Negative Capability by John Keats Lecture Notes By Anil S Awad

Negative Capability by John Keats

Lecture Notes By

Anil S Awad

English NET/SET Consultant

9922113364 (Also WhatsApp)

9423403368 (BSNL)

anilawad123@gmail.com

Some Stories are here…

Shakespeare’s story –

Let’s begin with Macbeth. The story runs in the following way – Macbeth, wins the battle and returning to home. He meets three witches – their prophesies – Macbeth will be the king soon, he will not be defeated until the Birnam woods would walk – he will not be killed by a man born by natural way to a woman…the story runs…and runs and runs…and we have a great tragedy…by Shakespeare.

In this story, we accepted some facts (although they are fictitious) - that – there are witches, they can prophesize, their prophesies can be true, they can tell only half-truth, Macdeuff who kills Macbeth at the end of the play was ‘untimely ripped from his mother’s womb’ – we just believe it. We have no proof to prove that all these things as they are right. But we don’t want to lose the charm of the play by doubting every concept presented onto the stage. We just believe to enjoy it…and thanks to Shakespeare and his skills of presentation that makes us believe in the action.

He used this skill in his every play – we believe what he presents in ‘Hamlet’, ‘Othello’, ‘King Lear’ and many more other plays.

Now note down the famous quote from the play:

I dare do all that may become a man;

Who dares do more is none

The same happens with our sympathy and empathy for Hamlet and King Lear:

We are totally in empathetic position when we see Hamlet saying:

To be, or not to be, that is the question:

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer

The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,

Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,

Or in ‘King Lear’

As flies to wanton boys are we to th' gods.

They kill us for their sport.

Wordsworth Story –

Now it is the story of your favourite writer – William Wordsworth. Check the lines from his ‘Daffodils’

I wandered lonely as a cloud

That floats on high o'er vales and hills,

When all at once I saw a crowd,

A host, of golden daffodils;

Beside the lake, beneath the trees,

Fluttering and dancing in the breeze.

Now concluding lines from ‘The Solitary Reaper’

I listened, motionless and still;

And, as I mounted up the hill,

The music in my heart I bore,

Long after it was heard no more.

NOW LET’S NOTE THE USE OF PRONOUNCE – ‘I’ AND ‘WE’ – IN THE ABOVE QUOTES.

JUST TRY TO ANSWER – WHICH IS THE DOMINANT FACTOR? THE CHARACTER OR THE WRITER….IN WHICH QUOTES?

OK. Move forward. To my and your story –

My/Your Story –

I am a great fan of Star War Movie Series…watching it since my school days…there is a war in the ‘Far Far Away in a Galaxy…’ (I never asked which galaxy). Flying saucers that can fly multiple times of light, laser machineguns, typical aliens, Jedies with swords – I believe everything. I never want to ask a questions like - Is it true? Why? I didn’t want to lose the pleasure of believing in such unbelievable things. What about yours? You (and me too) watch Harry Potter Movie series – have you ever asked the questions like – how can the Magic Wang work? How can there be a platform No. 9 ¼?

I just believe. You too.

Now it is the story of John Keats –

Since Romantic Age was mostly the age of poetry, very few plays worthy to play on the stage were produced. Shakespearean plays were favorite of the contemporary audience. Naturally, a young person like John Keats with the artistic taste was much attracted to such performances. Of course, Keats was also a poet with thorough poetic mind and possessed great ability to analyze many literary works. Keats was a great fan of Shakespeare. He was great fan of Edmund Kean, the contemporary great stage actor (say – Contemporary Amitabh or Rajanikant). Kean’s acting of famous characters like Shylock, Hamlet, Macbeth, and Richard III not only appealed to Keats but also shed light on certain basic ideas related to arts. Even when Hazlitt attacked Kean as "indescribable gusto", Keats defended his acting. Charles Armitage Brown was a famous contemporary poet and he gave a gift of Silver Ticket to Keats for the theatre, so he could go and watch any performances in Drury Lane anytime. He had Byron and Shelley too, as his mentors. They already contributed to his artistic development. So was Wordsworth to him, whose poems were the regular diet of his artistic hunger. Keats’ experience came from his wide readings of art and literature plus his literary associations with men of letters like Hazlitt, Brown, Dilke Leigh Hunt, Benjamin Robert Haydon, Benjamin Bailey and others.

There were many literary upheavals in the contemporary age and of course, it affected the sensitive mind of a kid like Keats. (Really he was a kid for the contemporary age and died very young at the age of 24). He was willing to say something, but was afraid.(Of course, it proved to be true after the publication of Endymion when he was severely attacked by contemporary literary giants, which resulted in fatal stroke of tuberculosis and he died in depression – A thing of beauty was not a joy forever to Keats.)

