Theory of Dhvani by Anandvardhana.

anandvardhana

        ‘Dhvyanyaloka’ of Anandvardhana is with Bharata’s ‘Natyashastra’ the most central theory of literature in Indian tradition. Dhvyanyaloka itself is a huge compendium of poetry and poetic style. It refers to numerous views; scholars and poetic texts.  The theory proposed by Anandvardhana is the name of Dhvani, which means the suggestive quality of poetic language. His most important contribution is in the term of turning the focus of critical discussion from the outward linguistic style and poetic embelishment to the more complex issue of linguistic structure in poetry. According to Anandvardhana, it is this structure which is the total effect of the suggestive quality of language. It distinguishes poetry from the ordinary usage of language.

         The Sanskrit Grammarian used this term to refer to the sound. They spoke two kinds of sounds; Prakrit Dhvani and Vaikrit Dhvani. The actual sound of the word spoken belonged to the vaikrit Dhvani. It includes all the articulation depending on the speaker. Prakrita Dhvani refers to the pattern of norms. Later Anandvardhana distinguished between literal meaning and ordinary meaning of the words. Word has a suggestive power which is called Dhvani.

          According to Anandvardhana, Dhvani is a kind of suggestion; an echo one hears in good poetry, meaning is not explicit but hidden. It echoes after a statement has been made. Thus Dhvani is suggested in poetry. The explicit meaning is commonly understood because it is a direct statement, while in Dhvani it is hidden and implicit. It is said that the art lies in concealment. Anandvardhana was an advocate of Rasa but, he concluded that Rasa should be expressed through Dhvani. Thus he considers suggestion, the indirectly evoked meaning as characteristic preparedly of literary disclosure. Such features separate the literary disclosure from rational discourses.

           Dhvani becomes principle that explains – the structure and the function of other major elements of literature. They are Rasa, Alankara, Riti, and Gundosha. In ‘Dhvyanyaloka’, Anandvardhana has presented a structural analysis of indirect literary meaning. He has classified the different kinds of suggestion. He has also defined the function and the nature of suggestion. He used to term Dhvani to designate the universal suggestion. In ‘Dhvyanyaloka’ he says that – “Kavyasy aatma dhavani” (Dhvani is the soul of poetry) Dhvani has two parts Grammar and vyanjana. According to Anandvardhana Dhvani denotes – (1) the sound structure of words (2) the semantic aspect of Shabda (3) Process of Suggestion. Thus Dhvani theory is the theory of meaning and symbolism

           Anandvardhana proposes the three levels of  meaning: (1) Abhidha (2) Laxana and (3) Vyanjana. The tree levels of meaning are very important in poetry, as they can evoke Rasa. There are Sthayibhavas which can be produced in spectator, a single feeling and pleasure one. It is generated by the inferaction of sthayibhavas which are the mental states of human being human. Anandvardhana says that says that Dhvani has the power of affecting sthayibhavas and producing Rasa in heart of readers and spectacles. That is why Dhvani and Rasa are connected closely.

         Anandvardhana was perhaps the greatest of all theories of textual symbolism. Dhvani is the theory of meaning of symbolism. This principle leads to the poetry of suggestion. Anandvardhana proposes the three levels of meaning: (1) Abhidha (2) Laxana and (3) Vyanjana. Besides the literal meaning of the poetry there is another non contextual meaning is dependent on the evoking and context of suggestion (vyanjana) may be communicated through the words, sentences, disclosures, even sounds. The quality of creative writing increases in proportion to the Dhvani involved.

       

We shell conclude with the view of Mammata in ‘Kavyaprakasha’  “The poetry in which the suggested meaning dominates the expressed, is the poetry of the best kind, called Dhvani by the learned.” Thus, the focus on meaning and the types of meaning in poetry must be considered as the major contributing of Anandvardhana in Indian literary theory. Dhvani therefore has both evaluated and strengthened the rasa and poetry.

The origin of Natyashastra

                  The Nāṭyaśāstra is the world's oldest treatise on performing arts. It is more than 2,500 years old. This encyclopedic work on art by Bharata muni is divided into 36 chapters and contains more than 6,000 verses. The first chapter of the Nāṭyaśāstra gives a semi-historical and mostly fictional account of the creation of the work. This is how Bharata narrates it thus:

                   At the end of the kṛtayuga and at the on-set of the Tretāyuga, people on earth got addicted to base sentiments (ग्राम्य-धर्म) such as excessive desire, greed, jealousy, and anger and found their state of happiness mixed with sorrow. So the devas, with Indra leading them, approached Brahma (the deity of creation) and requested for audio-visual entertainment (क्रीडनीयकमिच्छामो दृश्यं श्रव्यं च यद्भवेत्). They also requested that this be made accessible to all people from all places. This indeed is the need of all people of all times – respite from the world which is filled with conflicting emotions.

