Poetics by Aristotle

POETICS 

Aristotle

Written 4th century B.C.

Greek essay

The Well-Educated Mind Plays

⭐⭐⭐

I read this for my WEM (plays) reading challenge, but it is not a play at all. It is an essay on poetry, particularly drama, including forms and parts, marks of success and failure, as well as Aristotle's criticisms and resolutions. 

According to the author, the art of poetry, particularly tragedy, is the imitation of life. Drama is the vehicle which poets use to imitate "people doing things." Imitation comes naturally to human beings...and it is pleasurable. 

There are two kinds of poetry: comedy and tragedy. Aristotle's narrative on comedy has been lost, but the remainder of his essay focused on tragedy. He noted that over time, spoken word plays developed and then plot-construction and stories. 

Tragedy is an imitation of an action that is admirable, complete and possesses magnitude; in language made pleasurable, each of its species separated in different parts; performed by actors, not through narration; [a]ffecting through pity and fear the purification of such emotions. 

The plot is the source and the soul of tragedy... 

A good tragic plot should be complex and imitate true life events. However, it should not present decent characters beginning with good fortune and falling into horrific circumstances because this would exasperate the audience. Nor should depraved characters begin with poor fortunes and excel because this is least tragic. The best tragic plot begins with an intermediate character who experiences a life change not of his own moral fault, but by a mishap outside of his control. 

The plot should also take the character through a realization of his downturn and an understanding of why the reversal of fortune. An excellent tragic plot succeeds when it produces pity and fear. Pity is what we experience when we empathize with the character and fear when we recognize that the same could happen to us. 

WHO WANTS TO READ THIS?

I suppose this is an excellent source for those studying drama or poetry, and certainly it has been used as required reading in high school and college. Simple, insightful, and well organized. Who said the Greeks were difficult to read?

The Birds by Aristophanes

 

The Birds

Aristophanes

Written 414 B.C.

Greek Comedic Drama

The Well-Educated Mind Plays

⭐⭐

The Greek poem The Birds was a strange, carefree comedy. It was very odd. I found myself asking: What am I reading? Where is this going? What is the point? There was no point. 

Aristophanes wrote The Birds during a time of worldly peace and ease, with no concern for war or turmoil. The setting was not Athens, though there were historical references to Greece and its surroundings. 

The two main human characters, Peisetarius and Euelpides, traveled an unknown road, bellyaching about their dull lives in Athens, while taking pointless directions from their pets, a crow and jackdaw. (Already the poem felt wayward.)

Peisetarius had an idea to seek out the mythological character Tereus (who had transformed into a bird)  and convince him to create a city just for birds, where humans (such as themselves), tired of human life (also them), may find sanctuary in the sky.

Once connected with Tereus, the main characters easily persuaded him to build this bird city where birds would live together rather than fly freely everywhere (which seemed like a worse idea to me). However, the conciliation was that birds could concentrate control of all humans below and also besiege power from the Greek gods above. After all, birds were the original gods, he told him. Tereus enthusiastically agreed and called all the birds together and employed the two humans to convince the world's birds of the plan. 

As birds appeared, they were fearful at first sight of Peisetarius and Euelpides, until Peisetarius presented his flattering birds-were-the-original-gods speech and assured them to regain their lost powers from the Olympian gods. They ecstatically agreed and prepared to do battle with the gods. 

After the city was built, the gods, who were pathetically feeble, puny, and half-witted, visited the city.  They did not stand a chance against the birds, obviously, and unsurprisingly capitulated power to Peisetarius, who was naturally crowned the new king of the birds. (He wasn't shrewd for nothing.)

There was a symphony of music, bird song, and colorful plumed costumes throughout the play. And there was a Shakespearean semblance to the play, which tells me the Bard read Aristophanes, no doubt! But there were also extreme sexual overtones towards females and F-bombs, too, that were unfortunate. That is why I could only give it two stars. My final words are that I'm grateful to be done with it, and I'll never read it again.

The next title on TWEM plays list is Poetics by Aristotle.

