The Method of Purification in Antigone

INTRODUCTION

It is first important to have knowledge about the circumstances and the situation of Greek dramas before trying to make comments or to criticize them. It is because Greek dramas are very different, almost in many aspects, from modern drama today. In Greek, dramas, especially tragedy, were played mostly during the festival of Dionysis, The God of Wine, which lasted four or five days yearly. During the festival, people of Greek, or more precisely Athenians, would come to some kind of open space and watched the tragedies played. At the end of the festival, an honorable trophy in the form of “olive crown” would be rewarded to play considered the best. It was in such condition that Antigone, a tragedy play by Sophocles, was first performed (Knox, 1964: 35).

Considering the circumstances, it is easy to understand why Greek dramas have a similar form, that is to rely fully on words spoken by actors or chorus. It is because Greek drama, first of all, is a “stage-drama”. Consequently, in Greek drama, plots and stories play the more significant rule compared to other aspects of modern drama such as actions or characters (Knox, 1964: 35).

Inspired by the tradition, Aristotle, a Greek philosopher who was also familiar with the Dionysis festival, then theorized those aspects of Greek drama, notably tragedies, as follows: tragedy is usually concerned with a person of great stature. He can be a king or a nobleman who falls because of hubris, pride, or destiny. The purpose of playing tragedy, relevant to the context of worship to Dionysis, was to purify the souls of the audience –and this is what is called purification or catharsis (Knox, 1964: 36).

Antigone, a play by Sophocles which won the olive crown when played in Athena, about 441 B.C., is a good example of how such poetic theories were put into practice.


THE SUMMARY OF ANTIGONE
Antigone tells a story of a young girl named Antigone. She was the daughter of Oedipus, the former king of Thebes. After the death of Oedipus, the crown of Thebes fell to Creon, Oedipus’ brother-in-law. The problem began when the other two sons of Oedipus, namely Eteocles and Polyneices, were treated differently by Creon after their death. Eteocles, who died in the battle for the glory of Thebes, was buried in honor, as a hero. But Polyneices, who died during his escape from exile, by Creon’s decree, hadn’t to be buried. His corpse had to remain in the place where he died, so that it might be a foodstuff for dogs, wolves or vultures.

Antigone couldn’t accept the decree. She felt that the corpse of Polyneices had to have the same honor as Eteocles. So, although Creon had already announced capital punishment for those who disobeyed the decree, Antigone resisted. One day, she quietly walked to the corpse of Polyneices and covered it with ground.

Antigone’s action was reported to Creon, who then sentenced her to death. Creon felt his decree had to come first, eventhough he realized that Antigone was his sister’s daughter, and more importantly, the bride of his son, Haemon. Antigone didn’t deny she had violated the decree. She just insisted that her choice was right. If giving an honor to the corpse of a brother was considered a crime and must be sentenced to death, said Antigone, she would accept it without regret. Antigone was finally hung in a deserted area by Creon’s guard.

The son of Creon, that is Haemon, couldn’t accept the death of his bride. He blamed his father for being so stubborn. He loved Antigone so much that he couldn’t live without her. Therefore, when Antigone was hung, Haemon committed suicide by stabbing his sword to his chest.

Actually, after Teiresias, the counselor of Thebes had uttered his concern about Creon’s punishment to Antigone, Creon changed his mind. He came to the place where Polyneices’ body laid with the intention to give him a decent funeral. He even intended to cancel his decree on Antigone. But it was too late. During his way to the area, Antigone and Haemon were already dead.

However, the suffering continued. When Eurydice, the wife of Creon, heard the death of her son, she decided to commit suicide by stabbing herself in the altar of God. Creon came back to his palace just to hear another death news. And her wife’s last words, reported to Creon by a servant, was a condemn to him. Creon, because of his stubbornness to his decree, finally lost his family.


ANALYSIS

From the summary above, it became clear that death was always an inherent part of tragedy plays. In fact, almost in all Greek dramas, tragedy was always associated by deaths. The only differences among them were only the causes and the methods of deaths, while the purpose, still suitable to Aristotle’s concept in Poetics, was the same, that is to bring purification to the audience. The question then may arise: how could such play bring purification?

Before I try to answer the question, first, it is important to notice that Antigone, in some cases, is not very different from the other two plays of Sophocles, that is Oedipus Rex and Oedipus at Colonus. In fact, the three plays were often called “The Theban plays” or “The Oedipus Trilogy” (Knox, 1964: 36). But of course, it would be erroneous to say that Antigone was a continuation of the two plays, since Antigone was written by Sophocles some fifteen years before Oedipus Rex and a fully thirty-six years before Oedipus at Colonus. So, when the three plays were called “The Oedipus Trilogy”, one must remember that the similarity among them was only the theme (Knox, 1964: 38).

As noted by Knox, the main concept in Sophocles’ tragedy is his view that the position of man is subordinate in the relation to the gods (Knox, 1964: 38). This view is clearly expressed in Antigone, especially by the utterance of the chorus. Here is an example:

Chorus
Happy the man whose life is uneventful
For once a family is cursed by God,
Disasters come like earhquake tremors, worse
With each succeding generation

It’s like when the sea is running rough
Under stormy winds from Thrace
The black ooze is stirred up from the seabed,
And louder and louder the waves crash on shore.

Look now at the last sunlight that sustains
The one surviving root of Oedipus’ tree,--
The sword of death is drawn back to hack it down.
(Bowra, 1944: 47)


The context of this utterance was when the chorus heard Creon decreed capital punishment to Antigone for disobeying his orders. From the passage, we know that after learning that Antigone was about to face death, the chorus, who’s in the play were represented by old citizens of Thebes, suddenly reminded the audience about the similarity of Antigone’s fate with the fate of his father, Oedipus. Both of them, the chorus concluded, were cursed by God.

But here comes the interesting point. Although the chorus themselves told the audience that Antigone was cursed by God, Antigone herself didn’t think that God was the main root of her suffering. We would get such opinion after reading Antigone’s argument to Creon below:

Antigone
Sorry, who made this edict? Was it God?
Isn’t a man’ right to burial decreed
By divine justice? I don’t consider your
Pronouncements so important that they can
Just… overrule the unwritten laws of heaven.
You are a man, remember.
(Bowra, 1944: 43)

In Antigone’s opinion, it is clear that God has nothing to do with her fate. If she would have to face death because of her action, then, God is not the one to be blamed. It was Creon, the man, whom to be blamed, not God. From this point of view, of course, there is a kind of contradiction. If the fate of Antigone, according to the chorus, has been determined by God –through the curse— why Antigone blamed Creon?
In his An Introduction to Sophocles, Webster made an interesting comment about this. He said that in all Sophocles’ plays, it must be understood that the relation of God and human is problematic. In one side, God is often positioned as the only determinator, the cause of all fates, including tragic fate, which must be accepted without any doubt. But in the other side, God is still feared and respected. So, the positioning of God as the root of tragic fate doesn’t automatically imply bad judgment about Him (Webster, 1969: 12).

Such contradiction would become clearer at the end of the story. After the death of Antigone, Haemon and Eurydice, Creon felt very guilty. He never imagined that his decree would cost the lives of three people. He couldn’t bear the consequences that he prayed for death to come to him.