It is clearly seen in his 1819 poem ‘To the Nightingale’

My heart aches, and a drowsy numbness pains

My sense, as though of hemlock I had drunk,

Or emptied some dull opiate to the drains

One minute past, and Lethe-wards had sunk:

It already lessened his confidence. But thanks to God, he had two great brothers, George and Thomas who could understand his feelings and usually he used to send them personal and private letters…. Date - 21 December 1817…a sudden thought was in his mind and to avoid all the controversies and attacks from contemporary critics, he wrote the letter stating the concept of ‘Negative Capability’ which is still controversial….see the extract…

I had not a dispute but a disquisition with Dilke, upon various subjects; several things dove-tailed in my mind, and at once it struck me what quality went to form a Man of Achievement, especially in Literature, and which Shakespeare possessed so enormously—I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. This pursued through volumes would perhaps take us no further than this, that with a great poet the sense of Beauty overcomes every other consideration, or rather obliterates all consideration.

The story of John Keats ends here.

NOW RE-READ THE STORIES – THE STORY OF SHAKESPEARE, STORY OF WORDSWORTH, MY/YOUR STORY AND KEATS’ STORY…..GREAT…WE ALL ARE SHARING IN THE ROW OF THESE GREAT WRITERS…HA HA HA…

NOW LET’S MOVE TO THE CONCEPT OF NEGATIVE CAPABILITY….Let me clear some points –

Ø First, there is nothing ‘Negative’ in Negative Capability. It is a very very positive term.

Ø Secondly, it is not oxymoron, a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction (e.g. faith unfaithful kept him falsely true). It is a coinage - a new term.

Ø Thirdly, it is a personal response from great literary mind, that is, John Keats, to the Elizabethan playwright and father of drama – Shakespeare.

LET’S SEE THE TERM:

I had not a dispute but a disquisition with Dilke, upon various subjects – Dike was contemporary critic, and Keats had in his mind that definitely he would like to analyze his term ‘Negative Capability’. As already mentioned, he avoided to publically presenting his views and instead he wrote his brother. He chose a safe passage.

‘Dispute but a disquisition(a long or elaborate essay or discussion on a particular subject.)’ – It seems he is avoiding it.

‘At once it struck me’ – It was a sudden thought in the poetic mind of John Keats. As a young scholar, it was natural; such thoughts always come in mind…without any pre-meditation.

Man of Achievement, especially in Literature – After having too much reading of many writers – back from history and contemporary, he came to the conclusion that Shakespeare was the Man of Achievement. Why? Why? Why?

‘Shakespeare possessed so enormously—I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason’ – It means simply that while reading or watching the performances of Shakespeare readers or the audience are objective or emotionally detached.

Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. – Coleridge is aware of such detachments (As we are going to see in Willing Suspension of Disbelief 1817) but enough shrew to hide it or missed it.

This pursued through volumes would perhaps take us no further than this, that with a great poet the sense of Beauty overcomes every other consideration, or rather obliterates all consideration. – Even though knowing the truth, they keep writing volumes.

Now let me explain the term:

While reading Shakespeare’s plays, what do you notice? When the story of Macbeth is going on….it is just a story and we see Macbeth and his fall, not of Shakespeare. ‘To be or not to be’ – the procrastination is of Hamlet, not to Shakespeare. King Lear goes mad…not Shakespeare. It is Julius Caesar who utters - Et tu, Brute?...where is the Shakespeare my friends? It’s the characters who are talking…Shakespeare kept himself detached from his characters and actions….it’s Negative Capability. Rejecting the idea of being in the literary work of art. When some writer or dramatist creates the plot, character and action…he is not in the focus…neither he wants to be….he rejects his own existence and just make a great creation in the form of his own characters….we moves to negative capability….

‘When a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason’ – the uncertainties are there, why? We don’t know what is going to be shown on stage. Mysteries are there. Why? We don’t know the denouement. Many doubts…but the plot answers the questions…not Shakespeare. And we are not getting irritable- why these things are happening… we consider them inevitable….We are neither trying to find out the fact or any reason, just believe…Just like ‘ Far far away in a galaxy’… No Shakespeare is found there…He already disappeared. It is his characters who are asserting everything. What a great writer! Don’t want even to show himself in his own literary work of art…but foregrounded his characters, plots and action. It is Negative Capability…you can show that you are the puppet player, but still you reject it and shows that the puppet play is the real one and the audience discuss more about the puppets than the author. Negative – you rejected your own identity to be shown on the stage (or writing) and capability – of course it is difficult for a writer to keep detached and still you detached…we just see your characters. Ha…! O Great Shakespeare…you are really a capable writer. We are able to see the characters…not the writer in the characters…Ha ha ha…

The mistakes are with the writers like Wordsworth and Milton – ‘Egoistic Sublime’ – Read any piece of these writers and you will find them in every line…in ‘Daffodils’ – it’s not the flower…Wordsworth speaking….

I wandered lonely as a cloud

That floats on high o'er vales and hills,

When all at once I saw a crowd,

A host, of golden daffodils;

Beside the lake, beneath the trees,

Fluttering and dancing in the breeze.

Now concluding lines from ‘The Solitary Reaper’

I listened, motionless and still;

And, as I mounted up the hill,

The music in my heart I bore,

Long after it was heard no more.

