MA English Part 2: Paper 4 (Literary Criticism) All Important Notes

MA English Part 2
Paper 4 (Literary Criticism) All Important notes
T.S Eliot All Important Questions

An Ideal Critic: His Qualifications and Functions
T. S. Eliot as a Critic
T. S. Eliot’s Theory of ‘Impersonality of Poetry’ Eliot’s Depersonalization theory
The Critic and His Functions
The Metaphysical Poets
Tradition and the Individual Talent
Aristotle All Important Questions
Aristotle's concept of catharsis
Aristotle's concept of ideal tragic hero: Hamartia
Imitation
Plot
Raymond Williams All Important Questions
Tragedy and Experience
Tragedy and Tradition
Classical tragedy
Medieval Tragedy
Neo-Classical tragedy
Secular Tragedy:
Hegel and Hegelians
Schopenhaur and Nietzsche:
Myth and Ritual
Philip Sidney All Important Questions
Examine in detail the main ideas in Sidney's 'An Apology for Poetry' and comment
on its significance.
Charges Against Poetry and Sidney’s defence of Poery
Nature and Function of Poetry
Notes Prepared By Prof. Tahir Islam

Cell Phone: 03076474151
Whatsapp: 03074384586
Tahir Online Academy (Whatsapp: 03074384586)
T.S Eliot
All
Important
Questions
Join Our MA English Online Classes and Whatsapp groups : 03076474151 Page 2
An Ideal Critic: His Qualifications and Functions

In a number of critical essays like ‘The Perfect Critic’, ‘The Imperfect Critic’, ‘The Function
of Criticism’ and ‘The Frontiers of Criticism’, Eliot has dealt with the qualifications and
functions of a critic.
A good critic must have superior sensibility. He must have greater capacity of receiving
impressions and sensations from the work of art he studies.
He must also have wide erudition. This would increase his understanding. His mind would be
stored with impressions which would be modified and refreshed by each successive impression
he receives from the new works he contemplates. In this way would be built up a system of
impressions which would enable him to make generalised statements of literary beauty. Such a
universalizing or generalising power is essential for an ideal critic, and he can get it only through
erudition.
A good critic must be entirely impersonal and objective. He must not be guided by the inner
voice, but by some authority outside himself. Eliot instances two types of imperfect critics,
represented by Arthur Symons and Arnold. Symons is too subjective and impressionistic, while
Arnold is too dry, intellectual and abstract. Eliot regards Aristotle as an instance of a perfect
critic, for he avoids both these defects. In his hands, criticism approaches the condition of
science.
A good critic must not be emotional. He must be entirely objective. He must try to discipline his
personal prejudices and whims. He must have a highly trained sensibility, and a sense of
structural principles, and must not be satisfied with vague, emotional impressions. Critics who
supply only vague, emotional impressions, opinions or fancy, as he puts it, are great corruptors
of taste.
An ideal critic must have a highly developed sense of fact. By a sense of fact, Eliot does not
mean biographical or sociological knowledge, but a knowledge of technical details of a poem, its
genesis, setting, etc. It is a knowledge of such facts alone which can make criticism concrete as
well as objective. It is these facts which a critic must use to bring about an appreciation of a work
of art. However, he is against the ‘lemon-squeezer’ school of critics who try to squeeze every
drop of meaning out of words and lines.
A critic must also have a highly developed sense of tradition. He must be learned not only in the
literature of his own country, but in the literature of Europe down from Homer to his own day.
Practitioners of poetry make the best critics. The critic and the creative artist should frequently
be the same person. Such poet-critics have a thorough knowledge and understanding of the
process of poetic creation, and so they are in the best position to communicate their own
understanding to their readers.
An ideal critic must have a thorough understanding of the language and structure of a poem. He
must also have an idea of the music of poetry, for a poet communicates as much through the
meaning of words as through their sound.
Comparison and analysis are the chief tools of a critic and so a perfect critic must be an expert in
the use of these tools. His use of these tools must be subtle and skillful. He must know what and
how to compare, and how to analyse. He must compare the writers of the present with those of
the past not to pass judgment or determine good or bad, but to elucidate the qualities of the work
under criticism. In other words, he must be a man of erudition, for only then can he use his tools
effectively.
He must not try to judge the present by the standards of the past. The requirements of each age
are different, and so the cannons of art must change from age to age. He must be liberal in his
outlook, and must be prepared to correct and revise his views from time to time, in the light of
new facts.
In short, an ideal critic must combine to a remarkable degree, “sensitiveness, erudition, sense
of fact and sense of history, and generalising power.”
T. S. Eliot as a Critic
Eliot is one of the greatest literary critics of England. Both from the point of view of the bulk and
quality of his critical writings. His critical articles have a far-reaching influence on literary
criticism. His criticism was revolutionary which inverted the critical tradition of the whole
English speaking world. John Hayward says:
“I cannot think of a critic who has been more widely read and discussed in his own life-time;
and not only in English, but in almost every language, except Russian.”
As a critic Eliot has his faults. At times he assumes a hanging-judge attitude and his statements
savor of a verdict. Often his criticism is marred by personal and religious prejudices blocking an
honest and impartial estimate. Moreover, he does not judge all by the same standards. Critics
have also found fault with his style as too full of doubts, reservations and qualifications.
Eliot’s criticism has revolutionized the great writers of the past three centuries. His recognition
of the greatness of the Metaphysical poets of the 17th century resulted in the Metaphysical
revival of the 20th century. The credit for the renewal of interest in the Jacobean dramatists goes
to Eliot. He has restored Dryden and other Augustan poets to their due place. His essay on Dante
aroused curiosity for the latter middle ages. The novelty of his statements, hidden in sharp
phrases, startles and arrests attention. According to Eliot, the end of criticism is to bring
readjustment between the old and the new. He says: “From time to time it is desirable, that some
critic shall appear to review the past of our literature, and set the poets and the poems in a new
order.”
Such critics are rare, for they must possess, besides ability for judgment, powerful liberty of
mind to identify and interpret its own values and category of admiration for their generation.
John Hayward says:
“Matthew Arnold was such a critic as were Coleridge and Johnson and Dryden before him;
and such, in our own day, is Eliot himself.”
Eliot’s criticism offers both reassessment and reaction to earlier writers. He called himself “a
classicist in literature”. His vital contribution is the reaction against romanticism and humanism
which brought a classical revival in art and criticism. He rejected the romantic view of the
individual’s perfectibility, stressed the doctrine of the original sin and exposed the futility of the
romantic faith in the “Inner Voice”. Instead of following his ‘inner voice’, a critic must follow
objective standards and must conform to tradition. A sense of tradition, respect for order and
authority is central to Eliot’s classicism. He sought to correct the excesses of “the abstract and
intellectual” school of criticism represented by Arnold. He sought to raise criticism to the level
of science. In his objectivity and logical attitude, Eliot most closely resembles Aristotle. A. G.
George says:
“Eliot’s theory of the impersonality of poetry is the greatest theory on the nature of the process
after Wordsworth’s romantic conception of poetry.”
Poetry was an expression of the emotions and personality for romantics. Wordsworth said that
poetry was an overflow of powerful emotions and its origin is in “Emotions recollected in
tranquility”. Eliot rejects this view and says that poetry is not an expression of emotion and
personality but an escape from them. The poet is only a catalytic agent that fuses varied emotions
into new wholes. He distinguishes between the emotions of the poet and the artistic emotion, and
points out that the function of criticism is to turn attention from the poet to his poetry.
Eliot’s views on the nature of poetic process are equally revolutionary. According to him, poetry
is not inspiration, it is organization. The poet’s mind is like a vessel in which are stored
numerous feelings, emotions and experiences. The poetic process fuses these distinct experiences
and emotions into new wholes. In “The Metaphysical Poets”, he writes:
“When a poet’s mind is perfectly equipped for its work, it is constantly amalgamating
disparate experiences; the ordinary man’s experience is chaotic, irregular, and fragmentary”.
Perfect poetry results when instead of ‘dissociation of sensibility’ there is ‘unification of

sensibility’. The emotional and the rational, the creative and the critical, faculties must work in
harmony to produce great work of art. Critics stressed that the aim of poetry is to give pleasure
or to teach morally. However, for Eliot the greatness of a poem is tested by the order and unity it
imposes on the chaotic and disparate experiences of the poet. Wimsatt and Brooks are right in
saying:
“Hardly since the 17th century had critical writing in English so resolutely transposed poetic
theory from the axis of pleasure versus pain to that of unity versus multiplicity.”
Eliot devised numerous critical concepts that gained wide acclaim and has a broad influence on
criticism. ‘Objective co-relative’, ‘Dissociation of sensibility’, ‘Unification of sensibility’ are
few of Eliot clichés hotly debated by critics. His dynamic theory of tradition, of impersonality of
poetry, his assertion on ‘a highly developed sense of fact’ tended to impart to literary criticism
catholicity and rationalism.
To conclude, Eliot’s influence as a critic has been wide, constant, fruitful and inspiring. He
brought about a rethinking regarding the function of poetry and the nature of the poetic process.
He gave a new direction and new tools of criticism.
T. S. Eliot’s Theory of ‘Impersonality of Poetry’