Creon
Nobody else to share the blame. Just me…
I killed you. I killed you my dear.
Servants, carry me in, away from al this.
I wish I weren’t alive.

Chorus
Try to forget. It is the only way.

Creon
I invite death. Do you only come uninvited?
Come and take me. I cannot bear to live.

Chorus
No time for such thoughts now. You’re still in charge.
You’ve got to see about these corpses, or
We’ll all be polluted.

Creon
I meant what I said

Chorus
No use in such prayers. You’ll get what’s destined.
(Bowra, 1944: 65)

It’s interesting to see that although Creon prayed for death, the chorus consistently said that it would be useless since he would get what was destined for him. But similar to Antigone, Creon didn’t blame God for his fate. He could only blame himself for being so stubborn. So, although his stubbornness was also destined by God, contradictly, Creon couldn’t blame God for it (Webster, 1969: 14).

To solve the contradiction, then one may remember that tragedy plays were performed on stage during the Dionysis festival, which its main context was a celebration to Dionysis so that the wine harvest would be better in the following year. Based on this context, it is of course impossible to expect Greek plays to represent some kind of rebellion against God, since raison d’ etre of the plays themselves was a devotion to Him. Therefore, it will be better to view this contradiction from another standing point.

As noted by Webster, one of the keys to understanding Sophocles’ plays is to pay careful attention to relation between God and human (Webster, 1969: 12). Not only because it is important, but more essentially, the comprehensive understanding of such relation would reveal the message, motive, and also the main purpose of the play itself. And in Webster’s opinion, the clearest aspect of relation of God and human in Sophocles’ plays was that man, in some ways, was forced to discover his own potentialities or his own status of divinity through tragic fate (Webster, 1969: 14).

In Antigone, such discovery was clearly represented. Both Antigone and Creon were persons with their own view of virtue. For Antigone, it was a virtue that she should give an honorable funeral to his brother. But for Creon, considering his status as the king of Thebes, the only virtue that seemed right was only to give honorable funeral to Eteocles, the hero, not to Polyneices, the runaway. Both of them insisted to their own point of view. Both of them also believed that it was their opinion which was right according to the rules of God. But since God didn’t show clearly which one of them was right, each of them had to follow his or her own way until the extreme point: death. Only after death comes, then the true virtue, the real rule of God, could be revealed (Webster, 1969: 15).

From this standpoint, it is clear that in Sophocles’ play, death didn’t function as a dramatic element. Its function is much more important than merely a dramatic event to evoke sadness. Death, the extreme cost of one’s discovery, has a very high status as the only possible way of revealing God’s virtue. That is why Webster said that in most Sophocles’ play, as if the veil of God was only lifted halfway, and man was expected to guess what lay behind it (Webster, 1969: 17). We can find such a conclusion from the last words of the chorus below:

Chorus
Who wants happiness? The main
Requirement is to be sensible.
This means not rebelling against
God’s law, for that is arrogance.
The greater your arrogance, the heavier God’s revenge.
And proud men in old age learn to be wise.
(Bowra, 1944: 65)

Chorus, who in Greek drama was usually positioned as the narrator and participated in each opinion of the actors, at the end of the play, finally revealed the true virtue of God: that Creon was wrong; that the main requirement to gain happiness from God is to be sensible. It is, of course, a simple thing to understand. But in reality, in order to be sensible is not as easy as it seems. The story of Creon is an example. Creon had to loose three lives of persons whom he loved much just to understand such a simple virtue. And that’s the tragedy (Webster, 1969: 19).

From such point of view, then it is clear how a play like Antigone could bring purification to its audience. Watching the story of Creon, his stubbornness on his own “virtue”, and the cost he had to bear, presumably would give audience a sense of sadness, but at the same time, a sense of reveal. As deaths happened, Creon finally recognized that his action was mistaken, that he had been misguided by his arrogance, meaning that he had moved from ignorance to knowledge. But the recognition gained by Creon, tragically, hit him at same instant as the lost he felt from the death of the three persons. It was such slight movement from lost to recognition that would lead audience to purification, to the higher stage of mental awareness (Webster, 1969: 21). So, in short, we may say that the method of purification in Antigone, and I think it can also be applied in most Sophocles’ tragedy plays, derived from such slight mental movement. A simple mental movement which, in Webster’s words, needed the cost of three lives.

CONCLUSION
From the discussion above, it can be concluded that purification, the main purpose of Greek tragedy, was derived from the tragic fate that befell to actors and, at the same time, a mental awareness that accompanied it. Usually, the greater the tragedy, the greater the awareness would rise. If death happened to be the most common event of tragedy, it is because death is viewed as the greatest tragedy of all. And Antigone is a good example of such method.


BIBLIOGRAPHY
B. M. W. Knox, Studies in Sophoclean Tragedy (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1964).

C. M. Bowra, Sophoclean Tragedy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1944).

Webster, T. B. L., An Introduction to Sophocles, 2nd edition, [London: Cornell
University Press, 1969).


CREDITS:
*This paper arranged by Leny Nuzuliyanti for the subject "English Drama". The author formerly was student of English Department, Diponegoro University, graduated at 2006. The copy right of this paper are on the writer.

Read More......

Ghost, a Study of Plot in Practice

Introduction

We might not very familiar to Ghosts. They who are interested in drama may know the playwright more, Henrik Ibsen. This is due to Ghosts is not Ibsen's masterpiece. Ibsen himself is much more well know for his other works, those are A Doll's House or A Wild Duck.

Ibsen as a famous playwright is hardly forgotten in every single study of realism in drama. Realism itself as a school of literary has its own long history. An idea of realism came at the triumph of romanticism, namely at the beginning of 18th century. The social condition at that time was getting worse since Napoleon Bonaparte fell in 1815. People lost the spirit of liberty, equality and fraternity (Brockett, 19- : 287).

The condition is much worse at the time of Industrial Revolution as the milestone of the many discoveries that change people life in the further. Machines changed the labor. The labor lost their jobs. Furthermore, jobless lead to poverty; and poverty rose the criminal.

Then, an idea came that is such condition was only able to be solved by observation, prediction, and control of society (Brockett, 19- : 287). This is stated by August Comte. The philosophy a la Comte, in the further, is known as positivism. Comte argued that sociology is the highest knowledge to repair the social condition. Observation and experiment are the best trial (Sumardjo, 1993 : 79). Comte, then, is known as the father-founder of Sociology.

Charles Darwin is a man who is much influenced by Comte. Two main idea of Darwin are all forms of life have developed gradually from a common ancestry; and the evolution of species is explained by the "survival of the fittest" (Brockett, 19- : 288). Darwin wrote his idea in The Origin of Species which was published in 1859. Darwin, then, is known as Father of Evolution Theory.

The Origin of Species brought a new perspective to people. First, the genetic and the surrounding are the two main factors that determine the human existence. Both can explain either the behavior or nature of human. Thus, a criminal cannot be supposed to be wrong, but his surrounding can. Rehabilitate someone's behavior means recovery of his surrounding.

