Name : Divya d Vaghela
Course : M.A (Sem -1)
Batch -2018-20
Roll no -08
Email ID : Vaghela.divya230@gmail.com
Enrollment no :2069108420190044
Paper no : Literary theory &criticism
Topic : Terms
~ Three unities
~ Tragedy
~ Chorus
• So first at all I discuss here about Three unities of drama of Aristotle .
• Aristotle has give this unity of drama which are :
(1) unity of Time
(2) unity of place
(3) unity of action
In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, critics of the drama in Italy and France added to Aristotle's unity of action, which he describes in his Poetics, two other unities, to constitute one of the rules of drama known as " the three unities ". On the assumption that verisimilitude the achievement of an illusion of reality in the audience of a stage play requires that the action represented by a play approximate the actual condition of the staging of the play, they imposed the requirement of the " unity of place "(that the action represented be limited to a single location) and the requirement of the "unity of time " (that represented be limited to the two or three hours it takes to act the play, or at most to a single day of either twelve or twenty four hours). In large part because of the potent example of Shakespeare, many of whose plays represent frequent changes of place and the passage of many years, the unities of place and time never dominated the English neoclassicism as they did criticism in Italy and France.A final blow was the famous attack against them, and against the principle of dramatic verisimilitude on which they were based in Samuel Johnson's "preface to Shakespeare " ( 1756) .since then in England, the unities of place and time (as distinguished from the unity of action )have been regarded as entirely optional devices, available to the playwright to achieve special effects of dramatic concentration .By contrast, the unities were of much less concern in Renaissance England. Christopher Marlowe, William Shakespeare, and Ben Jonson often included two or more plots in a play, mixed comedy and tragedy, and freely switched settings. Jonson, unusually among these playwrights, referred to the unities in the prologue to his Volpone (first performed 1605/06).
Unity of action : a play should have one action that it follows, with minimal subplots.
unity of time: the action in a play should occur over a period of no more than 24 hours.
unity of place: a play should exist in a single physical space and should not attempt to compress geography, nor should the stage represent more than one place.
Now, according to our definition, Tragedy is an imitation of an action that is complete, and whole, and of a certain magnitude[1] … As therefore, in the other imitative arts, the imitation is one when the object imitated is one, so the plot, being an imitation of an action, must imitate one action and that a whole, the structural union of the parts being such that, if any one of them is displaced or removed, the whole will be disjointed and disturbed. For a thing whose presence or absence makes no visible difference, is not an organic part of the whole.[2]Epic poetry agrees with Tragedy in so far as it is an imitation in verse of characters of a higher type. They differ, in that Epic poetry admits but one kind of metre, and is narrative in form. They differ, again, in their length: for Tragedy endeavours, as far as possible, to confine itself to a single revolution of the sun, or but slightly to exceed this limit; whereas the Epic action has no limits of time.[3]
[2] Tragedy :
Greek dramatist such as Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides. In the subsequent two thousand years and more many new and artistically effective types of serious plots ending in a catastrophe have been developed types that Aristotle had no way of foreseeing. The many attempts to stretch Aristotle's analysis to apply to later tragic forms serve merely to blur his critical categories and to obscure important differences among diverse types of plays, all of which have proved to be dramatically effective. When flexibility managed, however Aristotle's discussion apply in some part to many tragic plots and his analytic concepts serve as a suggestive starting point for identifying the difffferentiae of various non Aristotelian modes of tragic construction.
Aristotle defined tragedy as " the limitation of an action that is serious and also as having magnitude, complete in itself, " in the medium of poetic language and in the manner of dramatic rather than of narrative presentation, involving " Incidents arousing pity and fear, wherewith to accomplish the catharsis of such emotions. " precisely how to interpret Aristotle's catharsis which in Greek signifies " purgation" ,or " purification, " or both is much disputed. On two matters, however, a number of commentators agree. Aristotle in the first place sets out to account for the undeniable, though remarkable, fact that many tragic representation of suffering and defeat leave an audience feeling not depressed, but relieved, or even exalted.
Accordingly,Aristotle says that the tragic hero will most effectively Evoke both our pity and terror if he is neither thoroughly good not thoroughly bad but a mixture of both; and also that this tragic effect will be stronger if the hero is " better than we are, " in the sense that he is of higher than ordinary moral worth. Such a man is exhibited as suffering a change in fortune from happiness to misery because of his mistaken choice of an action, to which he is led to by his hamartia his " error of judgment " or as it is often though less literally translated his tragic flaw. The tragic hero, like Oedipus in Sophocles. Oedipus the king, moves us to pity because since he is not an evil man, his misfortune is greater than he deserves; but he moves us also to fear, because we recognise similar possibilities of error in our own lesser and fallible selves.Aristotle grounds his analysis of " the very structure and incidents of the play " on the same principle, the plot, he says, which will most effectively evoke " tragic pity and fear " is one in which the events develop through complication to a catastrophe in which there occurs (often by anagnorisis or discovery of facts hitherio unknown to the hero)
Scenean tragedy was written to be recited rather than acted but to English playwrights, who thought that these tragedies had been intended for the stage, they provided the model for an organized five act play with a complex plot and an elabotely formal style of dialogue. Senecean drama in the Elizabethan Age, had two main lines of development. One of these consisted of academic tragedies written in close imitation of the Senecean model including the use of a chorus and usually constructed according to the rules of the three unities which had been elaborated by Italian critics of the sixteenth century.