Eliot’s Depersonalization theory
"Poetry is not a turning loose of emotion, but an escape from emotion; it is not the expression
of personality, but an escape from personality."
The poet must continually surrender himself to something which is more valuable than himself
that is tradition. In the beginning, his self, his individuality may assert itself, but as his powers
mature there will be a greater extinction of personality. His emotions and passions must be
‘depersonalized’, and he must be as objective as a scientist, and understand that his personality
is merely a medium. He must forget personal joys and sorrows and devote himself completely in
acquiring a sense of tradition. That is why; Eliot says that honest criticism is not directed at the
poet but upon the poetry.
In the second part of the essay, Eliot develops the theory of ‘impersonality of poetry ’. He
compares the mind of the poet to a catalytic agent. The mind of the poet is the platinum. The
emotions and feelings are the gases. The more perfect he is as a poet, the less his own personality
is involved. As the Sulphur and Carbon dioxide form Sulphurous acid, and the platinum remains
unchanged, so the poet remains separate from his creation, though his feelings and emotions
form new sum whole. It is necessary for combination of emotions and experiences to take place,
but it itself does not undergo any change during the process. In case of a young and immature
poet, his personal emotions and experiences may find some expression in his composition, ‘but
the more perfect the poet, the more completely separate in him will be the man who suffers and
the mind which creates.'
Eliot rejects romantic subjectivity. He compares the poet’s mind to a receptacle in which there
are stored numberless emotions, feelings etc. which remain there in an unorganized and chaotic
form till “all such particles unite to form a new compound together.” ‘Poetry is thus
organization rather than inspiration. ’ Moreover, he believes that the greatness of a poem does
not depend upon the intensity of the emotions but upon the intensity of the process of poetic
composition. Eliot says, ‘the more intense the poetic process, the greater the poem.’ He is of the
view that there is always a difference between the artistic emotions and the personal emotions of
the poet. For instance, famous ‘Ode to Nightingale’ of Keats is teeming with such emotions
which have nothing to do with the nightingale. Being only ‘a medium’ of this poetic expression ,
poet is impersonal .
The emotion of poetry is different from personal emotions of the poet. His personal emotions
may be simple or crude but the emotion of his poetry may be complex and refined. Poet is free
from finding new emotions as he may express only ordinary emotions, but he must impart to
them a new significance and a new meaning. He further says that a poet may express emotions
which he has never personally experienced.
Consequently, we are compelled to believe that "emotion recollected in tranquility" is an

inexact formula. For according to Eliot, ‘in the process of poetic composition there is neither
emotion, nor recollection, nor, tranquility.’ It is a concentration of several experiences, and a
new thing resulting from the concentration. This process of poetic concentration is neither
conscious nor deliberate. Indeed, there is a great deal, in the writing of poetry, which must be
conscious and deliberate. In fact, the bad poet is usually unconscious where he ought to be
conscious and conscious where he ought to be unconscious. Both errors tend to make him
"personal.” Whereas a mature art must be impersonal. Eliot does not tell when a poet should be
conscious and when not.
Eliot Sums up: ‘Poetry is not a turning loose of emotion, but an escape from emotion; it is
not the expression of personality, but an escape from personality.’ But, of course, only those
who have personality and emotions know what it means to want to escape from these things. So,
Eliot does not negate emotions, he merely endeavours to depersonalize emotions. There should
be an extinction of personality and it can be achieved through the complete surrender of the poet
to his work.
The Critic and His Functions

The function of a critic is to elucidate works of art. This function he performs through,
‘comparison and analysis’. His function is not to interpret, for interpretation is something
subjective and impressionistic. Critics like Coleridge or Goethe, who try to interpret works of art,
are great corruptors of the public taste. They supply merely opinion or fancy which is often
misleading. The critic should merely place the facts before the readers and thus help them to
interpret for themselves. His function is analytical and elucidatory, and not interpretative.
“Analysis and comparison, methodically with sensitiveness, intelligence, curiosity, intensity of

passion, and infinite knowledge, all these are necessary to the great critic.”
The critic must also have correct taste. He must educate the taste of the people. In other words,
he must enable them positively to judge what to read most profitably, and negatively what to
avoid as worthless and of no significance. He must develop the insight and discrimination of his
readers.
A critic must promote the enjoyment and understanding of works of art. He must develop both
the aesthetic and the intellectual sensibilities of his readers.
It is the function of a critic to turn the attention from the poet to his poetry. The emotion of art is
impersonal, distinct from the emotion of the poet. The poem is the thing in itself, and it must be
judged objectively without any biographical, sociological or historical considerations. By placing
before the readers the relevant facts about the poem, the critic emphasises its impersonal nature,
and thus promotes correct understanding.
Criticism must serve as a handmaid to creation. Criticism is of great importance in the work of
creation itself. The poet creates, but the critic in him sifts, combines, corrects and expunges, and
thus imparts perfection and finish to what has been created. No great work of art is possible
without critical labour.
The function of a critic is to find common principles for the pursuit of criticism. To achieve this
end, “the critic must control his own whims and prejudices, and co-operate with other critics
in the common pursuit of true judgment.” He must co-operate with the critics both of the past
and the present. He must also realise that all truths are tentative, and so must be ready to correct
and modify his views as fresh facts come to light.
The function of a critic is not a judicial one. A critic is not to pass judgment or determine good or
bad. His function is to place the simpler kinds of facts before the readers, and thus help them to
form their own judgment. He does not supply statements or communicate feeling; he merely
starts a process. A critic is a great irritant to thought; he tries to secure the active participation of
the readers in the work of criticism.
A critic should try to answer two questions: “‘What is poetry?” and “Is this a good poem?”
Criticism is both theoretical regarding the nature and function of poetry and the poetic process,
and practical concerned with the evaluation of works of art. With this end in view, he should
bring the lessons of the past to bear upon the present.
In short, Eliot’s conception of a critic and his functions is classical. He insists on a, “highly
developed sense of fact”, on objective standards, on a sense of tradition, and rejects the
subjectivism of the romantics. The concern for a poem as an objective thing is the special
highlight of the classicism of Eliot.
The Metaphysical Poets

In ‘ The Metaphysical Poets ’, Eliot critically examines ‘ metaphysical poets’ and defines that
‘metaphysical poets’ are neither quaint nor fantastic, rather they are great and mature poets. This
essay inspects the digression of this so called metaphysical school from the main current. He also
tests their validity and importance in the modern age. Eliot also points out the characteristic fault
of the metaphysical poets.
Eliot says that it is extremely difficult to define metaphysical poetry and to decide what poets
practice it in which of their verses. The poetry of Donne is late Elizabethan. Its feeling is often
very close to that of Chapman. The argument put forth by Eliot is that there is no precise use of
metaphor, simile or other conceits common to the metaphysical poets. Moreover, there is no
common style important enough to isolate these poets as a group. But Donne and Cowley
employ a device which is sometimes considered characteristically ‘metaphysical’: The
elaboration of a figure of speech to the furthest stage. Cowley’s comparison of the world to a
chess board (To Destiny ), and Donne’s comparison of two lovers to a pair of compass.
In these poets, instead of a mere explication of content of the comparison, “a development by

