CBCS SEM 3 AMERICAN LITERATURE Character and function of Hawkshaw in Dry September

 

Character and function of Hawkshaw in Dry September

A Truth-seeker, a hero, a reasonable man, and perhaps a coward, Henry Hawkshaw is spokesman for quiet, calm justice in Faulkner’s Short story Dry September.We first meet Hawkshaw in the sweaty, noisy barber shop. He presents a cool and reasonable contrast to the men around him. We know that he is a barber, that he knows both Minnie and Will, and that he holds plenty of gender stereotypes. In his support of the accused Will Mayes, Hawkshaw is instantly on the defensive as he insists repeatedly that those men who want to act rashly should first find out the facts before they rush to judgment.. He insists, in this scene and throughout the story, that no action should be taken against Will without investigation – he even hopes to involve the sheriff. He tries to get the men to think about what they already know about Minnie and Will, and to see that it's unlikely that Will raped or otherwise sexually abused Minnie. Hawkshaw doesn't claim that this prior knowledge is evidence that Will didn't commit crime, but the circumstances are just reason enough to give Will the benefit of the doubt.

In the midst of the tension caused by the rumor, Hawkshaw is the voice of reason. His patience and persistence in wanting facts and justice represent the sane approach — in contrast to the others' irrational violence. But he is immediately trapped by the stereotype of being a "damn niggerlover."Throughout Section I, and later in Section III, Hawkshaw represents a concept of humane justice, but he proves ineffective when pitted against McLendon, who uses the Southern culture's fears and prejudices to enrage men to commit violent acts. Hawkshaw's sense of justice is no weapon against McLendon's fierce bigotry. These two men represent diametrically opposed points of view: Hawkshaw is calm, reasonable, and just; McLendon is wild, impassioned, and sadistic. Their opposition is best expressed when Hawkshaw, responding to McLendon's goading of the men to join him in capturing Will Mayes, returns McLendon's stare without flinching. Faulkner notes of the two men, "They looked like men of different races."

By publicly defending a black man, and vouching for his character, Hawkshaw takes a stand for truth and justice, but not without risk. When Hawkshaw joins McLendon's group, they think that he has changed his mind and has come to join their revenge; however, Hawkshaw continues to try to convince them to stop their thirst for murder. He questions the believability of Miss Minnie's charge, pleading with the group to consider how "a lady will kind of think things about men when there aint any reason to . . ." Because his reasoning falls on deaf ears, he changes his strategy and argues that Will would have left town by now if he were guilty. Hawkshaw's attempts at quelling the violence, however, are ineffectual against the men's frenzy and rage.When Hawkshaw participates in the initial beating and handcuffing of Will, his powers of rhetoric and reason are useless. Hawkshaw doesn't seem to have an alternative plan to save Will. Without such a plan, he might believe that if he stays in the car, he will become more and more implicated in the crimes against Will. This might be why he steps out.

Hawkshaw's desire to get out of the car can be interpreted in several ways. He wants nothing to do with the violence, and he fears that, in striking back at Will, he, too, is becoming emotionally caught up in the murderous fever of the others.We don't know exactly why he jumps from the car after they nab Will, and we don't know what would have happened if he had stayed.One might interpret Hawkshaw’s act as an act of cowardice for he abandons Will when he pleads him to stay by speaking Hawkshaw's name (Mr. Henry), implying that Will still believed that Hawkshaw could save him from the bad guys. Or, he recognizes the futility of his attempts to stop the killing and abandons all hope. Or, he fears that the men will take out part of their hatred on him, and he will be murdered with Will.Ironically, the moon's position appears to shift in direct correlation to Hawkshaw's actions. After he jumps from the moving car and is no longer part of the murderous mob, "The moon was higher, riding high and clear of the dust at last."

