
Aristotelian sense, is not a purely external act, but also an inward process, the
expression of a man's inner self, of his thoughts and emotions, in short, of
his mental processes, which are revealed in outward action. In drama, the
characters are not described, they enact their own story and so reveal themselves.
Drama is performance, because we know the characters from their performance before our
eyes, and not from what we are told about them. Without action in this sense,
without such performance there can be no drama at all. In short, plot contains the kernal of that
action which is the business of a tragedy to represent. It is the plot which
shows a character passing from happiness to misery, as a result of his own
actions. It embraces
outward events as well as the motives and mental processes which determine those events.
Plot, therefore, is of paramount importance. Obviously, there can be no tragedy
without plot.
'Character'—Its Two Meanings
The word "character", as Humphrey House
emphasises, can be used in two senses. It may mean (1) Dramatic personages, or (2)
the bent or tendency or habit of mind, which can be revealed only in what a dramatic
personage says
or does. In The Poetics Aristotle has used two words Ethos and Dionoia
which are
the two aspects or elements which constitute the character of a living person. Character in
its most comprehensive sense is made up of both these elements. Ethos is the
moral element, the moral disposition, and Dionoia is the thought, the intellectual
element, which determines all rational conduct, and through which the moral
self of a person finds outward expression. In drama as in life, both thought and moral
bent of a person reveal themselves in his speeches and in his actions. If a person has a
tendency to avoid
the bad and follow the good, he is virtuous, otherwise he is wicked. Now such a tendency to good
or bad is not inherent by nature, but is formed as a result of past actions.
Character, the Product of
Action
We do have certain physical capacities by nature. The
physical senses of seeing and hearing are in us by nature; we do not acquire these senses
by acts of seeing and hearing. In so far as we have by nature a capacity for
action, it is physical
action, which is ethically neutral or indifferent, and, therefore, does not
involve character at all. Our virtues and vices, our moral self, we acquire in so far as we have acted
in the past, well or badly." We learn to become good or bad by acting well or
ill, just as a builder learns to build by building. By repeated acts of a
certain kind, we acquire a habit or bent of character. In this way, qualities of
character are legacies of past acts"—(Humphrey House). In real life, quite apart from
drama, character is subordinate to action because it is a product of action, is
influenced by action, and reveals itself through action.
As in real life character is subordinate to action.
Aristotle makes it subordinate to action in tragedy as well. When Aristotle says that plot
is "the soul of tragedy", and character only secondary, he uses the
word character in the second sense, i.e., for the moral bent of a dramatic
personage. Plot is the organisation or systematic ordering of action, and it is only through
such action that
character, i.e., the moral bent or tendency of a particular dramatic personage, is revealed. "Character"
in the ethical sense is realised or actualised only in action. "Action which is
ethical is a movement towards an end." It is the end, "which a character
desires, and if this desire or wish to bring about or achieve certain ends,
which distinguishes ethical action from the mere play of chance or
circumstance. 'Characters' become actual only when the agent has a definite 'end' in view, and initiates
a movement to achieve his 'end'. Thus plot brings out character and hence its
primary importance. In life, and so in drama, it <s action or plot, i.e.,
movement towards a desired end which
reveals character or the moral nature of a dramatic personage. Character can be realised only through plot. "The
mere description of certain
qualities of character would be something less than the fullness of character r
The Significance of Choice
When Aristotle says there may be tragedies without
character, he means that the dramatic personages may suffer and act, but may not reveal
their character,
i.e., their moral bent. The moral bent is revealed both by the 'ends'
which a character desires and the "means" he chooses to achieve those
ends. Their moral purpose or tendency may not be revealed, for they may never
be forced with
the need of making a 'choice'; an opportunity to decide upon a particular
course of action may never be offered to them. They may not deliberate and choose one
out of a number of alternatives before them, and so there may be no revelation of character. It is this
deliberation, this thought about the means
to an end, which makes for individuality of character, even when the characters are types or representatives
of some age, sex, profession, or 'status'. It would be wrong to say that
Aristotle minimised the individuality of
character. He is not the advocate of a generalised or 'typical' handling of character. His theory of a action itself
guarantees the subtlest development of character.
