Aristotle's concept of plot (Part-2)

Aristotle's concept of plot remained unquestionable till the beginning of this century when E. M. Forster questioned the relevance of Aristotlean concept of plot structure. It is, however, ironical that Forester does not come out with anything specifically new and fails to establish his abnegation to Aristotlean theory. Forester lays emphasis on the element of cause and defines plot "as a narrative of events" with "the emphasis falling on causality". He says :
The king died and then the queen died is a story. 'The kind died and then the queen died of grief' is a plot. The time sequence is preserved but the sense of casuality overshadows it14.
It is obvious that Forster is little different to Aristotle in his emphasis on the element of causality. He further elaborates his thesis by alluding to two principal demands of a plot intelligence and memory. Intelligence lays emphasis on interconnection between any two events and memory is an indirect reference to magnitude and size. "The plot maker", says "expects us to remember, we expect him to leave no loose ends"15. The plot structure of a short story demands intelligence when it is causally knit. Yet the demand of memory in connection with the plot of short story is of limited significance as the definition of the genre itself restricts the presence of loose ends.
The Aristotlean views on the plot of the tragedy bear a close relation with the function of a tragedy, i.e. catharsis of pity and fear. K.G. Shrivastava's views in his elaboration of the controversial term katharsis capture our attention :
It is true that the plot is the expression or representation of the poetic vision itself is the structure because in order to be fully bodied force, it has got to be identical with the plot17.
Shrivastava's identification of plot with vision ratifies the importance of plot and consequently Aristotlean thesis on plot in connection with the plot structure of a tragedy.
In the definition of tragedy Aristotle speaks of 'catharsis' as the specific function of a tragedy. For centuries tragedy was considered to produce specific moral effect. Through purification of passions most of the critics until nineteenth century like Jacob, Bernays firmly established the fact that catharsis is a metaphor taken from medical science. Even John Miltons was of the same view. The reason behind the critics' inclination towards this kind of interpretation is probably the fact that Aristotle was some of a physician. F. L. Lucas asserts that catharsis "A definitely medical metaphor" – A metaphor of an apparent. S. H. Butcher and B. Y. Water are prone more to purgation theory. The views of B. Y. Water invite our attention. I hope it is not rash to surmise that the much depated word Katharsis, purification or 'purgation', may have come into Aristotle's mouth from the same source. It has all the appearance of being an old word which is accepted and re–interpreted by Aristotle rather than a word freely chosen by him to denote the exact phenomenon he wishes to describe.
Plato in his appreciation of a tragedy discusses the excitation of pity as function of a tragedy and Aristotle adds fear to it. Aristotle in his Rhetoric regards pity and fear as two sister emotions. Probably through Catharsis of pity and fear he means that the function of tragedy is to make us fear for ourselves the distress we pity in others. The doctrine is based on the fact that the person capable of pity is the person who nurtures the possibility of fear. The person capable of pity is the person with rich and strong imagination and is, therefore, capable of experiencing the pain and ego such as that which we see affecting of threatening a person pitied. It is thus obvious from the above description that the Katharsis of pity and fear is not a process in two different steps but it is a singular and composite response of a man capable of thought and imagination. To the action around which the whole tragic framework has been composed. The views of Stephen Halelo invite our attention. He points out :
Pity and fear (though, of course, not these alone) are to be regarded not as uncontrollable instincts or forces, but as responses to reality which are possible for a mind in which thought and emotion are integrated and interdependent.
Halliwell further justifies the same idea of integrated response to tragic action and says :
But is also helps us to see how Aristotle conceives of the tragic emotions not as overwhelming waves of material of poetic drama. The framework for the experience of these emotions is nothing other than the cognitive understanding of the mimetic representation of human action and character.
In Rhetoric Aristotle defines fear as a form of pain or disturbance arising from an impression which is destructive or painful. He defines pity as a form of pain act – an evident evil of a destructive or painful variety in the case of one who does not deserve it. If the object of pity shares with us our essentials a pity is gradually transformed into fear. Thus, pity and fear are correlated feelings and we pity others where under like circumstance we fear for ourselves. It is important to note that fear is not caused by the direct apprehension of misfortune impending over our life but it is a sympathetic shudder we feel for a hero who in his essentials resembles us. The fear in case of a tragedy does not paralyse the mind of stun and sense as this is the direct of some impending calamity. The fear in the case of a tragedy is based on our imaginative, intellectual union with the hero. The spectator through the enlarging power of pity is elevated out of himself and identifies himself with the fade of mankind. He quits the narrow sphere of an individual and identifies himself with the fate of mankind.
Tragedy must possess a typical universal value depicting the combination of the inevitable and the unexpected. Pity and fear, awakened in connection with larger aspects of human suffering become universalised emotion sparing what is personal and self regarding. In the grow of tragic excitement, these feelings are so transformed that the net result is in noble emotional satisfaction. The emotion of pity and fear, thus hold immense significance as they bring about the catharsis and decide the fate of tragedy. If there is only pity, the tragedy would become unjustly sentimental. If there is only fear, the work becomes the melodrama. Catharsis is surely the principle expressing how emotions of an individual are made impersonal and how they are universalised. It is clear then that Aristotle theory of catharsis gives us the larger vision of the world around us by assimilating various paradoxes of spontaneity and consciousness, of intellect and emotions and of inward and outward dynamics of human mind.

References
1Aristotle, On the Art of Poetry Trans. Ingram Byewater (New Delhi : Oxford University Press, 1925) 23.
2Aristotle, On the Art of Poetry 26–27.
3Aristotle, On the Art of Poetry 35.
4David Daiches, Critical Approaches to Literature (London : Longmans, 1959) 24.
5Daiches 28.
6Daiches 28.
7Aristotle, Poetics, Tr. S. H. Butcher, Aristotle's Theory of Poetry and Fine Art, (New Delhi : Kalyani, Reprint 1987) 27.
8Aristotle, Poetics, S. H. Butcher, Aristotle's Theory of Poetry and Fine Art, 31.
9Butcher 31.
10Humphry House, Aristotle's Poetics (New Delhi : Kalyani, 1988) 49.
11Humphry House 59.
12Humphry House 59.
13Humphry House 59.
14Butcher 41.
15J. W. H. Alknis, Literary Criticism in Antiquity (London : Methuen, 1973) 19.
16Stephen Helliwel, Aristotle's Poetics (London : Duckworth, 1986) 213.
17E. M. Forster, The Aspects of Novel (1927; London : Penguin, 1990) 87.
18E. M. Forster 88.
19Bernard Bergonzi, The Situation of the Novel (London : Pelican Books, 1971) 252.
20K. G. Shrivastava, Aristotle's Doctrine of Tragic Catharsis (Allahabad : Kitab Mahal, 1982) 159.
21F. L. Lucas, Tragedy : Serious Drama in Relation to Aristotle's Poetics (New York : Collier Books, 1967) 123.
22Ingram Bywater, Aristotle on the Art of Poetry (New Delhi : Oxford University Press, 1985) 15–16.
23Halliwell, 173–174.