Secondly, the evolution theory and survival of fittest attack the religion and God's existence. Thirdly, human is supposed to be equal to the things because they are bound to the natural law. Human can be the object of study (Sumardjo, 1993 : 79-80).
It seemed that Ibsen is not an exception as the part of society who is influenced by Darwin. It is vividly drawn in his works of the second period of his career as a playwright Ibsen might agree to the concept of genetically heredity and blame the society. Grounded on this explanation, Ghosts (1881) is a good instance.


ANALYSIS

Ghosts is interesting either to be followed or to be learned. The aspects of Ghosts are much more vivid than the other Ibsen's drama. Plot is one aspect which clearly drawn.

Ibsen wrote Ghosts as a well-made play. Eugene Scribe (1791-1861) is a famous playwright who much influences Ibsen. Ibsen directed more than twenty Scribe plays in Norway before he launched his own powerfully influential dramas (Holman, 1983: 464). One effect that Ibsen got from Scribe is well-made play pattern. Ghosts is one sample of Ibsen's well-made play.

A plot based on a withheld secret that, being revealed at the climax, produces a favorable reversal for the hero is the first requirement of drama to be categorized as a well-made play (Holman, 1983: 464). There's nothing too important which reveals in the first scene of Ghosts. A part of introduction of the story belongs to this scene.

The drama, which consists of three scenes, is opened with a chat of Regine and her stepfather, Jacob Engstrand. There's nothing too important of their chat. Both are introduced as the minor characters. Engstrand leaves Regine at the time Pastor Manders comes. Regine does not reveal for longer when she has to tell her hostess that there's a guess for her.

Mrs. Alving meets her guess. They talk about many things. At least, there are three main important things of their talk. First, there are some clue that there are any mistaken in the orphanage construction which is held by Pastor Manders. Second, the real feeling between Pastor Manders and Mrs. Alving is retold. Third, hoe actually Mrs. Alving lived during her husband still alive is retold as well.

The clue that there's a secret will be told at the climax reveals at the end of the scene. Here, the suspense is started. At once the second requirement as a well-made play, a steadily mounting suspense depending on rising action, exactly timed entrances, mistaken identity, witholding of information from characters, misplaced letters and documents, and a battle of wits between hero and villain (Holman, 1983: 464), is fulfilled.

Witholding of information from characters is pattern which Ibsen used. It is not too difficult to know, actually who is the key speaker who knows everything. Mrs. Alving mention ghosts and Pastor Manders does not continue his utterance, as if he is afraid of the truth of his own guess. Thus, it is clear that the key speaker must be Mrs. Alving.

[The noise of a chair being overturned is heard from the dining room - at the same time REGINE's voice.]
REG.'S VOICE. [In a sharp whisper] Osvald! - Are you mad? - Let me go!
…
MRS. ALV. [Hoarsely] Ghosts - Those two in the conversatory - Ghosts - They've come to mylife again
MAN. What do you mean? Regine -- ? Is she --?

Thus, the first scene has an endless ending.

The explanation of Ghosts which Mrs. Alving mention reveals at the beginning of the following scene. In the other room that Mr. Alving supposed to be much more save, she told pastor Manders the past of her family. Mr. Alving, during his live has an affair with their maid, Johanna. Regine was born as the result of the affair.

It is impossible for Mr. Alving to marry Johanna. The society will see them badly. Thus, to give a father for Regine, Johanna married Jacob Engstrand. Johanna, then, died. Mrs. Alving herself cannot refuse Regine in her turn to be her maid as her mother did.

They who supposed this act to be the climax will get despair. This is only an explanation to the following acts. In other words, the telling of this big secret is only a part of Ibsen's trial in rising the suspense.

The climax is in the talk between Mrs. Alving and her son as Pastor Manders leaves. There are some important things which Osvald tells his mother. Firstly, Osvald told her that, actually, he is suffered from syphilis. Neither Mrs. Alving nor Osvald can deals this truth. Even more, there is such a confession that syphilis which is Osvald suffered from is just inherited. Mrs. Alving must received that her trial to avoid Osvald from his father's bad influences is useless.

Osvald, in his despair, still has a little hope to recover himself. Somebody whom he wishes would help him is his joy of life, Regine (Mother! The one thing that could save me is Regine!). Mrs. Alving is surprised for the second time. Although she herself does not wish it, but finally she tells Osvald everything. It is impossible for Osvald and Regine to get married because they are half-brothers.

The climax, as the third requirement of a well-made play, is strongly bounded to the two previous requirements. A climax culminating in an obligatory scene (scene a faire) in which the withheld secret is revealed and the reversal of the hero's fortunes achieved (Holman, 1983: 464).

The secret that is hidden since at the beginning is known. This, surely, become a favorable reversal for Osvald. At least, Osvald confesses that the syphilis he is suffered from is inherited from his father (You see - my illness is heredity - it - [touches his forehead and speaks very quietly] It is centered - here). Then, Osvald does not think the origin of his illness too much. Osvald tries thinking how to recover himself from his illness.

Osvald's wish of getting married with Regine, which cannot be realized, is not a catastrophe. In the other hand, it saves Osvald from being despair for the second times due to marry his own stepsister.

Finally, a logical denouement as the last requirement of a well-made play is fulfilled in the third scene. For instance, the construction of the orphanage which grounded on a "false money" and held by a "false man" is fired. It is not too surprising if the false management of the construction is finally known. More over, it is supposed to be something too usual when two people who firstly allied for a bad purpose then blame each other -even attack- for the mistaken.

MAN. [Standing still] That's what you claim - but I could swear I never went near the lights!
ENG. But I saw you with my own eyes, Sir - I saw you snuff one of the candles and throw the bit of wick right into a pile of shavings!

Osvald, being despair due to, first, he must confess that his illness is inherited from his father; and second, his wish to live with his joy of life cannot be realized, at the end, chooses his own way. Osvald wants to end his life with his mother's help -a willing of euthanasia- is only something too common.

CLOSING
How Ibsen works arranging Ghosts as a well-made play cannot be supposed to be an easy work due to some reason. Firstly, Ibsen takes controversial issues -up to now- those are inherited sin and euthanasia. Secondly, Ibsen must fulfill the requirement of well-made play in a three-act structure of drama. And Ibsen can keep it tightly. Ghosts, then, is a play which is interesting either to be followed or studied, however.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brockett, Oscar G.,The Theatre: An Introduction, 2nd edition ( )
Holman, C. Hugh, A Handbook to Literature (Indiana: Bobbs-Merrill Educational Publishing, 1980)
Sumardjo, Jakob, Ikhtisar Teater Barat, (Bandung: Penerbit Angkasa, 1993)

*This paper arranged by Leny Nuzuliyanti for the subject "English Drama". The author formerly was student of English Department, Diponegoro University, graduated at 2006. The copy right of this paper are on the writer.

Read More......

Learning How to Master the Art of Reading with Steven C. Scheer

A hearty welcome to all visitors and readers to this site. Students as well as all those who feel that we are never too old to learn something new, or to re-learn what we may have forgotten with the passage of time.

