Home

An Apology for Christian Tragedy

by Uriel Tovar

The Tragic Christian: Introduction

The tragic drama is an art form that has spoken to humanity across the centuries. It has been developed, refined and redefined even until today. This art form reflects the unmerited suffering of the protagonist caused by a mistake or lack of judgment. This very passionate drama views humanity during its most tender and helpless state. It attracts the audience’s eye and shapes their emotions to feel for the tragic protagonist. This question of unmerited suffering has been asked through out all times, “why is it that we suffer?” The tragic drama answers that question, “In order to be purified.”

This paper’s main argument is to show how the Christian message corresponds to the tragic drama, in other words, that the Christian message is compatible with the tragic drama. How, in fact, the Christian tragedy is inseparable from the classic view of tragedy and is entwined within the Christian salvation history. We will do this by evaluating the origins of tragedy and its evolution through history. We will especially look at Aristotle’s definition of tragedy, Nietzsche’s response to the classical notions of Aristotle, and Miller’s application of the tragic drama on modern life. The paper will conclude with an assessment of the tragic drama and incorporate it into the ultimate view of the Christian tragedy.

Before we get into the body of the paper, it is important to understand who the tragic drama is attributed to, the Greek god Dionysus. Dionysus is the Greek god of wine but is also referred to as the twice-born god. This is because he was born once of Persephone and Zeus. Hera, Zeus’ wife, was jealous of Persephone so she ordered the Titans to tear Dionysus apart. All that remained of Dionysus was his heart. Zeus found his heart and, pitying Dionysus, took his heart and remade him in his thigh. Zeus then implants the fetal Dionysus into the womb of Semele of whom he was born again (Encyclopedia Mythica). In this story we see that Dionysus suffered unjustly, he did not deserve the punishment, which Hera bestowed upon him. But through this suffering, the gods took pity on him, and he underwent a rebirth that changed his whole being. And this is what the tragic drama is reflecting, the Dionysian suffering and redemption. The tragic drama is not just any misfortune but one in which the character undergoes an ontological change (Heilman 6). Studying who this Greek god was, we can now focus on how his people, the Greeks celebrated the art form attributed to him.

The Prototype of Christian Redemption: Greek Tragedy

In order to get a better grasp of what the tragic drama truly is, we need to go back to where it all began, Ancient Greece. Although the origins of Greek tragedy remain a mystery to many scholars, we can still speculate with some certainty how it began and where it began. The tragic drama can be traced as far back as 534 B.C. The early form of tragedy celebrated in Athens had no actors; the actor was later introduced and formed what we now think of as Greek drama. The word tragedy literally means “goat song” and perhaps it was given this name due to the satyrs who sang dithyrambs to the god Dionysus, whose feast day was celebrated with the 50 dithyrambs, which later four tragic choruses.

In this format, the archon that was in charge of the festival would choose Three competitors of which one would be chosen as the winner (Twayne.) The prize of the victor would be a goat, which is appropriate seeing that the goat is said to be a manifestation of the god Dionysus. This image of the goat seems to be very significant in that it reflects the actual plot of the tragic drama. Historian of the drama, George Ferguson will tell us that, “This theory will also help to explain the parts of the tragedy: the contest, the sacrificial death, the messenger's speech, the lamentation, the recognition scene, and the theophany.” This is related to the goat in that the goat is the prize of the contest but is also a symbol of the god Dionysus who will ultimately be sacrificed so the victor may enjoy of its meat in a feast. The key image is the sacrifice of the deity in order to give life, which ties in with the theophany (Ferguson 3-10.) So there is a rebirth of the goat image of Dionysus: The goat suffers and dies but is reborn through the crowd’s feast and in their celebration as in the myth of Dionysus.

The earliest works we have on the analysis of tragedy come from two Greek philosophers, Plato and Aristotle. For the sake of this work we will look at Aristotle's The Poetics, which defines the tragic drama and sets certain criteria for it. Aristotle stresses five main points in his work; action/plot, the tragic hero, the logic of the outcome, the feelings of pity and aroused by the catastrophe and the piety of the play (the redemptive quality of the drama.)