Medea by Euripides

Medea

Euripides

Written 431 BC

Greek tragedy

⭐⭐⭐

The Well-Educated Mind Plays

First, I have to explain the issue with this book cover. The cover art is a detail from a painting by Eugene Delacroix of Medea preparing to kill her children. (Sorry, I know, spoiler alert.) As is common in Classical and Romantic art of the Greeks and Romans, there is nudity, and this image included enough that I had to give Medea a bandeau. So that's what that is about. There are other artworks available featuring a clothed Medea that would have been more suitable, but I digress. 

ABOUT THE PLAY

Well, well, well...a woman turns psycho after her two-timing husband decided to upgrade and marry a princess to advance his own agenda. What could possibly go wrong? 

I thought I liked Jason of the Argonauts, but he left his wife Medea to help Creon, ruler of Corinth, and married his daughter, leaving Medea devastated. She was in such turmoil she threatened to kill her own two children. Creon was naturally concerned for his own life, and he banished Medea and her children from the land. However, she successfully convinced Creon to give her one last day before she left for good, and he granted it, which was a big mistake. 

In the hours leading up to her departure, she met with Jason, who, for whatever reason, had compassion on her, though he conveniently blamed women for all that was wrong with society. 

But you women have sunk so low that, when your sex life is going well, you think that you have everything, but then, if something goes wrong with regard to your bed, you consider the best and happiest circumstances utterly repugnant. The human race should produce children from some other source and  a female sex should exist. Then mankind would be free from every evil. 

In their time together, each had a moment to share his/her side of the story. Jason also explained why Medea was being exiled by Creon: because she dare curse the royal family. Medea described losing one's native land as the worst misery. 

After her meeting with Jason, Aegeus paid Medea a visit. He had a problem which Medea could help him with, and in return, he would offer her protection in his land, which she would need after she followed through with her wicked plot to kill Jason's new wife. 

She asked Jason to persuade his new wife permission for her children to stay behind and be raised with Jason and her. Medea provided gifts, a robe laced with poison, to appease her.

Immediately the princess put on the robe and the poison began to work. She was like a girl on fire. And Creon embraced his daughter, and died with her. 

Next, Medea prepared to flee to Athens, but not before seeking ultimate revenge on Jason by murdering her children. Afterward, Medea and Jason had a few choice words for one another, but in the end, Jason was left to suffer. 

LAST WORDS

I felt awful after reading this play. There were so many verbal insults and offenses exchanged between Medea and Jason, and obviously nothing good came out of this story. Of course, Euripides challenged the status quo of women in society of his day, as he portrayed a woman who violently acted out her scorn and abuse by her husband, Jason. She sought the worst kind of revenge by murdering her own babies. Certainly she punished herself in the process, though I did not get that impression. I imagine audiences must have been shocked to watch this play. I would have. 

Next play in The Well-Educated Mind list is: The Birds by Aristophanes. 

 

The Well-Educated Mind Book List 

Agamemnon by Aeschylus

Agamemnon 

Aeschylus

Greek Tragedy

c. 458 B. C. 

⭐⭐⭐

The Well-Educated Mind Plays

My first play for The Well-Educated Mind Reading Challenge was Agamemnon by Aeschylus. This was my first experience with this play, and I knew nothing about the plot ahead of reading. 

The setting was Argos, Greece, Atreus' palace, where a watchman waits for news from Troy, to see if Agamemnon, king of Argos, will return. It has been ten long years that he has been away, and he is eager to see the king. 

The Chorus, made up of twelve elders, recited the narrative of how Agamemnon had been pressured to choose between victory or shame by sacrificing his own daughter, Iphigenia, to appease Zeus and earn his favor. 

Agamemnon "...rather than retreat, endured to offer up his daughter's life to help a war fought for a faithless wife and pay the ransom for a storm-bound fleet."

Soon, news arrived that Argos had captured Troy and the king was on his way home. His wife, Clytemnestra, prepared for his arrival, to welcome him home. When the king arrived, he had with him the young Trojan princess, Cassandra, who was also a prophetess. 

