«ἔστιν οὖν τραγῳδία μίμησις πράξεως σπουδαίας καὶ τελείας μέγεθος ἐχούσης, ἡδυσμένῳ λόγῳ χωρὶς ἑκάστῳ τῶν εἰδῶν ἐν τοῖς μορίοις, δρώντων καὶ οὐ δι᾽ ἀπαγγελίας, δι᾽ ἐλέου καὶ φόβου περαίνουσα τὴν τῶν τοιούτων παθημάτων κάθαρσιν.»
“A tragedy is the imitation of an action that is serious and also, as having magnitude, complete in itself; in appropriate and pleasurable language;… in a dramatic rather than narrative form; with incidents arousing pity and fear, wherewith to accomplish a catharsis of these emotions.” The aristotelian definition of tragedy.
Mimesis and catharsis are the fundamental terms on Aristotle’s definition of tragedy.
Aristotle argued that tragedy cleansed the heart through pity and terror, purging us of our petty concerns and worries by making us aware that there can be nobility in suffering. He called this experience 'catharsis'. Catharsis is a medical term referring to purging or cleansing. Thus there is a therapeutic value in theatre. In other words catharsis in theatre is an emotional release. An emotional release that is not that simple since it leads to construction of ethos for the viewers.
The other principle concept in Aristotle’s definition is ‘’mimesis’’. As Aristotle mentions, the habit of imitating is congenital to human beings from childhood (actually man differs from the other animals in that he is the most imitative, and learns his first lessons through imitation). As children we learn new skills, we grow, and we change through mimicking. Put another way, we learn by acting like those we see around us. Aristotle is a strong defender of mimesis which has been ‘’accused’’ by his teacher Plato.
Plato also considers the ‘’mimesis’’ as the general philosophical principle behind all art, including poetry and theatre but ontologically is inferior as it is an imitation or a representation of reality, not reality itself, but an illusion, a mirror of something else and therefore deceptive.As Plato argues in his great work ‘’Republic’’ artists are tricksters, imitating reality without capturing its essence and always presenting corrupt images of the truth. Also, ,modern theatrical writers Antoine Artaud and Bertolt Brecht are famously labelled anti-Aristotelian in regard to the Aristotelian concept of mimesis.
Focusing on the perspective of Aristotle’s analysis we can understand that it is a solid interpretation of the essence of drama and poetry. And the weak points mentioned by the modern writers criticizing it, are due to the different context in which the meaning of drama’s purpose is interpreted. The same applies to Plato’s underestimation of poetry. Plato’s underestimation of ‘mimesis’ and poetry (and art) is quite comprehensible in the frame of is ontological system. ‘Tragic irony’ lies in the fact that Plato’s dialogues are so theatrical ...though.
Finally, Aristotle uses in his definition of poetry a cookery term ‘’ ἡδυσμένῳ’’ (ἡδυσμένῳ λόγῳ) as a metaphor to convey the grace of poetry, where the used language is pleasurable and functions as the condiment of poetry and drama ( like a condiment which is provided to enhance the flavour of the food).
All in all, Aristotle does not focus solely on the ethical but also on the aesthetical part of a fine tragedy, starting though from an ontologically vague claim expressed by the use of the word ‘’mimesis’’. We could say that Aristotle’s definition is more an existential one far from the metaphysical platonic approach or the sociologically burdened interpretations of modern theatrical writers.
Theognosia Rigopoulou, PhD
Kommentarer