Aristotle starts section six of The Poetics with a definition of tragedy. He tells us that it is, “ An imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude.” Simply put, this tragedy has certain criteria to meet in order to be considered a tragedy. One of those criteria is the quality of the action that is, the plot. By plot Aristotle mean the “arrangement of the incidents.” These actions have to be arranged in such a way that it is believable that they could happen. Also, there has to be two causes in the plot. One cause in which all action shall spring forth from and the other from which failure or success will depend. These causes will inevitably decide the destiny of the tragic hero. Aristotle also emphasizes that the plot must be logical in that everything falls into place in the order of events. Basically stated, that everything makes sense.

The tragic hero for Aristotle is a man of noble blood. He is someone who is of a noble family and usually can be considered to be of good moral standing. Aristotle will say that this must be so in order for there to be a significant fall. He insists that “Character determines men’s qualities, but it is by their actions that they are happy or the reverse. Dramatic action, however, is not with a view to the representation of character: character comes in as subsidiary to the action” (23). The exalted character of the tragic hero is necessary in order for there to be harmony between the tragic hero and the plot. These two things are the most significant agents in order for there to be a logical and linear story within the drama.

There also has to be beauty within the tragedy: Every part must be working in accord with the others. This beauty is also called harmony or logic. There cannot be something out of sync with the other. All characters in the play have to act accordingly to the attributes given to them; they should not act “out of character.” Also, he reiterates that the whole play must have a certain weightiness of theme and action: “For beauty depends on magnitude and order [...] the greater the length, the more beautiful it will be [...] the sequence of events should be according to the law of probability and necessity, will admit of a change from bad fortune to good, or from good fortune to bad” (29). Therefore, the work not only has to be logically arranged and harmonious but it also has to be of a certain length, a length to allow serious events to unfold accordingly to a believable pattern.

All this is just frame structure, however. The genuine nature of the tragic drama is the feelings which it instills onto the watching crowd. Leon Golden says, “Aristotelian tragedy has as its essential aim a significant illumination of the pitiable and fearful dimension of human existence. To achieve the illumination an action must be presented that is plausible and persuasive in human terms” (Golden 144). And this is key for Aristotle's definition of tragedy, to show how the good went wrong. Aristotle writes, “The change of fortune should be not from bad to good, but, reversely, from good to bad. It should come about as the result not of vice, but of some great error or frailty [...] The best tragedies are founded on the story of a few houses [...] and those others who have done or suffered something terrible” (130). Aristotle wanted the noble to fall, he wanted the to “suffer something terrible” in order for the audience to feel pity for the tragic hero and to fear those wrongs and frailties which were had or had been committed. But how does this leave room for piety? Where is there room for redemption in Aristotle's definition of tragedy?

Golden, in “Aristotle, Frye, and the Theory of Tragedy,” gives us three conditions which the tragic hero has to go through. The first three have to do with the downfall of the hero and the invoking of pity and fear upon the reader or the audience which we have already talked about. The fourth condition however is radically different. It is a condition of purgation which is a “manifestation of divine love for man” (54). This “purifying fire of suffering,” is necessary in order for the tragic hero to grasp a higher understanding of the human condition. This then raises the tragic hero above the human condition and makes him a transcendent man and is lead to an ultimate happiness (55).

This then gives us the five precepts that Aristotle uses in order to determine a tragic drama. Aristotle (studying the tragedians of his time) will tell us that Sophocles' Oedipus Tyrannus is the best example of a tragic drama because it fits these criteria perfectly. Although some would disagree, it also makes a good example of a prototype to the Christian tragedy. This is because through Oedipus’ catharsis, his purgation, he realizes that he is not as great as he once thought. Oedipus realizes that he could not cheat fate, he was at the will of the gods. Oedipus is then like Dionysus: he experienced a purging of his old self and undergoes a new birth that enables him to see his mistake (Gellrich 70), which echoes the Christian belief in redemption for one’s sins.

