Catharsis in Aristotles Poetics

Catharsis is a metaphor used by Aristotle in the Poetics to describe the effects of

true tragedy on the spectator. The use is derived from the medical term
katharsis (Greek: purgation or purification). Aristotle states that the purpose
of tragedy is to arouse fear and pity and thereby effect the catharsis of these
emotions. Aristotle has nowhere explained the term comprehensively, and his
exact meaning has been the subject of critical debate over the centuries.
Tragedy, then, is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a
certain magnitude; in language embellished with each kind of artistic ornament,
the several kinds being found in separate parts of the play; in the form of action,
not of narrative; through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation of these
emotions. By 'language embellished,' I mean language into which rhythm,
'harmony,' and song enter. By 'the several kinds in separate parts,' I mean, that
some parts are rendered through the medium of verse alone, others again with
the aid of song. (VI, Poetics translated by S.H. Butcher)
The above passage can be further simplified in the following words: Aristotle
defines tragedy according to seven characteristics: (1) it is mimetic, (2) it is
serious, (3) it tells a full story of an appropriate length, (4) it contains rhythm and
harmony, (5) rhythm and harmony occur in different combinations in different
parts of the tragedy, (6) it is performed rather than narrated, and (7) it arouses
feelings of pity and fear and then purges these feelings through catharsis.
The terms, pity and fear are closely connected in Aristotelian theory. There
are different types of fear. Fear can be centred on an individual, in the form of
some vague feeling of insecurity and anxiety. Pity, we are told by Aristotle, is
occasioned by undeserved misfortune, and fear by that of one like ourselves
(i.e., by the misfortune of one like ourselves). Pity and fear are related emotions.
Pity turns to fear when the object is closely related to us that the suffering seems
to be our own, and we pity others in circumstances in which we should fear for
ourselves. Pity is derived from the feeling that similar suffering might befall us. It
is because of this that the tragic character should be like ourselves and at the
same time slightly idealised. In such a case, we feel pity for the suffering of the
innately good person, while having a sympathetic fear for one who is so like
ourselves. Aristotle everywhere says that pity and fear are the characteristic and
necessary tragic emotions.
The essential tragic effect depends on maintaining the intimate alliance between
pity and fear. According to Aristotle, pity alone should be not be evoked by
tragedy.
The word Catharsis as debated by many scholars has many shades of meaning.
But we may follow the expositions of the editors and reduce them to three.
Summarily stated these are (a) the religious, with the meaning lustration; (b)
the pathological or medical sense of purgation; (c) the moral, with the idea of
purification.

These three interpretations are clearly not exclusive; they do not form a true
logical classification, because there is no single principle of classification and no
way of determining the limits of each division.
Aristotle theorized in his work Poetics that tragedy results in a catharsis
(emotional cleansing) of healing for the audience through their experience of
these emotions in response to the suffering of the characters in the drama. He
considers it superior when a character passes from a good fortune to bad rather
than the reverse, at the time, the term tragedy was not yet fixed solely on
stories with unhappy endings.
Catharsis is a Greek word meaning purification or cleansing derived from
ancient Greek gerund Kocooipeiv transliterated as Kathairien to purify, purge,
and adjective katharos pure or clean.
The term in drama refers to sudden emotional breakdown or climax that
constitutes overwhelming feelings of great sorrow, pity, laughter any extreme
change in emotion that results in the restoration, renewal and revitalization for
living.
The term catharsis referred to a form of emotion cleansing was first used by
Aristotle in his work Poetics. It refers to the sensation or literary affect that would
ideally overcome an audience upon finishing watching a tragedy (a release of
pent-up emotion or energy). In his previous works, he used the term in its
medical sense (usually referring to the evacuation of the Katamenia the
menstrual fluid or other reproductive material). Because of this F.L. Lucas,
maintains that catharsis cannot be properly translated as purification of
cleansing, but only as purgation. Since before poetics catharsis was purely a
medical term, Aristotle is employing it as a medical metaphor. It is human soul
that is purged of its excessive passions Lessing sidesteps the medical aspect of
the issue and translates catharsis as purification, an experience that brings pity
and fear into their proper balance: In real life he explained, men are sometimes
too much addicted to pity or fear, sometimes too little; tragedy brings them back
to a virtuous and happy mean. Tragedy is then a corrective; through watching a
tragedy the audience learns how to feel these emotions at proper levels. Some
modern interpreters of the work infer that catharsis is pleasurable because
audience members felt ekstasies (literally; astonishment, meaning trance) from
the fact that there existed those who could suffer a worse fate than them was to
them a relief. Any translator attempting to interpret Aristotles meaning of the
term should take into account that Poetics is largely a response to Platos claim
that poetry encourages men to be hysterical and uncontrolled. In response to
Plato, Aristotle maintains that poetry makes them less, not more emotional, by
giving a periodic and healthy outlet of feelings.
Let us look at the various theories put forth by the scholars to interpret and
exposit the term Catharsis.
According to purgation theory; the term Catharsis has been interpreted in
medical terms, meaning purgation. In medical terms (especially in the older