During my long teaching career I was often told, both by my students and by my colleagues, that I was very helpful to them. I hope I can still be helpful to you, my visitors and readers. It will, of course, be up to you to decide this. Should you have any questions, please feel free to e-mail me. I have been known to give helpful responses to students as well as to others who have contacted me in the past.(For your convenience, my e-mail address is listed on every page in this Web site. Usually at the top, in the left-hand column, and always at the bottom of each page.)

I sincerely hope that you will find most of what is here enjoyable and entertaining as well as informative and insightful. Pick and choose to your heart's content. And visit again and again. There is a lot to read here, too much for any one session. So I hope to see you more than once.

On a perhaps deeper level, I wish to dedicate this site to the love of words that both writers and readers share. Words embody our thoughts and express our feelings. They convey what we think and feel and know. They reveal who we are, both to the world and to ourselves.

My aim is to share with all my readers and visitors to this site samples from my work - past, present, and future. I have many interests, as the samples here included should indicate (and they don't represent all my interests). Some of the samples are fairly long (formal lectures, in some cases), while others are short (and perhaps sweet). Whatever I write, I write from the heart as well as from the head. And my aim is always to promote those values which are truly worthy of our collective humanity.

This Web site is also dedicated to the art of thinking, and to reading and writing, as well as to an abiding love of movies, particularly as this is reflected in the samples from Hollywood Values. The book is available from the publisher at 1st Books Library (recently renamed AuthorHouse). You may also order it from Amazon.com or from Barnes & Noble Online. Should you wish to order it in your favorite bookstore, you may have to remind the staff that this is a print-on-demand book. Such books sometimes show up in their computers as out-of-print books.

The site also contains essays on literary criticism, as well as thoughts on the teaching of reading and writing and critical thinking (some of which were previously published). I also include papers on English and American and Hungarian literature, and literature in general.

You will also find a number of book reviews here, some of which originally appeared in the Bay Review, an online journal no longer in existence.

I keep some samples from my poetry and fiction on this site as well.Then there is the section called Controversies Now and Then. This deals with issues I feel strongly about. These include attempts by various groups to censor the wonderful Harry Potter books or, more recently, the unduly harsh treatment accorded to Martha Stewart a while back. Of course, as we all know by now, she is free once more and is back to give us new lessons in cooking, etc. Good for her! I don't know what else I'll be adding to this section. It all depends on what comes down the pike.

::visit Steven C Scheer at www.stevencscheer.com

Read More......

The Extrinsic Approach to The Study Of Literature

Introduction

There are some external points are discussed in study of literature. But setting and environment are more often discussed. Sometimes, the extrinsic study only connects the literature to the social context and the previous growth. In most cases, it becomes a ‘causal’ explanation, professing to account for literature, to explain it, and finally to reduce it to its origins (the ‘fallacy of origins’) (Wellek and Warren, 1977: 73).

Yet, it is clear that causal study can never dispose of problems of description, analysis, and evaluation of an object such as work of literary art. Cause and effect are incommensurate: the concrete result of these extrinsic causes –the work of art- is always unpredictable (Wellek and Warren, 1977: 73)


There are some opinions about the extrinsic factors influence the literary works such as the biography, psychology, social life, causal explanation of literature largely in such other collective creations, and some quintessential spirit of the time.

But either how far these factors determine the production process of literary works, or how far the extrinsic method supposed to be able in measuring the external influence, depends on the approach which is used. The scientist who uses the social approach tent to come to determine in straight. Their radicalism is the influence of positivism. This occurs to the proponents of geistegeschichte, which is combined with hegelianism and romanticism. Moreover, they are more radical than the scientists who use the social approach. On the other hand, there are some of scientists who are more modest. They do not depend only on one factor. The other factors may give effects as well.

LITERATURE AND BIOGRAPHY
Biography is only regarded that it is valuable if it gives any contribution to the making of literary works. From a biography, we will not only know the genius, moral, intellectual and emotional development of a man. Furthermore, we may learn the psychology condition and his creative process.

It is necessary to distinguish these three point of views. First, biography tells the student about the making of a literary works. Second, biography shifts the subject matter of the study to the works of an author. Third, biography is supposed to be a science of future science, the psychology of artistic creation.

Biography is a kind of work from a very ancient age. It was a part of historiography. Biography of a man, whatever his capacity, is always interesting if it is said honestly. From a biography writer’s point of view, moral and intellectual developments, external career and emotional life can be reconstructed and evaluated based on the ethical system or certain code of manners. A biography writer must reinterpret some documents, letters, accounts by eyewitness, reminiscences, and autobiographical statement. Beside that, he must decide which the original materials are and trustable eyewitnesses. The problem then may evoke in writing a biography is, first, the selection. Then, how a secret should be hidden.

When a biography has been arranged, two mayor questions address it. First, how far the biography writer uses the literature work for evidence? Then, how far a biography can be used to understand a literary work? These questions are usually answered that poetry can give some explanations about biography of its poet. Of course, this doesn’t work to the other owner of a biography who didn’t write a poem.

Poem may give some explanation about the biography of its poet. But, how does the biography writer write a biography of an author who is difficult to seek his story for his life? Meanwhile, usually only a series of public documents, birth registers, marriage certificates, lawsuits, and the like, and evidence of the works.

For example, to write Shakespeare biography, some scientists had ever applied different method. Caroline Spurgeon, used a scientific spirit. But she came to a long-list of trivial things in Shakespeare life. On the other hand, George Brandes and Frans Haris used the Shakespeare’s works as the material of their research. A biographical romance is as the result.

The biographical method proponents do not agree with such contention. They argue that it is necessary for us understand the different condition at that age compared with nowadays. For example, some authors such as Milton, Pope, Goethe, Wordsworth, and Byron were aware that they were well known. So, it is necessary for them to make a biographical statement, even arranged an autobiography.

In this context, it is important for us to divide the poets into two categories: objective and subjective. Those who, like Keats and T.S. Elliot, stress the poet’s “negative capability”, has openness to the world, the obliteration of his concrete personality, and the opposite type of the poet, who aims at displaying his personality, wants to draw a self-portrait, to confess, to express himself (Wellek and Warren, 1977: 77).

But even with the subjective poet, the distinction between a personal statement of an autobiographical nature and the use of the very same motif in a work of art should not and cannot be withdrawn. A work of art forms a unity on a quite different plane, with a unique different relation to reality, than a book of memoirs, a diary, or a letter (Wellek and Warren, 1977: 78)

The biographical method has some weakness. The biographical approach forgets that a work of art is not only simply the embodiment of experience but always the latest work in a series of such works; it is in drama, a novel, a poem determined, so far as it is determined at all, by literary tradition and conventions. The biographical approach actually obscures a proper comprehension of the literary process, since it breaks up the order of literary tradition to substitute the life-circle of an individual (Wellek and Warren, 1977: 78)

The biographical approach ignores also quite simple psychological facts. A work of art may be the ‘mask’, the ‘anti-self’ behind which his real person is hiding, or it may be a picture of the life from which the author wants to escape (Wellek and Warren, 1977: 78). Simply we can sum up that there is a parallelism between the author and the characters in his works.