The following five verses speak about the creation of Nāṭyaśāstra by Brahma:

धर्म्यमर्थ्यं यशस्यं च सोपदेश्यं ससङ्ग्रहम् ।

भविष्यतश्च लोकस्य सर्वकर्मानुदर्शकम् ॥

"It will contain good counsel for people in their pursuits of dharma, material needs, and fame. It will guide the world in the future too in all their endeavors."

सर्वशास्त्रार्थसंपन्नं सर्वशिल्पप्रवर्तकम् ।

नाट्याख्यं पञ्चमवेदं सेतिहासं करोम्यहम् ॥

"It will contain the essence of all the śāstra-s and will be the foundation for all arts. I shall create Nāṭyaveda, the fifth Veda along with the itihāsas."

एवं सङ्कल्प्य भगवान् सर्ववेदाननुस्मरन् ।

नाट्यवेदं ततश्चक्रे चतुर्वेदाङ्गसम्भवम् ॥

Having taken a decision thus, the deity recalled all the Vedas and created the Nāṭyaveda, which is born out of the four Vedas

जग्राह पाठ्यमृग्वेदात्सामभ्यो गीतमेव च।

यजुर्वेदादभिनयान् रसानाथर्वणादपि ॥

He took the lyrics (पाठ्य) from the Ṛgveda, the music (गीत) from the Sāmaveda, the language of gestures (अभिनय) from the Yajurveda and the aesthetic experience (रस) from Atharvaveda

वेदोपवेदैः सम्बद्धो नाट्यवेदो महात्मना ।

एवं भगवता सृष्टो ब्रह्मणा सर्ववेदिना ॥

Nāṭyaveda, which is closely linked to the Vedas and the Upavedas was thus created by the all-knowing Brahma, the omniscient

          This episode establishes a context for the creation of the Nāṭyaśāstra and shouldn’t be taken literally. However, it shows that the creation of such a great treatise was an outcome of combining different theoretical and artistic mediums. The Nāṭyaśāstra is just a new form given to different disciplines that already existed – old wine in a new bottle. As is the case with most Indian śāstra-s, Bharata’s Nāṭyaśāstra is a descriptive work on the art forms which existed during his times. The art-forms were neither ‘created’ by Bharata nor does he prescribe a set of rules which need to be followed for all times and places. He even suggests in that the art forms must dynamically adapt to the tastes of people of different places and at different times. This is evident in the several deśi art forms which have evolved with regional variations based on the mārga set by Bharata.

        The structural aspects of form such as lyrics, music and the language of gestures which are required to communicate the content to evoke an aesthetic experience (rasa) are all dealt with in detail in the Nāṭyaśāstra, i.e., it caters to both form and content. Moreover, it guarantees the fulfillment of the four-fold aspects of human-pursuit, i.e., the puruṣārtha–s धर्म, अर्थ, and काम, and also gives us a glimpse of the experience of Bliss (मोक्ष).

          Brahma then asks Indra to instruct the devas to bring the Nāṭyaśāstra into practice. He adds that the Nāṭyaveda must only be passed on to those who are skillful, learned, mature, and willing to work hard. These indeed are the qualities which are to be expected of people who would like to study and practice the Nāṭyaśāstra even to this day. Indra finds the devas incapable of comprehending, assimilating, and practicing the art and feels that the sages who are well-versed in the Vedas are the ones who would be capable to do so. Brahma then instructs Bharata in the Nāṭyaveda and gives the responsibility to him and his hundred sons to propagate and practice the same. Bharata teaches his sons and assigns different roles to them.

