Paper no 3 assignment

 Name: Kajal Keraliya

Topic: Tragic hero: Catharsis

Roll no.: 19

Paper no 3: Literary Theory And Criticism

M.A: Sem-1

Enrolment no.:2069108420180030

Year: 2017-19

E-mail: Www.kajalk1@gmail.com

Submitted to:

Smt. S.B. Gardi Department Of English

Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji

Bhavnagar University

 

Tragic Hero:

Have you ever been moved by the fates of Romeo and Juliet, or brought to tears by the plight of Bruce Wayne (perhaps better known as Batman)? If so, you've probably recognized these individuals as tragic heroes, or the protagonists of tragedies. Despite how simply defined the term can be, the Greek philosopher Aristotle was very specific when he first characterized tragedy and what type of person could be its protagonist. Since he had a lot to say on the subject, let's jump right into determining what Aristotle considered to be the crucial characteristics of a tragic hero.

 

Characteristic of Tragic Hero:

· Pity & Fear: In the course of a successfully tragic work, Aristotle says that the audience should be moved by the actions of the hero to experience the emotions of pity and fear. For instance, you may pity the plight of the star-crossed lovers who cannot be involved due to their familial ties, or you might even fear the same parental loss experienced by Bruce Wayne.

· Relatability: Tragic heroes (or heroines: i.e. Juliet) are able to elicit emotions in people because they are just that: people. Even if the characters were deities, Aristotle would argue that they are still relatable to audiences because they are displaying very human characteristics (i.e. jealousy, sadness) in human situations (i.e. infidelity, war, etc.). Being able to see ourselves in their positions is what makes tragic heroes capable of bringing on the appropriate emotional release.

· Goodness: Although we can relate to the tragic hero through his innate humanity, there are some aspects of his character that should be somewhat foreign to us. Aristotle claims that he must be a 'good' man, which to the Ancient Greeks meant much more than it might today. For them, this meant that the hero would be well-known, perhaps even of high stature (i.e. Romeo or Wayne's famous families), but not overly virtuous or morally upright. Aside from money or titles, he may also possess extraordinary abilities (i.e. Hercules' strength). All of these things, of course, make the inevitable decline all the more tragic as the hero's transition from good fortune to bad.

· Hamartia: Many people who discuss tragedy often mention the hero's 'fatal' or 'tragic flaw.' However, Aristotle would never accuse a hero of such a personal defect. Instead, he asserted that they were guilty of hamartia, or missing the mark. This means that the hero has made a bad decision or miscalculation (typically with good intentions) as a result of poor reasoning or an external stimulus (i.e. divine madness). For example, Romeo and Juliet could've probably come up with a better plan than poison if they weren't so caught up in their own passion and were able to think clearly.

· Consistency: The last, but perhaps most important characteristic of the tragic hero that Aristotle describes is his consistency. What he means by this is that the hero should behave and speak in a manner consistent not only with his own character but with how people would perceive such a person to act and to talk. We might be a bit put-off, for instance, if Batman were able to address his foes in obscure street slang, or if Romeo would have refused to avenge his friend Mercutio's death. This, of course, also meant to Aristotle that the tragic hero behaved consistently with his own model of the character.

With all this in mind, let's take a look at some examples to see how consistent they are with what Aristotle imagined.

Example of Tragic Hero:

· Hamlet

Many of us are probably familiar with Shakespeare's Hamlet, but what makes him such a model tragic hero? First of all, he is, of course, the prince of Denmark, providing him with the required stature and notoriety. Driven to the brink of madness by the tortured ghost of his father, Hamlet is convinced the new king is responsible for this treachery.

He affects a plan to avenge his father (consistent with his character); however, considering that he is effectively blinded by his cause (hamartia), he neglects his other personal relationships, which inadvertently leads to many deaths (i.e. Ophelia, Gertrude, etc.). Hamlet himself also falls in the final bloodbath, giving one last tug at our heartstrings and highlighting one of our most primal fears: death itself.