Yaar Wordsworth, are we here to read you or to know the plight of ‘The Solitary Reaper’. And Mr. Milton…

Of Man’s First Disobedience, and the Fruit

Of that Forbidden Tree, whose mortal taste

Brought Death into the World, and all our woe,

With loss of Eden, till one greater Man…

I can easily perceive your Puritan mind in these beginning lines of ‘Paradise Lost’. You are not totally detached…!

“Wordsworth and you have egos to show yourself in your literary work…you tried to sublime them. You are charged with ‘egotistic sublime’…and I condemn you - inferior to Shakespeare. No Negative Capability is there…you can’t deny your own appearance in the work of literary art…you just sublimed yourself with showing your own emotion. You are not capable of understanding the emotions of your own characters…you just have to do with your own-ness. I condemn you” – Perhaps this is what John Keats wanted to convey.

Negative Capability, Willing Suspension of Disbelief and Eliot’s Theory of Impersonality…

Negative Capability asserts the rejection of the involvement of the writer in any work of art. Willing Suspension of Disbelief advices the audience to believe willingly – what is happening on the stage is untrue but willingly believe it that it is true. And Eliot’s Theory of Impersonality tells that a poet’s mind should be catalytic members….it creates actions and reactions but still keeps itself detached from being affected.

So…What is Negative Capability ?

• Objective and emotional detachment.

• The work possessing capabilities have beauties and depths that make conventional consideration of truth and morality irrelevant.

• Poets should come to the facts that some certainties were best left open to imagination and that the elements of doubts and ambiguity added to Romanticism and especially to a concept.

• For some things, those correct answers might not be available. In fact, they might not exist at all…so no rationalization of literary work of art please.

• It is possibility that there might be contradictory ideas in your mind at the same time, without deciding that one of them is true and the other false – avoid it. It will ruin the pleasure of the literary work.

• Negative Capability is just like space in one’s mind which is free from life’s troubles.

• Capacity has seeds in theatrical performances.

• Through the writings of Milton and Wordsworth, ‘egotistic sublime’ i.e. sublimity of their own spiritual or actual experiences are reflected. Shakespeare always kept detached himself from any experience…it is his ‘Negative’ (rejection) ‘Capability’ (ability to show himself in his own work of art). It is just a kind of selfless contribution to the literary world.

Now come to the examples I have stated:

Ø In Shakespeare, it the characters, actions and plots speak more louder than the writer itself. It is the skill of the author who possesses Negative Capabilities.

Ø In Wordsworth and John Milton, we can easily perceive the existence of the writers.

Ø John Keats himself followed his own theory – you can easily perceive in his own poems – ‘Bright Star’, ‘To Autumn’, ‘La Belle Dame Sans Merci’, ‘Ode on a Grecian Urn’, ‘Ode to Nightingale’, ‘The Eve of St. Agnes’, ‘Hyperion’ etc. – we can perceive ‘Negative Capability’ – the characters, actions, plots and atmosphere are more dominant than Keats himself. For that he used Hellenic references.

Ø The concept ‘Negative Capability’ is still controversial after 100 years. But the noble soul of Keats just wanted to convey his thoughts to the readers and audience. Although he failed in his own age…he is still influencing his readers.

Thanks.

(Since these are lecture notes, inconvenience related to grammar, sytax, structure etc. are regretted)

Anil Awad

English NET and SET Consultant,

9922113364 (Also WhatsApp)

9423403368 (BSNL)

anilawad123@gmail.com

©All rights reserved

A CITY OF THE DEAD, A CITY OF THE LIVING By Nadine Gordimer

A CITY OF THE DEAD, A CITY OF THE LIVING

By Nadine Gordimer

Samson Moreke, his wife Nanike, and their baby live in No. 1907 Block C, in the Sub-Economic Township of black Johannesburg. They also have a woman lodger living with them, and a family living in an attached garage. Moreke works in the city as an itinerant gardener. Across the street is a shebeen, run by a woman who knows everything about everybody. One Sunday evening, after a visit from her cousin Mtembu and some of his friends, her husband informs Nanike that Mtembu's light-skinned friend will be staying with them a while. He has been involved with the blowing up of a police station. Moreke tells her he will stay only for a couple of days, and then will leave the country. Nanike relents. The other tenants are told that the man, who calls himself Shisonka, is Nanike's cousin, who has come to look for work. He never goes out of the house; Nanike brings him whatever he needs. Moreke speaks with the man every night, in his and Nanike's bedroom, often about racial politics. During the day she and the baby are alone with him. He has a gun that only she sees. Moreke doesn't hear from Mtembu. The weekend is approaching. He tells Moreke that he and Nanike can have no visitors on the weekend. They must stay locked in the house. They are inside all Saturday and Sunday. Sunday afternoon Nanike goes up to the man and tells him she must go out to the store to buy milk for the baby. Instead she walks to the police station and tells them about the man. Later she says she doesn't know why she did it. A week after the man was taken away that Sunday by security police the shebeen-keeper sees Moreke's wife in their street. She gazes at Nanike for a moment, and spits.