rapid association of thought which requires considerable agility on the part of the reader” .
Donne’s most successful and characteristic effects are secured by brief words and sudden
contrasts. Sometimes we find in them. Donne is more successful than Cowley because in
developing comparisons, he uses brief words and sudden contrasts: “A bracelet of bright hair
about the bone” where the most powerful effect is produced by the sudden contrast of the
associations of “bright hair” and of “bone”. So it is to be maintained that metaphysical poetry
is the elaboration of far-fetched images and communicated association of poet’s mental
processes.
Dr. Johnson employed the term ‘metaphysical poets’ keeping in mind Donne, Cleveland and
Cowley. He remarked that in them ‘the most heterogeneous ideas are yoked by violence
together.’ Eliot says that often the dissimilar ideas are yoked but not fused into a single whole
and if we are to judge styles of poetry by their abuse, enough examples are found in Cleveland to
justify Johnson’s condemnation. He quotes Lord Herbert’s Ode and says that nothing in the
poem that fits Johnson’s general observation on the metaphysical poets. The fault which Dr.
Johnson points out is not there, rather the unity of heterogeneous ideas is common to all.
According to Eliot, the language of these poets is as a rule simple and pure. Herbert’s verse has
simplicity. Unlike the eighteenth century poems, the seventeenth century poems (metaphysical
poems) like Marvell’s Coy Mistress and Crashaw’s Saint Teresa are dissimilar in the use of
syllables. In the former, there are short syllables to produce an effect of great speed and in the
latter, long syllables are used to effect an ecclesiastical solemnity.
In Eliot’s opinion, Johnson has failed to define metaphysical by its faults. One has to consider
whether the metaphysical poetry has the virtue of permanent value or not. In fact, it does not
have it. Johnson’s observation is that the attempts of these poets were always analytic. Eliot says
that in the dramatic verse of the late Elizabethan and early Jacobean poets, there is a
development of sensibility. In Jonson, Chapman and Donne, there is a recreation of thought into
feeling. That is, there is ‘unification of sensibility’.
Eliot makes a distinction between the Victorian poet (reflective poet) and the metaphysical poet
(intellectual poet). Poets like Tennyson and Browning think but do not feel their thought as
immediately as the odour of a rose. ‘A thought to Donne was an experience. It modified his
sensibility.’ The disparate experiences are amalgamated and they form new wholes.
The poets of the 17th century are the successors of the 16th century dramatists. They are simple,
artificial, difficult, fantastic as their predecessors were. In the 17th century, a dissociation of
sensibility set in and this was aggravated by the influence of the two most powerful poets of the
century - Milton and Dryden. These poets performed certain poetic functions so magnificently
well that the magnitude of effect concealed the absence of others. There was improvement in
language. While the language became more refined, the feeling became more crude. In one or
two passages of Shelley’s Triumph of Life, in the second Keats’s Hyperion. There are traces of a
struggle toward unification of sensibility.
Now the question is that what the fate of ‘metaphysical’ would have been if the current of
poetry descended in a direct line from them? They would not, certainly, be classified as
metaphysical. Like other poets, the metaphysical poets have various faults. But they were trying
to find the verbal equivalent for states of mind and feeling. Eliot concludes the essay by saying
that Donne, Crashaw, Vaughan, Herbert, Cowley at his best are in the current of English poetry.
Tradition and the Individual Talent

"No poet, no artist of any sort, has his complete meaning alone. His significance, his
appreciation is the appreciation of his relation to the dead poets and artists."
T. S. Eliot questions the habit of praising a poet especially for those elements in his work which
are most ‘individual’, and differentiate him from others. He argues that ‘the best’, even ‘the
most individual parts’ of a poet’s work may be those most alive with the influence of his poetic
ancestors. No poet or artist is significant in isolation. The whole of past literature will be ‘in the
bones’ of the poet, with the true historic sense which recognizes the presence as well as the
‘pastness’ of the past. Eliot’s sense of the interdependence of present and the past is something
which he believed the poet must cultivate.
Tradition can be obtained only by those who have a historical sense. This sense of tradition
implies recognition of the continuity of literature, a critical judgment as to which writers of the
past continue to be significant in the present, and a knowledge of these writers obtained through
painstaking effort. A writer with the sense of tradition is fully conscious of his own generation,
of his place in the present but he is also acutely conscious of his relationship with the writers of
the past. To substantiate his point of view, Eliot says, “No poet, no artist of any art, has his
complete meaning alone. His significance, his appreciation is the appreciation of his relation to
the dead poets and the artists.” In short, tradition represents the accumulated wisdom of and
experience of the ages and so its knowledge is essential for really great and noble achievements.
Although Eliot attaches greater importance to the idea of tradition, he rejects the idea of tradition
in the name of ‘Blind or Timid Adherence’ to successful compositions of the past. By
subscribing to the idea of tradition, Eliot does not mean sacrificing novelty nor does he mean
slavish repetitions of stylistic and structural features. He believes that, ‘novelty is better than
repetition.’ By the term ‘Tradition’, he comes up with something ‘of much wider significance”
. He believes tradition is not static or fixed.
By The relationship between the past and the present is not one sided; it is a reciprocal
relationship. The past directs the present, and is itself modified and altered by the present. When
a new work of art is created, if it is really new and original, the whole literary tradition is
modified, though ever so slightly. Meaning of Eliot’s remark that a poet is concerned not only
with the ‘pastness’ of the past but with its presence.
The historical sense involves a perception, not only of the ‘ pastness’ of the past, but of its
presence; the historical sense compels a man to write not merely with his own generation in his
bones, but with a feeling that the whole of the literature of Europe from Homer and within it the
whole of the literature of his own country has a simultaneous existence and composes a
simultaneous order. This historical sense, which is a sense of the timeless as well as of the
temporal and of the timeless and of the temporal together, is what makes a writer traditional. And
it is at the same time what makes a writer most acutely conscious of his place in time, of his
contemporaneity. He further argues,
“It involves... The historical sense... and the historical sense involves a perception, not only of
the pastness of the past but its presence; … This historical sense, which is a sense of the
timeless as well as of the temporal and of the timeless and of the temporal together, is what
makes a writer traditional.”
The work of a poet in the present must be compared and contrasted with the works of the past,
but this judgment is not to determine good or bad. The comparison is made for the purposes of
analysis and for forming a better understanding of the new. Moreover, this comparison is
reciprocal; the past helps to understand the present and the present throws light on the past. It is
by comparison alone that we can sift the traditional from individual elements in a given work of
art.
The sense of tradition does not mean that the poet should try to know the past as a whole,
without discrimination. The past must be critically examined and only the significant should be
acquired. Neither should a poet be content merely to know the ages and poets he likes. To know
the tradition, the poet must judge critically what the main trends are and what are not. The poet
must not ignore the smaller poets as they could also be significant in developing main literary
trends. The poet must possess the critical gift in ample measure and must understand that the
great works of art never lose their significance; there may be refinement but no development. A
sense of tradition in real sense means,
“consciousness of the main current, which does not all flow invariably through the most
distinguished reputations.”
In brief the sense of tradition means:
 Recognition of the continuity of literature
 Critical judgment as to which writers of the past continue to be significant in the

present
 Knowledge of these writers through painstaking effort
Tradition represents the accumulated wisdom and experience of ages and so its knowledge is
essential for great and noble achievements.
Aristotle
All
Important
Questions
Aristotle's concept of catharsis

Aristotle writes that the function of tragedy is to arouse the emotions of pity and fear, and to
affect the Katharsis of these emotions. Aristotle has used the term Katharsis 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, Katharsis 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 the rousing of these emotions gives pleasure.
Katharsis 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 Thomas Taylor holds:
“We learn from the terrible fates of evil men to avoid the vices they manifest.”
F. L. Lucas rejects the idea that Katharsis is a medical metaphor, and says that:
“The theatre is not a 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 and 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, Katharsis 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 Katharsis 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 universal significance.
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 and 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
Aristotle's concept of ideal tragic hero: Hamartia