 

Aristotle's concept of catharsis

 

                          The catharsis theory originated with Aristotle and his play Poetics. Aristotle believed that when people viewed tragedy in plays, it gave them an emotional

release. Any negative feelings that they may feel such as fear or anger,were purged when they view characters in tragic events. This theory has been carried over into

 modern day mass media. It is used to justify the increase in the amount of violence we see in the media.

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. It is bad to be selfishly sentimental, timid Catharsis as ‘Purification’, ‘correction or refinement’, ‘Reinigung’ , or the like. It has been suggested

that our pity and fear are ‘purified’ in the theatre by , disinterested or impartial. It is bad to selfishly sentimental, timid, and querulous; but it is good topity Othello or to fear for Hamlet. Our selfish emotion has been sublimated. All this is most edifying; but it does not appear to be what Aristotle intended.

                             

                           There as strong evidence that catharsis means, not ‘Purification but ‘Purgation’. A medical metaphor. 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 order, wider English sense which includes the partial removal of

excess ‘homours’. The theory is as old as the school of Hippocrats that on a due balance. Of these humours depend the health of body and mind alike.” – F.L.Lucas.

 

                                To translate Catharsis is 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 meaning. It is no longer what Aristotle has 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, ‘keep the sense, but loss the metaphor.’  Anyway, 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 ‘temptaing’.

                               

                              The passions to be moderated are these of pity and fear. The pity and fear to be moderated are, again of specific kind. 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 pity ought to be achieved in the theatre or otherwise when possible, for such moderation keeps the mind ina healthy state

of balance.

 

                               Similarly, only specific kinds of fear are to be moderated. Aristotle does not seem to have in mind the he fear

of horrors on the stage which as Lucas suggests are “supposed to have made women miscarry with terror in the theatre”.

Aristotle specially mentions ‘sympathetic fear for the characters’. “ And by allowing free vent to this in the theatre, men are to lesson, in facing life thereafter, their own fear of the general dread of destiny.” F.L Lucas

                              

                              Catharsis established tragedy as a drama of balance. Aristotle writes that the function of tragedy is to arouse the emotions of pity and fear, and to affect the

Catharsis of these emotions. Aristotle has used the term Catharsis only once, but no phrase has been handled so frequently by critics, and poets. Aristotle has not explained

 what exactly he meant by the word, nor do we get any help from the Poetics. For this reason, help and guidance has to be taken from his other works. Further, Catharsis has

 three meaning. It means ‘purgation’, ‘purification’, and ‘clarification’, and each critic has used the word in one or the other senses. All agree that Tragedy arouses fear and pity,

 but there are sharp differences as to the process, the way by which Give the

Pleasure.
                            Catharsis has been taken as a medical metaphor, ‘purgation’, denoting a pathological effect on the soul similar to the effect of medicine on the body. This view is borne out by a passage in the Politics where Aristotle refers to religious frenzy being cured by certain tunes which excite religious frenzy.

 

In Tragedy: 

“…pity and fear, artificially stirred the latent pity and fear which we bring with us from real life.”
  

                              In the Neo-Classical era, Catharsis was taken to be an allopathic treatment with the unlike curing unlike.

 The arousing of pity and fear was supposed to bring about the purgation or ‘evacuation’ of other emotions, like anger, pride etc. As

 Thoma Tayler hold “ we  learn From the terrible fates of Evil men to avoid the vices they manifest.” F.L.Lucas rejects the idea

that Catharsis is medical metaphor and says that ‘ the theatre is not hospital.’

 
                             Both Lucas and Herbert Reed regard it as a kind of safety valve. Pity and fear are aroused, we give free play

 to these emotions which is followed by emotional relief. I. A. Richards’ approach to the process is also psychological. Fear is

the impulse to withdraw and pity is the impulse to approach. Both these impulses are harmonized and blended in tragedy and

 this balance brings relief repose.