 (Source unknown) 

ANIL S AWAD

ENGLISH NET/SET CONSULTANT

9922113364 (ALSO WHATSAPP)

9423403368 (BSNL)

anilawad123@gmail.com

City of the Dead By Brian Keene

City of the Dead

By Brian Keene

City of the Dead by Brian Keene was first published in 2005. It is the sequel to The Rising.

Plot

Jim finds Danny alive as the book opens but the living dead soon converge on their location. Frankie and Martin join Jim in the house and they are soon trapped in the attic. As they see Danny's neighbor in his panic room across the way the zombies set fire to the house. They rig a ladder between the two houses and everyone but Frankie makes it across, Frankie however has a two story fall into a swimming pool below. Meanwhile: Don, Martin, Jim, and Danny regroup and make a run for Don's Ford explorer. Upon escaping the garage they find Frankie fighting zombies in the front yard badly hurt from the fall and shot several times. They rescue her as she goes into shock.

Back in Hellertown Ob has taken Baker's body and is instructing his minions to make a motor pool from all the abandoned vehicles. Ob is distressed that Jim is alive and escaping him, he begins to fantasize killing Martin and Jim. Here he divulges that the Sissquim can see the life auras coming from the living. Ob is then killed by some hiding guardsmen who he discovers.

Their escape is short lived as Frankie left the keys in the Humvee and the zombies are in hot pursuit. They use the Humvee to force the car into an accident. Jim regains consciousness as zombies are trying to pull Danny from the wreckage and biting his arm. Jim loses it and violently kills the zombie, punctuating each blow with the words "I told you to leave my son alone." Martin has been thrown from the car and his head had turned a full 180 degrees around. Jim smashes his head in with a rock as he reanimates proclaiming "There is no God". Jim leads the zombies away distracting them from his party including a very badly injured Frankie making plans to meet them in what looks like an abandoned parking structure. There is a legless zombie hiding in a car who alerts more zombies to the groups presence. Jim races back to the structure as the group races for the roof. Almost simultaneously a helicopter shows up using a powerful sonic device that kills all the zombie birds and almost kills Jim. They rescue Jim and take him to Ramsey towers.

Ob Reanimates in a new body that is in great shape. His host died of a heart attack while masturbating. His old host had knowledge of secret armories for the NYPD as well as the National Guard. He uses this knowledge to help arm his army as he sends for his forces in Hellertown as well as across the country. He also learns that all human life in Europe and Asia has been eliminated.

Ob then lays siege to last remaining humans holed up in Ramsey towers, using heavy artillery he is able to breach the supposedly impenetrable building. With the approaching forces the remaining humans are falling apart as the zombies storm the towers and eradicate them. Jim, Frankie, and a few others escape into the sewers only to be followed by Ob and his forces. Three of the company are killed by Zombie rats, one of a gunshot wound, one eaten by a zombie crocodile, and one having his throat slit by another zombie. Ob personally confronts Jim telling him he is glad to be the one ending his incredible journey; Jim then uses a flame thrower on a gas line killing Ob and the surrounding zombies. Frankie and Danny are eventually killed by zombie rats in their sleep.

Sometime before the final act however, Frankie has a dream in which the spirit of Martin talks to her, laying out the complex plan set up by Ob and his minions. The plan shows her that surviving the zombies would have been just the first ordeal. The undead were merely the first wave, with the purpose of eliminating all human and animal life. Once that task is accomplished, other obots would begin the assimilation of the plants and insects. It is also revealed that Jim, Danny and the rest of the characters from the books are reunited in some sort of afterlife and are happy.

(Source – Wikipedia)

Anil S Awad

English NET/SET Consultant

9922113364 (Also WhatsApp)

9423403368 (BSNL)

anilawad123@gmail.com

Aristotle's Objection to the Theory of Mimesis

Aristotle's Objection to the Theory of Mimesis

Aristotle agrees with Plato in calling the poet an imitator and creative art, imitation. He imitates one of the three objects – things as they were/are, things as they are said/thought to be or things as they ought to be. In other words, he imitates what is past or present, what is commonly believed and what is ideal. Aristotle believes that there is natural pleasure in imitation which is an in-born instinct in men. It is this pleasure in imitation that enables the child to learn his earliest lessons in speech and conduct from those around him, because there is a pleasure in doing so. In a grown-up child – a poet, there is another instinct, helping him to make him a poet – the instinct for harmony and rhythm.

He does not agree with his teacher in – ‘poet’s imitation is twice removed form reality and hence unreal/illusion of truth', to prove his point he compares poetry with history. The poet and the historian differ not by their medium, but the true difference is that the historian relates ‘what has happened’, the poet, ‘what may/ought to have happened’ - the ideal. Poetry, therefore, is more philosophical, and a higher thing than history because history expresses the particular while poetry tends to express the universal. Therefore, the picture of poetry pleases all and at all times.

