Aristotle's Poetics, Aristotle's views on Catharsis, Aristotle's views on tragic hero, Mimesis

Question : Write a note on the critical account of Aristotle's views on Catharsis.

Ans : While defining tragedy, Aristotle writes that the function of tragedy is to arouse the emotions of pity and fear, and in this way to affect the Catharsis of these emotions. Aristotle has used the term catharsis only once, but no phrase, probably, in ancient or modern literature, has been handled so frequently by commentators and critics, and by poets. Aristotle himself has not explained what exactly he meant by the word, nor do we get any direct aid from the poetics in interpreting the Greek phrase. For This reason, help and guidance has to be taken from his other works, more specially from his Politics and his second Ethics. The Greek word catharsis has three meanings such as "purgation", "purification" and "clarification" and each critic has used the word in one or the other of these varied senses, and has reached accordingly at a different conclusion. All agree that tragedy arouses pity and lear, but there are sharp differences as to the process, the way by which the rousing of these emotions gives pleasure.

The debates surrounding Aristotle's definition of tragedy and its effect show his extensive influence on critics. Jacob Bernays argues that Aristotle's use of the term, Catharsis, was in a medical and not in a religious, sense of the term. Medically, catharsis means purgation induced by the use of laxative or emetic. Catharsis, for the Greek meaning "purification" was applied to certain religious rituals. Aristotle sees catharsis as something desirable but would not suggest that tragic playwrights consider themselves to be healers. According to Bernays, the word is used in a pathological sense, Aristotle is the first to introduce the word into aesthetic discussion in a technical sense. Bernays points out that "Taken concretely, the Greek term catharsis means one of two things: either an absolving from guilt be means of certain priestly ceremonies - a lustration, or a removing or alleviating of an illness by means of some medical therapy - a purgation".

In Polities there are references to catharsis in the discussion of education in the state: "We accept the division of melodies proposed by certain philosophers. But we maintain further that music should be promoted for the sake not of one but of many benefits, that is to say, with a view to education, to catharsis and music may also serve for intellectual enjoyment, for relaxation, and for recreation after exertion --- in education the most ethical modes are to be preferred, but in listening to the performances of others we may admit also the modes of action and emotion. For emotions such as pity and fear, or again enthusiasm, exist very strongly in some souls, and have more or less influence over all. Some people fall into a religious frenzy, and as a result of the sacred melodies - when they have used the melodies which excite the soul to mystic frenzy - we see them restored as though they had found healing and catharsis. Those who are influenced by pity or bear and every emotional nature, must have a similar experience, and others too, in so far as each is susceptible to such emotions, and all receive a sort of catharsis and are relieved with pleasure"

In order to fully grasp the meaning of catharsis, we have to look at the meaning of "pity and fear". Critics have proposed that 'pity' is seen by Aristotle to be a disturbance of the mind brought about by undeserved misfortune. Fear is combined with pity by Aristotle to project a complex emotional reaction occuring on account of the feeling that the misfortune may happen to ourselves. Catharsis, therefore, is to be seen in connection with pity and fear.

To conclude, the interpretations of catharsis must include what Aristotle says in chapter 14 of the poetics that tragedy can give only its "proper pleasure" and the tragic pleasure is pity and fear. Catharsis, providing relief from pity and fear, may be followed by calm and a harmonious state of mind. It can also be that by using pity and fear, the other emotions will be purged and this will be the catharsis.

Question : Give a critical account of Aristotle's views on tragic hero.

Ans : According to Aristotle, the tragic hero will most effectively evoke both our pity and fear if he is neither thoroughly good nor thoroughly bad but a mixture of both, and also that this tragic effect will be stronger if the hero is "better than we are," in the sense that he is of higher than ordinary moral worth. Aristotle's preference for the complex plot stresses the idea that it is through the processes of reversal, recognition, and suffering that the emotions of pity and fear can be aroused which in turn contribute to the unity of the plot. The unity of the plot integrates probability, causality and reversal of fortune together with the emotions of pity and fear of the audience. Pity and fear are best evoked when the incidents are unexpected but such evocation must be properly related. Even while the incidents evoking pity and hear must be unexpected they should arise from earlier events in the play; "the causes should be included in the incidents of his story". This relates in turn to the "tragic flaw" of the protagonist.

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 is fall shocks and repells. 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.

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 judgement." The ideal tragic hero is a man who stands midway between the two extremes. He is not eminently good or just, though he inclines to 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.

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 Hamartia or "miscalculation" on his part. Hamartia is not a moral failing, and hence it is unfortune 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 judgement. However, as Humphrey House tells us, Aristotle does not assert or deny anything about the connection of hamartia with moral failings in the hero. "It be may 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."

To conclude, Aristotle lays down another qualification for the tragic hero. He must be, "of the member 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.

Question : Elaborate Aristotle's notion of an ideal tragic plot with appropriate examples.

Ans : 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 the 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."

