The Tempest as a Comedy?

“Comedy is, as we have said, an imitation of characters of a lower type- not, however, in the full sense of the word bad, the ludicrous being merely a subdivision of the ugly. It consists in some defect or ugliness which is not painful or destructive. To take an obvious example, the comic mask is ugly and distorted, but does not imply pain”

“And, according to Aristotle, the quality that provokes laughter is a certain ‘ugliness,’ a ‘defect’ or ‘deformity.’ These words, primarily applicable to the physically ugly, the disproportionate, the unsymmetrical, will include the frailties, follies, and infirmities of human nature, as distinguished from its graver vices or crimes. Further, taking account of the elements which enter into the idea of beauty in Aristotle, we shall probably not unduly strain the meaning of the expression, if we extend it to embrace the incongruities, absurdities, or cross-purposes of life, its blunders and discords, its imperfect correspondences and adjustments, and that in matters intellectual as well as moral” (375).

The Tempest was one of Shakespeare’s last and shortest comedies. It was written toward the end of his career and was one of the very last works he had produced. Interestingly enough by contemporary standards it would have been considered more of a romance and tragicomedy, rather than being broadly generalized as a comedy. What this definition suggests is that although the story ends happily, there are many haphazard events which occur in the body of the play. Events that, unlike the “green space” in Midsummer Night’s Dream, are truly dangerous and could end perilously for the main characters. For example, as the title of the play suggests the characters are shipwrecked and stranded on an island because of a tempest. Moreover the survivors quickly turn against one another, plotting murder and planning who will gain control over this new and yet unconquered land. Clearly the situation that the shipwrecked people encounter with the islanders is no laughing matter. It is something that more likely would be found in a tragedy rather than a conventional Shakespearian comedy.

In the above quotes Aristotle points out that the comedic character is of the “lower type”, having some defect […] which is not painful or destructive” (??). There are few characters in The Tempest which could be described using this definition. In fact the majority of characters do experience the “painful or destructive” both Caliban and Ariel are enslaved and under the control of their master, Prospero, receive physical punishments for their misbehavior. Prospero’s magic, which controls the other characters, does not necessarily evoke laughter, rather it stands as a testing device. Prospero tests the affections of Ferdinand toward his daughter. He makes him perform the chores of his other slaves in order to test his dedication to Miranda. Prospero also checks the loyalty (and disloyalty!) of the other high ranking officials who were shipwrecked by tempting them with a scene of feasts.

S.H. Butcher’s interpretation of Aristotle’s brief reflections on comedy proves that the comedic elements we should instead be looking for are not necessarily those that are fantastical such as Prospero’s magic. Instead comedy should be based in, well, the “base”. Comedy should be the kind of thing we see on an afternoon sitcom: slapstick funny, a lighthearted humor that isn’t taken to seriously. As Butcher points out it should include the, “the frailties, follies, and infirmities of human nature, as distinguished from its graver vices or crimes” (375). Essentially comedy, as I have pointed out in previous posts, should lie in events that can easily be reconciled. Such serious issues such as those of murder, slavery, and colonization do not lie in the realm of comedy but rather tragedy. In fact, Prospero could be seen as  having some elements of a tragic figure. The scholarly magician does not experience any tragic downfall because of a mistake in the body of the play, however he can be considered a tragic character in the context of his back story. Prospero, after all, was too hungry for knowledge and we usurped from the throne by his own brother and along with his only child exiled from the country. It was his quest for knowledge and sorcery in the Italian society in the unofficial prologue to the story of The Tempest that led to his downfall. I think this back story is what really provides the tragic elements that then resonate through this “comedy”. Because of past circumstances the magic of Prospero is not lighthearted, no longer used solely for good, or the furthering of scholarly pursuit, instead it is used for revenge and to constantly reassert his authority over the island.

*The source I used was Aristotle’s Theory of Poetry and Fine Art with critical notes and translated by S. H. Butcher.

History vs. Poetry

“The true difference is that one relates what has happened, the other what may happen. Poetry, therefore, is a more philosophical and a higher thing than history: for poetry tends to express the universal, history the particular. By the universal I mean how a person of a certain type on occasion speak or act, according to the law of probability or necessity” (35).

Here Aristotle begins to define the difference between history and poetry. He makes some clear distinctions straightaway. First off, history, “relates what has happened” as opposed to poetry which discusses “what may happen” (35). History addresses that of the particular, it is way of cataloguing our past. Poetry, to Aristotle, then is, “more philosophical and a higher thing” (35). Poetry therefore is meant to be “universal” (35) it is supposed to be something that everyone can relate to.