While alone, she began a conversation with the god Apollo. (Obviously, very troubled she was, and I don't blame her because...) She saw the ghosts of "children butchered...by their own kindred..." who carr[ied] in their hands "their own flesh....food their father ate!" 

She also revealed that Agamemnon was cursed! There was going to be a murder..."Female shall murder male..." Agamemnon was going to "lie dead."

Near the end of the play, Aegisthus, Agamemnon's cousin and now lover to Clytemnestra, told the horrid story of how Atreus, Agamemnon's father, sought revenge on his brother Thyestes for committing adultery with Atreus' wife. He then roasted his brother's children and served them to Thyestes during a feast. When Thyestes realized what Atreus had done, he cursed his whole household, which fell upon Agamemnon. 

Aegisthus claimed to have plotted the whole "evil deed" from afar, but it was Clytemnestra who stabbed both the king and Cassandra. For Clytemnestra, it was revenge for the murder of her daughter Iphigenia.

However, it was Zeus who punished Agamemnon (for his father's wicked deed against his brother) by forcing the horrible choice to either disobey the gods and go home to Argos in shame or sacrifice his daughter and earn victory in Troy.

The play Agamemnon is about revenge and man's idea of justice. (Which is more like injustice.) Much like reality, when one seeks revenge to settle what he thinks is injustice against himself, he only perpetuates more injustice. As for the Greek gods, they were the last ones to know anything about justice. They thrived on bloodthirsty revenge. 

John Collier, Clytemnestra, 1882,

* * *

The next play for TWEM is King Oedipus by Sophocles. 

 

Hamlet by Shakespeare

Hamlet  

Shakespeare    

Published 1599-1601 

English Play    

⭐⭐⭐⭐ 

This is my fifth or sixth Shakespeare play that I read aloud with my kids, ages 11 and 12. I admit that we read the right hand side of No Fear Shakespeare, which, if you are familiar with this edition, gives you the option to read a modern translation. Frankly, in some cases, it probably would have been safer to read the left hand side instead because there were some parts I would stop and say, "Just skip that!" when they were reading their lines out loud. 

And sometimes -- no, all the time, my 12-year old insisted on reading all of his lines in a terrible British accent that just made the reading take a lot longer; but other than that, it went fairly smoothly. And I was always Hamlet and enjoyed immensely reading his famous soliloquy. 

Side note: we are also reading The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, and I was able to read to my kids the duke's version of Hamlet's soliloquy. Such perfect timing. So hysterical. 

Anyway, back to Hamlet. This play really bothers me because so much does not seem fair or right. Everything is a mess. Hamlet's father was "murdered," or at least Hamlet had good reason to suspect that Uncle Claudius murdered his father, the King, because that's what the ghost of Hamlet's father told him. To complicate things, Hamlet's mother married King Uncle Claudius.

Throughout the play, Hamlet's plots of revenge change often, and at one point he accidentally murdered his girlfriend Ophelia's father. That's not a good way to get in with the family. He spent much of the time professing madness or behaving rudely toward everyone, including his girlfriend. At one point, she literally went off the deep end and probably killed herself. 

Now Ophelia's brother, Laertes, sought revenge on Hamlet. Thus, he challenged Hamlet to a dual, and in good Shakespearean fashion, this tragedy did not end well for anyone. Except Horatio.

What is this play about?

Life and death. To be...or not to be. Life, on the one hand brings pain, sorrows, and struggles that can be more burdensome than the joys and pleasures; however, the alternative is death, and being an unknown, cause great internal conflict.

Conscience. Hamlet struggled with following through with his plots to avenge his father. He knew what he wanted to do, but conscience always pulled him back. 

Reality and Madness. Was Hamlet really mad, or was he feigning madness? I could not confirm.

Consequences. Choices have consequences. Oh, so many bad decisions made by one character that hurt another. Like a vicious cycle. 

The Crucible by Arthtur Miller

The Crucible

Arthur Miller

Published 1953

American Play

⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Part One

The Crucible, written in 1953 by American playwright Arthur Miller, is aptly named for the characters that undergo a test or an ordeal.  It is set during the Salem Witch Trials of 1692, a notorious piece of early American history in which a village in Massachusetts becomes an environment for ignorance, suspicion, and paranoia.  