No passage in “The Poetics” with the exception of the Catharsis phrase has attracted so much
critical attention as his ideal of the tragic hero.
The function of a tragedy is to arouse the emotions of pity and fear and Aristotle deduces the
qualities of his hero from this function. He should be good, but not perfect, for the fall of a
perfect man from happiness into misery, would be unfair and repellent and will not arouse pity.
Similarly, an utterly wicked person passing from happiness to misery may satisfy our moral
sense, but will lack proper tragic qualities. His fall will be well-deserved and according to
‘justice’. It excites neither pity nor fear. Thus entirely good and utterly wicked persons are not
suitable to be tragic heroes.
Similarly, according to Aristotelian law, a saint would be unsuitable as a tragic hero. He is on the
side of the moral order and hence his fall shocks and repels. Besides, his martyrdom is a spiritual
victory which drowns the feeling of pity. Drama, on the other hand, requires for its effectiveness
a militant and combative hero. It would be important to remember that Aristotle’s conclusions
are based on the Greek drama and he is lying down the qualifications of an ideal tragic hero. He
is here discussing what is the very best and not what is good. Overall, his views are justified, for
it requires the genius of a Shakespeare to arouse sympathy for an utter villain, and saints as
successful tragic heroes have been extremely rare.
Having rejected perfection as well as utter depravity and villainy, Aristotle points out that:
“The ideal tragic hero … must be an intermediate kind of person, a man not pre-eminently
virtuous and just, whose misfortune, however, is brought upon him not by vice or depravity
but by some error of judgment.”
The ideal tragic hero is a man who stands midway between the two extremes. He is not
eminently good or just, though he inclines to the side of goodness. He is like us, but raised above
the ordinary level by a deeper vein of feeling or heightened powers of intellect or will. He is
idealized, but still he has so much of common humanity as to enlist our interest and sympathy.
The tragic hero is not evil or vicious, but he is also not perfect and his disaster is brought upon
him by his own fault. The Greek word used here is “Hamartia” meaning “missing the mark”.
He falls not because of the act of outside agency or evil but because of Hamartia or
“miscalculation” on his part. Hamartia is not a moral failing and it is unfortunate that it was
translated as “tragic flaw” by Bradley. Aristotle himself distinguishes Hamartia from moral
failing. He means by it some error or judgment. He writes that the cause of the hero’s fall must
lie “not in depravity, but in some error or Hamartia on his part”. He does not assert or deny
anything about the connection of Hamartia with hero’s moral failings.
“It may be accompanied by moral imperfection, but it is not itself a moral imperfection, and in
the purest tragic situation the suffering hero is not morally to blame.”
Thus Hamartia is an error or miscalculation, but the error may arise from any of the three ways:
It may arise from “ignorance of some fact or circumstance”, or secondly, it may arise from
hasty or careless view of the special case, or thirdly, it may be an error voluntary, but not
deliberate, as acts committed in anger. Else and Martian Ostwald interpret Hamartia and say that
the hero has a tendency to err created by lack of knowledge and he may commit a series of
errors. This tendency to err characterizes the hero from the beginning and at the crisis of the play
it is complemented by the recognition scene, which is a sudden change “from ignorance to
knowledge”.
In fact, Hamartia is a word with various shades of meaning and has been interpreted by different
critics. Still, all serious modern Aristotelian scholarship agreed that Hamartia is not moral
imperfection. It is an error of judgment, whether arising from ignorance of some material
circumstance or from rashness of temper or from some passion. It may even be a character, for
the hero may have a tendency to commit errors of judgment and may commit series of errors.
This last conclusion is borne out by the play Oedipus Tyrannus to which Aristotle refers time and
again and which may be taken to be his ideal. In this play, hero’s life is a chain or errors, the
most fatal of all being his marriage with his mother. If King Oedipus is Aristotle’s ideal hero, we
can say with Butcher that:
“His conception of Hamartia includes all the three meanings mentioned above, which in
English cannot be covered by a single term.”
Hamartia is an error, or a series of errors, “whether morally culpable or not,” committed by an