Poetry is an everyman’s medium, a way to access the hearts of millions. It holds in it themes that apply to audiences of every race, creed, background. Poetry speaks of universal emotions, those things most base (not necessarily base in a negative way…) that everyone holds in there heart. I think that a good example would be looking at words that can be found in every language, words that are universal such as “love” or “hate”. Every culture has a definition of what these mean, those affections which are almost instinctual to us. On the other hand, there are not always translations of for e.g., an event which is specific either historically or culturally relevant to a country. From personal experience I can say that most of my friends have no idea about certain polish historical events, those have simply been irrelevant to their growing up in the US. The same goes for any traditions that I might bring to our apartment, nobody knows that on Smingus Dyngus, the Monday after Easter, you are supposed to splash buckets of water on each other! But all of my roommates recognize what I am doing when I end a phone call to my mom saying “kocham cie!” (I love you!). These emotions are universal, things that transcend any of our cultural or background differences.

How does Aristotle’s difference between history and poetry relate to Shakespeare? Of course it would be difficult to argue that the playwright wrote his plays to stand in as historical narratives of the time. However, many of the plays do have some basis and background story, or at least allusions, to the ruling monarch in England at that time period. (For example subtle references to James I in The Tempest, as well as Queen Elizabeth in A Midsummer Night’s Dream.) So as Aristotle points out even though these plays may be historically relevant to the Renaissance period, and even though their conventions are those of a different time they still speak to contemporary audiences. The setting may be outdated to our modern times but the emotions of love and betrayal, ambition and jealousy transcend time and pervade our every day lives. This, is exactly why Shakespeare is so relatable, even in his most “historical plays” such as Richard III though the plot may focus on the succession of leaders the real story lies in the motives and emotions of characters that stand the test of time.

*The source I used was Aristotle’s Theory of Poetry and Fine Art with critical notes and translated by S. H. Butcher.

Measure for Measure, a tragi-comedy?

“Reversal of the Situation is a change by which the action veers round to its opposite, subject always to our rule of probability or necessity. […] Recognition, as the name indicates, is a change from ignorance to knowledge, producing love or hate between the persons destined by the poet for good or bad fortune. The best form of recognition is coincident with a Reversal of the Situation, as in the Oedipus. There are indeed other forms. Even inanimate things of the most trivial kind may in a sense be objects of recognition. Again, we may recognize or discover whether a person has done a thing or not.

But the recognition which is most intimately connected with the plot and action is, as we have said, the recognition of persons. This recognition, combined with Reversal, will produce either pity or fear; and actions producing these effects are those which, by our definition, Tragedy represents. Moreover, it is upon such situations that the issues of good or bad fortune will depend. Recognition, then, being between persons, it may happen that one person only is recognized by the other- when the latter is already known- or it may be necessary that the recognition should be on both sides. […]

Two parts, then, of the Plot- Reversal of the Situation and Recognition- turn upon surprises. A third part is the Scene of  Suffering. The Scene of Suffering is a destructive or painful action, such as death on the stage, bodily agony, wounds, and the like” (41-43).

Measure for Measure as I briefly pointed out in my previous blog post, is actually a problematic comedy. Of course, during Shakespeare’s time it would have been generalized to  the comedic genre. However, when read in contemporary times it can be more likely understood as a tragi-comedy. There are elements of both realms and although there are characters who in several scenes provide comic relief that cannot be the qualifying factor. Although the definition of comedy during the renaissance (and to a certain extent presently!) does involve elements of the ridiculous, a recreation of events which seem almost unbelievable there needs to be some sense of challenging the protagonist’s identity. Most importantly comedic plays are about the “common man”, concern societal issues dealing with the community, and usually end in a wedding (or two).

In the above quote Aristotle points out some of the qualities of the comedy’s counter: tragedy. There are three core elements to the tragic plot: the reversal of the situation, recognition, and finally a scene of suffering. Now, if Measure for Measure was a purely comedic work it would be quite difficult to find any of the previously mentioned elements of a tragedy in its plot. The different story lines of Measure for Measure, however, bring up certain points of contention in which many people argue that the play is beginning to show tragic elements. I will use the Aristotlean lens to examine if Measure for Measure is has tragic elements according to the above-mentioned criteria.

Does Measure for Measure have a reversal of a situation? Yes, in fact the whole basis of the play is based on a situation reversal. What puts the work into motion is Claudio being punished for having premarital sex (which, technically, may not have been premarital seeing as a verbal contract promising future marriage could, at the time, be equal to a certificate).  Why is he being punished for consensual sex? This is because just subsequently to Claudio impregnating Juliette the Duke had reversed some of his laws and policies, withdrawing the lover’s spoken covenant from being considered a legal document or procedure. Yet another form of reversal is Angelo’s, the stand-in official at the time of the Duke’s absence, lust for Isabella. Angleo, a very calm and critical character, someone who sets the rules and never breaks them, does a complete 180 and attempts to seduce the chaste young woman.