However there are strong hints of irony in Faulkner’s portrayal of the character of Hawkshaw.Faulkner shows how he too subscribes to racial ideology. Hawkshaw calls Will Mayes a “good nigger” and later in the story refers to the black community of Jefferson as the “best niggers”. His belief in Will Mayes’s “good” character is dependent upon Will’s compliance to the racial ideology and acceptance of white superiority.On one hand there seems to be some truth in what Hawkshaw suggests about Minnie. Indeed she appears to be sexually frustrated to the point of madness. But Henry seems to blame Minnie herself because she "got old without getting married ". In Hawkshaw’s point of view such a woman simply isn't acceptable. Whereas Hawkshaw doesn't let irrational racial prejudice interfere with his belief in Will's innocence, he ignores the reasons for Minnie's plight.

Thus the character of Henry Hawkshaw in Dry September, although succumbing to the stereotyped Southern racial prejudices, represents the voice of moral judgement and logical reasoning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CBCS SEM 3 AMERICAN LITERATURE Critical evaluation of the racial discourse in William Faulkner’s ‘Dry September’

 

Critical evaluation of the racial discourse in William Faulkner’s ‘Dry September’

As a Southern writer, Faulkner draws upon the mores and prejudices of his own regional culture to create unforgettable characters and settings for his novels and short stories. Dry September clearly shows the horrible miscarriages of justice that racial prejudice can cause.Dry Septemberis a short story that narrates the murder of an African American man by a gang of racist men. The story portrays the extremely racist ideology of American society in the South and how those who do not subscribe to it are forced to comply and maintain white supremacy. Faulkner subverts racial discourse by exposing racial stereotypes as false and racist violence as an attempt to efface the crumbling of white superiority.

Faulkner’s critique of racism begins from the very first line of the story as he introduces the “rumour” about “something” that happened or didn’t happen at all between Will Mayes and Minnie Cooper. By making the rumour as vague as possible, Faulkner shows how racist violence doesn’t result from a particular event, but from hatred perpetuated by racial discourse.The story demonstrates how racial ideology guides the perceptions and actions of different people in the white community.This powerful study of a cultural mentality that promotes rash, swift killings of black men is based on the Southern White Goddess concept; that sets the white woman atop a mythical pedestal, creating an imaginary, protective shield through which the Southern aristocracy lets nothing pass that might endanger both physically and emotionally its women.

Appropriately, the story begins in a barbershop, a symbolic gathering place for small-town gossipers. The spokesman for quiet, calm justice is Henry Hawkshaw, one of the barbers. In his support of the accused Will Mayes, Hawkshaw is instantly on the defensive as he insists repeatedly that those men who want to act rashly should first find out the facts before they rush to judgment.Faulkner shows how he too subscribes to racial ideology. Hawkshaw calls Will Mayes a “good nigger” and later in the story refers to the black community of Jefferson as the “best niggers”. His belief in Will Mayes’s “good” character is dependent upon Will’s compliance to the racial ideology and acceptance of white superiority.Hawkshaw’s belief in his innocence is also dependent on the circumstances.Nobody responds to Hawkshaw’s description of Minnie Cooper as a sexually frustrated woman as for them her “word” as a white woman is all that matters.Unlike Hawkshaw, they do not even take Will’s name, and for them he can be replaced with any black man:“Maybe you know who did it, then. Maybe you already got him out of town, you damn nigger-lover”.For racist extremists, when Hawkshaw defends a black man he is not defending an individual but the stereotypical black man whose aggression needs to be checked by a united white community.

The feeling of claustrophobia to Hawkshaw’s compliance yet revulsion at racial extremism prepares for the arrival of McLendon, the story's most obvious villain. Faulkner’s description of McLendon presents him as ahyper masculine man whose “heavy-set body” and “bold glance” is able to capture the group’s attention. Not only his poise, but his words appeal to their sensibilities as youthful men to emulate his conduct and follow his lead. McLendon uses very graphic language to convince them of the urgency to act: “Are you going to sit there and let a black son rape a white woman on the streets of Jefferson?”Except Hawkshaw, all men who end up lynching Will Mayes occupy an economically lower position. Their racist belief of superiority over the blacks clashes with the reality of their economic inferiority. As Janet Elizabeth Barnwell points out, “the young man Butch, who has not yet made his way in the world, the drummer who is an outsider, and McLendon who has been decorated for valour in the First World War but who lives in a house described as a “bird cage” most vehemently argue to have Will Mayes killed”.