         Bharata created the three dramatic styles (वृत्ति) – the verbal (भारती), the subtle (सात्त्वती) and the energetic (आरभटी) and informed Brahma of his work. Brahma then suggested that he pick up the graceful style (कैशिकी-वृत्ति) from the dance of Śiva, which is made up of aṅgahāra-s and filled with bhāva and rasa. As this style could not be effectively practiced by humans alone, Brahma created apsaras, the celestial damsels from his mind, who were skillful in embellishing drama and he told them to assist Bharata. He assigned Svāti and his disciples to play on musical instruments and gandharvas such as Nārada to sing songs. Thus was the art of nātya created out of the existing art forms. The antiquity of the art forms can also be perceived as it is said that major deities such as Shiva and the devas were well-versed in them. The major deities and the Vedas are thought to have existed from times immemorial according to sanātana-dharma.

         Brahma suggested to Bharata that the Indra-dhvajotsava, the festival in the honor of Indra’s killing of demons, would be a suitable occasion to put together a performance employing the principles of the Nāṭyaśāstra. Bharata begins the performance with the नान्दि, an auspicious benediction and devises to portray the popular episode of the samudra-mathana where the daityas (demons) were subdued by the devas (deities). The devas, pleased with the performance give rewards to Bharata. Indra gives him his auspicious banner and Brahma, a kuṭilaka (a curved stick to be used by the vidūṣaka, the clown). Varuṇa, the deity of water and cosmic order gives him a golden pitcher, suitable to drink water with. Sūrya, the sun deity gives him an umbrella, which gives shade from the sun. Vāyu, the deity of wind, gives him a fan. Śiva, as his very name suggests, rewards him with success. Viṣṇu rewards him with a lion-seat. Sarasvatī grants him competence for visual arts.

         The daityas (mainly the vighnas), who were also audience to the staging of the play by Bharata, took it too realistically and forgetting that it is was merely an artistic portrayal of a historic event, they disrupted the play. Angered by this, Indra hurled his flag-staff at the daityas and smashed their assault. Since then, the flag-staff is called the ‘jarjara,’ deriving from the Sanskrit word for ‘smashed’, ‘जर्जरीकृतं.’ The mythical staff is even to this day used in its modified form by actors and is worshiped before a traditional stage-play, with the belief that it wards off evil (vighna).

       Through this episode, Bharata subtly cautions connoisseurs about their responsibility of having a detached attitude while witnessing a play or any work of art in general. Emotional over-involvement and extrapolation of the incidents to everyday life will cause harm to both the art and the connoisseurs. More philosophically, when the bhavas do not get elevated to the level of rasa in a connoisseur’s mind due to his lack of maturity, art cannot be enjoyed.

Character sketch of Raina Petkoff in 'Arms and the man',

          Raina is a protegonist. She one of Shaw's most delightful heroines from his early plays. In the plai ‘Arms and the Man’ Shaw presents her as a being a romantically idealistic person in love with the noble ideal of war and love; yet, she is typical middle class in its philistinism and ridiculous in aptitude. In fact she has extra ordinary charm but her attitude towards life is abnormal. In the bigininig and the middle she is presented as to only sing a song of romantic nation and regarding life and things.

Her Romantic Idealism:

      In beginning we find that Raina lives in realms of romantic idealism. She is fear from the grim world of reality. She adores Sergius as an ideal hero. She loves Sergius as he is one of the Knights of the Ancient days of chivalry. She expresses her love to Sergius by addressing him – “My Lord!.. My King!..” when she get the news of Sergius’ attack on the enemy, she is overwhelmed (Abhibhut - in Gujarati). Her concept of war, love and marriage is deeply romantic.

Like Medieval Madonna:

        Besides being Excessively romantic and idealistic, she is poetic too. As she likes to live in the world of dreamy idealism, she thinks that her own beauty is a part of nature……

     Character of Raina in ‘Arms and the Man’ is presented as a medieval Madonna, whose only aim is only to worship and adore a hero romantically. When she is with the Sergius, she find him as ‘a hero and worship him’ She feels deep love for Sergius as she says-

     “And you have never been absent from my thoughts for a moment. (Very solemnly.) Sergius: I think we two have found the higher love. When I think of you, I feel that I could never do a base deed, or think an ignoble thought.

………

“I trust you. I love you. You will never disappoint me,…..”

      In the beginning of the play. She contempt to Bluntschli. She mokes him and calls him ‘a chocolate cream soldier’. But gradually he realize his true worth. At the end of the play She is happy with her ‘a chocolate cream soldier!’ and accepts him as a husband.