Recognition, as Aristotle put it, “most intimately connected with the plot and action” (41) is also prevalent through Measure for Measure. A subtle example would be Isabella’s initial state of oblivion to Angelo’s intentions toward her. However, the best example would have to be the Duke’s disguise as a friar. He goes undercover and plays the directorial role, influencing the actions of the other key characters. His identity is discovered only in the last scene of the fifth act. In fact, this last scene of “recognition” is what resolves all of the play’s conflicts, for e.g., Angelo’s abuse of power and Claudio’s safety and freedom.

Finally, there are scenes of suffering in Measure for Measure. The clearest example would have to be that of Isabella having to choose between her spiritual and earthly life. The consequences of whether she would submit to the Duke’s sexual advances aff2ected either her personal decision of entering the nunnery or the execution of her younger brother Claudio. Having to choose between the sanctity of her own spiritual afterlife and saving her brother’s earthly life was a form of psychological torture for Isabella. How can one possibly choose between the ties of kinship and displeasing God through, basically, prostitution?

There is a lot more that could be said about the tragic elements of Measure fore Measure, elements which stem far beyond those defined by Aristotle. The question remains, would Aristotle see Measure for Measure as a tragedy? I am not sure how to answer this question. The play, of course, does have a resolution which ends in a marriage, restoration of proper power, and the return to normalcy in the community. However, to counter that “happy ending” there is confusion that remains in the Duke’s marriage proposal to Isabella and her ambiguous response. Perhaps in a case such as this one Arisotlte would adopt our modern term of a tragi-comedy in which the play tries very hard to be a comedy, but for one reason or another Shakespeare slips in tragic elements.

Imitation and Art

“Poetry in general seems to have sprung from two causes, each of them lying deep in our nature. First, the instinct of imitation is implanted in man from childhood, one difference between him and other animals being that he is the most imitative of living creatures, and through imitation learns his earliest lessons; and no less universal is the pleasure felt in things imitated. We have evidence of this in the facts of experience. Objects which in themselves we view with pain, we delight to contemplate when reproduced with minute fidelity: such as the forms of the most ignoble animals and of dead bodies. The cause of this again is, that to learn gives the liveliest pleasure, not only to philosophers but to men in general; whose capacity, however, of learning is more limited. Thus the reason why men enjoy seeing a likeness is, that in contemplating it they find themselves learning or inferring, and saying perhaps, ‘Ah, that is he.’ For if you happen not to have seen the original, the pleasure will be due not to the imitation as such, but to the execution, the coloring, or some such other cause” (15).

In this particular passage of Poetics Aristotle discusses the idea of imitation in art. I’ve had this conversation in several of my English classes especially in respect to talking about representation, the signifier and the signified. In this class as well, we have briefly mentioned the idea of art being a representation or imitation of reality. This was discussed when we read a short excerpt from Plato in that art is a secondary form of representation of the world which we should be weary of. To Plato art was an illusion, a shadow that clouded or natural perception of the world. Aristotle seems to have an opposing stance and favors imitation and representation as a learning tool, something to help us understand our own world.

This quotation highlights exactly just how important imitation was to Aristotle. He claimed that it was a process which existed within us since childhood and that it is the way through which we have come to learn the culture around us, the morals of our society. Man is the, “most imitative of living creatures, and through imitation learns his earliest lessons” (15).  He continues on to say that there is no less pleasure earned through imitation. In fact, the satisfaction that comes from learning through imitation is as equally gratifying as learning something for yourself.

Although, is learning “for yourself” really possible, aren’t we always being affected by our surroundings? Do we not always imitate the actions of those things in nature which achieve the results of desirable outcomes? As children aren’t we always looking towards our parents to “set the example”? I think that Aristotle would agree, and I find it puzzling that he would suggest learning to be possible through any way other than imitation. After all, it is probably not possible to have had any being (human or otherwise) raised in complete isolation. Even if this idea of isolation in order to avoid imitation were taken to the extreme there would still be some kind of need for the mother to take care of (and therefore influence) her offspring who has the potential to imitate her.

However, Aristotle makes several distinctions in imitation specific to art. He points out that whenever we view pain, we later enjoy it recreated as for example in a tragedy. He relates this imitation to learning (as I previously suggested with the mother and child example) and self-improvement. Although ordinary men and philosophers each have a different capacity for learning each to his own extent is able to grasp new information through imitation.