McLendon and the gang’s encounter with Will Mayes presents a stark contrast between the stereotypical image of Will Mayes that the men had formed and his actual character. He is not the aggressive and bestial man who threatens to upset the racial hierarchy dictated by the whites. On the contrary, he is completely compliant to behaving with them as superiors and is terrified as he is approached by the gang.Faulkner exposes the unjust power that racist ideology grants the white community and the disadvantaged position of the blacks by making the “negro” a night watchman. Will’s frightened state and his question: “what you all say I done, Mr. John?” signify that his job of night watchman does not grant him any kind of authority over white men as it is supposed to. The one entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring the safety of Jefferson is ironically the one who feels most unsafe.

Thus Faulkner presents the picture of a society in flux, a society where hierarchies established by racial ideology lead to unjust violence and injusticeby the actions of a community driven by blind racial prejudices.

 

CBCS SEM 1 Oedipus as an ideal tragic hero

 

Oedipus as an ideal tragic hero

Aristotle gave Oedipus Rex high praise for its outstanding fulfillment of the requirements he set out for tragedy, including reversal of situation, characterization, well−constructed plot and rationality of action. In tragedy, the tragic protagonist inspires in his audience the twin emotions of pity and fear. Usually a person of virtue and status, the tragic hero can be a scapegoat of the gods or a victim of circumstances. In the play Oedipus, King of Thebes, upon hearing that his city is being ravaged by fire and plague, sends his brother−in−law Creon to find a remedy from the Oracle of Apollo at Delphi. When Creon returns Oedipus begins investigating the death of his predecessor, Laius,and discovers through various means that he himself was the one who had unknowingly killed Laius and the married his own mother, Jocasta. Jocasta commits suicide, Oedipus blinds himself, takes leave of his children, and is led away. In terms of the Aristotelian theory of tragedy, Oedipus is a tragic hero because he is not perfect, but has tragic flaws.

King Oedipus can be taken as a typical hero of classical tragedies. Aristotle, the first philosopher to theorize the art of drama, obviously studied Oedipus and based his observation about the qualities of a tragic hero upon the example of Oedipus. In Aristotle's conception, a tragic hero is a distinguished person occupying a high position, living in prosperous circumstances and falling into misfortune because of an error in judgment. Aristotle used the word "hamartia" to indicate the protagonist's tragic weakness. According to Aristotelian percepts about tragedy, a tragic hero would be a man of noticeable qualities of behavior, intelligent and powerful, but by no means perfect. Oedipus is neither a saint nor a rogue. Aristotle points out that Oedipus' tragic flaw is excessive pride (hubris) and self-righteousness. He also points out certain characteristics that determine as tragic hero. Using Oedipus as an ideal model, Aristotle says that a tragic hero must be an important or influential man who commits an error in judgment, and who must then suffer the consequences of his actions. The tragic hero must learn a lesson from his errors in judgment, his tragic flaw, and become an example to the audience of what happens when great men fall from their high social or political position.

The opening scene shows Oedipus in his magnificence, as a king who is so concerned about the welfare of his people. He addresses them as "my children".  He is a great man with respectable moral value and personality. As a man, he is dedicated to fighting and avoiding evil. His quest for truth is in fact the cause of downfall, and that is one of the most tragic things. As a king, he is an epitome itself. He loves his people. He is so worried by the problem of plague that he hasn't been sleeping: indeed, he says that he is suffering for the whole city alone. The priest glorifies the king as a man "Surest in mortal ways and wisest in the ways of god". He is a man who has become the king as much through the intelligence as through his power. It is he who solved the Sphinx's riddle and saved all citizens from the monster. He has always become the ultimate and almost the only rescue and hope at the time of misfortune.