otherwise noble person, and these errors derive him to his doom. The tragic irony lies in the fact
that hero may err mistakenly without any evil intention, yet he is doomed no less than immorals
who sin consciously. He has Hamartia and as a result his very virtues hurry him to his ruin. Says
Butcher:
“Othello in the modern drama, Oedipus in the ancient, are the two most conspicuous
examples of ruin wrought by character, noble indeed, but not without defects, acting in the
dark and, as it seemed, for the best.”
Aristotle lays down another qualification for the tragic hero. He must be, “of the number of
those in the enjoyment of great reputation and prosperity.” He must be a well-reputed
individual occupying a position of lofty eminence in society. This is so because Greed tragedy,
with which alone Aristotle was familiar, was written about a few distinguished royal families.
Aristotle considers eminence as essential for the tragic hero. But Modern drama demonstrates
that the meanest individual can also serve as a tragic hero, and that tragedies of Sophoclean
grandeur can be enacted even in remote country solitudes.
However, Aristotle’s dictum is quite justified on the principle that, “higher the state, the greater
the fall that follows,” or because heavens themselves blaze forth the death of princes, while the
death of a beggar passes unnoticed. But it should be remembered that Aristotle nowhere says that
the hero should be a king or at least royally descended. They were the Renaissance critics who
distorted Aristotle and made the qualification more rigid and narrow.
Imitation
Aristotle did not invent the term “imitation”. Plato was the first to use the word in relation with
poetry, but Aristotle breathed into it a new definite meaning. So poetic imitation is no longer
considered mimicry, but is regarded as an act of imaginative creation by which the poet, drawing
his material from the phenomenal world, makes something new out of it.
In Aristotle's view, principle of imitation unites poetry with other fine arts and is the common
basis of all the fine arts. It thus differentiates the fine arts from the other category of arts. While
Plato equated poetry with painting, Aristotle equates it with music. It is no longer a servile
depiction of the appearance of things, but it becomes a representation of the passions and
emotions of men which are also imitated by music. Thus Aristotle by his theory enlarged the
scope of imitation. The poet imitates not the surface of things but the reality embedded within. In
the very first chapter of the Poetic, Aristotle says:
“Epic poetry and Tragedy, Comedy also and Dithyrambic poetry, as also the music of the flute
and the lyre in most of their forms, are in their general conception modes of imitation. They
differ however, from one another in three respects – their medium, the objects and the manner
or mode of imitation, being in each case distinct.”
The medium of the poet and the painter are different. One imitates through form and colour, and
the other through language, rhythm and harmony. The musician imitates through rhythm and
harmony. Thus, poetry is more akin to music. Further, the manner of a poet may be purely
narrative, as in the Epic, or depiction through action, as in drama. Even dramatic poetry is
differentiated into tragedy and comedy accordingly as it imitates man as better or worse.
Aristotle says that the objects of poetic imitation are “men in action”. The poet represents men
as worse than they are. He can represent men better than in real life based on material supplied
by history and legend rather than by any living figure. The poet selects and orders his material
and recreates reality. He brings order out of Chaos. The irrational or accidental is removed and
attention is focused on the lasting and the significant. Thus he gives a truth of an ideal kind. His
mind is not tied to reality:
“It is not the function of the poet to relate what has happened but what may happen –
according to the laws of probability or necessity.”
History tells us what actually happened; poetry what may happen. Poetry tends to express the
universal, history the particular. In this way, he exhibits the superiority of poetry over history.
The poet freed from the tyranny of facts, takes a larger or general view of things, represents the
universal in the particular and so shares the philosopher’s quest for ultimate truth. He thus
equates poetry with philosophy and shows that both are means to a higher truth. By the word
‘universal’ Aristotle signifies:
“How a person of a certain nature or type will, on a particular occasion, speak or act,
according to the law of probability or necessity.”
The poet constantly rises from the particular to the general. He studies the particular and devises
principles of general application. He exceeds the limits of life without violating the essential
laws of human nature.
Elsewhere Aristotle says, “Art imitates Nature”. By ‘Nature’ he does not mean the outer world
of created things but “the creative force, the productive principle of the universe.” Art
reproduce mainly an inward process, a physical energy working outwards, deeds, incidents,
situation, being included under it so far as these spring from an inward, act of will, or draw some
activity of thought or feeling. He renders men, “as they ought to be”.
The poet imitates the creative process of nature, but the objects are “men in action”. Now the
‘action’ may be ‘external’ or ‘internal’. It may be the action within the soul caused by all that
befalls a man. Thus, he brings human experiences, emotions and passions within the scope of
poetic imitation. According to Aristotle's theory, moral qualities, characteristics, the permanent
temper of the mind, the temporary emotions and feelings, are all action and so objects of poetic
imitation.
Poetry may imitate men as better or worse than they are in real life or imitate as they really are.
Tragedy and epic represent men on a heroic scale, better than they are, and comedy represents
men of a lower type, worse than they are. Aristotle does not discuss the third possibility. It means
that poetry does not aim at photographic realism.
Aristotle by his theory of imitation answers the charge of Plato that poetry is an imitation of
“shadow of shadows”, thrice removed from truth, and that the poet beguiles us with lies. Plato
condemned poetry that in the very nature of things poets have no idea of truth. The phenomenal
world is not the reality but a copy of the reality in the mind of the Supreme. The poet imitates the
objects and phenomena of the world, which are shadowy and unreal. Poetry is, therefore, “the
mother of lies”.
Aristotle, on the contrary, tells us that art imitates not the mere shows of things, but the ‘ideal
reality’ embodied in very object of the world. The process of nature is a ‘creative process’;
everywhere in ‘nature there is a ceaseless and upward progress’ in everything, and the poet
imitates this upward movement of nature. Art reproduces the original not as it is, but as it
appears to the senses. Art moves in a world of images, and reproduces the external, according to
the idea or image in his mind. Thus the poet does not copy the external world, but creates
according to his ‘idea’ of it. Thus even an ugly object well-imitated becomes a source of
pleasure. We are told in “The Poetics”:
“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 dead bodies.”
The real and the ideal from Aristotle's point of view are not opposites; the ideal is the real, shorn
of chance and accident, a purified form of reality. And it is this higher ‘reality’ which is the
object of poetic imitation. Idealization is achieved by divesting the real of all that is accidental,
transient and particular. Poetry thus imitates the ideal and the universal; it is an “idealized
representation of character, emotion, action – under forms manifest in sense.” Poetic truth,
therefore, is higher than historical truth. Poetry is more philosophical, more conducive to
understanding than Philosophy itself.
Thus Aristotle successfully and finally refuted the charge of Plato and provided a defence of
poetry which has ever since been used by lovers of poetry in justification of their Muse. He
breathed new life and soul into the concept of poetic imitation and showed that it is, in reality, a
creative process.
Plot
 Aristotle devotes great attention to the nature, structure and basic elements of the ideal tragic
plot.
 Tragedy is the depiction of action consisting of incidents and events. Plot is the arrangement
of these incident and events.
 It contains the kernel of the action. Aristotle says that plot is the first principle, the soul of
tragedy.
 He lists six formative elements of a tragedy – Plot, character, thought, melody, diction,
spectacle and gives the first place to plot.
 Aristotle says that the tragic plot must be a complete whole. It must have a beginning, a
middle and an end. It must have a beginning, i.e. it must not flow out of some previous
situation. The beginning must be clear and intelligible.
 The middle is followed logically by the end. And end is consequent upon a given situation,
but is not followed by any further incident. Thus artistic wholeness implies logical link-up of
the various incidents, events and situations that form the plot.
 The plot must have a certain magnitude or ‘length’. ‘Magnitude’ here means ‘size’. It should
be neither too small nor too large.
 It should be long enough to allow the process of change from happiness to misery but not too
long to be forgotten before the end. If it is too small, its different parts will not be clearly
distinguishable from each other.
 The different parts must be properly related to each other and to the whole. Thus magnitude
implies that the plot must have order, logic symmetry and perspicuity.
 Aristotle considers the tragic plot to be an organic whole, and also having organic unity in its
action. An action is a change from happiness to misery or vice versa and tragedy must depict
one such action.
 There might be episodes for they impart variety and lengthen the plot but they must be
properly combined with the main action following each other inevitably. It must not be
possible to remove or to invert them without injuring the plot. Otherwise, episodic plots are
the worst of all.
 Aristotle joins organic unity of plot with probability and necessity. The plot is not tied to
what has actually happened but it deals with what may probably or necessarily happen.
Probability and necessity imply that there should be no unrelated events and incidents. Words
and actions must be in character.
 'Probability' implies that the tragic action must be convincing. If the poet deals with
something improbable, he must make it convincing and credible. He dramatist must procure,
“willing suspension of disbelief”.
 Aristotle rules out plurality of action. He emphasizes the Unity of Action but has little to say
about the Unity of Time and the Unity of Place. About the Unity of Time he merely says that
tragedy should confine itself to a single revolution of the sun. As regards the Unity of Place,
Aristotle said that epic can narrate a number of actions going on all together in different
parts, while in a drama simultaneous actions cannot be represented, for the stage is one part
and not several parts or places.
 Tragedy is an imitation of a ‘serious action’ which arouses pity and fear. ‘Serious’ means
important, weighty. The plot of a tragedy essentially deals with great moral issues. Tragedy
is a tale of suffering with an unhappy ending.
 This means that the plot of a tragedy must be a fatal one. Aristotle rules out fortunate plots
for tragedy, for such plot does not arouse tragic emotions. A tragic plot must show the hero
passing from happiness to misery and not from misery to happiness. >The suffering of the
hero may be caused by an enemy or a stranger but it would be most piteous when it is by
chance caused by friends and relatives who are his well-wishers.
 According to Aristotle, Tragic plots may be of three kinds, (a) Simple, (b) Complex and (c)
Plots based on or depicting incidents of suffering.

A Simple plot is without any Peripety and Anagnorisis but the action moves forward
uniformly without any violent or sudden change.
 Aristotle prefers Complex plots. It must have Peripeteia, i.e. “reversal of intention” and
Anagnorisis, i.e. “recognition of truth”. While Peripeteia is ignorance of truth, Anagnorisis
is the insight of truth forced upon the hero by some signs or chance or by the logic events. In
ideal plot Anagnorisis follows or coincides with Peripeteia.
 As regards the third kind of plot, Aristotle rates it very low. It derives its effect from the
depiction of torture, murder, maiming, death etc. and tragic effect must be created naturally
and not with artificial and theatrical aids. Such plots indicate a deficiency in the art of the
poet.
 In making plots, the poets should make their denouements, effective and successful.
Unraveling of the plot should be done naturally and logically, and not by arbitrary devices,
like chance or supernatural devices.
 Aristotle does not consider Poetic Justice necessary for Tragedy.
 He rules out plots with a double end i.e. plots in which there is happiness for one, and misery
for others. Such plots weaken the tragic effect. It is more proper to Comedy. Thus Aristotle is
against Tragi-comedy.
Raymond
Williams
All
Important
Questions
Tragedy and Experience

Tragedy is a Greek word used for a kind of theatrical performance dealing with serious action.
More than twenty five hundred years ago, Greeks playwrights Aeschylus, Euripides and
Sophocles started this tradition. But in modern times, this word “Tragedy” is also used in
different context. Now people also use it for common experience. Whenever we want to describe
a sad event we call it ‘Tragic’ or ‘a tragedy’. What is the difference between ‘tragedy’ as an art
form and ‘tragedy’ as a common experience? Can this word be used for ordinary incidents? This
controversy has become very important in our age. What is tragic? It is a very important question
not only for and ordinary reader but also for a learned critic.
In the modern times the word ‘tragedy’ has taken many forms and it refers to many incidents and
events. Now it is not only about the death of princes of lofty eminence engaged in grand and
heroic actions. The word has taken a more personal and general meaning in the present times. To
be more exact, it refers to experience, the real and naked experience of the world. A man
exploited by and frustrated with his working conditions is passing through a tragedy. Similarly,
the loss of connection between the individuals, the generation gap, meaningfulness and
meaninglessness of life are considered as tragic. Then these personal and individual experiences
take the form of wider conflicts between the nations and classes and societies, the political and
social revolutions and wars are also called tragic. Even local disasters like accidents, breaking of
a family and mining disasters are considered tragic. In our culture the word ‘Tragedy’ is also
used for these kinds of experiences.
Many critics think that the word ‘tragedy’ should not be used for such kinds of experiences.
They are of the view that the word has a special historical significance. It is a kind of dramatic
art, which over twenty five centuries, has survived as the most accomplished genre. They say
that calling ordinary experience as tragic is vulgarized use of the word.
“The word, we are given to understand, is being simply and perhaps viciously misused.”
They give this reason that in ordinary accidents or events there is only suffering and tragedy is
not merely about suffering. It has many other aspects as well and to confuse this meaning with
any other experience is not right:
“Tragedy, we are told, is not simply death and suffering, and it is not certainly accident. Nor is
it simply any response to death and suffering. It is , rather, a particular kind of event and a
kind of response, which are genuinely tragic, and which the long tradition embodies”
Raymond Williams says that the question is not where the word ‘tragedy’ should be used and
where not to. What is more important that the death and suffering is interpreted in a particular
light and according to this interpretation some deaths are tragic and others are not. This simple
and it seems that it solves the problem. But there are still two questions to be answered;
1= Whether tradition carries so clear and single meaning of tragedy?
2= What actual relationship must be seen between tradition of tragedy and kinds of experience?
The answer to these questions lead us to analyze the tradition itself.
In order to understand the nature of modern tragedy and modern experience this analysis should
be done.
Tragedy and Tradition