The Dual Nature and Redemption

Friedrich Nietzsche was born on October 15, 1884 in Saxony. His father was a Lutheran minister and his mother, a simple housewife. Nietzsche started off his schooling at a seminary; he was to become a preacher like his father. He however had a change of heart and started studying philology, the study of ancient languages. Nietzsche became a skeptic and somewhat of a cynic towards religions. We see this especially in his later philosophical works. Nietzsche’s first major works focused on an appeal towards the self. He believed that one should break the shackles which morality puts on us and become “Over Men.” Although very evident in his later works, we can see the seeds of this belief in his first major work, The Birth of Tragedy.

In The Birth of Tragedy Nietzsche will discuss three main things about the tragic drama that revolves around the tragic hero. First, he will discuss the dual nature of the Dionysian man. He will then show how the suffering within the tragic drama is necessary for the appreciation of beauty in the world. His third point grows from his view on suffering, the redemption of the tragic hero. Nietzsche will argue the tragic hero becomes redeemed of his flaw through his catharsis.

Nietzsche, first of all, discusses the origins of tragedy alongside with psychological and philosophical effects of tragedy on the human person. According to Nietzsche, the tragic drama comes from the celebration of the Dionysian festival, which would be a feast for the senses. During the festivities, a tragic chorus would sing the story of a noble man meeting his downfall due to his pride (hubris.) This chorus’ main goal was to instill feelings of pity towards the tragic hero into the crowd. The crowd would lose themselves in their drunken state showing, for Nietzsche, an appeal towards the sensuality of emotions leaving behind the logical and rational symmetry of Aristotle:

Dionysian stirrings arise either through the influence of those narcotic

potions of which all primitive races speak in their hymns, or through the

powerful approach of spring, which penetrates with joy the whole frame

of nature. So stirred, the individual forgets himself completely. It is the

same Dionysian power which in medieval Germany drove ever increasing

crowds of people singing and dancing from place to place (120).

These songs and dances of the Dionysian festivities inspired tremendous outpourings of feelings from the crowd. Nietzsche would argue that the spectators not only identified with the tragic hero’s journey but also became part of the tragic chorus through their song and merriment. It might seem a bit ironic to celebrate tragedy during a spring-time festival such as that of Dionysus but it is fitting since the tragic drama was not really a tale of disaster but one of personal redemption (Brueck 58). Nietzsche’s view differed from Aristotle’s view here because his genealogy of tragedy, he believed, went back further than Aristotle’s or even Socrates’ time (Leavell 113).

This Dionysian festivity, however, was counter balanced by Apollo, who Nietzsche refers to as the plastic god, a patron of art and beauty who represented that which could be shaped and molded. This is because Apollo heals through the dream state, in which the human mind can shape reality to be something that he wishes it to be. He rights what is wrong through the dreams but to a certain extent is an illusionist. It is because of his illusions that he is known as the plastic god. Later on in this section we will learn the significance of this illusion:

Apollo is at once the god of all plastic powers and the soothsaying god[...]

The perfection of these conditions in contrast to our imperfectly understood waking reality, as well as our profound awareness of nature's healing powers during the interval of sleep and dream[…]which make life possible and worth living. But the image of Apollo must incorporate that thin line which the dream image may not cross, under penalty of becoming pathological, of imposing itself on us as crass reality: a discreet limitation, a freedom from all extravagant urges, the sapient tranquility of the plastic god (16).

Therefore, we can see that although Apollo complements and contrasts Dionysus at the same time he is limited just as Dionysus is limited. These two gods react and act with each other in order to form the beauty in the world (Palmer 63). This action then leads to the birth of the arts, the beauty in the world, which is Nietzsche’s second point. But there is a certain passion, a suffering that arises through the friction between these two gods:

The Apollonian need for beauty had to develop the Olympian hierarchy of joy by slow degrees from the original “titanic hierarchy of terror, as roses are seen to break from a thorny thicket. How else could life have been borne by a race so hypersensitive, so emotionally intense, so equipped for suffering” (23)?

What Nietzsche is saying is that the human body was made to suffer, its two natures make this so. This joy and beauty through the “thorny thicket” is exactly what the tragic drama is about.

The tragedy has to have struggle. Conflict is the key to a tragedy and this conflict must be resolved and through that resolution we have the sweet Olympian joys. This suffering, therefore, is not necessarily an evil but rather it is an opportunity to be led towards the good because we will not escape suffering.