Having a typical Womanly Quality:

        Raina has all qualities and weakness of woman. She is a snob and proud to be a Petkoff; and so she has feeling of superiority. She is very much worried to appear civilized and fashionable and posing. She is spoiled child. She is jealous when her mother praise Sergius; and in Looka’s affair her jealousy clearly seen. She has all, the venoms of viper and ferocity of tigress. She is showy and pompous, artificial and hypocrite  also; yet dignified at end.

Alert minded Person:

       Raina, after being romantic and poetic, she is alert minded person. She is able to adjust herself in the change circumstances. Her alertness is responsible to get herself became a realist from a romantic. At the end of the play, we find Raina as a shrewd and wise. She is able to recognize the hollowness of her romantic attitude toward love and war. She is able to recognize  Sergius and reject him. She is also able to realize true worth of Bluntschli and accepts him. She is brave and courageous. She is not afraid of when a pistol aimed at her. She is very tender hearted and pitiful to the persons who are suffering.

Conclusion:

       In short we can say that, Raina is perhaps a combination of all the above qualities. She is romantic, for example, when she remembers an opera (Verdi's Ernani) in which a member of the aristocracy shelters an enemy; thus, she shelters Bluntschli, since it is "chivalrous" to protect him. She does possess exalted ideals, but she is also pleased to step down from her pedestal and enjoy life directly; finally, in spite of her aristocratic background, she marries a person with "the soul of a hotel keeper."

Charecter sketch of Bluntschli in Shaws 'Arms and the man'.

Real Hero of the play:

       Captain Bluntschli is  the most interesting and impressive character in ‘Arms and the Man’. He  enters the first and  dominates the play throughout to a happy ending with marriage to Raina. He is not only a hero of the play but a mouthpiece of the writer. He is a simple and balanced man who can view and think without prejudice.

         Captain Bluntschli is  the chivalrous and a perfect Gentleman. He has soft corner for Raina, yet he makes an attempt to make compromise between Raina and Sergius. He does not like to take advantage of immature girl, but when he realize that Raina is grown up he comes forward.

Only a realist in the Play:

         Captain Bluntschli is a thirty-four-year-old and of medium height. Though he has no distinguishing features, he is attractive. His quick and clear eyes are indicative of his sharp intelligence. He is good ang gentlemanly manners. He is the only realist who sees through the absurd romanticism of war. Captain Bluntschli is a professional soldier, trained in waging a war in a highly efficient, businesslike manner. These methods allow Sergius to refer to his ability to wage a war as being low-class commercialism, devoid of any honor and nobility. Bluntschli would agree with this appraisal since he sees nothing romantic about the violent and senseless slaughter of human beings, even though it is his profession.

         He never mistakes unreal for real, the shadow for substance, the false for true. He lives in present, He takes the news of his father’s death coolly, he  agrees to merry Raina, he never quarrels with anybody. His love for Raina is different from that of Sergius. Sergius has romantic feeling while Bluntschli has realistic sense of love.

Wise clever and Intelligent:

         When Bluntschli first hears of Sergius' cavalry charge and refuses to view Sergius' actions in any way except as a foolhardy display of false heroics, he reveals his complete practicality and subjects himself to Raina's charge that he is "incapable of appreciating honor and courage." Yet, his questioning of Sergius' actions causes Raina to question Sergius' qualities.

      His appearant lightness covers hie shrewdness. He is wise clever and intelligent. He is full of wisdom and practical sense. He is sincere and modest. He takes fancy for Raina and keeps it up to the end of the play.

Practical Person :

         Being a professional soldier, he adopts a practical and wise view (his name is a combination of Blunt, plus the ending, which in Swiss means "sweet" or "endearing" or "lovable"). Given the choice of being killed or saving his life by climbing up a balcony and into a lady's bedroom, he chooses unheroically not to be killed. Practically, he knows that a dead professional soldier is of no value to anyone; thus, he saves his life by the most expedient method available — he hides in a lady's bedchamber. Likewise, given the choice of killing someone or of not going hungry, he chooses to eat rather than to kill; thus, he carries chocolates rather than cartridges, a highly unromantic but very practical thing to do.

        Thus we can say that he is practical and never annoyed person.  Everybody impressed by his practical out look. He is shrewed judge of man, charcter, situation and things. He is the first person to see through the Raina. He is adventures and romantic. He joins army for his love for romance and adventure, yet his realistic and practical beahviour is such that he hardly seems adventures and romantic.

