ARISTOTLE & ESSLIN
ARISTOTELIAN NOTIONS ON TRAGEDY
“The aim of art is to represent, not outward appearances of things, but their inward significance”- Aristotle.
Aristotle, also regarded as Stagyrite, is one of the most influential of western classical philosophers. An academic, thinker, a man of letters, a naturalist and above all, a critic of the classical literature; he was the chief disciple of Plato and is known to have founded the institution of higher learning called “Lyceum”, a peripatetic school of learning. Aristotle’s greatest works include “Ethics”, “Metaphysics”, “Rhetoric”, and “Poetics”. Out of these, “Poetics” is the most significant work as far as literary criticism is concerned. Aristotle introduced in Western critical thoughts, certain concepts that have become seminal in the realm of literary theory, for in here, he details on his classical definition of tragedy as-
-“an imitation of action, that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude, in a language, embellished with each kind of artistic ornaments, several kinds being found in separate parts of the play, in the form of action, not narrative, through pity and fear, effecting the proper purgation of these emotions”.
In this definition of tragedy, we come across two major Aristotelian concepts- Mimesis and Catharsis. Mimesis is a Greek term, which translates as “imitation” in English. In Literary criticism has two diverse applications, viz. define nature of literature and other arts; indicate the relation of one literary work to another literary work which served as its model. Greek and Roman Rhetoricians and critics often advise the poet to imitate the established models in particular literary genre, though mere copying is denigrated to espousing form and spirit. “Mimesis”: is central to both Platonic and Aristotelian thought.
According to Plato, the world is an imperfect reflection of the ideal world; and hence, a lower order of reality. Art being an “imitation” of imitation is twice removed from reality. Here Aristotle rejects Platonic notions by delineating mimesis largely as a “representation” in its root sense. He looks upon “mimesis” as a creative process and not as a mere copying of reality. Aristotle believes that an artist is a creator and that his creations are imitations of human actions, human character and human emotions. Further, he holds that “mimesis” involves a learning process, which means that it leads us from the particular to universal laws of nature. Lastly, Aristotle upholds mimesis because it points to “an active mode of constructing an object of art according to the laws of probability and necessity.” Hence we understand in modern terms that, imitation is not a photographic reproduction of reality.
Catharsis is perhaps the most controversial of Aristotelian concepts. It figures in his definition of tragedy- where he regards “tragedy” as that which effects “catharsis” of “pity” and “fear”. “Pity” is aroused by magnitude of suffering of the protagonist and “fear” is aroused by the knowledge” that we may also meet with such sufferings. The term “catharsis” had been differently interpreted by later critics though all of it points to a sense of inner transformation and a sense of release and calmness. Here, “catharsis’ is given four different meanings based on its nature. These are, therapeutic, moral, structural and intellectual.
The “therapeutic” interpretation of catharsis is called “purgation.it is based on the medical theory that the right cure of an ailment is to administer an agent similar to the disease. Thus by presenting emotions of “pity” and “fear”, a tragedy cures the audience of the excess of emotions of “pity” and “fear”. The tragedy effects “catharsis” by generating the very same emotions that it seeks to cure.
The “moral” interpretation of “catharsis” is translated as “purification”. Even though tragedy presents the spectacle of suffering, the audiences in the theatre experience delight in watching it unlike in the case of suffering in real life. A tragedy presents the protagonist in a state of clash with himself, with others and with impersonal forces beyond his control. Even when we see the tragic hero being overpowered by these forces, we finally realize that the values of goodness, virtue and innocence would prevail. Our faith in the moral law suffers a temporary shock, only to be restored. Thus tragedy leads to an awakening. This experience of witnessing tragedy is therefore of joy and purification.
The structural interpretation holds “catharsis” as a process by which the protagonist can absolve himself of the supposed evils he has perpetrated. Hence the audience can respond with the emotions of “pity” and “fear”. They become willing to free the protagonist from the effects of tribulations he has caused.