This then leads us to Nietzsche’s third point, which is the redemption of the tragic hero. In order to understand the redemption of the Dionysian man, however, we should understand him a little more. While it is true that the Dionysian man has two natures, this is not enough to understand him completely. The key to understanding the Dionysian man is to understand Dionysus himself. Nietzsche says:

The one true Dionysus appears in a multiplicity of characters, in the mask of warrior hero, and enmeshed in the web of individual will […] That he can appear at all with this clarity and precision is due to dream interpreter Apollo, who projects before the chorus its Dionysian condition in this analogical figure (51).

Therefore, the tragic hero, for Nietzsche, must reflect Dionysus himself because Dionysus is the ultimate tragic hero. But who is Dionysus portraying exactly? We know the characteristics of Dionysus from the introduction to this paper but Nietzsche says that tragic man also shares similarities to fallen heroes such as hamlet:

Dionysian man might be said to resemble Hamlet: both have looked deeply into the true nature of things, they have gained knowledge and are now loath to act. They realize that no action of theirs can work any change in the eternal condition of things, and they regard the imputation as ludicrous or debasing that they should set right the time which is out of joint. Knowledge kills action, for in order to act we require the veil of illusion (39).

Therefore, we have a man acting out against the world, attempting to rectify a wrong or more closely to what Nietzsche says, trying to stop his own mortal suffering. The Dionysian man, however, realizes that this is not a possibility. That the suffering cannot be stopped; he therefore has to accept this. At the moment of realization, Nietzsche will say, is the point of redemption. Redemption for Nietzsche turns out to be something personal and lonely. Nietzsche says:

But Apollo appears to us once again as the apotheosis of the principium

individuations, in whom the eternal goal of the original Oneness, namely its redemption through illusion, accomplishes itself. With august gesture the god shows us how there is need for a whole world of torment in order for the individual to produce the redemptive vision and to sit quietly in his rocking rowboat in mid sea, absorbed in contemplation (26).

Therefore, redemption is an illusion of sorts. The Dionysian man does not stop his suffering but, as stated before, accepts it and flows with it. One thing that should not be mistaken is that he is alone. This is essential because it shows that the redemption comes through his own will but that it is something which only a few, if not one can obtain, the realization that there is no end to the suffering.

Nietzsche brings up two good points in his analysis of the tragic drama; That we have two conflicting natures and that a redemption does take place. Christian tradition will tell us that we are naturally good because we are created through the good, who is God. Because of this, we have a natural inclination towards the good. However, this is clouded because of original sin so we also have temptation. So Nietzsche was correct in stating that we have two conflicting sides. Nietzsche missed the mark, however, in his definition of redemption. Although he was correct in saying that redemption takes place, he was wrong in saying that it is alone and through the “Hellenic will” of the tragic hero. Instead, redemption is won through an interaction in the community and through participation with God. Arthur Miller discusses the redemption won through the interaction with others in more depth.

The Flaw is Not a Flaw: Arthur Miller

Like Nietzsche, Miller begins his discussion of tragedy by reacting to the traditional definition of tragedy set up by Aristotle. However, unlike Nietzsche, he does not focus on the genealogy of tragedy but rather, he focuses his attention on the role of the tragic hero in the drama.

Miller starts off his essay, “Tragedy and the Common Man” with a defense of the everyday within the tragic drama. Traditionally, the tragic hero had to be a person of noble blood, often a king or a prince, and usually a male although exceptions were made. Miller says that, “The common man is as apt a subject for tragedy in its highest sense as kings were” (1707). He says that one can assume this because of how modern psychiatry attributes complexes (such as that of the Oedipus complex), which were enacted by royalty but can be attributed to the common man. Miller will also argue that the common man is capable of the qualities exhibited by the tragic hero in a drama after the curtains have been drawn.

This correlation brings up an interesting question: Is the common tragic hero the same as the noble tragic hero? It seems that they are not. Aristotle viewed the tragic hero as someone who needed to be of noble birth and one that had high moral standing because it would make the catastrophe that much greater. Miller, on the other hand, having a commoner as a hero, does not focus on the moral fall. He instead focuses on a pivotal decision that the tragic hero has to make. Miller says, “I think the tragic feeling is evoked in us when we are in the presence of a character who is ready to lay down his life, if need be, to secure one thing--his sense of personal dignity” (1709). His main focus was on having the tragic hero find his place in society, to break out of his mold and become who he actually is.