Aristotle does not agree with Plato in the function of poetry making people weaker and emotional/too sentimental. For him, catharsis is ennobling and it humbles a human being.

So far as the moral nature of poetry is concerned, Aristotle believes that the end of poetry is to please; however, teaching may be the byproduct of it. Such pleasing is superior to the other pleasures because it teaches civic morality. So all good literature gives pleasure, which is not divorced from moral lessons.

Aristotle’s Concept of Tragedy

According to Aristotle metre/verse alone is not the distinguishing feature of poetry or imaginative literature in general. Even scientific and medical treatises may be written in verses. Verse will not make them poetry. “Even if a theory of medicine or physical philosophy be put forth in a metrical form, it is usual to describe the writer in this way; Homer and Empedocles, however, have really nothing in common apart from their metre; so that, if one is to be called a poet, the other should be termed a physicist rather than a poet.” Then the question is, if metre/verse does not distinguish poetry from other forms of art, how can we classify the form of poetry along with other forms of art?

Aristotle classifies various forms of art with the help of object, medium and manner of their imitation of life.

OBJECT: Which object of life is imitated determines the form of literature. If the Life of great people is imitative it will make that work a Tragedy and if the life of mean people is imitated it will make the work a Comedy. David Daiches writes explaining the classification of poetry which is imitative: “We can classify poetry according to the kinds of people it represents – they are either better than they are in real life, or worse, or the same. One could present characters, that is, on the grand or heroic scale; or could treat ironically or humorously the petty follies of men, or one could aim at naturalism presenting men neither heightened nor trivialized … Tragedy deals with men on a heroic scale, men better than they are in everyday life whereas comedy deals with the more trivial aspects of human nature, with characters ‘worse’ than they are in real life.”

MEDIUM: What sort of medium is used to imitate life again determines the forms of different arts. The painter uses the colours, and a musician will use the sound, but a poet uses the words to represent the life. When words are used, how they are used and in what manner or metre they are used further classifies a piece of literature in different categories as a tragedy or a comedy or an epic.

The types of literature, says Aristotle, can be distinguished according to the medium of representation as well as the manner of representation in a particular medium. The difference of medium between a poet and a painter is clear; one uses words with their denotative, connotative, rhythmic and musical aspects; the other uses forms and colours. Likewise, the tragedy writer may make use of one kind of metre, and the comedy writer of another.

MANNER: In what manner the imitation of life is presented distinguishes the one form of literature from another. How is the serious aspect of life imitated? For example, dramas are always presented in action while epics are always in narration. In this way the kinds of literature can be distinguished and determined according to the techniques they employ. David Daiches says: “The poet can tell a story in narrative form and partly through the speeches of the characters (as Homer does), or it can all be done in third-person narrative, or the story can be presented dramatically, with no use of third person narrative at all.”

The Definition of Tragedy

“Tragedy, then, is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude; in the 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 purgation-catharsis of these and similar emotions.”

Explanation of the definition:

The definition is compact. Every word of it is pregnant with meaning. Each word of the above definition can be elaborated into a separate essay.

All art is representation (imitation) of life, but none can represent life in its totality. Therefore, an artist has to be selective in representation. He must aim at representing or imitating an aspect of life or a fragment of life.

Action comprises all human activities including deeds, thoughts and feelings. Therefore, we find soliloquies, choruses etc. in tragedy.

The writer of ‘tragedy’ seeks to imitate the serious side of life just as a writer of ‘comedy’ seeks to imitate only the shallow and superficial side. The tragic section presented on the stage in a drama should be complete or self contained with a proper beginning, proper middle and proper end. A beginning is that before which the audience or the reader does not need to be told anything to understand the story. If something more is required to understand the story than the beginning gives, it is unsatisfactory. From it follows the middle. In their turn the events from the middle lead to the end. Thus the story becomes a compact & self sufficient one. It must not leave the impression that even after the end the action is still to be continued, or that before the action starts certain things remain to be known.

Tragedy must have close-knit unity with nothing that is superfluous or unnecessary. Every episode, every character and a dialogue in the play must carry step by step the action that is set into motion to its logical dénouement. It must give the impression of wholeness at the end.

The play must have, then, a definite magnitude, a proper size or a reasonable length such as the mind may comprehend fully. That is to say that it must have only necessary duration, it should neither be too long to tire our patience nor be too short to make effective representation impossible. Besides, a drama continuing for hours – indefinitely may fail to keep the various parts of it together into unity and wholeness in the spectator’s mind. The reasonable duration enables the spectator to view the drama as a whole, to remember its various episodes and to maintain interest. The language employed here should be duly embellished and beautified with various artistic ornaments (rhythm, harmony, song) and figures of speech. The language of our daily affairs is not useful here because tragedy has to present a heightened picture of life’s serious side, and that is possible only if elevated language of poetry is used. According to need, the writer makes use of songs, poetry, poetic dialogue; simple conversation etc is various parts of the play.

