To what extent are Aristotle’s ideas on tragedy still relevant to drama/theatre/movies?
Aristotle said that the aim of drama is the mimicking of life, and his ideas on tragedy still resonate
today because they reflected the profound ability of the great Greek tragedies to describe and
illuminate the human condition. Shakespeare recognised and revitalised many Aristotolean
principles in the tragic heroes he created and the cathartic climaxes to his plays. We can
certainly find examples today in movies, theatre and TV drama where the writers, directors and
performers are consciously or unconsciously using similar techniques, whether it be in Star
Wars, Game of Thrones or Eastenders.
In fact, his ideas have been described as ‘guidelines for storytelling’. Therefore, the suggestion
that modern dramas are using some kind of special formula devised by Aristotle well over 2000
years ago can be criticised on the basis that Greek tragedy had no monopoly on good stories.
Yet there do seem to be aspects that are specific to Aristotle’s ideas which we can say are
shared by any successful modern dramas. He said that the object of tragedy was to bring about
a ‘catharsis’ of the spectators — to arouse in them sensations of pity and fear, and to purge them
of these emotions so that they leave the theatre feeling cleansed and uplifted, with a heightened
understanding of the ways of gods and men. Today, we like the cathartic effect of seeing a
character brought down by their own follies and mistakes. The catharsis still seems to help us
cope with life by demonstrating that somehow we are all in the same boat, bound together by a
common experience of life’s sufferings and their propensity to be a leveller. Michael Corleone in
the Godfather films, or Anakin Skywalker, or even Batman are examples. Sometimes it is felt
that too strong a parallel is being drawn between Aristotle’s ideas about tragedy and modern
drama. They very often disobey his rules about ‘dramatic unities’, as good dramas very often do
not happen in one day, sequentially or in a single place. In fact, Aristotle was not prescribing
these things, merely observing them as frequent features of what he regarded as the best works.
To what extent are Aristotle’s ideas on tragedy relevant to an understanding of "Romeo and
Juliet"?
Generally, Shakespeare is considered to have adopted many of Aristotle’s principles in his
tragedies, generally conforming to unity of action and featuring tragic heroes with many
sympathetic traits, but a fatal character flaw. Whether Romeo and Juliet can be included in this
analysis, however, is hotly debated. Many consider that it stands apart from Shakespeare’s
other works and does not show the main features Aristotle identified in Greek tragedies.
Therefore, Aristotle’s ideas may be of limited use in helping us to understand this play.
Aristotle’s tragic hero should be a strong man, with a flaw, pushed beyond his limits. Arguably,
neither Romeo nor Juliet has a character flaw in the Aristotelian sense. Romeo’s impetuosity has
been suggested as one, but this seems to reflect a determination to make the play fit Aristotle’s
scheme. Shakespeare’s premise is that Romeo and Juliet are ‘star-crossed’ - selected by fate to
give up their lives in order to effect a reconciliation of their families. However, the plot also
revolves around a sequence of unfortunate contingencies such as the meeting of Romeo and
Tybalt, quarantining of Friar Lawrence or encounter of Romeo with Paris at the Capulet tomb. As
one academic writer put it: ‘Bad luck, misfortune, sheer inexplicable contingency is a far from
negligible source of the suffering and calamity in human life which is the source of tragedy’s
mimesis’. So we can say that, save for the characteristic tragic hero, Shakespeare was still
drawing heavily upon Greek tragedy in Romeo and Juliet.
"Romeo and Juliet": Act III Scene V
Summary notes on the portrayal of femininity and patriarchy (male dominated society). What you
think are the views and values of Shakespeare. Do they align with his audience? With your own?
In the context of the play, Romeo and Juliet have just spent the night together before Romeo
flees in banishment. As the central characters and as young lovers, Shakespeare has presented
them as equals and they have taken control in pursuing their relationship with each other in the
face of the great animosity between their families.
In the context of the times, however, society was male dominated. In the social class to which
Romeo and Juliet belonged, decisions would have been taken by the male head of the family
and normally accepted by the women, in return for which they were supported financially and
provided for. This would have been regarded as normal, certainly including the arrangement of
socially advantageous marriages; commoner the higher up the social ranking of those involved.
One can imagine, as Shakespeare portrays, that this was often painful for those whose futures
were settled for political gain, rather than romantic love.
In this scene, Lady Capulet initially mistakes Juliet’s tears on having parted with Romeo as tears
of grief for Tybalt, and Juliet lets her believe this, pretending that she also wants Romeo dead.
There is some reflection of the prevailing patriarchy in accepting that they might avenge Tybalt ‘if
you could find out but a man’ to do it. Lady Capulet then delivers the bombshell that Juliet’s
father has arranged a marriage for her. We are immediately shown that Juliet does not accept
‘that I must wed Ere he, that should be husband, comes to woo’. In taking this position, it seems
that Shakespeare is questioning, through Juliet who has our sympathy, a society where
acceptance of such things would have been expected.
Capulet arrives, expecting his wife to have done his dirty work: ‘now wife! Have you delivered to
her our decree?’ This is reflecting both the patriarchy, but also the expectation on children to
accept decisions made for them by their parents. We should remember that Juliet is only 13; and
age at which we would not expect children take all decisions about their lives for themselves.
Capulet fully expects Juliet to comply with his wishes and when she does not, he is outraged and
full of bluster. Juliet tries to show respect when she says, ‘Not proud, you have; but thankful’.
However, to Capulet her disobedience is highly disrespectful. He threatens her and call her
names – ‘I will drag thee on a hurdle’, ‘green-sickness carrion’, ‘baggage’ – and in doing so
Shakespeare is not only presenting him as a most unsympathetic character, but also making him
ridiculous.
When Juliet pleads with her father to listen to her, he will not and rants on, saying ‘this one is one
too much’. He repeats ‘baggage’, which reflects his treatment of Juliet as his possession. He is
highly dismissive of the Nurse, telling her to ‘Utter your gravity over a gossip’s bowl’. He will not
listen to her either, perhaps reflecting the master/servant relationship more than the patriarchy,
but his characterisation of the Nurse as a gossip shows a contemporary way in which women
were demeaned as having nothing of consequence to debate. Lady Capulet tells him he is going
to far, but he continues to rail at Juliet, calling her a ‘wretched puling fool’. He is scandalised that
Juliet is disobeying him because he sees this is an assault on his authority as the patriarch. This
is shown when he says, ‘An you be mine, I’ll give you to my friend; And you be not, hang, beg,
die in the streets’. He believes he possesses her, to do with as he will, in return for providing for
her. His anger has turned truly unpleasant and threatening, as the nature of society at that time
meant that by throwing Juliet out, she would have no means to support herself. Partly this is
Shakespeare reflecting and maybe commenting on the patriarchal nature of society at the time,
but remembering that Juliet was a child, we might ask how different the potency of his threats
would be today?
At the end of the scene, Juliet begs her mother not to abandon her, but Lady Capulet goes along
with her husband, as she would have been expected to by the patriarchy, but Shakespeare does
not encourage us to judge this kindly. The presentation of femininity is interesting, because
Juliet refers to ‘so soft a subject as myself’, suggesting that she feels a helplessness. However,
she deceives the Nurse into believing that she has agreed with her suggestion to marry Paris.
She determines instead to contemplate suicide rather than going along with Capulet’s wishes:
not a positive choice, but Shakespeare is again suggesting that she will take control and
challenge the patriarchy, rather than accept it. We are encouraged to feel sympathy for her and
to see Capulet as tyrannical and obsessed with saving his own face, which suggests what
Shakespeare’s views on arranged marriage might have been.