The plot is the soul of tragedy and character holds the second place '. Discuss.
Or ' A tragedy is possible without character but there can be no tragedy without plot '. Discuss.
Relative, the importance of plot and character - The relative or comparative importance of plot and character in a tragedy can be studied as follows -
1. Primacy of plot: The Soul of Tragedy -
Aristotle has given a primary place to plot in a tragedy. In fact, he defines tragedy given the importance of the plot. He says: " Tragedy is an imitation, not of man, but of an action and of life. " According to Aristotle, action which determines character is nothing but plot. In this way, to Aristotle, a character is subordinate to the plot. To him, the plot is the soul of tragedy.
He says: " The plot is the first principle, and, as it were, the soul of tragedy. " According to Prof. Else, plot is " the structure of the play ", just as the soul is the " structure of a man. " According to Aristotle, tragedy is the imitation not of human beings but of action and life. The stage figures do not act to represent their characters but they include their characters for the sake of their actions.
Thus, the plot is given an animating quality. S. H. Butcher is of the view that this analogy between the plot and the soul of a tragedy has a deeper meaning. A play is called a living organism and the plot is called its soul. It is the animal world, soul has a primary place. It is the life-giving principle. So is the plot in tragedy.
The plot is the starting point and also the basis of the play. It is the plot which gives inner meaning to the play, as the soul gives the inner meaning to the body. That is why, Aristotle goes to the extent of saying that: " Without action, there cannot be tragedy, there may be tragedy without character. " Thus, Aristotle has given primacy to the plot in tragedy.
2. Confirmations of Aristotle's position -
After speaking about the primacy of the plot in a tragedy. Aristotle pauses for four confirmations of his position. These are as follows -
( i ) Tragedy is possible without character but not without action -
Aristotle's first assertion is that tragedy is possible without character but not without action. Here by ' action ', Aristotle means " process not " activity ", According to him, a play without action is a play in which nothing happens.
In such a play, there would be no difference between the beginning and the end. On the contrary, a play with action has a definite form and agents who perform the action. This fact is confirmed by Aristotle by two examples.
He says: " Modern poets generally write tragedies that are characterless. " Here " Modern Poets " may be the " experimental poets " and the new ones. The second example is cited from painting. The existence of the paintings of Zeuxis proves that imitation is possible without character.
( ii ) Character without Action will not Achieve the End of tragedy -
Aristotle further says that character without action will not achieve the end of tragedy A group of speeches that show character is not, in itself, a drama. They remain only " set pieces " till they are incorporated into a plot. We can agree with the view of Aristotle for instance, if we choose six soliloquies from Shakespeare's plays, they will make very interesting reading. But no one would call them a drama.
( iii ) Reversal ( peripeteia ) and Recognition ( Anagnorisis ) -
Another requirement of tragedy is the recognition and reversal of situations which are parts of the plot. These are powerful means of securing the tragic effect. This is because they are the parts of the plot rather than the characterisation. Reversal is a change of fortune in the action of the play to the opposite state of affairs. Recognition is a change from ignorance to knowledge brought about by the incidents of the plot. Both confirm the idea that the plot is more important than the character.
( iv ) Historical Confirmation -
The fourth assertion of Aristotle is historical in nature. Aristotle says that those who attempt to write tragedies can perfect diction and character before the construction of the incidents. This is the case of the early poets.
3. Aristotle's meanings of " plot " and " character "
Before discussing the value of Aristotle's views, it is essential to try to understand the meanings of the term " plot " and " character " as attached to them by Aristotle. By " plot " Aristotle understands the arrangement of incidents.
It is the way in which action works itself. Similarly, Aristotle's meaning of " character " is different from the traditional meaning of the term. For us it means a dramatic personage like Hamlet or Macbeth. But for Aristotle, character is the synthesis of " Ethos " and ' dianoi " Ethos " means the moral side of man, while " diagnosis " means the intellectual aspect of the human being. Thus, to Aristotle, the term " plot " and " character " have their own meanings.
Contrasting opinions of various critics Aristotle called the plot the soul of tragedy and gave it the primary place in it. Various critics have expressed various opinions regarding this fact. A few of them are as follows: First, Butcher agrees that in the modern age, the character is given more importance in novels and dramas. The Absurd drama and the stream-of-consciousness novels are examples of this fact.
However, Butcher does not oppose Aristotle. On the contrary, he asserts that plot and character must be given their places as suggested by Aristotle in The Poetics. Scott - James does not agree with the views of Aristotle completely. According to him, an action without character would be a contradiction in terms.
The plot presupposes both characters and thoughts. So by drawing a distinction between plot and character, Aristotle is drawing a needless distinction. However, Scott-James further says that Aristotle is not completely wrong in giving more importance to the plot. If Dickens, Austen and Shakespeare had paid more attention to plots rather than characters, they might have become greater artists than they actually have proved to be.
W. H. Fife agrees with Aristotle's views:
According to Fife, the true thrill of tragedy is impossible without a close-knit story. The aim of a tragic play, according to Fife, is to give a kind of pleasure. It is a pleasure that no other art can give. Thus, Aristotle has given his valuable views on the relative importance of plot and character tragedy.
Critics like Butcher, Scott - James and Fife agree with his views either partly or wholly. On the contrary, critics like F. R. Lucas oppose the views of Aristotle. In this regard, our conclusion is that both character and plot are equally important. They are inseparable from each other. So Aristotle's attempt to emphasise the importance of plot at the cost of character cannot be justified.
Henry James is right when he says that both character and plot have their importance and we cannot sacrifice one at the cost of another. He says " What is character but the determination of incident? What is an incident but the illustration of character?
Read More-
- Plot construction of 'She Stoops to Conquer'
- English Comedy before Goldsmith
- Sentimental Comedy: Reaction of Goldsmith against it
- Character and role of Miss Neville
- Discuss She Stoops to Conquer as a Sentimental Comedy
- Discuss Goldsmith's View of Sentimental Comedy
- Give an estimate of Goldsmith as a dramatist
- Contribution of Goldsmith as a Dramatist