Its manner of imitation should be action, not narration as in epic, for it is meant to be a dramatic representation on the stage and not a mere story-telling.

Then, for the function/aim of tragedy is to shake up in the soul the impulses of pity and fear, to achieve what he calls Catharsis. The emotions of pity and fear find a full and free outlet in tragedy. Their excess is purged and we are lifted out of our selves and emerges nobler than before.

Six Formative Elements of Tragedy

After discussing the definition of tragedy, Aristotle explores various important parts of tragedy. He asserts that any tragedy can be divided into six constituent parts.

They are: Plot, Character, Thought, Diction, Song and Spectacle. The Plot is the most important part of a tragedy. The plot means ‘the arrangement of the incidents’. Normally the plot is divided into five acts, and each Act is further divided into several scenes. The dramatist’s main skill lies in dividing the plot into Acts and Scenes in such a way that they may produce the maximum scenic effect in a natural development. Characters are men and women who act. The hero and the heroine are two important figures among the characters. Thought means what the characters think or feel during their career in the development of the plot. The thought is expressed through their speeches and dialogues. Diction is the medium of language or expression through which the characters reveal their thoughts and feelings. The diction should be ‘embellished with each kind of artistic element’. The song is one of these embellishments. The decoration of the stage is the major part of the spectacle. The Spectacle is theatrical effect presented on the stage. But spectacle also includes scenes of physical torture, loud lamentations, dances, colourful garments of the main characters, and the beggarly or jocular appearance of the subordinate characters or of the fool on the stage. These are the six constituent parts of tragedy.

Plot and Character

Aristotle argues that, among the six formative elements, the plot is the most important element. He writes in The Poetics. The plot is the underlying principle of tragedy’. By plot Aristotle means the arrangement of incidents. Incidents mean action, and tragedy is an imitation of actions, both internal and external. That is to say that it also imitates the mental processes of the dramatic personae. In answering a question once he said that a tragedy could be written without a character but not without a plot. Though his overstatement on plot, he accepts that without action there cannot be a tragedy. The plot contains a beginning, a middle and an end, where the beginning is what is “not posterior to another thing,” while the middle needs to have something happened before, and something to happen after it, but after the end “there is nothing else.”

The characters serve to advance the action of the story, not vice verse. The ends we pursue in life, our happiness and our misery, all take the form of action. Tragedy is written not merely to imitate man but to imitate man in action. That is, according to Aristotle, happiness consists in a certain kind of activity rather than in a certain quality of character. As David Daiches says: ‘the way in which the action works itself out, the whole casual chain which leads to the final outcome.’ Diction and Thought are also less significant than plot: a series of well-written speeches has nothing like the force of a well-structured tragedy. Lastly, Aristotle notes that forming a solid plot is far more difficult than creating good characters or diction. Having asserted that the plot is the most important of the six parts of tragedy, he ranks the remainder as follows, from most important to least: Character, Thought, Diction, Melody, and Spectacle. Character reveals the individual motivations of the characters in the play, what they want or don't want, and how they react to certain situations, and this is more important to Aristotle than thought, which deals on a more universal level with reasoning and general truths. Diction, Melody/ Songs and Spectacle are all pleasurable accessories, but the melody is more important in tragedy than spectacle.

The Tragic Hero

The ideal tragic hero, according to Aristotle, should be, in the first place, a man of eminence. The actions of an eminent man would be ‘serious, complete and of a certain magnitude’, as required by Aristotle. Further, the hero should not only be eminent but also basically a good man, though not absolutely virtuous. The sufferings, fall and death of an absolutely virtuous man would generate feelings of disgust rather than those of ‘terror and compassion’ which a tragic play must produce. The hero should neither be a villain nor a wicked person for his fall, otherwise his death would please and satisfy our moral sense without generation the feelings of pity, compassion and fear. Therefore, the ideal tragic hero should be basically a good man with a minor flaw or tragic trait in his character. The entire tragedy should issue from this minor flaw or error of judgment. The fall and sufferings and death of such a hero would certainly generate feelings of pity and fear. So, Aristotle says: “For our pity is excited by misfortunes undeservedly suffered, and our terror by some resemblance between the sufferer and ourselves.” Finally, Aristotle says: “There remains for our choice a person neither eminently virtuous nor just, nor yet involved in misfortune by deliberate vice or villainy, but by some error or human frailty; and this person should also be someone of high-fame and flourishing prosperity.” Such a man would make an ideal tragic hero.

