Subject: BHA: Re: The Poetics
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 08:43:46 +0200


Hi Michael--

>Aristotle doesn't say the the experience of seeing a tragedy
>performed is "the same" (your word) as hearing the plot
>recited, only that the tragic effect can be achieved by
>the latter without performance.

I'll accept this (hedging slightly for variant translations).  The question
might be better stated as concerning what constitutes the tragic effect, and
whether it's social, psychological, dramaturgical, or something else, and
then whether it can in fact be achieved in two different ways; but maybe the
issue is becoming too much a digression from the concerns of this list.
(There are some interesting questions about the relation between "the
tragic" and "tragedy"--not all Greek tragedies end "tragically," after all;
the *Oresteia* and *Oedipus at Colonus* are obvious examples.)

>There's no question that performance is an important aspect
>of dramatic form, but according to Aristotle, all those
>performative aspects that you cite (and the ones he recognized)
>are subordinate to the plot.  He thought things like the
>deus ex machina were flaws in proper tragedy.

Within Aristotle's analysis, the subordination of all to the plot certainly
makes sense (i.e., is logically consistent), but it's worth noting
Euripides's strategic use of the deus ex machina.  Were those "bad
tragedies"?  Was Aristotle's judgment mistaken?  Both?  Neither?  I'd say
that Euripides knew what he was up to and that Aristotle's preferences led
to some errors, but oh well.

>I know diddly-squat about Sanskrit drama, hence, cannot comment
>on what you say about it.  But Aristotle was talking about
>specific cultural forms available in Greek antiquity, and
>so he can hardly be fault for failing to include a discussion
>of different dramatic forms with which he was unfamiliar.

Agreed.  My concern is that Aristotle has been taken in later ages as valid
for all forms of tragedy, or even all forms of drama.  The argument that
tragedy did and has continued to evolve is certainly viable (though I tend
to consider tragedy strictly a classical Greek genre), but in any case it
would probably rule such universalizations of Aristotle as untenable.
(Incidentally, one could perhaps argue that Aristotle shouldn't be applied
to Sanskrit drama simply because it avoided tragic moods, but such an
argument assumes that what makes a play a tragedy lies in the emotions it
arouses, which we seem to have agreed isn't true.  I'm not claiming that the
Sanskrit plays were indeed tragedies; but there are some interesting
comparisons with the Greek drama, as also with the Japanese noh plays.)

---
Tobin Nellhaus
nellhaus-AT-gwi.net *or* tobin.nellhaus-AT-helsinki.fi
"Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce





     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---