Raymond Williams says that ‘tragedy’ as a word came to us from a long tradition of European
civilization.
The writers and critics are conscious of tragedy as a single idea and this is the basis of
‘continuity’ of tragedy. But one thing should be made clear that tradition and continuity do not
mean that the idea of tragedy remained the same all through the ages. If we study the tradition,
we can see that the idea of tragedy went through changes and modifications.
When we use the word ‘tradition’ we put all the concept of the past under this single word
without realizing the fact that tradition does not mean a single idea but it is a collection of beliefs
and practice.
There is another point that the tradition is not past but it is how we interpret the past. When we
look at the concept and ideas of the past we can never know how these ideas and concepts were
perceived by the people of that time. We only interpret those ideas and beliefs keeping in view
our present knowledge and experience. In this way, past is seen through the glass of present.
In order to study tradition we should look at works and ideas which have certain evident links
and which are associated in our minds by a single and powerful word i.e. ‘tragedy’. The function
of a critic is that he should see these works and ideas in their immediate context and their
historical continuity. He should also examine their place and function in relation to other works
and ideas and to the variety of actual experience.
Raymond is one of the greatest poet-war cultural historians, theorists and critics.
He is a die-hard Marxist and looks tragedy with the peculiar context of Marxism.
In this essay, he amplifies the meanings of tragedy and digs deep into the meanings of tragedy
and gives his views about the different forms of tragedies throughout the history.
We usually try to make a contrast between the traditional and modern and try to compress and
unify the various thinking of past into a single tradition. While explaining this point, Raymond
says:
“It is a question, rather, of realizing that a tradition is not the past: a selection and evaluation
of ancestors, rather a neutral record”.
Classical tragedy
Greek drama is considered a great achievement. Out of some three hundred plays written by the
three great tragedians i.e. Sophocles, Euripides and Aeschylus, only thirty two have survived.
Out of these thirty two eight or ten are considered among the greatest dramas ever written.
Greek tragedy is a mature form and it has affected the development of tragic drama in two ways.
Firstly, it became a standard for the later tragedians. Secondly, the later tragedian consciously
tried to imitate it.
It is also an established fact that Greek tragedy was never reproduced in its true form because its
uniqueness is not transferable.
For a last century or so critics have tried to systematize a Greek tragic philosophy and consider it
a standard for the interpretation of modern tragedies. But these attempts have been quite
unsuccessful. The reason for this is that for Greek, tragedy was not a secular experience. It was a
culture with beliefs connected to institutions, practices and feelings.
They had their own concept of Fate, Necessity and the Nature of gods.
For them tragedy was never a system and also not based upon a tragic philosophy.
Greeks never thought that there should be rules and standards for writing a tragedy and a
playwright should follow these rules.
Their concept of tragedy was based upon myths and the nature of myths cannot be explained to a
non-believing culture.
For example, in the modern times Necessity is interpreted as ‘determinism’ or ‘fatalism’ and it is
believed that Necessity means to know about the actions of human beings in advance.
But the real character of Necessity in Greek culture was that its limits on human actions are
discovered in real actions.
Greek tragedy is least imitable because of its set of beliefs and also because of its particular
dramatic structure.
On the contrary Greek tragedy is a choral tragedy in which the relations, between chorus and
actors are true dramatic relations. The dramatic effect of the Greek tragedy is simultaneously
individual, collective and metaphysical. It is evident that when this unique culture changed, the
chorus was weakened and then discarded.
In Greek tragedy the action takes its momentum from ruling families, having a legendary past
and a noble standing between gods and men. The tragic hero involves representative eminence.
He is not isolated one. He involves the whole system. Raymond is of the view that even Aristotle
is concerned with generic action rather that isolated hero.
Medieval Tragedy
It is believed that there was little or no tragedy in Medieval literature as Medieval beliefs were
not suitable for tragedy.
Tragedy in that age was considered narrative and not dramatic.
Raymond Williams says that tragedy was there in that period only that we do not realize it being
part of ‘the tradition’.
Chaucer’s “prologue to the Monk’s Tale” clearly defines tragedy that it is a story of a person
who falls from a great height.
The emphasis here is on the change from ‘Prosperity to adversity’.
Most importantly, in one aspect medieval tragedy remained true to Greek idea in the sense that
they always took an individual as the part of a group and not as an alienated person.
In this tragedy, the concepts of Fate, Destiny, Chance and Providence were still present in this
age. But the concept of Fate in this age was a bit different. Sometimes it was understood as
chance, and sometimes it was taken as an agent ruling over the destinies of men.
Secondly, the medieval idea of tragedy continued to lay emphasis on rank but they differ from
previous age that they believed in prosperity and adversity and not in ‘happiness to misery’ of
Aristotle i.e. their concept was material but that of Aristotle was spiritual.
As the society was feudal so its foundation was laid on materialism.
Also their emphasis on world position was later responsible for the individual conception of
tragic hero.
There are many differences between the medieval and Greek concept of tragedy but at first sight
it looks closer to Greek concept than the tragedies of later period.
In this age, the concept of the individual as a member of group or society was still there and he
was not considered a separated and alienated being.
In the Greek culture, the religious, social and individual roles were part of on another but in the
medieval culture, these were considered separate.
Now for the first time people had started to look at tragedy as an art form and not part of their
religion.
The concept of ‘Wheel of Fortune’ was important in the sense that it gave this message that
everyone would experience fall. But there was also this element of choice for human beings that
whether they want to get on this wheel.
The medieval idea of tragedy became more worldy than any before. Raymond saysL
“There might be particular sins, which led to the falls, and at times these would be examined,
in the light of the doctrine of Fortune ads the ministering event of providence”.
Renaissance Tragedy
Renaissance tragedy also emphasized the fall of famous men but this was the age of
transformation and, therefore, many new concepts were also introduced.
This was the age of humanism and for the first time, human beings rather than God became the
centre of everything. This is the reason that in many of Renaissance tragedies, the writer tried to
bridge the gap between the fall of famous men and common experience.
Even though it appears that Renaissance tragedy was continuity from the Greek tragedy but there
were many differences.
Raymond quotes Sidney to explain that the theme of mutability and its exemplary character is
still dominant.
Apart from the emphasis on kings there were two new features of Renaissance Tragedy.
1-Firstly, it an interest in the actual working or effect of the tragedy as discussed by Sidney that
how it affected a tyrant.
2-Secondly, the emphasis on structure, ‘wel made and presented’.
There is also an element i.e. the paradox of sweet violence that tragedy gives us pleasure out of
sadness.
We can say that this was the first period in which the idea of tragedy became critical rather than
metaphysical even though this development was not complete until the neo-classical critics.
Sidney gives more attention to the method of writing tragedy than to any moral or metaphysical
idea.
So we can see that instead of discussing themes, Renaissance tragedy was more about methods,
styles and effects.
Neo-Classical tragedy
Neo-Classical age was the age of reason and enlightenment. In this age the ideas of human
intellect, order, freedom and liberalism were much emphasized.
The writing of tragedy in this age was influenced by French writers like Racine and Corneille.
The emphasis was on coherence, reason and order.
The concept of ‘Poetic justice’ was also introduced in this age. This concept was based on this
belief that goodness should be rewarded and evil should be punished.
But this concept of ‘poetic justice’ was not founded on any universal principle but it was based
upon a very limited and worldly concept of morality prevalent in that age.
The change in hero was not considered ‘spiritual’ but ‘material’.
It was believed that the hero should be a king or a prince not because the fate of the city is
associated with him but because kings and princes have grand and noble appearance.
Aristotle’s ‘pity and fear’ was replaced with ‘pity and admiration’.
Lessing and the Tradition
Lessing, the famous German dramatist and critic, wrote extensively about tragedy and tragic
theory.
The major contribution of Lessing is a theoretical rejection of Neo- Classicism, a defence of

