Aristotle’s
Definition of Tragedy
“The living spirit hidden in a philosophy can only be
brought to light by a kindered spirit”
is the
dictum of Hegel. It is true in the case of Aristotle. For the first time in the
history of literary criticism, it was Aristotle who gave serious thoughts to
the theory of tragedy and enunciated a theory which remains important even
today on account of its inherent elasticity and comprehensiveness. Aristotle’s Poetics
is a short treatise in twenty six chapters neither exhaustive and comprehensive
nor yet a coherent treatment of the subject with which it deals. Poetics is
chiefly concerned with tragedy, which is regarded as the highest form of
literature. But Abercrombie says,
“The theory of tragedy is worked out with such an insight
and comprehension, that it becomes the type of the theory of literature.”
Aristotle had at his disposal the
works of the great tragic poets of the fifth century B.C. He studied this
material deeply and tried to arrive at general principles with the aid of his
philosophical thoughts. There could be no better example of Aristotle’s useful
power of provoking disagreement than his definition of tragedy. He writes,
“Tragedy is an
imitation of an action which is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude;
in language embellished with each kind of artistic ornaments, the several kinds
being found in the separate parts of the play; in form of action not of
narrative; through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation of these
emotions.”
Aristotle’s
definition of tragedy has wide implication. It naturally falls into two
divisions. The first three clauses deal with the nature of tragedy and the
second part describes the function or the emotional effect of tragedy. This can
be explained in the following manner.
From the
above definition, we find that Aristotle has recognized six significant parts
of tragedy:
1.
Action or Ploy (Muthos)
2.
Character (Eithos)
3.
Thought (Dianoia)
4.
Diction (Lexis)
5.
Melody (Melos)
6.
Spectacle (Opsis)
The nature of tragedy is defined by that what is imitated
i.e. action, thought and character are the objects of imitation, by that which
the imitation occurs i.e. diction and melody and by the way how the imitation occurs
i.e. spectacle is the manner of imitation. To begin with Aristotle’s statement
that ‘tragedy is an imitation of an action’, tragedy is here considered as one
of the imitative arts. What the tragedy imitates is an action or men in action.
By action, Aristotle suggests a chain of events or an arrangement of incidents.
Action does not mean mere outward physical movement, but also the inward
working of mind and soul.
The action a tragedy imitates, must be ‘serious, complete
in itself and of a certain magnitude.’ By the term ‘serious’ he denotes that
tragic action should not be trivial, there must be grandeur and sublimity in
action. ‘The action should be complete in itself’ implies that 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 middle is that which follows inevitably upon what
has gone before and also leads on to an inevitable conclusion. A satisfying end is that which follows
inevitably from what has gone before but which does not lead to further action.
‘It must be of certain magnitude’ implies the sense of size and length. The
action should be of moderate length i.e. neither too short nor too long. Lastly
by ‘language embellished with each kind of artistic ornament’ Aristotle refers
to the medium of an imitation. By various embellishments in various parts,
Aristotle means verse in the dialogue and song. Tragedy imitates through verse
in dialogue and through song in the Choric parts which are regarded as
essential or indispensable for the success of a tragedy.
The second half of Aristotle’s definition of tragedy
throws light on the function of tragedy. The function of tragedy, according to
him, is ‘to bring out’, by means of emotions of pity and fear. He does not
apply any explanation of the function of tragedy. Hence the critics have
advanced a number of explanations and the term ‘Catharsis’ has been variously
interpreted. Tragedy first excites the emotions of pity and fear and by
excitement offers a pleasurable relief. Tragedy must combine the elements of
pity and fear. Fear alone would make tragedy too gruesome or horrible whereas
pity alone would make it too sentimental. Pity and fear are strictly co-related
feeling. We should fear for ourselves. Pity, however, turns into fear where the
object is so nearly related to us that the suffering of the hero seems to be
our own.
David Daiches says,
“Tragedy gives new knowledge and produces a better state
of mind. Tragedy imparts pleasure. It delights us by affording the shadow of
that pleasure which excites in pain.”
Catharsis
refers to the tragic varieties of pleasures. To provide such pleasure is the
function of tragedy as well as the reason why men write, present and witness
tragedies.
Aristotle clearly tells us that we should not
seek every pleasure from tragedy but ‘only the pleasure proper to it.’ The
tragic pleasure is the pleasure of experience learning. There are many
connotations of the experience, save the tragic pleasure which are neither
covered under Aristotle’s doctrine of Catharsis nor can be expressed rationally
by the same. Catharsis is pleasure only because it is a process of learning.
The experience of tragedy is a king of insight experience and this experience
is pleasurable and because it is a kind of learning. Watching tragedy enhances
our understanding of life and leaves us face to face with the universal law.
When in a tragedy we see a great hero reconciled to our little lots with the
feeling of subconscious jealousy being satisfied:
“How are the mighty fallen!”
No comments:
Post a Comment