Marriage at 20 is not early.

 Marriage at 20 is not early. 

*Wanna join EC incubator*

I'm a 20 year old above average intellect boy

A few days back, i sent marriage proposal to my second cousin. (While having literally NO INCOME)

I've joined the EC FB group for over 8 mouths and recently got VBC through my younger brother's student card...

As i did learn some graphics designing and tried to freelance but no result, about 4 months ago i joined Waqar Zaka's Private Group and started learning about crypto. made some investment and just begun to make small profits.

So my uncle heard about that I've sent the proposal in relatives and wanna marry a girl for NASEEB as Sunny Ali  says: If some how i get down to 0 and need to make it happen again. I'll marry first and start working onward.

He got angry and said that your not eligible and not in any position to make proposals to marry. he wants to come to my house and talk about my career and future, Everyone gives lectures to the younger but not help them financially or mentally

So I'm thinking that if he gets angry on me I'll say that if you really want me to succeed then pay my incubator fee for 4-6 months. otherwise leave me alone and let me do what i have to.

If it doesn't work I'll try some others plans but really really wanna EC incubator Karachi

Now i know that I'm not financially stable but doin my best to start from kitchen money and get to the top Insha'Allah. (Since I'm the BARA BETA after my father's Shahadat)

What i need to ask from you as an advice guys is that: Am i thinking in the right direction or should i forget about getting engaged right now and think only about making money in traditional ways...

Which doesn't click my mind and almost next to impossible for me to work on.

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, women were considered as inferior beings and slaves as worthless. But Aristotle says that, when introduced in a tragedy, even women and slaves must be shown to have some good in them. Entirely wicked characters, even when assigned minor roles, are unfit for tragedy. Wickedness may be introduced only when required by the necessities of the plot. Wanton or wilful introduction of wickedness must be avoided; and when introduced even wicked characters must be made good in some respects. Wickedness must be mixed up with some good as in actual life. In other words, Aristotle favours complex characters. Just as a successful painter makes his portrait more beautiful than the original, and still retains the likeness to the original, in the same way the poet must represent his characters better and more dignified and must still preserve the likeness to the original.

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's Samson Agonistes are a form of action, for they help him to make his choice, and lead directly to the final catastrophe. They are expressive of his moral grandeur.

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 expresses a similar view that the effect of tragedy is to "temper and reduce. (pity and fear and such emotions) to just measure with a kind of delight, stirred up by reading or seeing those passions well imitated". Pity and fear are artificially produced in tragedy, and it expels the excess of these emotions lying latent in us. Bernays, and before him Twin­ing, put forward the pathological theory of the effect of tragedy. The stage, according to them, provided a harmless and pleasurable outlet for instincts which demand satisfaction, and which can be indulged here more fearlessly than in real life. In the pleasurable calm which follows when the passion is spent, an emotional cure has been wrought. Freud's theory of psychological cure of neurosis is similar to this, when he says that a neurotic can be cured by being made to recall painful childhood experiences.

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.