Well balanced between emotion and reason:

        Bluntschli is unemotional and does not get excited easily. He meets all crisis calmly and philosophically. He is well balanced between emotion and reason, sentiment and thoughts, impulse and determination, intellect abd insight. He is witty and humours, but in reality he is serious. He is a true soldier in battle field. He is An honest and commercial traveler in trade market of human life.

Full of Humor Sense:

          He has wonderful sense of Humor, he laughs at the romanticism of Raina.  We find his sense of humor when he was talkin with Raina. Here are some of them –

“Bless you, dear lady. You can always tell an old soldier by the inside of his holsters and cartridge boxes. The young ones carry pistols and cartridges; the old ones, grub. Thank you.”

…….

“Ugh! Don't do things so suddenly, gracious lady. Don't revenge yourself because I frightened you just now.”

……

“You haven't been under fire for three days as I have. I can stand two days without shewing it much; but no man can stand three days: I'm as nervous as a mouse. (He sits down on the ottoman, and takes his head in his hands.) Would you like to see me cry?”

Conclusion:

       In short we can say that Blintschli is typical Shavian  hero (hero of G B Shaw).  He is Prectical man who has no illution about life and things. He is not affected by the romantic glory of war. He alos believes that love is folly and marriage is biological necessary.

Charecter sketch of Sergius Saranoff in Shaws 'Arms and the man'.

Brave soldier:

       Sergius is brave soldier. In his charge, he wins attack at the battle of Slivnitza. He has romantic view about war. He joined army not to earn livelihood, but to win glory and heroism. He has intelligence and common sense. He is like real rebel. He resigns his post in army, when he realizes injustice with him. 

Intemperate and imbalanced person:

      Sergius is Intemperate and imbalanced person by nature. He is very impatient. His dream was to get military honors, but when he failed to get it he resigns. He is excessive in all aspect of life. He has distorted notions of dignity and prosperity. He thinks that greatness does not lie in apologizing. His vanity is the result of his self conceitedness. He talks higher love; and the same time, he flirts with Looka.

Psychologically Complex Character:

       Sergius is Psychologically Complex Character. His ideas and actions are not reconcilable. He is living anomaly and contradictions in qualities. His power of introspection realizes that he is bundle of contradiction. He is not able to find his real self.

Hollowness of his higher romantic love:

        As we find that Sergius has higher romantic love for Raina, and he worship her as goddess. Addresses her with – “My Queen!”, “My lady! My Saint!”, but behind the back of Raina, he flirts with Looka. He shows that his love to Raina is platonic and sexless, but such love is like the horns of rabbit. He seeks comfort in Looka’s physical love. His romantic love is given away to the realistic love. His love for Looka is based upon passion. He believes that a man tried of a higher love; it must have woman’s heart, as well as her body to fulfill biological needs. This is conquest of passion and reality over romanticism.

Biggest fool in the Play:

       In the whole play Sergius behaves like a fool. Because Shaw believes that every soldiers are stupid. After he returns from the war, his illusion of romanticism about war was broken, as he says to Catherine – “Soldering is the coward's art of attacking mercilessly when you are strong and keeping out of harm's way when you are weak. That is the whole secret of successful fighting.”

His illusion of love still he has, because of his ideas are fanciful and romantic, but he could not digest the higher love of Raina and he finds pleasure in Looka.

Conclusion:

       In Short we can say that, Sergius is an interesting character, and a good subject for analytical study. Shaw has said that his attempt was to create comic Hemlet. Actually Shaw wanted to prick the bubble of Romance of war and marriage. Sergius is molded on Byron’s heroes.

Plato's Charges against Poetry

           Plato was a great critic and a philosopher. He believed in ‘Art for life’s shake’. Plato has given remarkable contribution to the field of literary criticism. According to Plato the ideas are true and real. His views on Poets and Poetry were expressed in ‘The republic’. Plato was basically a philosopher and a moralist. He was worried about the good of individual and the state.  According to Plato – “a poet is an ideal singer of an empty day.” Plato believed that the poet’s activities were harmful to the individual as well as to the society. Plato exposes his views on the poets and poetry because they create only illusions.

Plato puts some charges against poets and poetry. They are as under.

1. Poetry is an imitation of an imitation.

       Plato’s fundamental objection against poetry is that it is an imitation of an imitation. Poetry is twice removed from the reality. To explain it he gives very famous example of carpenter’s chair. In ‘The Republic’ Plato says that “ideas are the ultimate reality”. Carpenter first gets an idea to make a chair, then he shapes a chair (it is imitation of idea), then a painter draws that chair (it is imitation of imitation). So poetry is merely an imitation. And when a poet imitates something then he is not aware from real thing. So poetry becomes trivial and worthless thing. It is only the illusion of the idea.  It does not the real truth. Thus poetry is not good for the individual.

