The Question of Mimesis - note on pro. Akwanya's lecture

This is based on the lecture note of Pro. Amechi Akwanya of English department, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Pro. Akwanya

Lukacs’s opinion of mimesis is that it is in terms of imaging the structure of society. Unlike him, Peter Rabinowitz sees it in a bad sense – that of pretending to be what one is not. According to him, ‘All representational art is “imitation” in that it pretends to be what it is not.’

Mimesis and Similitude

The history of drama is divided into two phases by Lukacs – the pre French revolution (Aristocratic drama) and the post –French revolution (bourgeoisie or modern drama). His account of the two phases is based on that of change. Lukacs’ account is such that in the bourgeoisie or modern drama, change is qualitative in that bourgeoisie tragedy is struggle in which something old is got rid of that the new may emerge, while in the Aristocratic drama, change is quantitative. However, in both dramas, struggle is fundamental, and distinguishes tragedy from comedy. In comedy, Lukacs’ view is that it portrays society, the men rooted in it, and the relationships against which they [are] incapable of successful struggle. On the other hand, tragedy portrays great personalities who challenge and struggle against relationships – ‘though it may mean ruin.’ Lukacs further stresses that comedy is an available option in a tragedy in as much as the character accepts his situation but it becomes a tragedy when he challenges it.

                This is what we see in Bacchae where the chorus is not ready to challenge what others do but to readily follow them. For Lukacs then, the chorus is on the comic plane. To the chorus, what the common people do is the correct and fixed order.

                On the other hand, the struggle is a tragic one for Pentheus since he chose to stay aloof of what the common men do thus rejecting the chorus and their society. Discourse Analysis provides us with the idea that Sophia provides self-knowledge, and the lack of this quality is the ultimate cause of Pentheus’ confrontation with the god.

                Lukacs’ modes of struggle differ in both the Aristocratic and the bourgeois drama. Aristocratic drama involves a universe which rests upon ‘solid metaphysical foundations.’ Due to this, the hero is never in doubt as to what is the correct course of action. His whole life is already circumscribed by a closed system of belief. Further for Lukacs, tragedy usually results from acting in a manner contrary to those moral dictates. Though the deed could be explained by his soul’s condition – no amount of reasoning could provide absolution. Though, Lukacs’ argument is not always seen in Greek tragedies. His proposition here is vital for the identification of two kinds of great figures associated with epic and tragic drama. On one hand is the sage like Tiresias who articulates the governing laws of the moral universe or the saint such as Odysseus who possess wisdom in a divine degree and in whom the laws governing history and the lives of states and individuals function flawlessly, without interference by individual will. On the other hand is a leader who is aware of the obstacles standing in the face of his desire to shape events by the force of his will.

                The moral integrity in the Bacchae is glib. This is because the conflict over the cult of Dionysus lies in the fact that it is new and not previously known in Thebes. As pointed earlier, what Sophia (wisdom) does is to provide the individual involved with self-knowledge. It is however, this lack of self-knowledge by Pentheus that is the cause of his confrontation with Dionysus. The question of whether one knows who one is or not does not arise for Pentheus for he is certain of whom he is but his certainty is a dangerous one.

                Humility – Sophrosunc in Greek – and moderation keeps the individual in relation with an order outside himself, his self-awareness is conditioned by his awareness of other realities. These other realities exercise greater force than the individual’s. Pentheus again is not aware is not aware of these other realities unlike Cadmus who is aware of other realities the greatest of which is divinity (the gods), thus his reverence for the gods. However, his choice to honour Dionysus is not shared by all. Pentheus becomes the representative individual outside the society. But the punishment pronounced on him by Dionysus is also that of Thebes as a whole.

                Murder in the Cathedral reconstructs the struggle between systems but it must share both of the history of the scene of the action and the time of writing. Unlike in The Bacchantes where there is no question in the matter of precedence between religious and political power (authority) but a resentment and rejection of priestly power by the state already exists, there is no confusion in Murder in the Cathedral as to what must be done. Thomas Becket already knows what is required of him and proudly proclaims it but despite his rejection of political power, the confusion of inner and outer reality arises with the appearance of Fourth Tempter.

                For Aristotle, the notion that tragedy is set off by who one is and not by what one has done is out of place. He maintains that ‘happiness and unhappiness are bound up with action’ and the ‘change from bad fortune to good, or from good fortune to bad’ in tragedy is tied ‘to the sequence of events, and follow from this ‘according to the law of probability and necessity.’ What this appears to be for him is that right action ought to ensure happiness for the doer. For Becket, he knows differently that his action in the end will not bring him ‘happiness.’ In the end it is difficult to tell whether he has been seeking self-glorification in martyrdom or he submits to facts following his mature wisdom.

                Meanwhile, Lukacs’ theory has its short-comings in that it marginalises other characters since it focuses on the hero who struggles. It thus reduces other characters as mere helpers.

Mimesis and its other

Rabinowitz in ‘What’s Hecuba to us?’ brings up two perspectives in audiences of literary borrowing that which permits us to see the work as an object and that as the thing it pretends to be. These two views give rise to two audiences. The first is the ‘authorial audience,’ and the second, ‘narrative audience.’ His view is that at the point of writing the writer has a specific audience in mind.

                The authorial audience sees the work as a whole, designed by the author, such that each of the individual elements in it has a functional role. What embodies the authorial audience is the intention behind the design. On the other hand, the narrative audience is an imitation of the authorial audience. The difference between the two audiences is that the narrative audience receives the work as a sequence of individual actions, and the participants, not as ‘characters’ as such but as full psychological activities, with a past and a future beyond the moment of the set of actions they are entangled in. Rabinowitz’s notion of criticism consists in reconstructing the intention of the writer.

(c)Stanley Chuck (note on 2012 lecture)