The characteristics of Tragic Hero

According to Aristotle, in a good tragedy, character supports plot. The personal motivation / actions of the characters are intricately involved with the action to such an extent that it leads to arouse pity and fear in the audience. The protagonist / tragic hero of the play should have all the characteristics of a good character. By good character, Aristotle means that they should be:

1. True to the self

2. True to type

3. True to life

4. Probable and yet more beautiful than life.

The tragic hero having all the characteristics mentioned above, has, in addition, a few more attributes. In this context Aristotle begins by the following observation,

• A good man – coming to bad end. (Its shocking and disturbs faith)

• A bad man – coming to good end. (neither moving, nor moral)

• A bad man – coming to bad end. (moral, but not moving)

• A rather good man – coming to bad end. (an ideal situation)

Aristotle disqualifies two types of characters – purely virtuous and thoroughly bad. There remains but one kind of character, who can best satisfy this requirement – ‘A man who is not eminently good and just yet whose misfortune is not brought by vice or depravity but by some error of frailty’. Thus the ideal Tragic Hero must be an intermediate kind of a person- neither too virtuous nor too wicked. His misfortune excites pity because it is out of all proportion to his error of judgement, and his over all goodness excites fear for his doom. Thus, he is a man with the following attributes: He should be a man of mixed character, neither blameless nor absolutely depraved. His misfortune should follow from some error or flaw of character; short of moral taint. He must fall from height of prosperity and glory. The protagonist should be renowned and prosperous, so that his change of fortune can be from good to bad. The fall of such a man of eminence affects entire state/nation. This change occurs not as the result of vice, but of some great error or frailty in a character. Such a plot is most likely to generate pity and fear in the audience. The ideal tragic hero should be an intermediate kind of a person, a man not preeminently virtuous and just yet whose misfortune is brought upon him not by vice or depravity but by some error of judgement. Let us discuss this error of judgement in following point.

The meaning of Hamartia

Hamartia (‘fatal flaw’ or ‘tragic flaw’) may consist of a moral flaw, or it may simply be a technical error/ error of judgement, or, ignorance, or even, at times, an arrogance (called hubris in Greek). It is owing to this flaw that the protagonist comes into conflict with Fate and ultimately meets his/her doom through the workings of Fate (called Dike in Greek) called Nemesis.

The Three Unities

1. The unity of action: a play should have one single plot or action to sustain the interest of the spectators and it can also lead him to proper purgation.

2. The unity of time: the action in a play should not exceed the single revolution of the sun.

3. The unity of place: a play should cover a single physical space and should not attempt to compress geography, nor should the stage represent more than one place.

These three principles are called unities, and the Three unities were unity of action, place and time. Let us understand them.

Unity of Action

The combination of incidents which are the action of the play, should be one – one story told, which is not to say it has to be about only one person, since characters are not in the centre of the tragedy, but the action itself is. He is against the plurality of action because it weakens the tragic effect. Number of incidents should be connected to each other in such a way that they must be conducive to one effect.

The Unity of Action limits the supposed action to a single set of incidents which are related as cause and effect, "having a beginning, middle, and an end." No scene is to be included that does not advance the plot directly. No subplots, no characters who do not advance the action.

This unity of action evidently contains a beginning, a middle and an end, where the beginning is what is “not posterior to another thing,” while the middle needs to have something happened before, and something to happen after it, but after the end “there is nothing else.”

The chain of events has to be of such nature as “might have happened,” either being possible in the sense of probability or necessary because of what forewent. Anything absurd can only exist outside of the drama, what is included in it must be believable, which is something achieved not by probability alone, “It is, moreover, evident from what has been said that it is not the function of the poet to relate what has happened but what may happen- what is possible according to the law of probability or necessity.”(Poetics in Critical Theory Since Plato, ed. Adams. P. 54) Aristotle even recommends things impossible but probable, before those possible but improbable. What takes place should have nothing irrational about it, but if this is unavoidable, such events should have taken place outside of the drama enacted.

Unity of Time

As for the length of the play, Aristotle refers to the magnitude called for, a grandness indeed, but one which can be easily seen in its entirety – in the aspect of length, than, one that can easily be remembered. The ideal time which the fable of a tragedy encompasses is “one period of the sun, or admits but a small variation from this period.”

The Unity of Time limits the supposed action to the duration, roughly, of a single day. Aristotle meant that the length of time represented in the play should be ideally speaking the actual time passing during its presentation. We should keep in our minds that it is a suggestion i.e. to be tried “as far as possible”; there is nothing that can be called a rule.

Unity of Place

According to the Unity of Place, the setting of the play should have one place. Aristotle never mentioned the Unity of Place at all. 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 the Renaissance critics of Italy and France.

Functions of Tragedy

“Tragedy is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete and of a certain magnitude…through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation of these emotions.”(Poetics, p. 10)

The above given definition of Aristotle indicates that the function of tragedy is to arouse ‘pity and fear’ in the spectator for both moral and aesthetic purpose. One has to remember in this context that he had Plato’s famous charge against the immoral effects of poetry on people’s minds. Aristotle uses the word in his definition of tragedy in chapter –VI of Poetics, and there has been much debate on exactly what he meant. The key sentence is: ‘Tragedy through pity and fear effects a purgation of such emotions.’ So, in a sense, the tragedy, having aroused powerful feelings in the spectator, has also a salubrious effect; after the storm and climax there comes a sense of release from tension, of calm. His theory of Catharsis consists in the purgation or purification of the excessive emotions of pity and fear. Witnessing the tragedy and suffering of the protagonist on the stage, such emotions and feelings of the audience are purged. The purgation of such emotions and feelings make them relieved, and they emerge as better human beings than they were. Thus, Aristotle’s theory of Catharsis has moral and ennobling function.