I see this process of imitation reflected in yet another of Shakespeare’s works, Measure for Measure. Previous to having fulfilled my Shakespearean course requirement for the English major I had no idea that Shakespeare almost directly took information for his problematic comedy from the 16^th century Cinthio’s  “The Story of Epita”. The two works, read side-by-side, have a nearly indistinguishable plotline, they vary only in that Cinthio “wraps up the story” more clearly and Shakespeare leaves us hanging with an ambitious ending: how does Isabella respond to the Duke’s proposal? Of course there are other varying elements (especially those contextual to the historical times) and the story becomes much more elaborate and embellished by Shakespeare’s hand but it is clear that Shakespeare used Cinthio for his source work.

Does that spoil Measure for Measure? Does it make Shakespeare a fraud? Do I feel less satisfied or have gained less pleasure knowing that the play is based on a original? Not really, I don’t think. It was a little disappointing but when I researched the “The Story of Epita” I found that I had enjoyed Shakespeare’s take on it much more than the original. In fact, I would have to say that many literary works have been based on predecessors of earlier times. (Another example being Washington Irving’s Rip Van Winkle as being based on the German folktale “Peter Klaus” by J.C.C. Natchtiga. Although this is widely contested, as Irving claimed to having had no previous knowledge of “Peter Klaus”.)

Would Aristotle have a problem with Measure for Measure? Probably not. In fact, looking at the last sentence of this quote we can say that Aristotle would have encouraged this improvement on “The Story of Cinthia”. Clearly, “the pleasure will be due not to the imitation as such, but to the execution, the coloring” (15) and Measure for Measure is certainly an enhancement of the original story. Even more so, Aristotle points out that Measure for Measure can stand alone and the pleasure of watching that performance will not be diminished if we have not seen the original.

*The source I used was Aristotle’s Theory of Poetry and Fine Art with critical notes and translated by S. H. Butcher.

Probable impossibilities or improbable possibilities?

“Accordingly, the poet should prefer probable impossibilities to improbable possibilities. The tragic plot must not be composed of irrational parts. Everything irrational should, if possible, be excluded; or, at all events, it should lie outside the action of the play […] not within the drama.  […] But once the irrational has been introduced and an air of likelihood imparted to it, we must accept it in spite of the absurdity. […] As it is, the absurdity is veiled by the poetic charm with which the poet invests it” (95-97).

That last post about the “wonderful” element of fiction and especially how we are willing as an audience to accept certain fictions as fact for the duration of our reading really got me thinking about other concessions which both writers and readers must make. There is a certain element of having to suspend disbelief when one is reading. I think that is what Aristotle is trying to get at in the above quote. Although I am generalizing to all writers here, Aristotle says that the poet must prefer, “probable impossibilities to improbable possibilities” (95). This, is an interesting distinction, if read quickly this could be taken as a play on words, but I think that there is more to what Aristotle is trying to say here.

Probable impossibilities are things that can really seem highly unlikely to happen, but, they are not completely outside of the realm of possibilities. These are events that when they do occur the response is usually something along the lines of, “wow I did not think that would happen in a million years”. Those moments where you think to yourself, I should have just taken a picture, nobody is going to believe me. These lie kind of on the brink of the very thin line between possibility and impossibility. Ultimately what this comes down to, is that these are events highly improbably are not completely impossible. (As Aristotle himself qualifies them as being probable impossibilities.)

Now I myself am doing some serious brain gymnastics and I’m having a difficult time establishing the difference between the probable impossibility and the improbable possibilities. Like I said previously, it seems that these two are very close, and I will do my best to offer some kind of explanation. (Though I make no promises that it will be a rational one…) My intuition is telling me that in referring to improbable possibilities Aristotle was scaling the two different events. For example a tsunami hitting the coast of NY is a probable impossibility, although it seems to be a Day After Tomorrow movie kind of moment it is still not completely improbable when taken in light of the state of our environment.  A probable impossibility suggests to me an event of great grandeur something that would in theory be difficult to imagine, but if it did occur it would striking and memorable. On the other hand improbable possibilities, are events that are of small importance and even if they occurred despite being improbable their effects would be inconsequential. This is, for example, something along the lines of saying that it is highly unlikely that your strict boss might extend your lunch break an extra 15 minutes, but considering he wants to be better liked by the staff it is not completely out of question. This event, unlike the NY tsunami, though it might at the moment carry some significance to you and the other office staff is probably pretty inconsequential to your overall life story.