The plot in a dramatic or narrative work is constituted by its events and actions, as these are rendered and ordered toward achieving particular artistic and emotional effects. This description is deceptively simple, because the actions are performed by particular characters in a work, and are the means by which they exhibit their moral and dispositional qualities. Without action in this sense, without such performance, there can be no drama at all. In short, plot contains the kernel of that action which is the business of a tragedy to represent. Plot, therefore, is of paramount importance. Obviously, there can be no tragedy without plot.

There are a great variety of plot forms. For example, some plots are designed to achieve tragic effects, and others to achieve the effects of comedy, romance, satire, or of some other genre. Each of these types in turn exhibits diverse plot patterns, and may be represented in the mode either of drama or of narrative, and either in verse or in prose.

The following terms, widely current in traditional criticism, are useful in distinguishing the component elements of plots and in helping to discriminate types of plots, and of the characters appropriate to them, in both narrative and dramatic literature.

The chief character in a plot, on whom our interest centers, is called the protagonist and of the plot is such that he or she is pitted against an important opponent, that character is called the antagonist. Elizabeth Bennet is the protagonist, or heroine, of Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice"; Hamlet is the protagonist and King Claudius is the antagonist in Shakespeare's play, and the relation between them is one of conflict. In addition to the conflict between individuals, there may be the conflict of a protagonist against fate, or against the circumstances that stand between him and a goal he has set himself; and in some works the chief conflict is between opposing desires or values in the protagonist's own temperament.

As a plot evolves it arouses expectations in the audience or reader about the future course of events and actions and how characters will respond to them. A lack of certainty on the part of a concerned reader about what is going to happen, especially to characters with whom the reader has established a bond of sympathy, is known as suspense. If what in fact happens violates the expectations we have formed, it is known as surprise. The interplay of suspense and surprise is a prime source of vitality in a traditional plot.

Dramatic history also justifies the soundness of Aristotle's dictum. There have been successful dramas without character, and dramas without suitable plot have been failures. 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. The modern, introspective habit, the psychological interest felt in character, has produced many dramatic lyrics, but few dramas.

To conclude, Plot is artistically the first necessity of the drama. For the drama in its true sense, is a poetical representation of a complete and typical action, whose lines converge on a determined end, which evolves itself out of human emotions and human will in such a manner that action and character are each in turn the outcome of the other. Aristotle's view stands justified by dramatic history.

Question : Write a note on Aristotle's views on Mimesis.

Ans : Aristotle has been undoubtedly, the most stupendous force in western literary criticism. His "Poetics" is the first important document that contains the western theory of drama, poetry and mimesis. It is often said that "Poetics" was written primarily as a reply to Plato's strictures on poetry and drama. Aristotle discusses the different types of poetry and drama and the different types of fine and useful art to establish his theory of mimesis. Whereas Plato rejects poetry as an illusion and a kind of madness. Aristotle defends poetry as the finest form of all imitative arts. As a disciple of Plato, Aristotle does not differ from his mentors philosophy of supreme reality. He accepts like Plato that all arts is an imitation of nature. But he differs from Plato by saying that art is not mere mimesis. It is also a creation.

The first thing that strikes us about Aristotelean criticism is the concept of imitation. In chapter (iv) of his Poetics Aristotle observes that mimesis is the common principle of everything. It is a fundamental principle and rather a primordial instinct. A child imitates his parents and the students imitates the teachers. Unlike Plato who rejects art as an imitation of an imitation, Aristotle does not consider mimesis as the illusion of reality, but takes it in terms of the presentation of the universal. Unlike the Platonic concept of the idea as an abstract entity, the Aristotlean universals are the permanent modes of human thought and action. Aristotle agrees with Plato in that art is an imitation of nature. But, for Aristotle, nature does not mean the underworld of created things. It is rather the creative force, the productive principle of the universe. The artist imitates nature and also exercises his creative will and delight to recreate through the imitation of nature. He puts his imagination in order to make the art only outwardly new but also inwardly new and vital. Art is a skilful copy of the objects of nature. It is now obvious that Aristotle makes mimesis an aesthetic activity and in this sense, it means portrayal and representation. Prof. S. Butcher rightly obscures that, Aristotle recognises imitation as an aesthetic faculty, an idealised rendering of reality rather than a mere copy of reality. Here in lies the triumph of the artist and here in he can rival the position of God. The Aristotlean theory of mimesis therefore entails the fact that art is not discussion instead it is a thing of reality. It is a new creation to be compared to any creation of God. While attributing aesthetic meaning to imitation. Aristotle observes that, an artist imitates because he gates pleasure in imitation. The aim of art is to provide pleasure and in this respect, Aristotle differs from Plato who emphasise intellect and morality rather than aesthetic pleasure.

While developing his theory of mimesis as the common principle of all arts, Aristotle draws a distinction between fine arts and useful arts. Whereas fine art is divine as a free and independent activity of the mind. The useful arts are called utilitarian. He establishes his aesthetic criticism by emphasising the fact and fine arts is for the mind's enjoyment alone. Aristotle brings all the fine arts together - music, dancing, painting, sculpting and poetry and distinguishes one from other according to three imitative principles be the medium, the objects and the manner of imitation.

Thus Aristotle's theory of mimesis go a long way in moulding the criticism in the west for a long time.