2. Poetry deals with the inferior part of the human nature.

      The charge against poetry is that it deals with the basic aspects of human nature. According to the Plato- 'epics and poetry with cunning and lusty heroes and violent Gods should not be taught.' poetry is more about the inferior part of human nature. The poet is imitative and his poetry is not true or real. It does not create good effect on the soul because it is about some baser passions of human nature.

3. There is no poetic justice on Poetry.

Plato was having high moral values. So obviously he demands righteousness in literature and art According to the Plato – ‘a poet deals with the virtue and vice similarly, because of such dealing there is no poetic justice.’  Plato observed in the Greek literature that many evil persons being happy and good persons unhappy. And he say that -“In literature many evil livers are happy and many righteous men are unhappy ; and wrong doing is often profitable while hones dealing is beneficial to one’s neighbor, but damaging to one’s self.”

              As a firm moralist Plato can’t digest such injustice in literature. According to him poetry feeds, waters and nourishes the lower and unhealthy emotions and passions. To maintain morality in mind one should be stable and rational. And it is true that sentimentality and rationality never walks together.   Thus Plato found injustice in poetry and literature. So he raised a charge against poetry is being without Poetic Justice.

4. Poetry is not safe guide for the human being

The fourth charge against poetry is very serious. According to Plato Poetry is not safe guide for the human being. He believes that poetry appeals emotions rather than a reason. Poetry makes the reason prisoner. Poetry feeds and waters the passions instead of drying them up. Thus poetry is not welcomed in an ideal state. 

    Plato was dreaming for strong and ideal state. For it all citizens should have developed mind and intellect. But poetry makes people emotional and it is harmful for good administration.

5. Poet does not write poetry  in conscious  mind

According to the Plato the poet is between a prophet and a mad man. The poet is not an ordinary human being because he is inspired by the muse. This shows that the poet is like a prophet. A poet writes only when he is inspired. This position is between the prophet and a mad man. Such a person is more harmful and its Activities also.

6. Poetry creats very harmful effect on children’s mind.

Plato wrote in ‘The Republic’ that poetry don’t give any contribution in planting morality in children. Instead of it, it puts evil in children. Poetry does very harmful effect on children’s mind.

  When children read poetry, it is misinterpreted by them the hero or the villain can make any effect upon them. So Plato says that Homer’s epic were part of studies. Hero’s of epic were lusty, cunning and cruel. Even gods were portrayed very badly. Gods were shown fighting among themselves. When we teach a children god’s such stories. They find bad effect in their mind.

            Plato says that we should not tell even a word about war to children. They are having strong impression of their teachers. So in the education if teachers say them about war and violence then they get wrong impression in their mind.

       In Short we can say that Plato was an ideal Person and having high moral values. He wanted to create an Ideal state and thus he favored only ideal Activities only. He was not always against poet and poetry, bet he was against imaginative poet and poetry.          

Aristotle’s Definition of Tragedy and its Elements:

         It is clearly seen that Aristotle was more interested in tragedy rather than comedy or epic. In his Poetics, he compares tragedy to such other metrical forms as comedy and epic. Aristotle identifies tragedy as the most refined version of poetry dealing with lofty matters He traces a brief and speculative history of tragedy as it evolved from dithyrambic hymns in praise of the god Dionysus. He defines tragedy as – 

“Tragedy then is an imitation of an action, that is serious, complete and of a certain magnitude, the language embellished with each kind artistic ornaments, the several kind being found of in separate part of the play, in form of action not narrative, through the pity and fear, effecting a proper purigation of these harmful emotions…”

       Aristotle’s Definition of Tragedy can be divided in to two parts – the first part of the definition deals with the nature of the tragedy which including first three clauses. The first part of the definition discusses the following three aspects:

(i) The Object: The nature of tragedy is defined by what is imitated.

(ii) The Medium: By that in which imitation occurs.

(iii) The manner: How the imitation occurs.

        The second part of the definition describes the function of tragedy. The function of tragedy is ‘Katharsis’ (catharsis), which Aristotle did not care to explain it in detail.