It started with an unsettled atmosphere of the community among neighbors and deepened when three young girls began acting strangely.  The illiteracy of some thought it was the work of the Devil, and before long, many innocent people were accused of doing the Devil’s work.   In a year’s time, 200 people were tried and 20 were executed.  

One of the immediate questions I have when I read a book is “Why does the author think the way he does?”  I want to know all about him.   

Arthur Miller was born in New York, 1915, to affluent Polish Jewish immigrants. One of his most significant life changing experiences was during the Great Depression because his family lost everything.  He became disillusioned, and like many, he questioned the efforts of capitalism and was open to other solutions to economic and social ills.  About this time, he realized he was not interested in religion.  In addition, he was subjected to anti-Semitism, and his opinions about Christians, especially Catholics, soured. 

At some point, Miller was exposed to Marxism and Communism and may have believed that both were more effective in dealing with social and economic challenges.  Miller was drawn to this, and for several years worked under a pseudo name, Matt Wayne, for the New Masses, an American Marxist publication for theater critics whose editors proclaimed Communist/Marxist loyalty.

In the early 1950s, Senator Joe McCarthy of Wisconsin began the interrogation of suspected Communist sympathizers or party members within the U.S. government, and eventually it included writers, actors, and others being called to give an account for their associations.  

Soon after, Miller wrote The Crucible, “…motivated in some great part by the paralysis that had set in among many liberals who, despite their discomfort with the inquisitors' violations of civil rights, were fearful, and with good reason, of being identified as covert Communists if they should protest too strongly.”  He was significantly affected by the trepidation of his colleagues should they be exposed for association with Communists or accused of harboring the “wrong ideas.”  

Then, in 1956, Miller was called before the House of Un-American Activities Committee, which was formed in the 1930s to search out anti-American propaganda.  He denied membership with the American Communist Party, and refused to provide names of anyone who may have been affiliated with the Party.  He was found guilty of contempt of Congress and was blacklisted.  Later, he was cleared of all charges.

Part TWO

The United States was already abreast of Communists working within many levels of government; yet no politician was willing to confront the truth, until Joe McCarthy.  Regardless if he wanted to make a name for himself, he meant to challenge our government for not aggressively removing these Communist sympathizers, party members, and, in some cases, spies, from their positions.  McCarthy never named names, but Congress that demanded names.  In the end, the tables turned, and the witch-hunt became about McCarthy.  (Sounds like the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal that became more about Ken Star and Linda Tripp.)

When accusations spread, the entertainment industry felt the heat, and many compromised their art to save themselves from branding.  This, Arthur Miller, was not inclined to do.  To him, art and politics were one, and, whether it was freedom of speech or democracy, he would not compromise his ideals even if he lost the opportunity to produce art.  

Miller was a liberal, definitely a Socialist, and agreed with Marxist ideals.  He did support Communism for some time until he had to admit Communist coercion and regulation of artists and their work.   He and I stand on opposite political spectrums.

Having said that, I confess that The Crucible impressed me.  It was entirely effective from start to finish, and moved me to anger at times.   I was able to identify Arthur Miller as the significant character of John Proctor.   He was the one who would not name names, and he questioned the fanatical religion of the village and its injudicious religious leader, Reverend Parris.  

I understand what Miller wants us to know in The Crucible: people trigger paranoia and suspicion on unfounded fear to the point of mass hysteria and unjustified regulation and suppression.  Shall I remind us of the current war against of legal gun owners in this country?  No one on the left is crying “witch-hunt.”

I cannot agree with the comparison between the witch-hunt of Salem 1692 to the exposure of Communists in America 1950, for the fear of witchcraft is based in ignorance, but the infultration of Communism is worthy of alarm.  Communism is documented to be responsible for the death of almost 150 million people worldwide from starvation to murder.  Communism is a genuine threat to freedom and liberty.  If one considers it suspicious paranoia to be alarmed, I suggest that he study the Soviet Union under Stalin; China under Mao; or Cambodia under Pol Pot, and then ask himself if there is nothing to be concerned about.