ABSTRACT
(1) The concept of catharsis in Western aesthetics arose out of speculations on Aristotle's remark in his Poetics that in a tragedy there should be, among other things, “incidents arousing pity and fear; wherewith to accomplish its catharsis of such emotions” 1 The word “catharsis” was used in his times in a therapeutic sense of purgation and also in a religious one of purification, but it appears from the use Aristotle made of it, of course, metaphorically, in Poetics and else-where 2 that he meant by it purgation. 3 Tragedy, then, by rousing these emotions in the mind of the audience purges the latter of them. And since they were considered to be unwholesome either in themselves or because they tended to be present in excess (and all excess is bad), tragedy in purging them exercizes a kind of psycho-therapic action on the audience. This is the kind of inter-pretation of catharsis given by such eminent thinkers as Milton, 4 Butcher, 5 Bosanquet, 6 Gomperz, 7 L. Abercrombie 8 and F. L. Lucas. 9 Now Aristotle, if he means this sort of thing by catharsis, does not give us a convincing theory of the function of tragedy. For supposing we share his view regarding emotions of pity and fear that they, as our dispositions, should be kept to a minimum for health, we do not see how tragedy helps us in this direction. Tragedy, we feel, instead of reducing one's disposition to feel these emotions, augments it. In fact Plato charges the tragic poet for making men sentimental and, so, unmanly. 10 Then we see that men do not go to the theater with emotions pent-up in their hearts to get relieved of them, rather they are affected with emotions there. So that if tragedy cures them then it cures a disease which it itself causes. Now supposing that a person sometimes has an accumulation of pent-up emotions of pity and terror in his soul, we may grant that tragedy helps him to release his emotional burden and, so, affords him a pleasurable relief. But this is just a temporary relief and no permanent cure of his emotional disposition. Rather we see that actual situations in life, in rousing a certain emotion, usually weaken the disposition for it by their frequency; the mind becoming less sensitive to the emotion often undergone in life. The opposite happens in the case of emotions enjoyed in tragedy. The theatergoer develops a taste for and sensitivity toward the emotions depicted on the stage. So that what may have started as just a useful means of relief from an emotional burden gathered up naturally in the mind, may end as a stimulant for the same thing, and, because of this virtue, a charming addiction. The theatergoer is thus caught in a vicious circle, like one given to drinking. Wine stimulates the body and mind but produces as an after-effect a depression which calls for wine again, and, so, one tends to increase the dosage. What starts as a slave ends as a master. Thus the weakness of the theory that tragedy is a curative of tragic emotions of pity and fear is manifest.