Oedipus has his typical tragic flaw or "hamartia". Obviously pride is his hamartia. He is too proud and arrogant, and presumes too much about his own understanding and his powers to control his life. But he can't control reality, chances, fate and time. He has a bad temper and wrong judgment. Oedipus wrongly judges his situation. Due to his presumption about his abilities, he has disobeyed the gods and his destiny. In his confidence upon what he knows and can do, he escapes from the professed evil fate, he kills a man old enough to be his father, and he marries a woman old enough to be his mother, without even doubting his wits. He has no clear vision which enables him to examine every side of a matter with unclouded eyes, and to see all things in due perspective. His prejudice is such that he sees the entire thing as a conspiracy of Creon and Teiresias. Oedipus surrenders himself to his fate after learning the truth. Even Teiresias, the blind prophet, is unable to prevent this tragic event. After learning the truth and the suicide of Jocasta, he blinds himself and asks Creon to exile him.

Moira seems to be present as a constant force in Oedipus Rex, with the oracles as her ambassadors, and their prophecies, their flags. The turning point of Oedipus’s character lies not in what is announced by the prophecy, but in anagnorisis, the discovery of his heinous acts followed by the peripetia that is the reversal of his fortune.If the prophecies are considered to be the words of Fate, they do happen but this is not what directly affects the development of Oedipus’ or Jocasta’s character. This is particularly why the punishment they receive is emphatically announced as being ‘self-inflicted’.

Thus, Oedipus as a tragic character is heroic because of his struggle, pitiable because of his weakness before the forces of his destiny, and his tragedy arouses fear in us, because he is in the same predicament like us, though he was a great man otherwise. The tragedy of Oedipus is that of the realization of his failure. And the tragedy of Oedipus is a tragedy of the human situation. His story tells us that man must do his best — but even then he cannot overcome the inevitable!

 

 

 

CBCS SEM 1 Oedipus Rex as a classical tragedy or Greek tragedy/ Aristotelian view of Oedipus Rex

 

Oedipus Rex as a classical tragedy or Greek tragedy/ Aristotelian view of Oedipus Rex

Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex is probably the most famous tragedy ever written.Sophocles first produced the play in Athens around 430 B.C. at the Great Dionysia, a religious and cultural festival held in honor of the god Dionysus. Ever since Aristotle's high praise regarding its structure and characterization in his Poetics, Oedipus Rex has been considered one of the most outstanding examples of classical tragic drama.Following Aristotle's appraisal, many prominent authors including Voltaire, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Sigmund Freud reacted at length to the play's themes of incest and patricide. In the twentieth century, the most influential of these thinkers, Freud, showed that Oedipus's fate is that of every man; the"Oedipus Complex" is the definitive mother−son relationship.

In the play Oedipus, King of Thebes, upon hearing that his city is being ravaged by fire and plague, sends his brother−in−law Creon to find a remedy from the Oracle of Apollo at Delphi. When Creon returns Oedipus begins investigating the death of his predecessor, Laius,and discovers through various means that he himself was the one who had unknowingly killed Laius and the married his own mother, Jocasta. Jocasta commits suicide, Oedipus blinds himself, takes leave of his children,and is led away.The myth of Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex is revolved on the three interactive perspectives of fate, truth and self-will, making the play a most remarkable one in the fifth century Greece when allthe plays focused on the manifestation of God’s will under which man’s behavior was undoubtedly directed. W hat gives the play its tragic intensity is not the horror it arouses of patricide or incest but the meaning of fate that God bestows to Oedipus in his endeavor of truth seeking.

In tragedy, the tragic protagonist inspires inhis audience the twin emotions of pity and fear. Usually a person of virtue and status, the tragic hero can be ascapegoat of the gods or a victim of circumstances. Their fate often death or exile establishes a new andbetter social order. Not only does it make the viewer aware of human suffering, tragedy illustrates the manner in which pride or hubris can lead to the downfall even of the strongest of characters. It is part of the playwright's intention thataudiences will identify with these fallen heroes−and possibly rethink the manner in which they live their lives. Aristotle, has used the term catharsis to capture the sense of purgationand purification that watching a tragedy yield in a viewer, relief that they are not in the position of theprotagonist and awareness that one slip of fate could place them in such circumstances.