Although Miller and Aristotle disagree on the view of the tragic hero, they both did agree that the drama should be the means for the tragic hero to experience redemption, in a way. This distinction really comes when Miller starts to explain the tragic flaw of the hero. Miller states that, “The flaw, or crack in the character, is really nothing--and need be nothing, but his inherent unwillingness to remain passive in the face of what he conceives to be a challenge to his dignity, his image of his rightful status” (1708). Therefore unlike Aristotle, the tragic flaw is not a mistake or intentional sin acted on by the tragic hero but it is a reaction to an injustice the hero perceives has been done to him. Miller then goes on to say that society's norm are the passive, those who do not stand up against the injustice being done to them. In this point he agrees with Nietzsche. If you remember, Nietzsche said that the tragic hero is that man who stands apart from society and acts against it. And in a way they totally agree because Nietzsche's Dionysian Man was treated unjustly and acting to realize himself like Miller's common hero.

This action against the unjust is what then instills feelings of fear and pity on the audience for Miller. He says, “Most of us are in that category. But there are among us today, as there always have been, those who act against the scheme of things that degrades them,” Miller talking about the common hero, “And in the process of action everything we have accepted out of fear or insensitivity or ignorance is shaken before us and examined, and from this total onslaught by an individual against the seemingly stable cosmos surrounding us--from this total examination of the "unchangeable" environment--comes the terror and the fear that is classically associated with tragedy.” Instead of being purified with the tragic hero, we become affirmed in our actions toward justice. Miller's tragic hero doesn't have a fall so, he cannot be purified, and instead he becomes self actualized and this is the journey that the crowd goes through.

This motive of justice is prevalent throughout Miller's theory of tragedy. Miller argues that in a tragedy, the hero should start by being oppressed or wronged, and then becomes exalted. He says this is because “all our miseries, our indignities, are born and bred into our minds.” This low point is what the tragic hero responds against. The common man has to flower like a seed and become enlightened, “The tragic night is a condition of life, a condition in which the human personality is able to flower and realize itself. The wrong is the condition which suppresses man, perverts the flowing out of his love and creative instinct.” This growth happens from the earth up and breaks the grounds of injustice, which try to suppress the common man.

Although highly contrasted by the views of Aristotle and Nietzsche, this theory of the common hero makes perfect sense in the theory of Miller's tragedy because the tragic is not pessimistic for Miller but rather engages the will of man as an unstoppable force. Miller says, “tragedy implies more optimism in its author than does comedy, and [...] its final result ought to be the reinforcement of the onlooker's brightest opinions of the human animal” (1709). One might think that this totally goes against the definition of the tragic but it doesn't. Even Miller says that the definition of tragic drama, “nothing more about the word than that it means a story with a sad or unhappy ending” (1709). We know the true meaning of the word tragic, it comes from the Greek meaning goat song.

In a way, Miller's definition of tragedy more closely fits with the story of Dionysus than the either Aristotle or Nietzsche. As we know from the introduction, Dionysus was torn asunder by the titans on the command of Hera. He was born and then suffered an unjust act, just like the common hero. Dionysus is also called the twice born god because after the titans had their way with him, all that was left was his heart which Zeus used to rebirth Dionysus in his thigh. We can compare this to Miller's common hero's enlightenment. The common hero realizes his injustice and becomes reborn in himself through the attempt of rectifying this injustice. This rebirth, however, is a rebirth in the eyes of the audience rather than an actual rebirth of the character.

An example of this type of rebirth can be seen in one of Miller’s own plays such as in The Death of a Salesman. In this tragic drama we are introduced to the character of Willy Loman who tries hard but just doesn’t seem to be good enough for his family or for himself. Willy carries the weight of his family on his shoulders. He has dreamt about the “American Dream” and instilled this dream in his sons. Neither of them, however, has realized it. In an attempt to rectify this injustice, Willy decides to commit suicide by faking a car accident in order to leave his family with $20,000 so that they can then realize this “American Dream.” He therefore died for the sins of himself and his family in order for them to live a better life. As you can see, Miller stays true to his view of struggling with injustice.