LITERATURE AND PSYCHOLOGY
There are four possible definitions about psychology of literature: psychological study of the writer, as type and as individual, or the study of the creative process, or the study of the psychological types and laws present within works of literature, or, finally, the effects of literature upon its readers (audience psychology) (Wellek and Warren, 1977: 81). But the third definition is the only one which is strongly related with the study.

Some theorists had ever theorized about the successful of an author. First, the most decided the successful of an author is his literary genius. Some others said that the successful of an author depended on his physical appearance. The rests argued that emotional disorders and compensatory distinguished the artists, scientists, and other ‘contemplatives’.

Two mayor questions then may evoke. First, if an emotional disorder occurs to an author, does it become the theme of his works, or motivation to create a work? (If it is only a motivation for him to create a work, it occurs to other scientists as well.) Second, if the theme of a literary work is neurotic, how should a reader understand it?

Freud’s view about an author is inconsistent. Freud, Jung, and Frank are civilized people. They were well educated in Austria and respected the classical works of Greeks and German literature. Freud himself found his works were almost same with Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Kamarazov, in Hamlet, in Diderot’s Neveu de Rameau, in Goethe. According to him, the author as an obdurate neurotic who, by his creative work, kept himself a crack-up but also from any real cure. The poet, that is, is a day-dreamer who socially validated (Wellek and Warren, 1977: 82).

Such an account presumably disposes of the philosopher and ‘the pure scientist’ along with the artists, and is, therefore, a kind of positivist, ‘reduction’ of contemplative activity to an observing and naming instead of acting (Wellek and Warren, 1977: 82). This limit, however, merely describes the indirect effect of literary works, that is “alterations in the outer world”.
The theory of art as a neurosis leads to a new problem that is the relation between the imagination and belief. The artists keep felling and seeing his own though. Beside that, it is common for them to combine two kinds of imagery. For example, audition coloree: the trumpet as scarlet.

T.S Elliot had argued his views about a poet since his writing. Over there, he said that a poet is supposed to repeat and keep his relation with his childhood meanwhile he is running to the future. Then, in 1918, he wrote that a poet “is more primitive, as well as more civilized, than his contemporaries …”. In 1932, he repeated this conception, especially about “auditory imagination” but also of the poet’s visual imagery, and especially his recurrent images, which “may have symbolic value, but of what we cannot tell, for they have come to represent the depths felling into which we cannot peer” (Wellek and Warren, 1977: 84). Then he concluded that “the pre-logical mentality persists in civilized man, but becomes available only to or through the poet (Wellek and Warren, 1977: 84).

Jung made a complicated typological psychology. There are two categories: extrovert and introvert. These categories, then, divided into four types based on the strength of thinking, feeling, intuition, and sensation. But, surprisingly, Jung did not categorize all of the authors to certain types. He remarks that some writers reveal their type in their creative work, while others reveal their anti-type, their complement (Wellek and Warren, 1977: 84).

Nietzsche, in his The Birth of Tragedy (1872) proposed two polarities of art. They were classical “maker” and romantic “possessed”. Nietzsche theorized this according to Apollo and Dionysos, two gods of arts in Greeks myths.

This influenced Ribot, a French psychologist, much. He divided the artists into “plastic” and “diffluent”. A “plastic” artist can make a very rigid visualization, even if he is stimulated. Meanwhile the “diffluent” artist begins his imagination from his emotion or feeling then reveals it. He is helped by “stimmung” from inside of himself.

Then L. Rusu, a contemporary Rumanian scholar, distinguished three basic types of artists: “type sympatique”, “type demoniaque anarchique” and the “type demoniaque equilibre”. The second type is the anti-thesis of the first type. The rest is claimed to be the greatest type, at the end of the quarrel against the battle, the balance occurs.

The “creative process” should cover the entire sequence from the subconscious origins of a literary work to those last revisions which, with some writers, are the most genuinely creative part of the whole (Wellek and Warren, 1977: 85). The structure of a poet’s mental is different from a form of a poem. Impression is different from expression.

“Inspiration” is a traditional name for the unconscious factor in creation, is classically associated with the Muses, the daughters of memory, and in Christian thought with the Holy Spirit. Creative habits are assuredly are, as well as stimulants and rituals. Alcohol, opium, and other drugs dull the conscious mind, the over-critical ‘censor’, and release the activity of the subconscious (Wellek and Warren, 1977: 86).

Then, do the way and technical of writing influence the style of writing? Hemingway said that the typewriter “solidifies one’s sentence before they are ready to print.” Then, the others in commented that the using of a typewriter leads to a work in journalistic style. Milton himself knew by heart his Paradise Lost and dictated it. Even, Scott, Goethe, and Henry James had prepared their works. They dictated it and other people wrote it.

The discussion about the creative process in creation must have talked about the unconscious world. It is easy for us to compare the romantic and expressionistic periods exaggerate the unconscious world to the classic and realistic proposed the intelligence, communication, and the text revision.

We have to make two kinds of tests if we want to seek literary talents. The first test is proposed to see a poet talent. The second test is to see the narrative writer. A poet is associated with symbols, meanwhile a narrative writer with the creation of character in a story.

Our discussion above is about the psychology of the writers. Their creative process is the scope of psychologists’ investigative curiosity. Then, can we use psychology to interpret and judge a literary work? Psychology, as we have discussed above, can explain about the creative process. A study of revisions, corrections, and the like has more which is literarily profitable, since, well used, it may help us perceive critically relevant fissures, inconsistencies, turnings, distortions, in a work of art (Wellek and Warren, 1977: 91).

The last question is psychology itself in literary work. A character may be right psychologically. But, does it have any artistic value? The knowledge of psychological truth is needed, sometimes. But it is not too necessary for art because psychological truth does not have any artistic value.ar
For some conscious artists, psychology may have tightened their sense of reality, sharpened their powers of observation or allowed them to fall into hithero undiscovered patterns. But, in itself, psychology is only preparatory to the act of creation; and in the work itself, psychological truth is an artistic value only if it enhances coherence and complexity –if, in short, it is an art (Wellek and Warren, 1977: 93).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article is writen by Leny Nuzuliyanti, a student of English Literature Department of Diponegoro University, Semarang, Central Java,Indonesia.

Read More......

An Introduction to Theory of Literature

A Resume of Theory of Literature by Ren Wellek and Warren

We have to answer some basic questions when we study theory of literature. What is literature? What is literary study? Are they both different? What is the distinction? These questions are followed by the questions about the nature of literature, its functions, etc. Theory of literature, as much as possible, tries to answer these.

Literature and Literary Study
First, it is quiet necessary for us to know the definition of literature. Literature is a creative act. It is an art. On the other hand, literary study is knowledge about literature itself. Since long ago, there are some efforts to differ them. But these efforts only make literature and literary study come to a very complicated relation.

To overcome this, there are some problem-solvings. First, some literary theorist who didn’t agree that literary study is the knowledge about literature said it is wiser to say that literary study is a “second creation”. The second theorist come to the extreme point, that both literature and literary study can’t be studied at all. For the rest, we can only accumulate all kinds of information ‘about’ literature (Wellek & Warren. 1977: 15).