The intellectual interpretation regards “catharsis” as an “insight experience”, where the aim is to comprehend the significance underlying a series of incidents. It involves a learning process which lies in the discovery of relationship between the particulars of the plot and its universal significance. The result of “catharsis” in this sense is, “emotional balance” and involves the restoration of “emotional health”.
Aristotle holds that a tragic hero meets with his fall because of “hamartia”- or a tragic flaw- in his character. Etymologically, it means to miss the mark, as in archery. It is now understood as an “intellectual error” rather than “a moral error” committed by the protagonist. Hamartia results in the hero are exercising his value system in a new sphere where it does not hold good. Thus we feel that the hero does not completely deserve the punishment he receives, thus creating “pity” and “fear” in us.
“Spoudious” is a quality that Aristotle prescribes to the tragic protagonist. It means “nobility of character”. Critics now believe that by “nobility of character”, what Aristotle meant is not associated with “social class” but with “morality” it is the “moral integrity” of the character that commands the respect of the audience.
THE SIX PARTS OF TRAGEDY
Aristotle details on the six parts of tragedy as in, plot, character, diction, thought spectacle and melody. Here, “plot” is regarded as the soul of tragedy and thus superior to all other elements. It is the “shaping cause” that “synthesizes” the various “elements into a concrete whole”. It brings together in a perfect balance- character, action and thought. It should be of a certain magnitude with a beginning, middle and end. It should present “probable impossibilities”. According to Aristotle, the beginning of the “plot” must start the cause and effect chain of actions. It should depend on any factor, outside the “compass” of the play. The middle or “climax” must be caused by earlier incidents and should itself cause the incident that follows. “The end or resolution must be caused by preceding incidents but not lead to other incidents outside the compass of the play”.
There are two concepts identified by Aristotle as parts of a tragic plot, namely- “peripetia” and “anagnorisis”. “Peripetia” refers to the reversal of fortune which occurs when the character produces an effect opposite to that which he intended to produce. “Anagnorisis” means recognition which is a change from “interest to “knowledge”, producing “love” or “hate” between the persons destined for good or bad fortune.
“Character” is given second place of importance by Aristotle in a tragedy. According to him, the personal motivations of the character should be linked to the cause and effect chain of actions. The protagonist should be renowned and prosperous, so that his change of fortune can be from good to bad. This change should come about as a result of some grave error or hamartia in his character. The character may also pass through peripetia and anagnorisis.
“Thought” in tragedy delineates the dialogues which reveal the character of the speaker and it causes the dynamic evolution of the plot. Here, “diction” is the element by which he means the use of appropriate stylistic effects in the dialogue given to the character. The dialogue should have high literary merit which can be achieved only through judicious use of figurative language that is, metaphor, simile, etc.
“Melody” is the fifth element by which Aristotle means music. This concept has been drawn from the structure of classical Greek tragedy, where the chorus was an integral part. The choral speeches were laced with music, thus intensifying the aesthetic appeal of the tragedy. “Spectacle” is the last element of tragedy. It is least connected with literature. It is the concern of stage manager’s art rather than the “dramatist’s. It refers to the stage properties used for creating visual effects. However in older times, before the development of stage machinery, the dramatists used to bring in the effects of spectacle through the imagery integrated into the speech alone.
THE ARISTOTELIAN UNITIES
The Aristotelian Unities or the three unities of tragedy as prescribed in his “Poetics” refer to the three unities observed while writing a tragedy. These are the unities of place- time and action. According to this theory, the events presented in a play should take place within the duration of twenty four hours. The unity of place means the setting of the play should be limited to a single place or locality. The unity of action holds that the actions in a play should be unified and organic. It should focus entirely on the central theme of the play. There should not be digressions such as sub-plots or comic scenes that are not connected to the main theme.
However, there have been disagreements among critics with regard to unities of place and time. They believe that these could not have been Aristotelian ideas but interpretations made by later day philosophers. Only the unity of action is considered to be original Aristotelian. It is believed that Castlevetro, who in commentary on “Poetics”, formulated the other two unities.