Miller’s notion of rebirth and redemption, however, is not very satisfying. Instead of it being a transcendent, it becomes a material good. Miller’s main and maybe only problem is that he tries to materialize what is good and moral when morality cannot be minimized in such a way. This part goes against the Christian tragedy. However, like Miller, the Christian tragedy will try to illustrate that the tragic flaw is not a flaw at all. For Miller, this tragic flaw is a super characteristic which sets the hero apart from the rest of society while in the Christian tragedy, it will be a part of God’s divine plan to help the hero purge themselves of all evil in an attempt to be united with God (Breuck 61).

Rising Action and the Peak: Theological Build-Up

So far we have looked at three distinct views of the tragic drama. These views reflect their time and place and, as we have seen demonstrated, they all point to certain characteristics worthy to be incorporated in the definition of the Christian tragedy.

Aristotle attempted to develop a framework for the tragic drama and did so well. He also demonstrated how catharsis is one of the most important features within the tragic drama, a belief that Christianity was based on. Nietzsche, a free-spirited soul, wrote a response to Aristotle, honoring his friend Wagner, trying to suck the marrow, the essence of the tragic drama in order to unlock its true nature. He discovers the Dionysian man that is the tragic hero, a man with two natures that of the plastic god. Apollo and Dionysus, the god of wine. This concept is also Christian in that we are born from the divine being but are also fallen and therefore are clouded by sin so that we to have a divided will. And finally we have Arthur Miller. Miller attempts to make an apology for the common man. In doing this he also finds that the tragic flaw may not be a flaw at all (Aristotle called it a sin harmatia.) Instead, Miller says that this flaw is a noble characteristic that sets the tragic hero apart from everyone else. Many of us believe in the happy fall, felix culpa, or to say that God brought salvation through our original misjudgment, our original sin.

We now see how these three views play into the Christian tragedy. But in order to get a real taste of the tragic drama, we will construct a whole new definition for the tragic drama so that the Christian drama will be fortified brick by brick.

Through our catholic tradition we learn that redemption is something bought for us through the blood of Jesus Christ. He made himself ransom “for the futile ways of [our] fathers” (Paragraph 622 CCC). It is through this tradition that we have the catholic view of redemption, something that does not come from us but instead comes from a power outside ourselves, in this case being Jesus the Christ.

But how does this type of redemption fit into the tragic drama? We see that in the tragic drama, the tragic hero alone wins redemption. Or is it that this is not the case?

In order to answer these questions we have to knock down everything that came before and create a new analysis of the tragic drama. To do this, we will start with the very beginning, the core essence of humanity and of the human condition, the inclination towards the good and the temptation towards sin.

According to the Catholic tradition man has an inclination towards the moral good not only by his will but also through his heart (Paragraph 1775 CCC). This inclination towards the good of the moral law conflicts with man’s fallen nature after sin. The Catechism also states that because of man’s free will to choose to disobey God, he fell out of grace with God and chose not to be part of God’s plan of love. In doing this he opened himself up to a multitude of other sins, which cloud man’s freewill in choosing the good (Paragraph 1739 CCC). Also, because of sin, man was no longer in a holy state and could no longer be divinized by God through his glory as was originally planned (Paragraph 398). This then creates a conflict within the nature of man. Although we have an inclination towards the good, our free will is also clouded by our choice to sin and because of original sin we have a temptation towards sin so in a sense, we have an inner struggle through our lives to combat both of our natures and ultimately try to do what is right.

Dividedness is also the condition of the tragic man as described by Nietzsche. For Christians it is precisely because of man’s first fall that he is divided, tragic, and he pines for redemption. This makes the Christian tragedy different from all the others in that the fall is what begins the tragic drama. It is because of the fall that we have our two instincts and it is also because of the fall that we were redeemed. So, instead of having the fall and redemption be one single event as in tragedy it is now two different events, which are intertwined: One comes because of the other.