sense), purgation meant the partial removal of excess humours. The health of
the body depended on a true balance of the humours. Thus purgation of the
emotions of pity and fear does not mean the removal of these emotions, but that
the passions or emotions are reduced to a healthy, balanced proportion.
Catharsis in this sense, denotes a pathological effect on the soul comparable to
the effect of medicine on the body.
Some critics have tried to give a psychological explanation to the term
Catharsis. Herbert Read considers it in the light of a safety valve. Tragedy gives
a free outlet to the emotions of pity and fear. The result is a feeling of emotional
relief. This, one notes, is quite closely related to the purgation theory.
A. A. Richard puts forward as ingenius theory. He says that the emotion of pity is
an impulse to advance, while fear is an impulse to withdraw. In tragedy both
these impulses are blended, harmonised into balance. Emotional excess is thus
brought to a balance. However, the theory holds good only for the emotion of
pity and fear, and it restricts the range of tragic emotions to these.
The ethical interpretation of Catharsis regards the tragic process as an
illustration of the soul, a lighting up which results in a more philosophical attitude
to life and suffering. The spectator sees the largeness of the disasters presented
onstage and realises that his personal emotions are insignificant beside such a
catastrophe. It brings him to a balanced view of things. Man sees himself in
proportion to the large design of the universe. In the words of John Gassner,
only enlightenment, a clear comprehension of what was involved in the
struggle, an understanding of cause and effect, a judgement on what we have
witnessed, can bring about a state of mental peace and balance, and result in
complete aesthetic gratification.
Another set of critics said that the effect of tragedy was to harden or
temper the emotions. Just as soldiers become hardened against death after
seeing it so many times on the battlefield, so too, constant contact with tragedy
on stage hardens men against pity and fear in reallife. This is, undoubtedly, a bit
far-fetched, if not totally absurd.
One meaning of Catharsis is purification. Some critics have interpreted the term
in the light of this meaning. These critics reject the interpretation of Catharsis in
the lights of medical terminology. Humphry House, for instance, says that
Aristotles concept of Catharsis was not as a medical term. He interprets the
word to mean a kind of moral conditioning, which the spectator undergoes. He
comments that purgation means cleansing*. This cleansing may be a
quantitative evacuation or qualitative change in the body, in the restoration of
the proper equilibrium. In this context he says : A tragedy arouses pity and fear
from potentiality to activity through worthy and adequate stimuli; to control
them ,by directing them to the right objects in the right way; and exercises them,
within the limits of the play, as the emotions of the good man would be
exercised. When they subside to potentiality again after the play is over, it is a
more trained potentiality than before . Our responses are brought nearer to
those of the good and wise man. Catharsis results in emotional health. Catharsis
is thus a moral conditioning. It is a purification of the excess and.defect in our
emotions, so that emotional equilibrium can be restored.

The purgation theory and the purification theory of Catharsis have obvious
limitations. They cannot explain the whole process involved in Catharsis. A
fundamental, drawback of these theories is that these theories are concerned
with the effect of tragedy on the audience, i.e., with the psychology of the
audience. Both views concentrate not on what tragedy says or what tragedy is,
but what tragedy may do to us; they lie rather in the field of experimental
psychology than in that of literary criticism. They treat pity and fear as
references to something in the audience rather than to something (scenes and
elements) in the play. In actuality, Aristotle was writing a treatise on the art of
poetry, and was concerned more with technique of writing poetry than with
audience psychology. As theories of psychology, the two theories are not bad in
themselves, but it is doubtful if it explains the term as Aristotle intended it to
mean.
References:
1. A. S. Kharbe. English Language and Literary Criticism. New Delhi, India:
Discovery Publishing House PVT LTD. (2009)
2. Aristotle, Translator S.H. Butcher. Poetics,
3. G. S. Brett. Some Reflections on Aristotles Theory of Tragedy.
4. F.L. Lucas. Tragedy: Serious Drama in Relation to Aristotles Poetics. New York:
Collier Books (1962).

Online:
1. http://neoenglish.wordpress.com/2010/08/15/aristotle%E2%80%99sconception-of-tragic-catharsis-in-poetics-by-aristotle/
2. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1974/1974-h/1974-h.htm