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 Gods laws operate invisibly to make all things work out for the best.

Plato's Objection to Poetry

He was the first systemic critic who inquired into the nature of imaginative literature and put forward theories which are both illuminating and provocative. He was himself a great poet and his dialogues are full of his gifted dramatic quality. His Dialogues are the classic works of the world literature having dramatic, lyrical and fictional elements. According to him all arts are imitative or mimetic in nature. He wrote in The Republic that ideas are the ultimate reality. Things are conceived as ideas before they take practical shapes. So, idea is original and the thing is copy of that idea. Carpenters chair is the result of the idea of chair in his mind. Thus chair is once removed from reality. But painters chair is imitation of carpenters chair. So it is twice removed form reality. Thus artist/poet takes man away from reality rather than towards it. Thus artist deals in illusion. 1. Platos objection to Poetry from the point of view of Education: a. In The Republic Book II He condemns poetry as fostering evil habits and vices in children. Homers epics were part of studies. Heroes of epics were not examples of sound or ideal morality. They were lusty, cunning, and cruel war mongers. Even Gods were no better. (TroyAchilles beheding Apollos statue, oracles molested insults of Gods, Gods fight among themselves, they punish instead of forgivenessAhaliya-Indra, Kuntis children, Narads obsession to marry, Hercules son of Zeus and Alcmene, Heras jealousy-snakes-fenzy to kill children) b. Plato writes: if we mean our future guardians to regard the habit of quarreling among themselves as of all things the basest, no word should be said to them of the wars in the heaven, or of the plots and fighting of the gods against one another, for they are not true. If they would only believe as we would tell them that quarreling is unholy, and that never up to this time has there been any quarreling between citizens these tales (of epics) must not be admitted into our State, whether they are supposed to have allegorical meaning or not. c. Thus he objected on the ground that poetry does not cultivate good habits among children. 2. Objection from Philosophical point of view:

a. In The Republic Book X: Poetry does not lead to, but drives us away form the realization of the ultimate reality the Truth. b. Philosophy is better than poetry because Philosophy deals with idea and poetry is twice removed from original idea. c. Plato says: The imitator or maker of the image knows nothing of true existence; he knows appearance only . The imitative art is an inferior who marries an inferior and has inferior offspring.(Dorotheas ideal in Middlemarch shattered, Kshtriya dharma not to hit enemy without weapon, Tesss providence, evil wins & God is silent, unrewarded virtue) 3. Objection form the Moral point of view: a. In the same book in The Republic: Soul of man has higher principles of reason (which is the essence of its being) as well as lower constituted of baser impulses and emotions. Whatever encourages and strengthens the rational principle is good, and emotional is bad. b. Poetry waters and nourishes the baser impulses of men - emotional, sentimental and sorrowful. c. Plato says: Then the imitative poet who aims at being popular is not by nature made, nor is his art intended, to please or to affect the rational principle in the soul; but he will prefer the passionate and fitful temper, which is easily limited . And therefore we shall be right in refusing to admit him into a well-ordered state, because he awakens and nourishes and strengthen the feelings and impairs the reason Poetry feeds and waters the passion instead of drying them up; she lets them rule, although they ought to be controlled, if mankind are ever to increase in happiness and virtue.