Now that I am feeling quite confused myself I might have to retract all of those statements (perhaps even reverse my examples and explanations?). Although I am still hesitant to say that those definitions are correct I am confident in saying that Aristotle advises the poets not to abuse a reader’s ability to suspend disbelief. Having to explain a (im)probable/(im)possibility is a harrowing task for any writer trying to tell a believable and relatable story. The key, as Aristotle points out, is for writers to avoid these as best they can. However, if having already trapped a reader in this dilemma the writer needs to keep the, “absurdity […] veiled by the poetic charm” (97).

*The source I used was Aristotle’s Theory of Poetry and Fine Art with critical notes and translated by S. H. Butcher.

The Element of “the wonderful”

“Now the wonderful is pleasing, as may be inferred from the fact that every one tells a story with some addition of his own, knowing that his hearers like it. It is Homer who has chiefly taught other poets the art of telling lies skillfully. The secret of it lies in a fallacy. For, assuming that if one thing is or becomes, a second is or becomes, men imagine that, if the second is, the first likewise is or becomes. But this is a false inference. Hence, where the first thing is untrue, it is quite unnecessary, provided the second be true, to add that the first is or has become. For the mind, knowing the second to be true, falsely infers the truth of the first” (95).

Today, instead of the usual seeing a Shakespearian work through the lens of Aristotle (which I am saving for my next post) I am going to attempt to work through the meaning of the above quote. Most of Aristotle’s Poetics seemed straightforward, the language was a little bit tricky to grasp at first but after getting used to the text was, at the least, understandable. This is why I was surprised when I came across this quotation I had jotted down and found that I was having difficulty understanding even the basic meaning of what Aristotle was saying.

Starting with the first sentence… what does Aristotle mean by the wonderful in this context? I think that because he is frequently referencing Homer here and especially The Odyssey he implies “wonderful” to mean a fantastical story. A story that has elements of “the wonderful” is one that has occurrences of events which are unlikely to happen under normal circumstances. The wonderful, as in Homer’s case, can of course imply a completely unreal and fantastical element in which Odysseus, the protagonist, survives the different perils and tasks inflicted by the mythological gods and creatures. Of course Aristotle recognizes the wonderful element for what it is, fiction, an “addition” of the author inserted because it is something that “people like”. This means that perhaps in Aristotle’s time the wonderful, mythical, elements of works such as The Odyssey were written with a class-consciousness and perhaps Homer himself had intended to insert elements that would appeal specifically to his audience at the time. An appreciation for the “wonderful”, or a tradition of myth’s and the gods of Mt. Olympus was a part of Homer’s pop culture just as TMZ and People magazine are a part of our contemporary times.

However, Aristotle calls this insertion of “wonderful” events which help to enhance the story as a poet’s ability to “lie skillfully”. Here is where the text becomes confusing for me. Aristotle claims that in order to lie skillfully and create the element of the wonderful for the reader (or other audience) the artist must create a fallacy. Basically, to trick the audience through faulty logic and argumentation. Aristotle gives an example of this by saying:

A is true, so B must be true.

Option 1: Is A true? Yes. Then B is true.

Option 2: Is A true? No. Then B is not true.

(*B is not necessarily false though.)

The problem is, then, that readers make the mistake, or fallacy, of thinking that this logic can be reversed and making the claim that if B is true, if A is true. Unfortunately that is not necessarily true and it is what Aristotle calls the “fatal inference” (95). In order to be true B is dependent on A’s truth. However, if there are outside circumstances affecting B to be false, this does not mean that A will necessarily be not true. Aristotle finds, however, that most people create a mutual relationship, not a one way cause and effect relationship from A to B, and that causes their faulty logic.

In Poetics Aristotle claims that it is this element of confusion which allows an author to manipulate his audience. Because most readers will enjoy getting “lost” in the “wonderful” elements of poetry and writing in general at times they do not question the logic behind certain events. In that sense, I think that itself stands as a statement of the power of literature. A truly sublime work of art, a work of art that “brings you higher” and engrosses you deeply in the story, overpowers all logic and that, as Aristotle says, is okay. To a certain extent literature is meant to be a form of escapism. People enjoy stepping away from the reality of the real world and instead indulging in the ridiculous and fantastical even if that means they must set aside their own sense of logic and rationality.

*Once again I am using the same source as in my previous entires: Aristotle’s Theory of Poetry and Fine Art with critical notes and translated by S. H. Butcher.