The dramatic structure of Greek drama is helpfully outlined by Aristotle in the twelfth book of Poetics. In thisclassical tragedy, a Prologue shows Oedipus consulting the priest who speaks for the Theban elders, the first choral ode or ‘parodos’ is performed, four acts are presented and followed by odes called ‘stasimons’, and in the ‘exodos’, or final act, the fate of Oedipus is revealed.The Greek chorus, like the genre of tragedy itself, is reputed to be a remnant of the ritualistic and ceremonial origins of Greek tragedy. In terms of form, the choral ode has a tripartite structure which bears traces of its use as a song and dance pattern. Thethree parts are called, respectively, the strophe, the antistrophe, and the epode; their metrical structures varyand are usually very complex. If the strophe established the dance pattern, in the antistrophe the dancers tracebackwards the same steps, ending the ode in a different way with the epode.

Aristotle gave Oedipus Rex high praise for its outstanding fulfillment of therequirements he set out for tragedy, including reversal of situation, characterization, well−constructed plot,and rationality of action.Oedipus Rexcontains an excellent moment of "reversal" in the scene in which the messenger comes to tell Oedipus of the death of Polybus, whom he believes to be Oedipus's father. According to Aristotle, becauseOedipus learns from him inadvertently that Polybus is not his father, "by revealing who he is, he produces theopposite effect." ‘Anagnoriris’, the shift from ignorance to knowledge and ‘peripetia’, a reversal in fortune or a change in the state of things occur simultaneously in the play as Oedipus’ desire to know his parentage brings him face to face with his worst nightmare. The focus on fate reveals another aspect of a tragedy as outlined by Aristotle: dramatic irony. Good tragedies are crammed with irony. The audience knows the outcome of the story already, but the hero does not, making his actions seem painfully ignorant in the face of what is to come. Whenever a character attempts to change fate, this is ironic to an audience who knows that the tragic outcome of the story - as they know it in the myth - cannot be avoided.

Thus thegreatness of Oedipus Rex as a tragedy lies in the combination of a faultlessly-constructed plot with the profoundest insight into human motive and circumstance. It is the story of the impact of a totally undeserved misfortune upon a man of no exceptional faults or virtues. It reveals, with a merciless sincerity, the pitfalls lying about the path of a manthwarted by fate, hubris and his own free will.

CBCS SEM 1 Qualities of a tragic protagonist in tragic poetry: Aristotelian Model from Poetics

 

Qualities of a tragic protagonist in tragic poetry: Aristotelian Model from Poetics

Aristotle defined tragedy, as an imitation of action which is exalted and ‘serious’, evoking the twin emotions of ‘pity and fear’ leading to ‘Catharsis’, a purgation or cleansing of the emotions at the end.  While defining tragedy in his ‘Poetics’, Aristotle realized that the tragic action requires a central agent to be carried out. This agent or the conveyor of the tragic action is the tragic hero or tragic protagonist.

An Aristotelian tragic hero must possess specific characteristics, which can be pointed out as having (i) Flaw or error of judgment- ‘hamartia’, (ii) A reversal of fortune- ‘peripety’, brought about because of the hero's error in judgment. (iii) The discovery or recognition that the reversal was brought about by the hero's own actions- ‘anagnorisis’, (iv) Excessive Pride- ‘hubris’, (v) The character's fate which leads him to the misfortunes- ‘nemesis’.

While enumerating the characteristic features of the tragic hero, Aristotle first takes up the perfectly good man and dismisses his journey from happiness to misery as unfit for a tragic hero. The spectacle, he says of a blameless character encountering suffering does not evoke pain in us, nor is it piteous; such a sight of perfect innocence would evoke righteous anger instead of ‘pity and fear’ and would therefore be not tragic in essence. Aristotle, then, considers the viability of the completely bad man as a tragic hero. He says that such a bad man passing from misery to happiness is also unsuitable for a tragic situation. In fact, the spectacle of a bad man rising from misery to happiness would be the most unfitting for tragedy, since it would be the grossest violation of all our sense of poetic justice.Next comes the case of an extremely bad man passing from happiness to misery. Even such a situation would never arouse pity in us, nor would it evoke fear, since fear is the result of our identification with the hero, and we can never completely identify our selves with an agent of evil. Moreover, the sight of a guilty villain’s suffering is basically pleasing to us and caters to our sense of poetic justice.