        Aristotle says that tragedy is an imitation of an action. The action of tragedy should be serious and complete and of certain magnitude. The language of tragedy should be embellished (decorated) with the each kind of ornaments. Its various ingredients (components) should be traced separately. The form of tragedy should not be narrative. The tragedy should be presented in such a way that it can arouse pity and fear. It should be capable of effecting proper ‘catharsis’ or a purgation of fear and pity.

        Thus, Aristotle’s definition of tragedy indicated several elements of tragedy. According to him a tragedy consists of six elements. They are as under:

(1) Plot   (2)   Character   (3)   Thought   (4)   Diction   (5) Songs/Melody   (6)   Spectacle

Let’s discuss elements of tragedy in brief:

Plot:

Aristotle has regarded the plot as the most important I tragedy. Plot means the arrangement of the incidents or situation. He says that tragedy is an imitation but not a men but an imitation of action and life, of happiness and misery. And life consists of action, and its end is a mode of activity, not a quality. Without plot there cannot be tragedy.  And so Aristotle says that –

 “Plot is the soul of the tragedy.”

Aristotle goes on to discuss the structure of the ideal tragic plot and spends several chapters on its requirements. He says that the plot must be a complete whole — with a definite beginning, middle, and end — and its length should be such that the spectators can comprehend without difficulty both its separate parts and its overall unity. Moreover, the plot requires a single central theme in which all the elements are logically related to demonstrate the change in the protagonist's fortunes, with emphasis on the dramatic causation and probability of the events. In short plot must contain a powerful appeal to the emotion of pity and fear. The plot is the first principle in tragedy.

Character: 

character determines men's qualities, but it is their action that makes them happy or wretched. The purpose of action in the tragedy, therefore, is not the representation of character: character comes in as contributing to the action. Hence the incidents and the plot are the end of the tragedy; and the end is the chief thing of all. Without action there cannot be a tragedy; there may be one without character. . . . The plot, then, is the first principle, and, as it were, the soul of a tragedy: character holds the second place.

Aristotle has given four types of hero and the characteristics:

 a) A good man-coming to bad end,

 b) A bad man-coming to good end,

 c) A bad man-coming to bad end,

 d) A rather good man-coming to bad end. 

      He gives the idea about error of judgment. Just one weakness in the hero's character makes his downfall. That character's misfortune effects the entire people staying round about him. Aristotle terms it as “Hamartia”. Later A.C. Bradley translates it as “Tragic Flaw”. Thus, the character is second important element of tragedy. The character of tragedy must be good and appropriate; character should be real and they may be like reality in action

Thought:

      Concerning Thought, we may assume what is said in the Rhetoric, to which inquiry the subject more strictly belongs. Under Thought is included every effect which has to be produced by speech, the subdivisions being,--proof and refutation; the excitation of the feelings, such as pity, fear, anger, and the like; the suggestion of importance or its opposite. Now, it is evident that the dramatic incidents must be treated from the same points of view as the dramatic speeches, when the object is to evoke the sense of pity, fear, importance, or probability. The only difference is, that the incidents should speak for themselves without verbal exposition; while the effects aimed at in speech should be produced by the speaker, and as a result of the speech. For what were the business of a speaker, if the Thought were revealed quite apart from what he says?

Diction:

       Next, as regards Diction. One branch of the inquiry treats of the Modes of Utterance. But this province of knowledge belongs to the art of Delivery and to the masters of that science. It includes, for instance,--what is a command, a prayer, a statement, a threat, a question, an answer, and so forth. To know or not to know these things involves no serious censure upon the poet's art. For who can admit the fault imputed to Homer by Protagoras,--that in the words, 'Sing, goddess, of the wrath,' he gives a command under the idea that he utters a prayer? For to tell some one to do a thing or not to do it is, he says, a command. We may, therefore, pass this over as an inquiry that belongs to another art, not to poetry.

Songs/Melody:

       Song is one of these embellishments. Aristotle says that the chorus should have importance like the actor. They should integrate into the play like an actor. It should have contribution to the plot of the play. Its purpose is also to evoke or intensify the emotion of the audience.  It was a necessary part in Greek drama.

Spectacle:

       The spectacle is the pleasure of tragedy. Spectacle is the overall visual appearance of the stage and the actor. ''the production of spectacular effects depends more on the art of the stage machinist than on that of the port.''  It is related with the stage performance. But he also says that those who rely on spectacle create a sense which is not of the terrible, but only of the monstrous effect.