[3] Chorus :
Defination: In the ancient Greek theater, the chorus was a rowdy bunch. They were the peanut gallery that sang, danced, and made comments about the action on stage. They also gave you key information about stuff happening off stage—like battles and sea voyages.
Among the ancient Greek the chorus was a group of people wearing masks, who sang or chanted verses while performing dance like maneuvers at religious festivals. A similar chorus played a part in Greek tragedies, where they served mainly as commentators on the dramatic actions .Although the historical origins of Greek drama are unclear it may be said it had relevance to religion, art and to the love of expression and perceptive storytelling in general. The origins of the chorus in particular may have stemmed out of ancient rites and rituals with elements of song and dance, and most importantly – the gathering of people.
In order to understand the function of the chorus one must remember that at the origins of Greek drama there was only one actor; and even at later dates no more than three actors occupied the stage, each of whom may have played several roles. As there was this clear need to distract the audience while the actors went off-stage to change clothes and costumes, and perhaps prepare for their next role, the function of the chorus may have had more to do with practicality, than with artistic or philosophical considerations.Aside from the practical the chorus would have had numerous functions in providing a comprehensive and continuous artistic unit. Firstly, according to a view accepted by many scholars, the chorus would provide commentary on actions and events that were taking place before the audience. By doing this the chorus would create a deeper and more meaningful connection between the characters and the audience. Secondly, the chorus would allow the playwright to create a kind of literary complexity only achievable by a literary device controlling the atmosphere and expectations of the audience. Thirdly, the chorus would allow the playwright to prepare the audience for certain key moments in the storyline, build up momentum or slow down the tempo; he could underline certain elements and downplay others. Such usage of the choral structure-making functions may be observed throughout many classical plays but may be more obvious in some than in others.The chorus may have distinguished itself by an elaborate use of language or style, varying the voice of reason or that of emotion depending on occasion and the intention of the playwright. More importantly though, the chorus could have represented the prevalent views of the contemporary society holding up certain moral and cultural standards – much like the media does for modern people throughout their daily lives.
Thank you...........
Course : M.A (Sem -1)
Batch -2018-20
Roll no -08
Email ID : Vaghela.divya230@gmail.com
Enrollment no :2069108420190044
Paper no : Literary theory &criticism
Topic : Terms
~ Three unities
~ Tragedy
~ Chorus
• So first at all I discuss here about Three unities of drama of Aristotle .
• Aristotle has give this unity of drama which are :
(1) unity of Time
(2) unity of place
(3) unity of action
In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, critics of the drama in Italy and France added to Aristotle's unity of action, which he describes in his Poetics, two other unities, to constitute one of the rules of drama known as " the three unities ". On the assumption that verisimilitude the achievement of an illusion of reality in the audience of a stage play requires that the action represented by a play approximate the actual condition of the staging of the play, they imposed the requirement of the " unity of place "(that the action represented be limited to a single location) and the requirement of the "unity of time " (that represented be limited to the two or three hours it takes to act the play, or at most to a single day of either twelve or twenty four hours). In large part because of the potent example of Shakespeare, many of whose plays represent frequent changes of place and the passage of many years, the unities of place and time never dominated the English neoclassicism as they did criticism in Italy and France.A final blow was the famous attack against them, and against the principle of dramatic verisimilitude on which they were based in Samuel Johnson's "preface to Shakespeare " ( 1756) .since then in England, the unities of place and time (as distinguished from the unity of action )have been regarded as entirely optional devices, available to the playwright to achieve special effects of dramatic concentration .By contrast, the unities were of much less concern in Renaissance England. Christopher Marlowe, William Shakespeare, and Ben Jonson often included two or more plots in a play, mixed comedy and tragedy, and freely switched settings. Jonson, unusually among these playwrights, referred to the unities in the prologue to his Volpone (first performed 1605/06).
Unity of action : a play should have one action that it follows, with minimal subplots.
unity of time: the action in a play should occur over a period of no more than 24 hours.
unity of place: a play should exist in a single physical space and should not attempt to compress geography, nor should the stage represent more than one place.