According to his interpreters, Aristotle’s works are largely acromatic, i.e., each work by him cannot be wholly understood without the aid of other works, which means, knowledge of “Metaphysics” and “Rhetoric” would hold greater light on “Poetics”. By his comprehensive vantage and integrity of thought, Aristotle still maintains his unchallenged throne in the realm of philosophy, criticism and literary theory. Thus T.S. Eliot and Saintsbury regard him as the “perfect critic” and “Alexander of Criticism” respectively.
DISTANCE FROM CLASSIC TO MODERN
Facts aside, in the post-modern realm of literature, the contemporary critical theories and perceptions have travelled miles away from the classical confines of Aristotelian criticism. The claustrophobia of postmodern ethos has summoned a liberal strain in approaching, appraising and absorbing literature. It manifested with unconstrained paradigms in critical theories through the structural and post structural schools to place the meaning of a text. The need to unshackle literary aspects from confines of classical strictures began with the Romantic Revival. However, a more pronounced development can be clearly delineated in the essays of Martin Esslin as he broaches on the “Theatre of Absurd” that gained momentum with the Twentieth century disillusionments on war and existential questions.
While classicism confirms concreteness of character and its evolution, modernity espouses a kind of abstraction, the embodiment of which is delineated through the abstractions of characters in “Waiting for Godot”. Godot is in antithesis to classical tragic hero. Further, even literally, Godot confirms to the fluidity as in “God + Eau/Water”, implying the mutability of authority. While classical perceptions were elitist, contemporary vantage is generic. Thus, when Aristotelian hero flaunted elements of Hamartia, Spoudious, Anagnorisis, etc. Godot stood to delineate nothing in particular but at the same time held a mirror to the society or the outside which indeed was going to be a disappointment by its unconditional indifference to Vladimir and Estragon. Martin Esslin details on the liberated state of literature that is free of all intellectual snobbery by the arrival of new ethos through this esoteric avant-garde form.
Esslin clearly draws a contrast between the conventional plays and contemporary changes in the “Introduction: Absurdity of the Absurd”.
“if a good play must have a cleverly constructed story, these have no story or plot to speak of; if a good play is judged by subtlety of characterization and motivation, these are often without recognizable characters and present the audience with almost mechanical puppets; if a good play has to have a fully explained theme, which is neatly exposed and finally solved, these often have neither a beginning nor an end; if a good play is to hold mirror up to nature, and portray the manners and mannerisms of the age in finally observed sketches, these seem often to be reflections of dreams and nightmares; if a good play relies on witty repartee and pointed dialogue, these often consist of incoherent babblings. But the plays we are concerned with here pursue ends quite different from those of the conventional play and therefore use quite different methods. They can be judged only by the standards of the “Theatre of Absurd””.
Though the disparities between classical and contemporary forms are extensive, one can agree that each form represented the society of the time. Thus Aristotelian notions of tragedy prioritized the virtues and sufferings to delineate the gravity of human actions. Religious belief systems of the Dark Age was replaced by eighteenth century “rationalism”, which in turn lead to the “dilemma” of Victorian era, then mid-nineteenth century Marxism and culminated in “theatre of Absurd” that defined anxieties, preoccupations, rootlessness of contemporary thinking.
Though “The Theatre of Absurd” does not form a self proclaimed movement, it stems from the existential fervor of Albert Camus’ “The Myth of Sisyphus”. However, while Existential school exposed the irrationalities of human behavior in a logically placed narrative, The Absurd School, cut off all the structural predilections of all the previous literary tradition. Thus absurdity of human existence came to be portrayed in the absurd paradigms of “Theatre of Absurd”.
Ultimately, while the classical tragedies strove to establish the “literariness” of literature, the Absurd school flaunted itself as an anti-literary approach to literature. While Aristotle described and prescribed the conventions of a classical tragedy, modernity, extolled art and literature to a new sphere that is defined by its “abstractions of realities”. Thus while literature evolved through ages of conformity, doubts, intolerance, and indifference, the “theatre of Absurd” shows itself as poles apart from its classical origins in Aristotelian theories and ideas, which boldly stated its erudite stature as-
“The educated differs from the uneducated as much as the living from the dead”
- Aristotle.