There remains, then, the intermediate kind of personage, “a man not pre-eminently virtuous and just whose misfortune however is brought upon him not by vice and depravity, but by some error of judgment. Aristotle exemplifies the characters of Oedipus and Thyestes from the tragedies of Sophocles and Aeschylus respectively who essentially fit the definition of a tragic hero. A tragic hero therefore is socially exalted,elevated and grand whose downfall is not the result of any moral lapse, but of some flaw or error of judgment that is ‘hamartia’ in Aristotle’s language.The phrase ‘error of judgment’ has been a source of great confusion because the original Greek word ‘Hamartia’ is actually a term taken from Archery, which means the missing of the mark by the archer. Since the missing of the mark is not itself a culpable act, and often proceeds from chance, many would argue that the hero is not himself guilty but a victim of misfortune.

Aristotle’s contentions about the tragic hero have been challenged by a host of modern critics who contradict Aristotle on his observation that the perfectly good man is an unfit character of tragedy. Pointing out stories from the Four Gospels which present a history of suffering inflicted on perfect innocence. Christian literature is filled with the stories of saints and martyrs who were destitute, afflicted and tormented. Heroic greatness and perfect guiltlessness were the secret of their power. In spite of the contentions, the vast majority of tragedies seem to support Aristotle’s views. The very paucity of tragedy on the blameless hero is itself the strongest argument in his favour. Moreover, those characters embodying blameless goodness and perfect innocence seem to be so far removed from the general sphere of fallible morality that such characters never excite our sense of identification with them and, therefore, to arouse fear at the spectacle of such tragic suffering is very difficult on the part of the dramatist.

 

Thus it appears that over and above all, Aristotle’s definition of the tragic hero is still relevant. It is not worthy that Aristotle emphasizes the necessity of the tragic hero being in the enjoyment of prosperity and regard. It is only on rare occasions that the 20th century writers of tragedies such as Galsworthy with his Strife   or Synge whit his Riders to the Sea, has been able to make the ordinary character tragic.  But this exception only reinforces the general validity of the Aristotle principles of the tragic protagonist.

CBCS SEM 1 Aristotle’s views and concept of tragedy in ‘The Poetics’

 

Aristotle’s views and concept of tragedy in ‘The Poetics’

A philosopher, an educator, a literary critic and a scientist, Aristotle was probably the most scholarly and influential of the classical and Greek philosophers. In his writings Aristotle considered, summarized, criticized and further developed all the rich intellectual traditions that he had inherited from his teacher Plato. Aristotle’s ‘Poetics’ has been the single most influential work in in all literary criticism. In the ‘Poetics’ Aristotle uses the same scientific analytical methods that he had he had successfully applied to the study of politics, ethics and natural sciences in order to determine the fundamental principles of the composition and content of tragedy.

Aristotle begins by listing the different kinds of poetry and remarks that all kinds of poetry are ‘mimetic’ or ‘imitative’. Both Aristotle and Plato saw in ‘mimesis’ the representation of nature. Poetic ‘mimesis’ is imitation of things as they could be, not as they are in the universal ideas. Thus poetry is much more philosophical than history that merely records what actually happened. Aristotle further insists that amongst poetry “tragedy’ is the most perfect form of ‘mimesis’ because it has a serious purpose and uses direct action rather than narrative.