Now, according to our definition, Tragedy is an imitation of an action that is complete, and whole, and of a certain magnitude[1] … As therefore, in the other imitative arts, the imitation is one when the object imitated is one, so the plot, being an imitation of an action, must imitate one action and that a whole, the structural union of the parts being such that, if any one of them is displaced or removed, the whole will be disjointed and disturbed. For a thing whose presence or absence makes no visible difference, is not an organic part of the whole.[2]Epic poetry agrees with Tragedy in so far as it is an imitation in verse of characters of a higher type. They differ, in that Epic poetry admits but one kind of metre, and is narrative in form. They differ, again, in their length: for Tragedy endeavours, as far as possible, to confine itself to a single revolution of the sun, or but slightly to exceed this limit; whereas the Epic action has no limits of time.[3]
[2] Tragedy :
Greek dramatist such as Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides. In the subsequent two thousand years and more many new and artistically effective types of serious plots ending in a catastrophe have been developed types that Aristotle had no way of foreseeing. The many attempts to stretch Aristotle's analysis to apply to later tragic forms serve merely to blur his critical categories and to obscure important differences among diverse types of plays, all of which have proved to be dramatically effective. When flexibility managed, however Aristotle's discussion apply in some part to many tragic plots and his analytic concepts serve as a suggestive starting point for identifying the difffferentiae of various non Aristotelian modes of tragic construction.
Aristotle defined tragedy as " the limitation of an action that is serious and also as having magnitude, complete in itself, " in the medium of poetic language and in the manner of dramatic rather than of narrative presentation, involving " Incidents arousing pity and fear, wherewith to accomplish the catharsis of such emotions. " precisely how to interpret Aristotle's catharsis which in Greek signifies " purgation" ,or " purification, " or both is much disputed. On two matters, however, a number of commentators agree. Aristotle in the first place sets out to account for the undeniable, though remarkable, fact that many tragic representation of suffering and defeat leave an audience feeling not depressed, but relieved, or even exalted.
Accordingly,Aristotle says that the tragic hero will most effectively Evoke both our pity and terror if he is neither thoroughly good not thoroughly bad but a mixture of both; and also that this tragic effect will be stronger if the hero is " better than we are, " in the sense that he is of higher than ordinary moral worth. Such a man is exhibited as suffering a change in fortune from happiness to misery because of his mistaken choice of an action, to which he is led to by his hamartia his " error of judgment " or as it is often though less literally translated his tragic flaw. The tragic hero, like Oedipus in Sophocles. Oedipus the king, moves us to pity because since he is not an evil man, his misfortune is greater than he deserves; but he moves us also to fear, because we recognise similar possibilities of error in our own lesser and fallible selves.Aristotle grounds his analysis of " the very structure and incidents of the play " on the same principle, the plot, he says, which will most effectively evoke " tragic pity and fear " is one in which the events develop through complication to a catastrophe in which there occurs (often by anagnorisis or discovery of facts hitherio unknown to the hero)
Scenean tragedy was written to be recited rather than acted but to English playwrights, who thought that these tragedies had been intended for the stage, they provided the model for an organized five act play with a complex plot and an elabotely formal style of dialogue. Senecean drama in the Elizabethan Age, had two main lines of development. One of these consisted of academic tragedies written in close imitation of the Senecean model including the use of a chorus and usually constructed according to the rules of the three unities which had been elaborated by Italian critics of the sixteenth century.
[3] Chorus :
Defination: In the ancient Greek theater, the chorus was a rowdy bunch. They were the peanut gallery that sang, danced, and made comments about the action on stage. They also gave you key information about stuff happening off stage—like battles and sea voyages.
Among the ancient Greek the chorus was a group of people wearing masks, who sang or chanted verses while performing dance like maneuvers at religious festivals. A similar chorus played a part in Greek tragedies, where they served mainly as commentators on the dramatic actions .Although the historical origins of Greek drama are unclear it may be said it had relevance to religion, art and to the love of expression and perceptive storytelling in general. The origins of the chorus in particular may have stemmed out of ancient rites and rituals with elements of song and dance, and most importantly – the gathering of people.
In order to understand the function of the chorus one must remember that at the origins of Greek drama there was only one actor; and even at later dates no more than three actors occupied the stage, each of whom may have played several roles. As there was this clear need to distract the audience while the actors went off-stage to change clothes and costumes, and perhaps prepare for their next role, the function of the chorus may have had more to do with practicality, than with artistic or philosophical considerations.Aside from the practical the chorus would have had numerous functions in providing a comprehensive and continuous artistic unit. Firstly, according to a view accepted by many scholars, the chorus would provide commentary on actions and events that were taking place before the audience. By doing this the chorus would create a deeper and more meaningful connection between the characters and the audience. Secondly, the chorus would allow the playwright to create a kind of literary complexity only achievable by a literary device controlling the atmosphere and expectations of the audience. Thirdly, the chorus would allow the playwright to prepare the audience for certain key moments in the storyline, build up momentum or slow down the tempo; he could underline certain elements and downplay others. Such usage of the choral structure-making functions may be observed throughout many classical plays but may be more obvious in some than in others.The chorus may have distinguished itself by an elaborate use of language or style, varying the voice of reason or that of emotion depending on occasion and the intention of the playwright. More importantly though, the chorus could have represented the prevalent views of the contemporary society holding up certain moral and cultural standards – much like the media does for modern people throughout their daily lives.
Thank you...........
No comments:
Post a Comment