Tragedy and Richard III

“There are four kinds of Tragedy: the Complex, depending entirely on Reversal of the Situation and Recognition; the Pathetic (where the motive is passion)- such as the tragedies on Ajax and Ixion; the Ethical (where the motives are ethical)- such as the Phthiotides and the Peleus. The fourth kind is the Simple. [We here exclude the purely spectacular element], exemplified by the Phorcides, the Prometheus, and scenes laid in Hades. The poet should endeavor, if possible, to combine all poetic elements; or failing that, the greatest number and those the most important; the more so, in face of the caviling criticism of the day. For whereas there have hitherto been good poets, each in his own branch, the critics now expect one man to surpass all others in their several lines of excellence” (65-7).

In this excerpt from Poetics Aristotle defines the four kinds of Tragedy as complex (which depends on the reversal of the situation and recognition), pathetic, ethical and simple. He points out that the poet (or playwright in this case) should attempt to combine all of the different elements that make up the four types of tragedies in order to create a true high work of art. Aristotle is raising the standards for the poets of his time saying that there have been those who have been excellent in each of these spheres, but it is time that someone stepped up and was able to create, for lack of better terms the “ultimate” tragedy. Not “ultimate” because it is hyper-dramatic or so heart-wrenching that it is both unbearable and unbelievable, but “ultimate” because it would combine the four different forms into one.

I am not a Classics major so I really cannot say if there has been someone of Aristotle’s times who had satisfied these requirements. However, we can once again examine Aristotle’s theory through yet another Shakespearian work. Shakespeare is, after all, one of the most famous tragedians of all time. I won’t bore you yet again with my favorite example, Othello, instead we can use Richard the III which is technically a historical play but a tragedy nonetheless.

Here the main character is Richard the III of the York family who is hungry for the throne. The play focuses on his succession and how through multiple murders and a strategic marriage he finally achieved his goal of being king of England. Now lets examine if this tragedy was complex. There was a reversal of the situation and an instance of recognition. Richard’s once faithful followers, such as the Duke of Buckingham, turned against his tyrannical rule and helped to dethrone him in order to later restore peace between the house of York and Lancaster through the crowning of Henry VII, previously the Earl of Richmond. The “pathetic”, or passionate, element of the story lies in that Richard the III will do anything for in order to be crowned king. His motives lie in that he has always felt excluded from the English court, even rejected by his own family at first because of his appearance and later due to his cunning and deceitful personality. Now whether the tragedy is ethical is difficult to say as there is a pretty high body count at the end of the play and most of those characters died in vain. The only way in which I could see Richard III being understood to be ethical was that in the end justice was restored with Richard dethroned. Moreover the play was ethical in that the events of the past had come full circle, history had been repeated, and Richard III was murdered much in the same way that he had killed others who had stood in his way. Finally, it is rather difficult to say that the play was simple. However, Aristotle does define simplicity as something that excludes “the purely spectacular element” which is true about Richard III as all the events that took place led up to one another and there was no plot points which did not have a purpose. (For example, Richard III had reasoning behind each one of his murders, they were not nonsensical crimes of unbridled passion. Every decision Richard made can be documented as something as part of a logical and thought-out plan.

In this short synopsis you can see that Shakespeare, once again, got it right. He had brought together everything that Aristotle had defined as the ultimate tragedy. Whether Shakespeare’s choices were deliberate or instinctive we will never know, as he left no interpretations, forewords, or prefaces to his own works. Although we do know that like most male renaissance youths he was well schooled in Latin and the Classics and their theory so it is fair to speculate that at some point perhaps he had read Aristotle’s Poetics…

Characters, Action, and Plot

“Again, Tragedy is the imitation of an action; and an action implies personal agents, who necessarily possess certain distinctive qualities both of character and thought; for it is by these that we qualify actions themselves, and these- thought and character- are the two natural causes from which actions spring, and on actions again all success or failure depends. Hence, the Plot is the imitation of the action- for by plot I here mean the arrangement of the incidents. By Character I mean that in virtue of which we ascribe certain qualities to the agents. Thought is required wherever a statement is proved, or, it may be, a general truth enunciated. Every Tragedy, therefore, must have six parts, which parts determine its quality- namely, Plot, Character, Diction, Thought, Spectacle, Song. Two of the parts constitute the medium of imitation, one the manner, and three the objects of imitation. And these complete the fist. These elements have been employed, we may say, by the poets to a man; in fact, every play contains Spectacular elements as well as Character, Plot, Diction, Song, and Thought” (25).

In this particular quote from Poetics Aristotle defines Tragedy as the “imitation of an action”. He claims that the construction of a drama depends not on the characters themselves but rather the action, the plot developments, the unfolding of rather unfortunate events in a tragedy. Characters are secondary to the plot, in this understanding they are almost a function of the plot itself.