The Greeks believed that tragedy was the highest form of drama and Aristotle’s ideas of tragedy were based on this belief. The ‘Poetics’examines the nature of tragedy and takes as its prime example Sophocles’ tragedy ‘Oedipus Rex’. Aristotle analyses the features and components of tragedy taking illustrations primarily from Sophocles, Aeschylus and Euripides. He defines tragedy as “ …an imitation of an action that is serious and also,as having magnitude, complete in itself, in appropriate and pleasurable language; …in a dramatic rather than narrative form, with incidents arousing pity and fear, wherewith to achieve a catharsis of these emotions.” The definition itself points out the features of an ideal tragedy that are (a) A good tragedy deals with one issue that is serious and of magnitude or having great importance and it is complete in itself, (b) The language of chorus should be easy and sung with rhythm and harmony, (c) Drama demands that the story need to be acted out, (d) A good tragedy arouses the twin emotions of pity and fear for the emotional built up and thereby preparing for (e) Catharsis, a purgation of the emotions. Catharsis is a purging or cleansing of the emotions- a release of the tension so as to achieve a neutral or stable emotional state. The catharsis is achieved when the tragic protagonist falls a victim of his “hamartia’, a particular flaw in the character or an error in judgement, bringing a disastrous change in the fortune of the tragic protagonist.

Aristotle next proceeds to analyse the six main elements or components of tragedy: (i) Plot, (ii) Character, (iii) Thought, (iv) Diction, (v) Melody and (vi) Spectacles. Thought denotes the intellectual qualities of the characters. Diction refers to the composition and the language. If ‘thought’ deals with what is said, ‘diction’ deals with how it is said. ‘Melody and spectacles are the accessories to pleasurably blend in the visual appearances and songs of the chorus appropriately within the play. Aristotle considers ‘character’ to be the second most important aspect of tragedy. The characters serve to advance the action of the story. The moral purpose of the characters should be clear to the audience and they must be believable personalities.

Aristotle considers ‘plot’ or ‘mythos’ that is the sum total of all the actions in the play, to be the most important of the six elements. The plot must be about “one complete action” that is unity of the plot; all the events and actions must direct towards one serious issue. Aristotle insists that a good plot is accompanied by two qualities (i) ‘Peripety’ and (ii) ‘Anagnorisis. ‘Peripety’ is the change in the state of things or a reversal in the fortune of the tragic protagonist. ‘Anagnorisis’ or discovery is the change from ignorance to knowledge. This is achieved in ‘Oedipus Rex’ when King Oedipus starts out “clueless” and slowly learns how he himself is responsible for all the mess.

Change by itself is not enough in order to achieve ‘catharsis’; the tragic protagonist must have specific characteristics to arouse the tragic emotions of pity and fear. Aristotle suggests that three kinds of plot should be avoided. Firstly, a totally good man must not pass from happiness to misery for the audience won’t pity him so much rather be angry for him. Secondly, a bad man must not pass from misery to happiness, for it would not be appealing to see evil rewarded. Thirdly, a bad man must not pass from happiness to misery for the audience won’t pity him for he deserved it. Aristotle concludes that the best kind of plot involves the misfortune of someone who is neither particularly good nor bad and whose downfall is the result of an error in judgement or ‘hamartia’.

Although Aristotle’s theories and his preoccupation with plot and character were grossly violated as drama passed from Shakespeare to Beckett, the overwhelming influence of Aristotle’s ideas and principles had a founding influence in the composition of tragedy on playwrights of all times all over the world.

CBCS SEM 1 Concept of Justice in Cilappatikaram

 

Concept of Justice in Cilappatikaram

Cilappatikaram is a classical Tamil epic in verse interspersed with prose, of uncertain date, composed between the 3rd and 6th centuries C.E. It is ascribed to Ilanko Atikal, a prince of the Ceral dynasty who became an ascetic, abandoning the prerogatives of wealth and power. One of the most common, perhaps even universal, concerns of human societies is justice in one form or another. Ilanko provides a viable religious solution to the experiences of suffering and ideas of salvation, in the apotheosis of his protagonist, Kannaki and the administration of justice by divine means as well as by the Ceral king Cenkuttuvan.

The Epic is set in thirty chapters organized into three cantos or kantams, "Pukar Kantam", "Maturai Kantam", and "Vanci Kantam", each named for a city in which the major events take place. These three cities were the three capitals of the Chola, Pantiya, and Ceral kings, who ruled the east, south, and west in the Tamil country of the period.The first book explores love in its various forms. The second book retells the myth of transformation of Kannaki into goddess Pattini and the third book complies with the convention of the Tamil poetic tradition. In the final book, i.e. “The Book of Vanci”, all three aspects of the poem come together and conclude to give a coherent narrative and thematic structure to the poem.