Shakespeare, and an advocacy of Bourgeois tragedy.
According to Lessing Neo-Classicism was false classicism and the real inheritor of Greeks was
Shakespeare.
Raymond argues that it is true that Neo- Classicism was a false classicism but Shakespeare was
not the inheritor of Greeks because he was the founder of a new kind of tragedy.
Secular Tragedy:
It is believed that all the dramas after “Renaissance” were secular, whereas the Greek drama was
religious.
Elizabethan drama was secular in practice but retained a Christian consciousness.
Neo-Classical Age is an age of peace, prosperity and secularism. Neo-classical is the first stage
of substantial secularization. It insisted on relating suffering to moral error. With the gradual
secularization of tragedy, morality became less important and more attention was paid to the
critical side of the tragedy. The increasing emphasis on rational morality effected the tragic
action.
In their view suffering is the result of one’s evil actions.
This belief led to the concept of ‘poetic justice’ i.e. good people are rewarded and bad are
punished. The problem with this concept was that they conceived a limited conception of
morality which was only applicable to their society.
Hegel and Hegelians

Hegel did not reject the concept of ‘poetic justice’ but he calls it a social drama rather than
tragedy.
Hegel is of the view that the important thing in tragedy is not suffering but its causes.
Mere pity and fear are not tragic pity and fear. He wants to say that in accidents or natural
disasters, when we feel pity for the sufferers, it is not tragic pity or fear but he calls it ‘mere’ pity
and fear.
In accidents, human beings are not responsible for suffering; therefore, accidents cannot be
called tragic.
Also in accidents there is no ‘ethical substance’ i.e. we cannot draw moral lessons from an
accident.
Schopenhaur and Nietzsche:

The views of these two German philosophers also contributed in the development of tragedy.
Before, Schopenhauer, tragedy was associated with ethical crises, human growth and history. He
secularized the whole idea of tragedy. He is of the view that ‘ true sense of tragedy is the deeper
insight into man’s original sin i.e. the crime of existence itself’ . According to Nietzsche, tragedy
dramatizes a tension, which it resolves in a higher unity. There the hero, who is the highest
manifestation of will, is destroyed, but the eternal life of the hero will remain unaffected.
According to him, the action of tragedy is not moral, nor purgative but aesthetic.
Myth and Ritual

This school believes that tragedy is also a kind of myth and ritual.
In the ancient societies, when human beings for the first time learnt how to cultivate land, they
also developed certain fears. These fears were associated with autumn season in which the earth
would become sterile. The primitive man believed that sterility is associated with the death of
god of agriculture. This god died in the winter, goes to underworld and then in the spring he is
reborn.
In order to ensure the re-birth of their gods, the ancient people would perform certain rites in
which they would present sacrifices to the gods. They believed that if the sacrifices were
accepted, they might have better crops. In this way, their rites were associated with the cycle of
birth and death.
The myth and ritual theory states that the death of the hero in tragedy is also a cyclic death and
re-birth. This death is also linked to the concept of seasons. The death of the hero is mourned by
the audience but this death is necessary. Only the death of older order can give birth to a new
order.
In the end, it can be said that Raymond Williams’ concept of tragedy and tradition is not only
profound but highly philosophical and thought provoking also. He has given forceful and
historical perspective of tragedy and tradition. He has coded the views of English as well as
German philosophers to make his arguments forceful. In short, all his discussion shows his
power of critical talent and observations.
Philip
Sidney
All
Important
Questions
Examine in detail the main ideas in Sidney's 'An

Apology for Poetry' and comment on its significance.
An Apologie for Poetrie may for purposes of convenience be divided into sixteen sections.
1. The Prologue
Before launching a defence of poetry, Sidney justified his stand by referring in a half-humorous
manner to a treatise on horseman-ship by pietro Pugliano. If the art of horsemanship can deserve
such an eloquent euology and vindication, surely poetry has better claims for euology and
vindication. There is a just cause to plead a case for poetry since it has fallen from the highest
estimation of learning to be 'the laughing stock of children.'
2. Some Special Arguments in Favour of Poetry
Poetry has been held in high esteem since the earliest times. It has been 'the first light-giver to
ignorance.' The earlier Greek philosophers and historians were, in fact, poets. Even among the
uncivilized nations, in Turkey, among the American Indians, and m Wales, poetry enjoys an
undiminishing popularity. To attack poetry is, therefore, to cut at the roots of culture and
intelligence.
3. The Prophetic Character of Poetry
The ancient Romans paid high reverence to the poet by calling him Vates, which means a
Diviner, a Prophet, or a Foreseer. The etymological origin of Greek word 'poet' is Poiein, and
this means 'to make'. Hence the Greeks honour the poet as a maker or creator. This suggests the
divine nature of poetry.
4. The Nature and Function of Poetry