The Meaning of Catharsis

Let us quote F.L.Lucas at length on the meaning of catharsis: “First, there has been age-long controversy about Aristotle’s meaning, though it has almost always been accepted that whatever he meant was profoundly right. Many, for example, have translated Catharsis as ‘purification’, ‘Correction or refinement’ or the like. There is strong evidence that Catharsis means, not ‘Purification’, but ‘Purgation’ - a medical term (Aristotle was a son of a Physician.) Yet, owing to changes in medical thought, ‘Purgation’ has become radically misleading to modern minds. Inevitably we think of purgatives and complete evacuations of water products; and then outraged critics ask why our emotions should be so ill-treated. “But Catharsis means ‘Purgation’, not in the modern, but in the older, wider English sense which includes the partial removal of excess ‘humours’. The theory is as old as the school of Hippocrates that on a due balance … of these humours depend the health of body and mind alike.” (F.L.Lucas) To translate Catharsis simply as purgation today is misleading owing to the change of meaning which the word has undergone. The theory of humours is outdated in the medical science. ‘Purgation’ has assumed different meanings. It is no longer what Aristotle had in mind. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to translate Catharsis as ‘moderating’ or ‘tempering’ of the passions. But such translation, as F.L.Lucas suggests, ‘keeps the sense but loses the metaphor’. However, when it is not possible to keep up both, the meaning and the metaphor, it is better to maintain the meaning and sacrifice the metaphor in translating Catharsis as ‘moderating’ or ‘tempering’. The passions to be moderated are those of pity and fear. The pity and fear to be moderated is, again, of specific kinds. There can never be an excess in the pity that results into a useful action. But there can be too much of pity as an intense and helpless feeling, and there can be also too much of self-pity which is not a praise-worthy virtue. The Catharsis or moderation of such forms of pity ought to be achieved in the theatre or otherwise when possible, for such moderation keeps the mind in a healthy state of balance. Similarly, only specific kinds of fear are to be moderated. Aristotle does not seem to have in mind the fear of horrors on the stage which as Lucas suggests are “supposed to have made women miscarry with terror in the theatre”, Aristotle specifically mentions ‘sympathetic fear for the characters’. “And by allowing free vent to this in the theatre, men are to lessen, in facing life thereafter, their own fear of … the general dread if destiny.” (F.L.Lucas) There are, besides fear and pity, the allied impulses which also are to be moderated: “Grief, weakness, contempt, blame – these I take to be the sort of thing that Aristotle meant by ‘feeling of that sort’.” (Lucas).

The Relevance of the Theory of Catharsis in the Present Scenario

Since Aristotle, in Europe tragedy has never been a drama of despair, causeless death or chance-disaster. The drama that only paints horrors and leaves souls shattered and mind unreconciled with the world may be described as a gruesome, ghastly play, but not a healthy tragedy, for tragedy is a play in which disaster or downfall has causes which could carefully be avoided and sorrow in it does not upset the balance in favour of pessimism. That is why, in spite of seriousness, even heart-rending scenes of sorrow, tragedy, in the ultimate pronouncement, embodies the vision of beauty. It stirs noble thoughts and serves tragic delight but does not condemn us to despair. If the healthy notion of tragedy has been maintained throughout the literary history of Europe, the ultimate credit, perhaps, goes back to Aristotle who propounded it in his theory of Catharsis.

Catharsis established tragedy as a drama of balance. Sorrow alone would be ugly and repulsive. Beauty pure would be imaginative and mystical. These together constitute what may be called tragic beauty. Pity alone would be sentimentality. Fear alone would make us cowards. But pity and fear, sympathy and terror together constitute the tragic feeling which is most delightful though it is tearfully delightful. Such tragic beauty and tragic feeling which it evokes constitutes the aesthetics of balance as propounded for the first time by Aristotle in his theory of Catharsis. Therefore, we feel, the reverence which Aristotle has enjoyed through ages has not gone to him undeserved. His insight has rightly earned it.

Glossary of Key Terms

1. Mimesis:- A Greek word for Imitation.

2. Imitation:- Representation.

3. Magnitude:- Length, Size.

4. Embellished:- Ornamental, Decorated

5. Catharsis:- Purgation, Purification.

6. Hamartia:- Tragic Flaw, Error of Judgment

7. Diction:- Special style of the Language, Expression and Wording

8. Spectacle:- Stage Property

9. Denoument:-the clearing up or ‘untying’ of the complications of the plot in a play or story. Usually it takes place at the ens.

10. Aesthetic:-concerned with beauty and its appreciation.

(Collection)

Anil S Awad

English NET/SET Consultant

9922113364 (Also WhatsApp)

9423403368 (BSNL)

anilawad123@gmail.com