 

Cilappatikaram is the poignant tale of a chaste wife who, though faultless, suffers grievously through the judicial murder of her husband, whom the civic authorities think to be a thief. Though a sheltered woman throughout her life, Kannaki rises in fury to the occasion, challenging the authorities to do justice, if they can, to her innocent husband and to herself so newly widowed. This is a tale of the subjection of a just, innocent, and virtuous woman to husbandly neglect and kingly injustice, resulting in atraumatic release of retributive power and eventuating ultimately in the heroine's own demise. A kind of justice is wonfor her in the end, however, by the actions of both gods andhumans.

 

In Cilappatikaram we learn about the ancient Tamil system of justice as a royal function and prerogative.The royal parasol represents the king's protection of the people and the country.The king's staff, or sceptre, is straight and unbending so long as his rule is righteous. Itbecomes crookedwhen the justice of his rule fails.Cenkuttuvan, himself, makes clear the king's duty to protect the people from injustice.The toppling of the parasol and the bending of the sceptre are symbols of justice gone awry. So also is the absence of rain which is believed to follow from unrighteous rule as a direct consequence.By rashly failing to give Kovalan due process of justice, Netuceliyan condemned himself. This may also to be part of Cenkuttuvan's motive for giving special recognition to Kannaki. It seems that Kannaki's modesty and forthright devotion to her marriage are the measures of her eventual manifestation of devastating power and the symbols of her ultimate sanctity. The Tamil term ananku denotes a divine,furious, and potentially retributive force, while also stands for feminine purity.

 

Kannaki's transition from the young, innocent and loving wife to the alienated, fearsome and death-dealing widow-becoming-goddess is summed up in the dynamic between her anklet, an outward ornament of special richness and fit for a royal ankle, and her breast, an inward sign for motherhood. The hopes of Kovalan and Kannaki are placed in her anklet which becomes the instrument of their undoing.With Kovalan's death, the anklet becomes meaningless in a material sense and Kannaki's attention turns to her now useless fertility. She has lost her husband, and therefore all possibility of mothering. Kavunti, who professes ascetic detachment, accepting the reverence of passersby, becomes so wholly involved with Kannaki and her fate that she eventually starves herself to death. Netuceliyan believes, he is dispensing justice in the unsullied tradition of his dynasty when he orders the innocent Kovalan’s execution.Seeing the guilt is his own, he dies. While destroying Maturai, Kannaki believes she is acting free from the constraints of fate and heaps guilt upon herself when she learns otherwise. She is distraught to learn thatshe has been duped, through her own deeply rooted sense ofjustice, into becoming the willing instrument of a larger and unknown purpose.A dramatic change takes place when, in the 29thChapter Kannaki appears before Cenkuttuvan, Tevanti, and othersand declares her reconciliation with the Pantiyan King whom she says is "now a good guest in the palace of the king of gods".

 

Finally one might also note the function of the Ceral king Cenkuttuvan in the administration of justice in punishing the northern kings who had spoken ill of the Tamil kings. In theVancikantam an account of the pragmatic and brave monarch Cenkuttuvan is ready to utilize the cause of Kannaki as a potent symbolwhen he finds one.Hepasses the problem of Kannaki to his consorts who recommend that Kannaki be duly honoured as goddessPattini. Once it has been established that Kannaki is to be honoured, councillorssuggest the customary means - in accordance with the shastras, a stone is to be procured from a mountain, bathed,carved, consecrated to her, and regular worship commissioned. After winning the battle and achieving unprecedented glory he rises above pettyconcerns, performs great yajnas for his own welfare and the welfare of his subjects. Whereupon, Cenkuttuvan declares a general amnesty for the prisoners,including the Aryan kings,and has the stone for Kannaki installed in a shrineconstructed and decorated in accordancewith the shastras.

 

It is important that Ilanko closes Cilappatikaramwith an affirmation of benevolence and forgiveness while atonce maintaining that fate will, nonetheless, have its way.