This is not to say, however, that characters do not have any agency. The drama is not directed by some otherworldly forces, all knowing and completely controlling what goes on on the stage. I think what Aristotle is trying to point out here, (as I have previously discussed in my blog post on Othello) is that it is not enough for a character to be very well developed and have multiple emotional and intellectual dimensions. Even if a character is fascinating and someone whom you would be intrigued by if you met in person those qualities alone do not make a tragedy. A character, as multi-dimensional as he may be may be cannot stand alone, he needs to do something. The best example for this would probably be those people you meet that are “all talk and no action”. You can stand to hear one interesting story or two but after a while you get bored out of your mind. Here Aristotle points out that a tragic character needs to be someone who can “walk the talk”.

Of course, this is not to be taken literally. A character cannot be so predictable as to outline everything he will do before he takes action. Lets go back to the example of Othello, is not as cut and dry as having him point-blank admit that he is jealous of Desdemona and then outright pronounce that he will murder her. No Othello displays his jealousy through the different forms of revenge he and Iago plot against his lieutenant Cassio and only then, towards the very end of the story do we hear Othello’s vows to restore his wife to purity through murder.

Aristotle says that we learn not only by listening but by seeing and doing. How boring would plays be if they consisted only of monologues and soliloquies, if they consisted of people talking about doing things but never taking any actions themselves. If there was no action in a tragedy we would find that as an audience we are sitting in on a very long poetry-reading of something like an epic poem.

Furthermore what is even more important than the actions themselves is the plot, or the arrangement of events in the story. This may seem elementary, of course you can’t have the ending of the tragedy be at the beginning. But this is something that is unique to theater, and even more so to drama. We frequently see writers play around with the time frame of their works, however, it is rare (although possible) to see a drama constructed in the time frame of, for example, a flashback. Evermore so what I think Aristotle is trying to point out here is the general arc in which a tragedy, or any work of art should be portrayed. There must be a gradual build up of events, the story climaxes, and finally there is a resolution in which the action begins to plateau again. Just as a drama cannot have a reverse order of events, the actions of the pay also need to be interconnected and be part of a logical cause and effect process. Essentially when we watch a drama there should be no real plot “shockers”, we should only be watching the events unfold with an impending sense of doom hanging over our heads.

*Once again I am using Aristotle’s Theory of Poetry and Fine Art with critical notes and translated by S.H. Butcher.

A Midsummer Night’s Dream, a flawed comedy?

As I had briefly mentioned in my previous post there is one more third set of characters which can be found in A Midsummer Night’s Dream are the faeries. The faeries are found in the forest or “green space” of the play and among them the main focus lies on Oberon, the king of the faeries, and his betrothed queen Titania. The conflict of this couple stems from the fact that Titania has adopted a little Indian boy who was orphaned by his dying mother. What happens is that Oberon seems to be jealous of the young boy and he asks Titania to abandon him. Titania refuses and Oberon decides to punish her by putting the love potion on her eyes so she can fall in love with a mere passerby. What happens instead is that Titania falls in love with the transformed Nick Bottom who had at the moment been transformed by Puck to have a donkey’s head.

Depending on the directorial choices Oberon and Titania’s conflict can be read in two different ways. If the play is adapted for a PG-13 audience Titania’s infatuation with Bottom is seen as a harmless prank. A joke which the audience as well as the onstage characters can laugh about later. However, there are some darker undertones implicated by Titania falling in love with Bottom while he is transformed to be half animal and half human. The theme that emerges in this version, of course, is that of bestiality. As implied in several scenes Titania is basically forced to fornicate with an animal. (Once again if this is shown or not is really up to the director and the interpretation of the play…) What was once seen as a joke becomes a cruel abuse of power by Oberon. According to Aristotle’s understanding of comedy are we as an audience supposed to laugh at the events that transcribe between Bottom and Titania?

For the sake of example lets assume that the director chooses to portray the play as having undertones of bestiality. Most audiences would probably not be laughing at the sadistic S&M as inflicted on Titania by Oberon. In fact, the audience would probably be disturbed and cringing, looking away in disgust. This, is problematic as it completely defies the scheme of comedy as developed by Aristotle.

In Chapter 10: “The Generalizing Power of Comedy” in Aristotle’s Theory of Poetry and Fine Art S.H.Butcher points out that:

“The laughter that has in it a malicious element and implies in some sense the abasement of another, does not satisfy Aristotle’s conception of the idea of the ludicrous.  […] ‘The ludicrous,’ he says, ‘consists in some defect or ugliness which is not painful or destructive.’” (374).