Since first, it is said that literature is an art. Literature had ever been approached scholarly by applying the natural science attitudes such as objectivity, impersonality, and certainty. In practice, then, it concludes that the more general a theory, it is emptier.

Another opinion stated that to conclude the general law in literature, individually is needed. Thus, there are two extreme points: first, the universal-objective; second, the particular-subjective. Both of these concepts are dangerous to apply at once.

The universal-objective leads to the absolutism. It is quite mistaken, of course, because each of literary works is unique. It can’t be simply summed up in universality. The particular-subjective is totally doubted because it must result in personal intuition. Personal intuition, then, may rise an emotional appreciation to complete subjectivity.

The Nature of Literature
At the beginning, it is important to distinguish what literature is and what is not. First, literature ought to be everything in print. Literature was learnt using any other science of culture. But this effort replaced the pure literary criteria. Other criteria came to the literature realm. Literature was supposed to give nothing to the knowledge. This occurred when in the further, the knowledge notably increased.

Second, literature ought to be the great-book namely “notable for literary form or expression”. The criteria, namely the aesthetic, dealt with the “general intellectual distinction”. This has resulted in value judgement, particularly to the non-great-books. Social background, linguistic, ideology, and other conditional circumstances, then, had no means.

Third, the term of ‘literature’ ought to be limited at imaginative literature. It was too difficult to find the exact word in any languages. To overcome this, the speech community had to be divided in detail. It was a must to note that language is a human creation contained cultural heritages of linguistic group.

Here, it can obviously be seen that there are four natures of literature. The first nature of literature is imaginative. Traditional literary works fulfill this nature. The second, everything strongly relates to such “fictionality”, “invention”, or “imagination”. Philosophist, claimed as the third nature of literature. Fourth, literature, sometimes, may exist in ‘boundary’ area.

Literature is commonly identified with imagery. Imagery is used both in prose and poems. As much as possible, the authors indicate the visualization by imagery. Generally, imagery describes what the author wants to visualize. Most of visualizations by imagery can be well wondered by the readers. But, it is not in a little number that imagery even doesn’t help the readers to understand the visualizations. Visualization using imagery normally appears in prose than poems.

The Functions of Literature
The discussion about the function of literature started at the Age of Greeks. Plato wrote how the poets and the philosophers quarreled. At the Renaissance Age in America, Poe criticized the didactic poems. In his opinion, a poem shouldn’t have to be in didactic purpose. Poe, then, argued that a poem must be a didactic heresy.

At the late of 19th century, the doctrine art for art’s sake was issued. This doctrine followed by poesi pure at the early of 20th century. Horace proposed a concept of dulce and utile which means sweet and useful. This concept which contained two words, should be understood at once. Poems supposed as a craft (a work) and a play at time. The view poems as a craft or a work, lost its “purposelessness”, lost its pleasure. Meanwhile told poems as a play, it didn’t regard the care, skill, and planning of the author. Given this, it ought to be dulce and utile.

How much, then, the function of literature? Here are some –especially poems’ function. First, as Aristotle said, he himself tended to prove that the function and the seriousness of a poem represented how deep the knowledge it contained. Secondly, poems as the medium of telling either truth or propaganda. Thirdly, poems have a purification function. But actually, its prime and chief function is fidelity to its own nature (Wellek & Warren. 1977: 37).

The function of literature, some say, is to relieve us –either the writers or readers- from the pressure of emotion (Wellek & Warren. 1977: 36). The validity of this opinion is questioned since literature, actually not only relieve neither the writers nor readers from the pressure; but also evokes the emotion.

Literary Theory, Criticism, and History
Indeed, there’s no proper term to mention literary study. It is usually called scholarship. This term is, sometimes, listened too academic. The other term had ever used is philology. The using of this term is open to misunderstanding. Literary theory itself is the study of the principles of literature, its categories, criteria, and the like, and by differentiating studies of concrete works of art as either “literary criticism” (primarily static in approach) or “literary history” (Wellek & Warren. 1977: 39).

The distinction of literary theory, criticism and history is clear enough. There’s a strong relation among them. Nevertheless, the efforts to separate them have ever been done. These give result in some views.

Historicism is the first view then evoked. This view wanted to separate literary history from literary criticism. Federick A. Pottle had a more extreme view. His argument was each period has its own different critical conceptions and conventions. The rest convinced that Classic and Romantic period can’t be connected: the classical works tends to be “poetry of statement”, meanwhile the romantic tends to be “poetry of implication”.

It is common that the writer’s intention in a literary work becomes the subject matter of literary history. It can’t be done because literary work itself is a system of values (Wellek & Warren. 1977: 42). Value is all about judgement. In practice, however, it is difficult to give a value judgement: the relativism comes to the “anarchy of value”; and absolutism emphasizes on “unchanging human nature” or “universality of art”. Perspectivism is in the boundary or gray area.

There’s no literary history that was written without a selection. A literary historian can’t separate himself from literary critic. Literary works, whenever it is made, is always interesting to learn. The literary historian must be a critic even in order to be a historian (Wellek & Warren. 1977: 44).

The works of 18th century is the main subject matter of conventional literary history. This is due to their gracious, more stable, and more hierarchic world. The works from the late 19th century followed its previous. It was learnt as well. The scholarly attitude, which firstly didn’t want to learn the works of contemporary works, then faded away. The reason not to study these works was due to the writers were still alive. Mostly, the critic chose the “verdict of the ages” namely writing of the other critics or readers. So that, simply we can sum up that literary history is quiet important for the critics.

General, Comparative, and National Literature
In practice, the term “comparative” literature has covered and still covers rather distinct fields of study and groups of problems (Wellek & Warren. 1977: 46).

Secondly, “comparative literature” includes the relation between two or more literatures. But this only came at the surface. “Comparative literature” like this only learns about the facts, sources, and influences.

Thirdly, some terms are used as the synonyms of “comparative literature”, such as “world literature”, “general literature”, and “universal literature”. But it was supposed to be an exaggeration of the comparative literature intention.

Literature, however, has to be seen totally. The debate among the terms “comparative literature”, “general literature”, or “literature” was caused by misunderstanding of the term “national literature”. “National literature” was understood narrowly.

History literature, which is concerned with themes, forms, techniques, genres, and metrics, is spread out internationally. Its different move in each country is as the result of the romantic nationalism followed by modern organized literary history.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resumed by Leny Nuzuliyanti, alumni of English Literature Department Student of Diponegoro University, Semarang, Indonesia.

Read More......

Characters Who Create A Social Reality: An Analysis of Ibsen’s Ghosts

INTRODUCTION

First of all, it is necessary for us to know the condition of realism dramas before trying to comment or criticize them. Basically, realism dramas are not different in many ways compared to dramas today. We can even say that realism dramas are the pioneer of modern drama.
By the mid-nineteenth century, the Romantic outlook had been modified considerably, for the belief in man’s idealistic nature had received many setbacks. For example, after the downfall of Napoleon around 1815, most European countries had reinstated political conditions more oppressive than those of the eighteenth century. The deals of liberty, equality, and fraternity now seemed doomed. Furthermore, the general misery of a large part of humanity was being emphasized by the industrial Revolution, as a result of which workers were pouring into urban centers where living conditions were daily more inadequate. Crime and poverty were prevalent (Brockett, 19- : 287).