But how were we actually redeemed by Jesus Christ, and how did this negate the effects of original sin? Being both God and man and being without sin, when Jesus Christ died, he was resurrected by God the Father because He well pleased at the perfect harmony Christ lived in through his divine and human nature (Kasper 144.) Because of this, Jesus Christ was not only resurrected but also exalted by the Father and given a place within the father. Jesus’ human body then became glorified. This single event alone transcended time and won salvation for all mankind, it washed away the stains of their original sin (Kasper 146-147). Kasper says, “The Resurrection is as it were the profound divine dimension of the Cross, since God finally reaches man and man finally reaches God.” This moment then not only bought a place with God only for Jesus but for all mankind.



The Christian Tragedy: Our Lives as We Know Them

As you can see, the Christian life mirrors the structure of the tragic drama. When we realize that each of our lives share in the tragic drama and we are the heroes of this drama, we will see why humanity developed the tragic drama and why people continue to be drawn to it, because it expresses part of their nature. Shelley will tell us that:

Man is an instrument over which a series of external and internal impressions are driven, like the alternation of an ever-changing wind over an Aeolian lyre, which move by their motion to ever-changing melody (288).

This passage from Shelley’s “A Defence for Poetry” then alludes to the fact that humans are swayed by emotion and produce art through the movement of their emotions. The fact that we have developed the tragic drama as an art form alludes to the fact that the tragic drama is etched on our hearts (Brereton p.3). Aquinas will tell us that:

In man there is some likeness to God, copied from God as from an exemplar; yet this likeness is not one of equality, for such an exemplar infinitely excels its copy. Therefore there is in man a likeness to God; not, indeed, a perfect likeness, but imperfect.

Or to say that man has this image of God within them or a similarity to God, imperfect, seeking perfection. This inner godliness then is expressed through our arts. As will be stated by Fr. Brennan, our emotions lead us to God in order to express the beauty in the world. Therefore, the tragic drama is the art form in which we express this longing to be united with God and being united, be more like God. The tragic drama is an imitation of our inner emotions and of our life-long struggle to be united and purified with God. Although it is true that the tragic drama comes from an outer pouring of our inner emotions, it also is our Christian tradition as Simone Weil tells us is found in Christ on the cross.

Weil says that the Christian message in the tragic drama comes in the vision of the crucified Christ. Through the Torment of the cross, Christ sustained a perfect love with the Father, a self-emptying love (Bruek 149). This allows for unmerited suffering within the Christian tradition, which was the main argument against the Christian tragedy. Weil will say that we then imitate Christ’s passion in our own catharsis in order to achieve that perfect union which Christ has with the Father (Breuck 63).

This specific view that there is hope for redemption after the fall of the tragic hero, however, is the reason why many scholars do not accept the concept of a tragic drama. Geoffrey Brereton makes an analogy between “Christ on the cross” and the “Corn King.” The Archetypical Corn king is basically a willing man who is sacrificed in order for the fertility of the crops to be insured and for the lives of the people to be protected. In doing so he shows that there is optimism in tragic. Brereton then makes the point that a sacrificial figure cannot qualify as a tragic figure because a genuinely tragic figure rebels against things such as the religion and society he is in:

It follows that, in order to qualify as a tragic figure, the sacrificial King must be moving against the religious beliefs of the community. Whether he is impelled by ‘honest doubt’, fear, or intense suffering, he will-from the point of view of the accepted religion—become either a rebel or renegade It seems clear that none of the ‘heroes’ of Christianity, whatever the doubts and failures they experienced in the course of their lives, could ever in the final count be equated with the tragic hero (50-51).

What Brereton forgot was that most Christian ‘heroes’ were rebels, even Jesus Christ. If we take a look at the martyrs, especially during the early days of the church, we see them undergoing persecution at the hands of the establish culture and religion of the time. Peter and Paul were executed because they were Christian, Joan of Arc as burned at the stake because she was thought a witch because of her religion, and Jesus Christ was crucified as a rebel rouser with the words “King of the Jews” above his head. All these martyrs were tragic heroes, according to Brereton’s description, because people did not understand the message of what they brought to the world.