Even when the characters are 'typical', they would be easily distinguished from
each other by the end, which they desire, and the means Which they choose to achieve these ends. In every
situation, in every moment of
crisis, they would be required to make a 'choice', and this choice will bring out
their individuality, the differences in their respective moral natures. Before making their respective 'choices', they
will deliberate, and their deliberation
may be expressed in their speeches. It is this element of deliberation, this revelation of what they seek
and what they avoid, which makes
even speech expressive of character, while, "there is no room for
character in a speech on a purely indifferent subject". Such speeches are
a form of action; they reveal the
inward movement toward the choice which the character ultimately makes.
The movement or action is there, only it is internal,
and will ultimately be externalised. Such internal movement can be action in the dramatic sense only when it is
externalised. Thus Samson's speeches
in Milton
In Drama, characters exist as characters only in what
they say or do. They exist by virtue of their dramatic function. A character is not
actualised unless it is "in action". Just as in sports, it is the movement, and
not the physical built, which leads to victory, so in life and in drama, it is action
which leads to success
or failure, happiness or misery. Thus character is subordinate to plot which is the equivalent of
action in life. There may be tragedies without character in the sense that the
dramatic personages may suffer and act, but they may act without knowing why, without
adequately revealing their moral bent or tendency, without showing their minds working
upon the 'means', which they adopt for the realisation of their 'ends'.
Justification by Dramatic History
Dramatic history also justifies the soundness of
Aristotle's dictum. There have been successful dramas without character, and
dramas without a suitable plot have been failures. Oedipus Tyrannus, Aristotle's
ideal play, is a play in which there is a plot but no 'character', in the sense
that the fact of the hero is no! determined by his own actions. King Oedipus is a man
doomed before his birth; in his case character is not destiny. "In
detective-plays character tends to be sub-ordinate to intrigue, and this is the first and
the most famous of detective-plays"—(F.L. Lucas). On the
other hand, a play without plot would be a play in which there is no action, or in which
nothing happens. There would be no drama at all.
A richer and more varied inner life is opened up to us
in modern drama. The sense of personality is deepened. Modern dramatists
explore the hidden recesses of human nature,-reproduce the rarer and more abnormal states
of feeling, but they are unable to rise above the pathological study of man—a study as dangerous as it
is fascinating to the dramatist. Indeed, the conscious analysis of character and motive, even
where the study of morbid conditions is not added, has marred the dramatic effect of many
modern productions. In general, the modern, introspective habit, the
psychological interest felt in character, has produced many dramatic lyrics,
but few dramas.
Q.4: Aristotle’s Conception of Tragic
Catharsis:
Or
ARISTOTLE'S VIEWS ON THE
FUNCTION AND EMOTIONAL
EFFECTS OF TRAGEDY
Introduction : Catharsis is a
controversial term
The term 'Catharsis' is used only once in the course of Aristotle's Poetics in
the fourth chapter. Yet there is hardly any other single term which has given
rise to so many different interpretations and controversies. The difficulty
arises out of the fact that Aristotle does not define or explain the term. Perhaps, he
did so in the second
book of the Poetics, which is lost. The term has been explained by critics in the light of its use in
Aristotle's, other works, such as his Politics
and Ethics. It has also been noted that the term 'Catharsis' has
three meanings: it could mean "purgation" or "purification", or "clarification".
Critics have interpreted Aristotle's views
in the light of each of these meanings and it has not done much to ease the difficulty. Only one thing has
been agreed upon that tragedy arouses pity and fear. But there is
difference of opinion as to how the arousal
of these emotions lead to 'tragic pleasure'.
The place of catharsis in the
definition of tragedy
The term 'Catharsis'
occurs in Aristotle's definition of tragedy:
Tragedy is an imitation
of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude; in language embellished with each kind of artistic ornament,
the several kinds being found in separate parts of the play; in the form of
action, not of narrative; through pity and fear effecting the proper Katharsis, or purgation, of these emotions.
We
see that the term is also linked with the concept of pity and fear. It is, therefore,
necessary to consider the meanings of pity and fear as connected with tragedy.
The place of pity and fear in catharsis
The
terms, ‘pity’ and 'fear' are closely connected in Aristotelian theory. There are different types of fear. Fear
can be centred on an individual, in
the form of some vague feeling of insecurity
and anxiety. It could possibly derive from a feeling for others, even for society or the state. Fear could
be the outcome of facing some
inexplicable event, or some disastrous and aweful occurring. Fear may also
arise out of a feeling of guilt, or rather a recognition of this guilt
in ourselves, when we see it portrayed in someone
else. It is apparent that tragedy can easily encompass all these forms of fear, either singly or
collectively.