In the face of such political and economic conditions the Romanticist’s emphasis upon the ideal seemed both too vague and too impractical. Many came to argue that dreams must be abandoned for a systematic inquiry into actual condition and for solutions based upon discoverable facts. Observation, prediction, and control of society became the new goals (Brockett, 19- : 287).

Among the major influences on the new though was Auguste Comte (1798-1857), whose philosophy came to be called positivism. Comte argued that sociology is the highest form of science and that all knowledge should ultimately be used for the improvement of society. He states that the key to knowledge lies in precise observation and experimentation, since all events must be understood in terms of natural cause and effect (Brockett, 19- : 287).
Positivism attracted a large following and was soon reenforced by Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species (1859). Darwin’s doctrines may be divided into two main theses: (1) all forms of life have developed gradually from a common ancestry; and (2) the evolution of species is explained by the “survival of the fittest” (Brockett, 19- : 288).

Darwin’s theories have several significant implications. First, heredity and environment are made the determinants of existence. Second, heredity and environment become explanations for all character traits and actions. Furthermore, since behavior is determined by factors beyond the individual’s control, he cannot be blamed for it. Third, Darwin’s theses cast considerable doubt upon the existence of God as traditionally conceived. Fourth, Darwin’s theories strengthened the idea of progress. Fifth, man is reduced to the status of a natural object (Brockett, 19- : 288).

Ibsen is supposed to be much influenced by Darwin’s theories. The first and second impacts as mentioned above, implicitly, drawn in his works during the second period of his career. These impacts are represented in many ways. The characters of Ghosts, which was first performed in 1881, is a good example of how characters who create a social reality at the age of Ibsen, put in practice.

THE SUMMARY OF GHOSTS
Ghosts tells a story about a young man named Osvald Alving. He was a son of The Alvings. He just came from his long life abroad, in France. His father, Mr. Alving, was just died. He wanted to follow the ceremony was taken place by his mother, Mrs. Helena Alving, in order to give the least honor for his husband. In his coming, Osvald decided not to live abroad in France for longer. He wanted to stay with his mother and their servant.

Osvald’s willing scorned Mrs. Alving. She was the only one who encouraged Osvald to go abroad. Her reason was unique. She trusted that it was not good for young Osvald kept staying at his own home. This is due to her husband, Mr. Alving who was a heartbreaker, was suffered from syphilis. She didn’t want young Osvald inherited her husband’s illness. So that she encouraged young Osvald to go abroad and lived in France. Young Osvald didn’t know his mother’s really reason in encouraging him to go abroad since he was about seven years old. He just followed what her wanted him to do.

Osvald even had not been so long staying at home when finally he felt in love with their servant, Regine Engstrad. Mrs. Alving was shocked knowing this. Both Osvald and Regine didn’t know a secret. Indeed, Regine was Osvald’s stepsister. Mr. Alving had an affair with Regine’s mother who was their servant as well. Mrs. Alving worried the same thing occurred to his husband would be repeated to her son. Like father like son.

Mrs. Alving’s worry was increased at the time she knew that Osvald, who wasn’t a heartbreaker as his father was, suffered from syphilis as well. It was supposed to be inherited-sin. Firstly, Osvald blamed himself, he was angry to himself, and thought that it was all due to his carelessness. But finally, he made up his mind that it was an inherited-sin as well.

Osvald finally found that he didn’t have any hope to live for longer. Knowing Regine, who was supposed to be his joy of life, indeed, was his stepsister, and despair of syphilis, Osvald wanted to end his own life. He asked his mother to injure him Morphine tablets in over-doses. It wasn’t clear his mother realized his willing to suicide or not. That’s the end.

ANALYSIS
From the summary above, it is now become clear that Ibsen was much influenced by Darwin’s theories. He was strongly agreed that heredity and environment are made the determinants of existence. Heredity and environment, then, become explanations for all character traits and actions. Furthermore, since behavior is determined by factors beyond the individual’s control, he cannot be blamed for it.

This, then, become the concept of modern drama that is however a man survive against the heredity and environment, it doesn’t change anything. Everything is determined by social reality. This is completely different from the concept of previous works, of course.
As it has told above that characterization of Ghosts obviously described the society at the age of Ibsen. The question then may arise: what kind of characters who create such social reality at the age of Ibsen so he came to that concept? To analyze it, let’s see each of the character.

1. Osvald Alving
It is not necessary to explain, twice, that Ibsen is a playwright who often shows that free will, at the end story, finally must have defeated by the social reality. Or, according to Taine, Ibsen is a playwright who put his character in inferior position against the milieu.
Osvald is such the character. Osvald is described as a brave, dynamic youth. This is shown when Osvald saw his mother was talking with Pastor Meanders. Osvald didn’t like Pastor Meanders. Osvald didn’t agree at all with Pastor Meanders’ view. Moreover, he bravely against him. His particular reason in against the man in such manner is his stereotype to him. That he lived in France, Osvald truly knew the man didn’t like it at all. Given this, the man called him ‘a prodigal son’

Osvald adored beauty, loved glory, and particularly freedom. He stayed in France for so long and became a part of France artists’ enlightenment. This is shown by his choice of work which he fond of in France: painting.

Osvald is typically a youth who is brought up by modernity. He is a rational man. Simply this is drawn when he was sick, he went to the doctor. Osvald even couldn’t understand why a doctor who is known as a rational creature suspected that his illness, syphilis, was an inherit-sin.
At that time, Osvald’s belief in rationalism was tested. Osvald’s, who was first didn’t know –even it could be- didn’t care about his father’s past, at the time he knew it, he questioned himself about the truth of inherit-sin. He almost assured himself that it’s true: his illness was an inherit sin.

Unfortunately, at the end of the story, Osvald finally was defeated by the social reality. What a rational he was, he couldn’t avoid the fate that he was suffered from syphilis.
Thus, according to Ibsen, Osvald spirit to keep alive was killed, murdered by a fact that he must have been defeated by his fate. By syphilis which he inherited of his father.

2. Mrs. Helene Alving
Mrs. Alving is completely different from Osvald. Mrs. Alving didn’t live in spirit of beauty and freedom. On the contrary, Mrs. Alving was totally conscious what a putrid environment around her and her family.

But among the putrid environment, she chose to avoid it rather than against it. Owe to Freud’s words, she has a good self-defense-mechanism. She married, according to Pastor Manders indirect satire, a ‘loose man’, but she didn’t give up. She kept survive and she had never said anything to show it off. Her purpose was only to bring Osvald up without any bad influences of his father and not let Osvald touch a penny of his father’s wealth.

Unluckily, behind her consciousness of the environment, basically, Mrs. Alving is a defeated woman. Although she didn’t fond of her husband behavior, she even could do nothing when at last Regine, her stepdaughter, must stay with her. She even protected her from Pastor Manders when she though that a danger was threatening Regene.

The other evidence of Mrs. Alving’s defeat can also be seen at the end of the story. She had tried to separate Osvald from his father’s bad influences. But finally she failed. Osvald was suffered from syphilis, even he wanted to suicide. She even could take a decision when her son was dealing with the agony.

