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)
(c)Stanley Chuck (note on 2012 lecture)