What Butcher is trying to say here is that Aristotle believed that when characters are experiencing legitimate pain that is not going to be resolved then what we are looking at is not a comedy. If the pain inflicted cannot later be undone in some fashion, such as with the Athenian lovers being correctly paired up at the end of play, then the events transpiring start moving into the realm of tragedy. Precisely what we find funny in a comedy is knowing that the problematic events that occur are going to be fixed by the end of the play. To put it in layman’s terms we know that in the end, “everything will turn out ok”. Here, although Titania has the spell taken off of her and she rejoins Oberon as his queen the fact that she may or may not have slept with Bottom remains unresolved. I believe that Aristotle would see this as a problematic element to the play. Despite its genre status as a comedy A Midsummer Night’s Dream so significantly veers off it is impossible to ignore what Aristotle would classify as elements of a tragedy. What are we as the audience to make of that? In this x-rated depiction of the play would Aristotle say that A Midsummer Night’s Dream is flawed as a comedy? How would he comment on the fact that the malice caused to Titania (and Bottom!) is never, in fact, reconciled?

 

Comedy’s “Common Man”

Even though Aristotle never directly wrote on comedy a lot of his opinions on the art can be gathered in his writings on Poetics. Poetics addresses both drama and poetry, although much of it is focused on tragedy and the archetypal tragic hero. Here even though the standards for an ideal comedy are never explicitly stated comedy is defined in binary form as opposed to tragedy. S.H.Butcher makes much of this binary relationship in Chapter 10: “The Generalizing Power of Comedy” in Aristotle’s Theory of Poetry and Fine Art. Butcher attempts to define comedy and offers many examples both from the time of the Greek dramatists as well as the more contemporary works of drama such as Don Quixote. I am going to attempt to apply these ideas about comedy to one of Shakespeare’s most famous comedies A Midsummer Night’s Dream.

A Midsummer Night’s Dream has three main storylines, but focuses on the romantic conflict between the two pairs of Athenian lovers: Hermia and Lysander, and Helena and Demetrius. Each couple has their own individual set of problems. Hermia’s patriarchal father, Egeus, will not give her permission to marry her true love Lysander. Instead Egeus is pressuring Hermia to be with Demetrius.  Helena, on the other hand, is blindly pursing Demetrius even though he rejects her at every possible opportunity. The first pair of lovers, Hermia and Lysander, elope in hopes of finally being together. In turn Demetrius chases after Hermia and Helena follows him as well. In the third act of the play the  four main characters end up in the “green space” which in Shakespeare’s plays is know as an area of conflict, confusion, change and loss of identity. To give a quick synopsis is to say that at this time the faeries of the forest have interfered with all of the relationships and what happens is that the roles of the two women, Hermia and Helena, are reversed. Basically Helena, who was previously rejected by Demetrius, is now pursued by both suitor which includes Lysander who once loved Hermia. Of course by the end of the play this conflict is completely resolved and the pairs are happily matched, but that is not say that the issue of the faerie interference as well as the easily changing affections of the Athenians does not raise some more important questions for the audience.

Here is how I think that Butcher’s interpretation of Aristotle’s understanding of comedy and the intentions of a playwright when he is writing a comedy comes in. First of all Butcher points out that, “comedy, which concerns itself with the follies and foibles, the flaws and imperfections of mankind, cannot on this reasoning idealize or universalize its object” (372). Of course this fits in perfectly with the characters of A Midsummer Night’s Dream. The most striking example of this would be the scatterbrained Mechanical’s which exist in the play only to provide with physical comedy a kind of psychological relief which (depending on how the play is interpreted and staged) might come from the events which occur in the green space. Of course the Athenians are imperfect because of their fickleness in love. Although the fickleness is not self-induced it does raise several questions about what it means to be in love, if love is a kind of spell under which we fall and of course the universality of love, essentially how everyone “falls” in the same way.

Furthermore Butcher notes that,

“Certain imperfections, however, will probably always be looked on as permanent features of our common humanity. With these defects comedy amuses itself, discovering the inconsistencies which underlie life and character, and exhibiting evil not as it is in its essential nature, but as a thing to be laughed at rather than hated” (372).

The aspect of A Midsummer Night’s Dream that can be read in these Aristotelian terms is what I was previously describing. Aristotle would look at the Athenian lovers and generalize the fact that everyone acts a little bit “crazy in love” sometimes and that everyone thinks that the feelings they have for the other person are unique and have never been recreated by anyone else. Aristotle would say that Hermia is the archetypal rebellious daughter, Lysander the unworthy suitor, and Demetrius and Hermia both in blind purist of people who do not want to return their affections. Butcher points out that one way in which Aristotle explains that we are drawn toward the comedy as a genre because it chronicles the story of a “common man” someone in whom we see a little bit of ourselves and can therefore relate to.