Pity, we are told by Aristotle, is occasioned by
undeserved misfortune, and fear by that of one like ourselves (i. e., by
the misfortune of one like
ourselves). In the Rhetoric, fear is defined as "a kind of pain
or disturbance due to a mental picture of some destructive or painful evil in the future". The impending evil in this case must be near at hand, not distant. Anything that
causes fear in us if it happens to
us, causes pity in us if it happens to others. Pity is a "sort of pain at an evident evil of
a destructive or painful kind in the case of somebody, who does not deserve it, the evil being one which
we might expect to happen to
ourselves or to some of our friends, and this at a time when it is near
at hand."
Pity and fear are related emotions. Pity turns to fear
when the
object is so nearly related to us that the suffering seems to be our own, and we pity others
in circumstances in which we should fear for ourselves. Pity is derived from the feeling that
similar suffering
might befall us. It is because of this that the tragic character should be 'like ourselves' and at the same time
slightly idealised. In such a case, we feel
pity for the suffering of the innately
good person, while having a sympathetic fear for one who is so like ourselves.
Aristotle everywhere says that pity and fear are the characteristic and
necessary tragic emotions.
The essential tragic effect depends on maintaining the
intimate alliance
between pity and fear. According to Aristotle, pity alone should not be evoked
by tragedy, as many moderns have held not pity or fear, for which Corneille
argued; not pity and admiration, which is the modification under which the
Aristotelian phrase finds currency in the Elizabethan writers. The requirement of
Aristotle is a
combination of pity and fear, as Butcher says.
The tragic fear is impersonal in the artistic sense. It
is not really
the crushing apprehension of personal disaster. In reading or seeing a tragedy, one does
not really fear that one would be placed in similar circumstances, or be
overtaken by the same calamities that
overtake the tragic hero. But there is a feeling of horror or of vague foreboding, as Butcher
observes. The tension and excited expectation with which we wait for the catastrophe
derives from our sympathy with the hero, with whom we tend to identify ourselves. Butcher says in this context: "We are thrilled
with awe at the greatness of the issues thus
unfolded, and with the moral inevitableness of the result. In this sense of awe the emotions of fear and pity are blended."
Having
dealt with the emotions of pity and fear, let us now go on to the concept of the catharsis of such emotions. Various interpretations
have been offered regarding the term.
'Catharsis' taken as a medical term : Purgation
theories
The term 'Catharsis' has been interpreted in medical
terms, meaning
purgation. In medical terms (especially in the older sense), purgation meant the partial
removal of excess "humours". The health of the body depended upon a true
balance of the humours. Thus purgation of the emotions of pity and fear does not mean the removal of these emotions,
but that the passions or emotions are reduced to a healthy, balanced proportion. Catharsis in this sense, denotes a pathological effect on the soul
comparable to the effect of medicine on the body.
1. Like curing the like: Some critics who favour
the medical sense of the term Catharsis, explain the process in the light of
"homeopathic"
treatment, in which a little substance of something cures the body of an excess of the
same thing. It is a case of the 'like curing the like'. A passage in the Politics of Aristotle
bears this out, where the effects of music
on some morbid states of mind is talked about. The emotions should not be repressed ; they must be
allowed an outlet, so that the mental
equilibrium is maintained. In the Poetics, Aristotle refers to
the curing of religious frenzy. According to Plato, a crying child is rocked to
sleep by singing a song. The outward
restlessness (induced by the rocking) allays or cures the inward restlessness, and brings about calm.
In his Preface to Samson Agonists, Milton
2. Unlike curing the unlike: In the neo classical
period, the medical interpretation of the term took on an "allopathic" light.
Catharsis was
seen to be in the nature of the unlike curing the unlike. The arousing of pity and fear,
the more tender emotions, brought about a purgation or evacuation of other
emotions like anger and pride. The sight of the incidents aroused pity and fear and the
spectator is purged
of those emotions which caused the incidents of suffering in the tragedy. If the
suffering in the play was caused by anger or pride, the spectator was cured of these emotions.
Dryden in his preface to Troilus and Cressida, says
that it is not
"the abasement of pity and fear, but of
such aggressive and evil emotions as pride and anger through the feeding and watering of the soft hearted
emotions."
Psychological
interpretation of 'Catharsis'
Some critics have tried to give a psychological
explanation to the
term 'Catharsis'. Herbert Read considers it
in the light of a safety valve. Tragedy gives a free outlet to the emotions of pity and fear. The result is a
feeling of emotional relief. This, one notes, is quite closely related to the
purgation theory.
