Aristotle believes in teleology, a
metaphysical position according to which everything has a function or end to fulfill. Every kind of
poetic imitation has its own assigned function, says Aristotle. The function of a tragedy is to
succeed through the representation of an action that is serious, complete and
of certain magnitude, in arousing pity and fear in such a way as to accomplish
a purgation or Catharsis of such emotions. So tragedy works in a two folds
ways 1, first exciting the emotions of
fear and pity and 2, then abating them,
thereby effecting an emotional cure.
So, Catharsis or purgation, the most
debate arousing word in entire Poetics, depends on the emotions coming from the
combination of pity and fear. By pity Aristotle means the sympathy we feel for
the undeserving sufferer. We pity one who is suffering and to pity we must
participate to some extent in his suffering. But we feel pity for one who
suffers more than he should. We feel pity for Oedipus, when we see him
suffering from undeserved misfortune. We feel pity for Agamemnon hearing his
death-cry.
Agamemnon is not wholly
responsible for such kind of suffering. Another essential part of suffering is fear which we feel for
someone just like ourselves. It is closely connected with pity. We pity others,
while we fear for ourselves, if we are placed in these circumstances. We have a
sympathetic emotion of fear for one who is similar to us. When we see Oedipus
on the stage is suffering from untold sufferings. We realize our kinship or identity with him.
And the effect of tragedy depends on this inward similarity between the hero
and the spectator. The hero is as much a human being as any of us.
Imaginatively, we feel that we too may meet such a fate, and we recoil.
According to Aristotle there are two
ways in which fear and pity can be aroused in the audience. Fear and pity may
be excited in the audience by means spectacle. But they can also take their
rise from very structure of the action and this is the bitter way and indicates
the superior art. In fact, the plot should be so constructed that even without
the use of his eyes, the listener, who hears the late, will be thrill with
horror and melt to pity at what happens in the story. This is the impression we
should receive from listening to the story of Oedipus. But to produce this
effect by means of stage-spectacle is less artistic and those who employ
spectacle to produce an effect, not of fear, but of something merely monstrous,
are ignorant of the purpose of tragedy. The purpose of tragedy is to give
pleasure which comes from pity and fear through imitation.
Fear and pity can also take their rise
from the very structure of the plot. And in order to produce such situations
the dramatists should choose those horror-deeds that take place between persons
who are near and dear to each other. A brother killing or intending to kill a
brother, for example- Polyneices killing of Eteodes in Antigone, son killing
his father, as Oedipus did, a mother killing her son as Medea did or son
killing his mother or any other deeds of same kinds the tragic dramatist must
choose. We see that the most of the situations suitable to tragedy are supplied
by a number of well- known legends of these well-known families, such as that
of Clytemnestra having been killed by Orestes or Eriphyle by Alemaeon.
But the duty of a dramatist is to use
these elements effectively. He should use his inventive faculty. Aristotle has
suggested four possible ways in which these horror-deeds can be committed.
1) The deed may be done by characters
acting consciously and in full knowledge of the facts for example Euripides
made Medea kill her children.
2) Or they may do it without realizing
the horror of the deeds until later, when they discover the truth, this is what
Sophocles did with Oedipus.
3) A third alternative is for someone
who is about to do a terrible deed in ignorance of the relationship and to
discover the truth before he does it.
4) There is still another way which is
least acceptable. In this situation someone in possession of the facts is on
the point of acting but fails to do so. Such a situation is shocking without
being tragic, because no disaster occurs. Hence nobody is allowed to behave
like this, as when Haemon fails to kill Creon in the Antigone.
It is better that the character should
act in ignorance and only learn the truth afterwards for there is nothing in
this to outrage. Our feelings and the revelation comes as a surprise. However,
the best method is one in which the character is about to do an act of
ignorance but discovers the truth before he does, when for example in the
Cresphontes Merope intends to kill her son, but recognizes him and does not do
so, or when the same thing happens with brother and sister in Iphigena in
Tauris or when in the Helle, the son recognizes his mother when he is just
about to betray her.
There is a controversy over the fact
that which way is the best, the first one or the second one. If we keep in mind
the arguments put forward by Aristotle, then it seems to us that the situation
in which character does a thing in complete ignorance and later discovers the
truth is the best way. But the contradiction arises from the very language
Aristotle has used.