 .
                               The ethical interpretation is that the tragic process is a kind of lustration of the soul, an inner illumination resulting in a more balanced attitude to life and its suffering. Thus John Gassner says that a clear understanding of what was involved in the struggle, of cause and effect, a judgment on what we have witnessed, can result in a state of mental equilibrium and rest, and can ensure complete aesthetic pleasure. Tragedy makes us realize that divine law operates in the universe, shaping everything for the best.

                            During the Renaissance, another set of critics suggested that Tragedy helped to harden or ‘temper’ the emotions. Spectators are hardened to the pitiable and fearful events of life by witnessing them in tragedies.

                            Humphrey House rejects the idea of ‘purgation’ and forcefully advocates the ‘purification’ theory which involves moral instruction and learning. It is a kind of ‘moral conditioning’. He points out that, ‘purgation means cleansing’.

                             According to ‘the purification’ theory, Catharsis implies that our emotions are purified of excess and defect,

are reduced to intermediate state, trained and directed towards the right objects at the right time. The spectator learns the proper

use of pity, fear and similar emotions by witnessing tragedy. Butcher writes:

“The tragic Catharsis involves not only the idea of emotional relief, but the further idea of purifying the emotions so relieved.”
 

                             The basic defect of ‘purgation’ theory and ‘purification’ theory is that they are too much occupied with the psychology of the audience. Aristotle was writing a treatise not on psychology but on the art of poetry. He relates ‘Catharsis’ not to the emotions of the spectators but to the incidents which form the plot of the tragedy. And the result is the “clarification” theory.

                             The paradox of pleasure being aroused by the ugly and the repellent is also the paradox involved in tragedy. Tragic incidents are pitiable and fearful.They include horrible events as a man blinding himself, a wife murdering her husband or a mother slaying her children and instead of repelling us produce pleasure.

 

                               Aristotle clearly tells us that we should not seek for every pleasure from tragedy, “but only the pleasure proper

 to it”. ‘Catharsis’ refers to the tragic variety of pleasure. The Catharsis clause is thus a definition of the function of tragedy, and not

 of its emotional effects on the audience.

                               Imitation does not produce pleasure in general, but only the pleasure that comes from learning, and so also the peculiar pleasure of tragedy. Learning comes from discovering the relation between the action and the universal elements embodied in it. The poet might take his material from history or tradition, but he selects and orders it in terms of probability and necessity, and represents what, “might be”. He rises from the particular to the general and so is more universal and more philosophical. The events are presented free of chance and accidents which obscure their real meaning. Tragedy enhances understanding and leaves the spectator ‘face to face with the universal law’.

                               Thus according to this interpretation, ‘Catharsis’ means clarification of the essential and universal significance of the incidents depicted, leading to an enhanced understanding of the universal law which governs human life and destiny, and such an understating leads to pleasure of tragedy. In this view, Catharsis is neither a medical, nor a religious or moral term, but an intellectual term. The term refers to the incidents depicted in the tragedy and the way in which the poet reveals their universalsignificance.

                               The clarification theory has many merits. Firstly, it is a technique of the tragedy and not to the psychology of the audience. Secondly, the theory is based on what Aristotle says in the Poetics, and needs no help and support of what Aristotle has said in Politics and Ethics. Thirdly, it relates Catharsis both to the theory of imitation and to the discussion of probability and necessity. Fourthly, the theory is perfectly in accord with current aesthetic theories.

                               According to Aristotle the basic tragic emotions are pity and fear are painful. If tragedy is to give pleasure, the pity and fear must somehow be eliminated. Fear is aroused when we see someone suffering and think that similar fate might befall us. Pity is a feeling of pain caused by the sight of underserved suffering of others. The spectator sees that it is the tragic error or Hamartia of the hero which results in suffering and so he learns something about the universal relation between character and destiny. 

 

 To conclude,

                     Aristotle's conception of Catharsis is mainly intellectual. It is neither didactic nor theoretical, though it may have a residual theological element. Aristotle's Catharsis is not a moral doctrine requiring the tragic poet to show that bad men come to bad ends, nor a kind of theological relief arising from discovery that God’s laws operate invisibly to make all things work out for the best.

 

References:

http://literarydevices.net/catharsis/