I. A. Richards
puts forward an ingenious theory. He says that the emotion of pity is an impulse to advance, while fear is an impluse to
withdraw. In tragedy both these impulses are blended, harmonised into balance.
Emotional excess is thus brought to a balance. However, the theory holds good
only for the emotions of pity and fear, and it restricts the range of tragic
emotions to these.
Ethical
interpretation of 'Catharsis'
The ethical interpretation of 'Catharsis' regards the tragic process as a lustration of the
soul, a lighting up which results in a more philosophical attitude to life and
suffering. The spectator sees the largeness of the disasters represented on stage and
realises that his personal emotions are insignificant beside such catastrophe. It brings him to a balanced
view of things. Man sees himself in proportion to the large design of the universe. In the words
of John Gassner, "only enlightenment, a
clear comprehension of what was involved in the struggle, an understanding of
cause and effect, a judgement on
what we have witnessed", can bring about a state of mental peace and balance, and result in complete
aesthetic gratification.
Another set of critics said that the effect of tragedy was to harden or
'temper' the emotions. Just as soldiers become hardened against death after
seeing it so many times on the battlefield, so too, constant contact with tragedy on stage
hardens men against pity and fear in real life. This is, undoubtedly, a bit
farfetched, if not totally absurd.
The purification theory of 'Catharsis’
One meaning of Catharsis is 'purification'. Some critics
have interpreted
the term in the light of this meaning. These critics reject the interpretation of
Catharsis in the light of medical terminology. Humphry House, for instance, says that
Aristotle's concept of Catharsis was not as a medcial term. He interprets the word to mean a kind of "moral
conditioning", which the spectator undergoes. He comments that purgation means
'cleansing'. This cleansing may be a quantitative evacuation or a qualitative change
in the body, in
the restoration of the proper equilibrium. In this context he says : "A tragedy
arouses pity and fear from potentiality to activity through worthy and adequate
stimuli; it controls them by directing them to the right objects in the right way; and
exercises them,
within the limits of the play, as the emotions of the good man would be exercised. When
they subside to potentiality again after the play is over, it is a more "trained"
potentiality than before...Our responses are brought nearer to those of the good and wise man!" Catharsis
results in emotional health. Catharsis is thus a moral conditioning. It is a
purification of the excess and defect in our emotions, so that emotional
equilibrium can be restored. According to House, Aristotle's whole doctrine only makes
sense if we realise
that the proper development and balance of the emotions depend upon the habitual
direction of them towards worthy objects.
Butcher, top, agrees with the purification theory. He
observes that
Catharsis involves "not only the idea of emotional relief, but the further idea of purifying the \
emotions to be relieved." He says, further, that the poets found out how
"&e transport of human pity and human fear might, under the excitation of
art, be dissolved in joy, and the
pain escape in the purified tide of human sympathy."
Tragic experience, on stage, purifies the feeling of pity and fear of its morbid content.
The
clarification theory of 'Catharsis'
There are some critics who show that the implications of Catharsis are to be found in
the Poetics itself without any need to refer to the Politics or the Ethics.
Writing of the imitative arts, Aristotle points out that the pleasure in
the imitative arts is connected with learning. Pleasure does not come from joy alone ; even the
pictures of
dead bodies can give pleasure if well executed. This shows that pleasure is linked with
learning; that pleasure is there in anything fitted to instruct. It is a paradox
that even the ugly and the repellent can and do give pleasure A similar paradox lies there
in tragedy. The incidents of
tragedy arc painful. They might present the horrible
situations of a man blinding himself, or a woman killing her husband, or a mother killing her child. Such
events would horrify us and repel us
in real life ; yet, in tragedy, they afford us a special pleasure. It is a pleasure peculiar to tragedy.
Aristotle himself tells us that tragedy has its own kind of pleasure, and that we must seek
from it this pleasure "the pleasure proper to it". And Catharsis
.involves such a pleasure. The function of tragedy is to provide the pleasure
peculiar to it. This pleasure involves
the presentation of events which arouse pity and fear. According to this theory, Catharsis becomes an
indication of the function of
tragedy, and not of its emotional effects on the audience. Catharsis
is related to the incidents of the tragedy, not to the emotions of pity and fear evoked in the audience.