Poetry is an art of ‘imitation' and its chief function is to teach and delight. Imitation does not
mean mere copying or a reproduction of facts. It means a representing or transmuting of the real
and actual, and sometimes creating something entirely new. The poet, so Sidney declares,
"lifted upwith the vigour of his own invention, doth grow in effect another nature, in making
things either better than Nature bringeth forth, or, quite a new, forms such as never were in
Nature, as the Heroes, Demigods, Cyclops, Chimeras, Furies, and such like."
Commenting on the creative powers of the poet, Sidney further states:
"Nature never set forth the earth in so rich tapestry as divers poets have done, neither with
pleasant rivers, fruitful trees, sweet smelling flowers, nor whatsoever else may make the too
much loved earth more lovely. Her world is brazen, the poets only deliver a golden."
5. The Three Kinds of Poetry
The three kinds of poetry, according to
Sidney, are : (a) religious poetry, (b) philosophical poetry, and (c) poetry as an imaginative
treatment of life and nature. He calls special attention to the third class of poets, for 'these be
they that, as the first and most noble sort may justly be termed vates.'
They 'most properly do imitate to teach and delight, and to imitate borrow nothing of what is, has
been, or shall be, but range, only with learned discretion, into the divine consideration of what
may be, and should be.'
6. Various Sub-divisions of the Third Kind of Poetry
Poetry proper may further be divided into various species—the heroic, lyric, tragic, comic,
satiric, iambic, elegiac, pastoral and others. Poets generally make use of verse to apparel their
poetical inventions. But verse is 'an ornament and no cause to poetry since there have been many
most excellent poets that never versified, and now swarm many versifiers that need never answer
to the name of poets.'
7. Superiority of Poetry to Philosophy and History
In the promotion of virtue, both philosophy and history play their parts. Philosophy deals with its
theoretical aspects and teaches virtue by precept. History teaches practical virtue by drawing
concrete examples from life. But poetry gives both precepts and practical examples. Philosophy,
being based on abstractions, is 'hard of utterance and mystery to be conceived.' It cannot be a
proper guide for youth. On the other hand, the historian is tied to empirical facts that his example
drags no necessary consequence. Poetry gives perfect pictures of virtue which are far more
effective than the mere definitions of philosophy. It also gives imaginary examples which are
more instructive than the real examples of history. The reward of virtue and the punishment of
vice is more clearly shown in Poetry than in History.
Poetry is superior to Philosophy in the sense that it has the power to move and to give incentive
for virtuous action. It presents moral lessons in a very attractive form. Things which in
themselves are horrible as cruel battles, unnatural monsters, are made delightful in poetic
imitation. Poet is, therefore, the monarch of all sciences. 'For he doth not only show the way but
giveth so sweet a prospect into the way, as will entice any man to enter into it.' The poet does not
begin with obscure definitions which load the memory with doubtfulness, 'but he cometh to you
with words set in delightful proportion, either accompanied with, or prepared for, the well
enchanting skill of music; and with a tale forsooth he cometh unto you, with a tale which holdeth
children from play, and old men from the chimney corner. And pretending no more, doth intend
the winning of the mind from wickedness to virtue.
8. Various Species of Poetry
The pastoral poetry treats of the beauty of the simple life, and sometimes, of the miseries of the
people under hard Lords. Why should it be disliked? Elegiac poetry deals with the weakness of
mankind and wretchedness of the world. It should evoke pity rather than blame. Satiric poetry
laughs at folly, and iambic poetry tries to unmask villainy. These also do not deserve to be
condemned.
Nobody should blame the right use of comedy. Comedy is an imitation of the common errors of
our life presented in a ridiculous manner. It helps men keeping away from such errors. Tragedy,
which opens the greatest wounds in our hearts, teaches the uncertainty of this world. Nobody can
resist the 'sweet violence' of a tragedy.
The lyric which gives moral precepts and soars to the heavens in singing the praises of the
Almighty, cannot be displeasing. Nor can the epic or heroic poetry be disliked because it
inculcates virtue to the highest degree by portraying heroic and moral goodness in the most
effective manner. Sidney asserts that the heroical is 'not only a kind, but the best and most
accomplished kind of poetry.'
9. Main Objections Brought Against Poetry by its Enemies
A common complaint against poetry is that it is bound up with 'rhyming and versing'. But verse
is not essential for poetry. 'One may be a poet without versing, and a versifier without poetry'
Verse is used for convenience. It produces verbal harmony and lends itself easily to memorizing.
It is the only fit speech for music. It adds to words a sensuous and emotional quality.
10. Four Chief Objections to Poetry
There are some more serious objections to poetry, namely:
(a) that there being many other more fruitful knowledges, a man might better spend his
time in them than in this;
(b) that it is the mother of lies :
(c) that it is the nurse of abuse, infecting us with many pestilent desires; and,
(d) that Plato had banished poets from his ideal republic.
11. Replies to These Objections
Sidney dismisses the first charge by saying that he has already established that 'no learning is so
good as that which reacheth and moveth to virtue, and that none can both teach and move thereto
so much as poetry.'
His answer to the second objection that poets are liars is that of all writers under the sun the poet
is the least liar. The Astronomer, the Geometrician, the historian, and others, all make false
statements. But the poet 'nothing affirms, and therefore never lieth,' his aim being 'to tell not
what is or is not, but what should or should not be.' So what he presents is not fact but fiction
embodying truth of an ideal kind.
The third charge against poetry is that all its species are infected with love themes and amorous
conceits, which have a demoralising effect on readers. To this charge Sidney replies that poetry
does not abuse man's wit, it is man's wit that abuseth poetry. All arts and sciences misused bad
evil effects, but that did not mean that they were less valuable when rightly employed. Shall the
abuse of a thing make the right use odious? Certainly not.
Sidney is rather perplexed at the last charge, namely Plato's rejection of poetry. He wonders why
Plato found fault with poetry. In fact, Plato warned men not against poetry but against its abuse
by his contemporary poets who filled the world with wrong opinions about the gods. So Plato's
objection was directed against the theological concepts. In Ion, Plato gives high and rightly
divine commendation to poetry. His description of the poet as 'a light winged and sacred thing' in
that dialogue reveals his attitude to poetry. In fact by attributing unto poetry a very inspiring of a
divine force, Plato was making a claim for poetry which he for his part could not endorse. Not
only Plato but, Sidney tells us, all great men have honoured poetry.
12. Why is Poetry not honoured in England as it is elsewhere?
Why has England grown so hard a step-mother to Poets? asks Sidney. He thinks that it is so
because poetry has came to be represented by 'base men with servile wits' or to men who,
however studious, are not born poets. He says that 'a poet no industry can make, if his own
genius be not carried unto it'. Another cause is the want of serious cultivation of the Poetic Art.
Threeihings necessary for producing good poetry are Art, Imitation, and Exercise which are
lacking in the present generation of poets.
13. A Brief Review of the State of Poetry in England from Chaucer to Sidney's
own Time
Sidney says that few good poems have been produced in England since Chaucer. Chaucer did
marvellously well in Troilus and Cresseida. The Mirrour of Magistrates also contains some
beautiful passages. Earl of Surrey's Lyrics also deserve praise. Spenser's The Shepherds Calender
is worth reading. English lyric poetry is scanty and poor. Love lyrics and sonnets lack genuine
fire and passion. They make use of artificial diction and swelling phrases.
14. Condition of Drama

The state of drama is also degraded. The only redeeming tragedy is Gorboduc which itself is a
faulty work. A tragedy should be tied to the laws of poetry and not of history. A dramatist should
have liberty to frame the history to his own tragical convenience. Again many things should be
told which cannot be shown on the stage. The dramatists should know the difference between
reporting and representing. They should straightway plunge into the principal point of action
which they want to represent in their play. There should be no mingling of tragedies and
comedies, English comedy is based on a false hypothesis. It aims at laughter, not delight. The
proper aim of comedy is to afford delightful teaching, not mere coarse amusement. Comedy
should not only amuse but morally instruct.
15. Advantages of the English Language
The English language has some definite advantages. It is appreciable for its adaptability to
ancient and modern systems of versification. It admits both the unrhymed quantitative system of
the ancient poetry and the rhyme peculiar to modern language.
16. Summary
Poetry is full of virtue-breeding delightfulness. It is void of no gift that ought to be in the noble
name of learning. All the charges laid against it are false and baseless. The poets were the
ancient treasurers of the Grecian divinity; they were the first bringers of all civility. There are
many mysteries contained poetry. A poet can immortalize people in his verses.
Charges Against Poetry and Sidney’s defence of Poery
Nature and Function of Poetry

MA English Part 2: Paper 4 (Literary Criticism) All Important Notes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MA English Part 2: Paper 4 (Literary Criticism) All Important Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MA English Part 2

Paper 4 (Literary Criticism) All Important notes

T.S Eliot All Important Questions

Notes Prepared By Prof. Tahir Islam

An Ideal Critic: His Qualifications and Functions

meaning of words as through their sound.

Perfect poetry results when instead of ‘dissociation of sensibility’ there is ‘unification of

T. S. Eliot’s Theory of ‘Impersonality of Poetry’

Consequently, we are compelled to believe that "emotion recollected in tranquility" is an

The Critic and His Functions

“Analysis and comparison, methodically with sensitiveness, intelligence, curiosity, intensity of

bring the lessons of the past to bear upon the present.

The Metaphysical Poets

In these poets, instead of a mere explication of content of the comparison, “a development by

feeling. That is, there is ‘unification of sensibility’.

Tradition and the Individual Talent

In brief the sense of tradition means:

 Recognition of the continuity of literature

 Critical judgment as to which writers of the past continue to be significant in the

 Knowledge of these writers through painstaking effort

Aristotle's concept of catharsis

“The theatre is not a hospital.”

Fourthly, the theory is perfectly in accord with current aesthetic theories.

To conclude, Aristotle's conception of Catharsis is mainly intellectual. It is neither didactic

Aristotle's concept of ideal tragic hero: Hamartia

Hamartia is an error, or a series of errors, “whether morally culpable or not,” committed by an

Tragedy and Experience

1= Whether tradition carries so clear and single meaning of tragedy?

The answer to these questions lead us to analyze the tradition itself.

Tragedy and Tradition

is concerned with generic action rather that isolated hero.

The emphasis here is on the change from ‘Prosperity to adversity’.

As the society was feudal so its foundation was laid on materialism.

2-Secondly, the emphasis on structure, ‘wel made and presented’.

The emphasis was on coherence, reason and order.

The change in hero was not considered ‘spiritual’ but ‘material’.

The major contribution of Lessing is a theoretical rejection of Neo- Classicism, a defence of

Elizabethan drama was secular in practice but retained a Christian consciousness.

In their view suffering is the result of one’s evil actions.

Hegel and Hegelians

Schopenhaur and Nietzsche:

Myth and Ritual

Examine in detail the main ideas in Sidney's 'An

2. Some Special Arguments in Favour of Poetry

3. The Prophetic Character of Poetry

4. The Nature and Function of Poetry

Commenting on the creative powers of the poet, Sidney further states:

5. The Three Kinds of Poetry

The three kinds of poetry, according to

6. Various Sub-divisions of the Third Kind of Poetry

7. Superiority of Poetry to Philosophy and History

8. Various Species of Poetry

9. Main Objections Brought Against Poetry by its Enemies

10. Four Chief Objections to Poetry

There are some more serious objections to poetry, namely:

(b) that it is the mother of lies :

11. Replies to These Objections

12. Why is Poetry not honoured in England as it is elsewhere?

14. Condition of Drama

15. Advantages of the English Language

Charges Against Poetry and Sidney’s defence of Poery

Nature and Function of Poetry

You might also like