IT is to the Greeks that we owe not
only the first great plays, but also the first principles of
criticism and of dramatic construction. Not every Athenian was
a good critic, as some would have us think; but we know that
the comic poets took it upon themselves to deliver judgments,
to compare one writer with another, and in some measure, to lay
down the laws of drama. It fell, however, to Aristotle,
a philosopher and teacher born in the first quarter of the fourth
century, to become not only the most important mouthpiece of
Greek dramatic criticism, but also one of the most important
influences in all the history of literature. He analyzed the
plays of the fifth century as well as those of his own time,
classified the kinds of drama, and laid down rules for the construction
of tragedy.
Aristotle had the very human characteristic of harking back
to the good old days, and thinking them much better than the
days in which he lived. Taking scant account of Aeschylus,
he regarded Sophocles
and Euripides
as models in tragedy. His chief complaints were that the poets
of his own time spoiled their work by rhetorical display; that
the actor was often of more importance than the play; and that
the poets tampered with the plot in order to give a favorite
actor an opportunity of displaying his special talent. He said
that the poets were deficient in the power of portraying character,
and that it was not even fair to compare them with the giants
of the former era; that the drama was greatly in need of fresh
topics, new treatment, and original ideas; that it was polished
in diction, but lacking in force and vitality. The playwrights
too frequently made use of the god-from-the-machine for the purpose
of extricating characters from their troubles. Such was the tenor
of Aristotle's "reviews" and criticisms.
THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF ARISTOTLE
The greatest tragedy, in the opinion of Aristotle, was Oedipus the King by Sophocles. The
reasons for its supremacy lay in the excellent management of
plot and chorus, in the beauty of the language, in the irony
of the situations, and in the general nobility of conception.
Aristotle cited also the Helena of Euripides as a
model of its kind, and lauded the author for the skill with which
he had set forth the complicated plot. Euripides was to him the
most tragic of the poets. At the same time, he found much in
Euripides to censure. Only in Sophocles, the perfect writer,
were united ideal beauty, clearness of construction and religious
inspiration--the three qualities which alone make tragedy great.
The subjects of tragic drama, Aristotle said, were rightly
drawn from ancient mythology, because coming from that source
they must be true. If man had invented such strange incidents,
they would have appeared impossible. The chief characters of
a tragic action should be persons of consequence, of exalted
station. The leading personage should not be a man characterized
by great virtue or great vice, but of a mixed nature, partly
good and partly bad. His errors and weaknesses lead him into
misfortune. Such a mixture of good and evil makes him seem like
ourselves, thus more quickly arousing our sympathy. The course
of the tragic action should be such as to saturate the spectator
with feelings of compassion, drive out his petty personal emotions,
and so "purge" the soul through pity and terror (Catharsis).
The crimes suitable for tragic treatment may be committed either
in ignorance, or intentionally, and are commonly against friends
or relatives. Crimes committed intentionally are generally the
more dramatic and impressive. (This in spite of the fact that
the central crime in Oedipus the King was committed
in ignorance.) As to style, a certain archaic quality of diction
is needful to the dignity of tragedy.
THE THREE UNITIES
The most famous of the Aristotelian rules were those relating
to the so-called unities--of time, place, and action. The unity
of time limits the supposed action to the duration, roughly,
of a single day; unity of place limits it to one general locality;
and the unity of action limits it to a single set of incidents
which are related as cause and effect, "having a beginning,
a middle, and an end." Concerning the unity of time, Aristotle
noted that all the plays since Aeschylus, except two, did illustrate
such unity, but he did not lay down such a precept as obligatory.
Perhaps tacitly he assumed that the observance of the unity of
place would be the practice of good playwrights, since the chorus
was present during the whole performance, and it would indeed
be awkward always to devise an excuse for moving fifteen persons
about from place to place. The third unity, that of action, is
bound up with the nature not only of Greek but of all drama.
GREEK DRAMA MORE CONCERNED WITH
PLOT THAN WITH CHARACTER
Aristotle conceived the action, or plot, of a play as of far
greater importance than the characters. This conception he gained
from the plays of the fifth century, which, in general, centered
around a personified passion rather than around a character.
The action was "the vital principle and very soul of drama."
Again he says, "Tragedy is an imitation, not of men, but
of actions." Second in importance was characterization;
and third were the sentiments aroused by the action. He insisted
very clearly that in tragedy the plot does not rise out of the
characters, but on the contrary the plot tests the characters
through the working-out of destiny -- "blind fate."
The main duty of the dramatist was to organize first the action,
then display the moral character of his people under the blows
of fate. "The incidents of the action, and the structural
ordering of these incidents, constitute the end and purpose of
tragedy." Finally, and perhaps most important of all, was
Aristotle's belief that although tragedy should purge the emotions
through pity and terror, yet all drama was meant to entertain:
tragedy through the sympathies, comedy through mirth.
PERVERSION OF ARISTOTLE'S PRINCIPLES
In this manner was begun the formulated technique of the drama.
The principles enunciated by Aristotle were deduced from a study
of the plays which were effective in his time, and under the
conditions of the Athenian stage; but as time went on, critics
and playwrights often studied Aristotle instead of plays, and
left out of consideration differing circumstances and conditions.
In this way, rules, created for the open-air Athenian production,
were applied indiscriminately to all sorts of stages, whether
indoors or out. Many writers failed to recognize the new life
in their own art, and missed seeing the truth that a first-hand
observation of life is always of more value than rules of any
sort. Therefore an immemorial war has been waged between the
sticklers for old laws, on the one side, and, on the other, the
genuinely creative writers. In no art has this war been more
apparent than in the drama; and in no art have rigid rules been
more oppressive. There have been long periods when the dominance
of technical rules, wholly or partially outgrown, has sterilized
and all but killed the theater.
|