'Catharsis' involves a process of learning
Tragic pleasure rises from the fact that imitation
produces that sort of pleasure which comes from learning. This learning comes from our discovery of
a certain relationship between the particular events presented in the imitation and
certain universal elements embodied in it. As has already been remarked, the
poet selects and
orders his material according to the laws of probability and necessity. He presents
"what might be", more than "what is". This is what makes a poet
more philosophical than a historian, for he makes the particular into the general: he deals
with the universal.
The events are presented as free of all accidentals, transients, and chances,
which might obscure their true significance. Tragedy brings a better understanding;
it brings the spectator "face to face with the universal law".
The tragic poet selects incidents embodying pity and fear
and then
"presents them in such a way as to bring out the probable or necessary principles that
unite them in a single action and determine their relation to this action as it
proceeds from its beginning to its end. When the spectator has witnessed a tragedy of this
type, he will
have learned something; the incidents will be clarified in the sense that their relation, in
terms of universals, wil have become manifest and the act of learni g, says
Aristotle, will be enjoyable."
In the light of this theory, Catharsis refers to the
incidents of the
tragedy rather than to the psychology of the audience. Catharsis is not purgation of
emotions, nor is it a purification of emotions. It refers to the way in which the poet
has presented his incidents of pity and fear, to rise from the particular to the
universal. Catharsis is not the catharsis of the audience but of pity and fear themselves. Indeed, Aristotle does not
refer to the audience in the definition of tragedy. It becomes inevitable that he
is talking of the work of tragedy itself. He is talking of the suitable embodiment
of pity and fear.
In this sense Catharsis means simply "the ideal state", but with reference to the
tragedy, and not with reference to the emotional state of the audience. Pity and
fear take on the ideal form in course of the composition of tragedy. Of tragedy Aristotle
says: "We
must not demand of tragedy any and every kind of pleasure, but only that which is proper to
it. And since the pleasure which the poet should afford is that which comes from pity and fear
through imitation,
it is. evident that this quality must be impressed upon the incidents." Thus the
pleasure peculiar to tragedy comes from pity and fear. Imitated in a work of art
these two emotions, which may not be pleasant in real life, afford pleasure. And the
problem of any
writer is to suitably formulate the pleasure peculiar to each genre of poetry.
There is in this theory, a clarification involved. There
is a clarification
of the essential and universal significance of the incidents presented in the tragedy. It
leads to an understanding of the universal law governing the universe, and produces the
pleasure peculiar
to tragedy. Catharsis takes on an intellectual tone, rather than a medical or religious
tone.
The relative merits and demerits of the theories
The purgation theory and the purification theory of
Catharsis have
obvious limitations. They cannot explain the whole process involved in Catharsis. A fundamental
drawback of these theories is that these theories are concerned with the effect of tragedy on
the audience,
' i. e., with the psychology of the audience. Both views concentrate not on what tragedy
says or what tragedy is, but what tragedy may do to us; they lie rather in the field of
experimental psychology than in that of literary criticism. They treat "pity and
fear" as a
reference to something in the audience
rather than to something (scenes
and elements) in the play. In actuality, Aristotle was writing a treatise on the art of poetry, and was concerned
more with the technique of writing
poetry than with audience psychology. As theories of psychology, the two theories are not bad in
themselves, but it is doubtful if it
explains the term as Aristotle intended it to mean.
Modern critics advocate the clarification theory. This
theory refers
to the incidents of tragedy rather than to the reaction of the audience It is more
concerned with what tragedy is; i.e., with the nature of tragedy. According to this
theory, purgation or purification is only incidental to the pleasure of tragedy. But
comprehension of the relation of the particular to the universal, as embodied in tragedy,
brings about a
peculiar pleasure. It is an intellectual pleasure which lies in realising the
relationship between the hamartia of the hero and the suffering which results, the
relationship between character and destiny. There is design incorporated into the tragedy. The alleviation of pity and
fear is a 'by product' of the learning process, not the chief object of
tragedy.
Conclusion
Aristotle is a great critic, and what he said centuries
ago will continue
to influence thinking as it has done all this time. It is unfortunate that he has
not explained some of the terms which seem so very significant to his central
thesis. The term 'Catharsis,' for instance, has been interpreted so variously that it is
difficult to come to an agreement as to what Aristotle really meant. Of the theories advanced to explain
Catharsis, the clarification theory appears to be the most acceptable, perhaps, for it
tends to relate Catharsis to the work rather than to the psychology of the audience. And,
after all, Aristotle
was writing on the art of poetry, not about the effect of poetry. Ail the same, the
last word on Catharsis has not yet been said.