Brereton also says, in contra to Weil’s argument, that Jesus Christ cannot be considered an authentic tragic character because in order for the cross to be tragic, it would have to be ineffectual:

There is only one assumption on which the Crucifixion, or any other sacrifice on the same model, could appear tragic. That is, if it were ineffectual. In that event, all the notions of failure and waste, with unlooked-for and irreparable disaster and the horror of recognition, would automatically come into play (52).

Since the cross fulfilled its purpose through the redemption of the world, that would mean that according to Brereton, Jesus Christ was not tragic but victorious. To say that he was tragic would mean that nothing came of his dying and Christianity would be meaningless. This argument is slightly harder to slay than the one he posed before, however, it is still faulty. It is not true to say that the tragic hero’s fall is worthless, this does not make it tragic. Instead, what makes it tragic is the height of the fall, not what comes from it (or in this case what doesn’t come form it.) The mere death of a deity such as Jesus Christ is tragic because he fell from such a great height. Jesus Christ, the ultimate tragic figure came to save the world and was crucified by the people he came to save. Here is the irony and the tragedy. Even tragic heroes such as hamlet and Oedipus gained merit in their falls but what made their cases tragic was their noble ranking.

A third argument against Christian tragedy is actually posed by Katherine Bruek in The Redemption of Tragedy: The Literary Vision of Simone Weil. In her book she expresses concern that pity and fear are emotions, which cannot arise in a Christian audience because the outcome has to end in redemption (61). Although it is true that the ending of a Christian tragedy has to end well it is not true that it still cannot instill the feelings of pity and fear into its audience. It is just like a Christian funeral. Why are there mourners at a Christian funeral if they believe in an afterlife? The answer is simple, because they are not eternal and they experience time linear. Simply put, we do not see the end results of the tragic drama until they are revealed to us. We are on a journey and during the time of the fall we are scared for the tragic hero and we pity him because of his fall because we do not see what will happen in the end. Therefore, these feelings can be expressed in a Christian tragedy.

To recap, we have established how the Christian life imitates the Christian tragedy. We have also seen how the Christian tragedy is a valid form of art. This then allows us to say that the tragic drama was a prototype for the Christian drama and the Christian drama, through its emphasis on suffering, dividedness, catharsis and redemption, fulfills the tragic drama.

Dénouement: The Conclusion

We have thus given an apology for and proven that there can be such a thing as a Christian tragedy. All art is ultimately a way of praising and celebrating an existential beauty in the world. It flows through our veins and is drawn to our souls. Personally, I feel that the tragic drama does this better than other forms of art because our lives are not perfect and we need reconciliation with God. The tragic drama makes this possible in an art form. It is this purgation that rips us towards God. As Fr. Brennan has said, “The artist brings the truth that he or she has perceived in the faith to an expression that communicates directly with the heart. Through their art they speak to the world of the God revealed in Jesus Christ,, and art is first and foremost the language of the heart.”

12/13/2004

Posted on 12/13/2004
Copyright © 2024 Uriel Tovar

Member Comments on this Poem
Posted by Mark Maxey on 01/23/05 at 05:49 PM

alot of thought went into this...and contains no overly seen slippery slopes...well done my friend...what a great read...thank you

Posted by Philip F De Pinto on 05/05/05 at 03:01 PM

i think that our very first step is a mistep, from which all other misteps take place if we are so inclined or designed to follow in those steps. if not we are likely to stand still and take another approach. what commences as something erroneous will remain erroneous, which is consistent to the saying that something in motion will tend to stay inmotion. what we cannot make real in our lives we invent and relegate or instigate such properties within ourselves to feel the actual thing, if we only knew what that actual thing felt like, we stand a chance at knowing, otherwise it is unpure and speculative. I think ultimately our imagination gives us impetus to continue the mistep or to invent relative to that mistep, but can never find or pin down the truth nor conceive of the actual way so as to find the actual self, for reasons that the bloodhound in us has no scent for which to commence the journey of retrieval and no relative scent for which to make comparisons. so in our zeal to make concoct truth, we content that all the statues and painting in museums are the actual articles. in essence life is a mystery and that too is speculative.

Return to the Previous Page
 

pathetic.org Version 7.3.2 May 2004 Terms and Conditions of Use 0 member(s) and 2 visitor(s) online
All works Copyright © 2024 their respective authors. Page Generated In 0 Second(s)