Thus, this is the irony. Although Mrs. Alving didn’t live in a “freedom of illusion” as the way Osvald did, she could do nothing. That she knew what a putrid the social reality around her is, it didn’t help her to win. She was defeated –and she must have been the most tragic character in this Ibsen’s Ghosts, it wasn’t Osvald.

3. Pastor Manders
As the way Ibsen used to do with his religious character, he located him as hypocrite man. In one side, Pastor Manders is described as a pastor who kept the orthodoxy and moral values. Almost each of his words described what a moralist that he is. He talked about the papers of deeds, his Sunday activity that was denied by Osvald impolitely, the behavior should be done, etc.

But, on the contrary, he loved Regine and tried to blur the fact that Regine is Osvald’s stepsister. This fact is never shown in the plays. But it is not difficult to be concluded since it is known that Pastor Manders is Jacob Engstrad’s ally.

Being Jacob Engstrad’s Ally, Pastor Manders was also involved in settling Regine in The Alving’s house. In this case, his purpose is quite different from Engstrad’s. He, indeed, loved Regine. This is only illustrated implicitly when he supported Jabob to get Regine home.

Pastor Manders is a materialistic man, as well. This fact is only shown implicitly. He strongly encouraged Mrs. Alving to have insurance for The Orphanage. It can’t be denied that he was disappointed when fire decayed The Orphanage. As much as possible he argued when Engstrad attacked him for his despair not getting insurance from the blamed Orphanage.

Given this, simply it can be said that Manders is a hypocrite. He is one part of putrid society, who finally defeated people like Osvald and his mother.


4. Jacob Engstrad
Jacob Engstrad is Manders’ ally. It means that he is the other man who created a putrid society who around Osvald. Engstrad was described as a poor carpenter, a wretch, who finally saw a probability of having money. He asked Regine to be adopted as the exchange for Mr. Alving’s debt to him.

Settling Regine in The Osvalds’ home, he also got money from Regine’s salary. It can be concluded that Engstrad is a character who is fond of profit from other people misery, nonetheless, he still loved her stepdaughter.

5. Regine Engstrad
Regine Engstrad is a “neutral” character. She is described as an innocent girl and doesn’t know anything about so many mysteries around her. She lived in her own world, separated, without she knew that there were many people organized her life.

In the other words, she is a victim, like Osvald and his mother were. The distinction is that, Regine is neither a girl like Osvald, who is very enthusiastic in running her life, nor his mother, who is very conscious of her environment. She is an ordinary, innocent girl and damn right to be a reality victim.

CONCLUSION
From the discussion above, we can see such characters who create the social reality at the age of Ibsen. A man’s struggle against his environment is supposed to be nothing. For whatever reason, he must have defeated. The owner of the authority that deserves to determine the result of a man’s struggle is social reality. So Ibsen came to the concept that however a man survives against the heredity and environment, it doesn’t change anything. Everything is determined by social reality.

Ibsen has also made his character complex personalities by showing both good and bad aspects of each. None is perfect, but none is villainous. This complexity makes each role challenging to actors, and requires subtlety in playing (Brockett, 19- : 294).

Furthermore, the supporters of realism suggested, if audiences did not like the pictures of contemporary life being shown on the stage, they should strive to change the society which had fur-fearless in his treatment of what he saw around him (Brockett, 19- : 289).

For the realist, then, change was the watchdog. Realism sought to strip away the façade of sentimental escapism pervading the theatre and to objectively examine and present man as he is. Understanding replaced moralizing; science replacing metaphysics. These were plays of ideas, not action; of criticizing tradition instead of perpetuating it. Realism propounded “art for truth’s sake,” not “art for the art’s sake” (Small, Norman M., 19- : 333).

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brockett, Oscar G.,The Theatre: An Introduction, 2nd edition ( )
Small, Norman M., The Making of Drama, (Boston: Holbrook Press, 19- )

----------------------------------------------------------------
This paper arranged by Leny Nuzuliyanti, Muhamad Sulhanudin, Kinati Eliyana, in 2004 to fullfil "English Drama" subject in English Department of Diponegoro University. For any publication, please mention this source (the author and this site).

Read More......

The Method of Purification in Antigone

INTRODUCTION

It is first important to have knowledge about the circumstances and the situation of Greek dramas before trying to make comments or to criticize them. It is because Greek dramas are very different, almost in many aspects, from modern drama today. In Greek, dramas, especially tragedy, were played mostly during the festival of Dionysis, The God of Wine, which lasted four or five days yearly. During the festival, people of Greek, or more precisely Athenians, would come to some kind of open space and watched the tragedies played. At the end of the festival, an honorable trophy in the form of “olive crown” would be rewarded to play considered the best. It was in such condition that Antigone, a tragedy play by Sophocles, was first performed (Knox, 1964: 35).

Considering the circumstances, it is easy to understand why Greek dramas have a similar form, that is to rely fully on words spoken by actors or chorus. It is because Greek drama, first of all, is a “stage-drama”. Consequently, in Greek drama, plots and stories play the more significant rule compared to other aspects of modern drama such as actions or characters (Knox, 1964: 35).
Inspired by the tradition, Aristotle, a Greek philosopher who was also familiar with the Dionysis festival, then theorized those aspects of Greek drama, notably tragedies, as follows: tragedy is usually concerned with a person of great stature. He can be a king or a nobleman who falls because of hubris, pride, or destiny. The purpose of playing tragedy, relevant to the context of worship to Dionysis, was to purify the souls of the audience –and this is what is called purification or catharsis (Knox, 1964: 36).

Antigone, a play by Sophocles which won the olive crown when played in Athena, about 441 B.C., is a good example of how such poetic theories were put into practice.


THE SUMMARY OF ANTIGONE
Antigone tells a story of a young girl named Antigone. She was the daughter of Oedipus, the former king of Thebes. After the death of Oedipus, the crown of Thebes fell to Creon, Oedipus’ brother-in-law. The problem began when the other two sons of Oedipus, namely Eteocles and Polyneices, were treated differently by Creon after their death. Eteocles, who died in the battle for the glory of Thebes, was buried in honor, as a hero. But Polyneices, who died during his escape from exile, by Creon’s decree, hadn’t to be buried. His corpse had to remain in the place where he died, so that it might be a foodstuff for dogs, wolves or vultures.

Antigone couldn’t accept the decree. She felt that the corpse of Polyneices had to have the same honor as Eteocles. So, although Creon had already announced capital punishment for those who disobeyed the decree, Antigone resisted. One day, she quietly walked to the corpse of Polyneices and covered it with ground.

Antigone’s action was reported to Creon, who then sentenced her to death. Creon felt his decree had to come first, eventhough he realized that Antigone was his sister’s daughter, and more importantly, the bride of his son, Haemon. Antigone didn’t deny she had violated the decree. She just insisted that her choice was right. If giving an honor to the corpse of a brother was considered a crime and must be sentenced to death, said Antigone, she would accept it without regret. Antigone was finally hung in a deserted area by Creon’s guard.

The son of Creon, that is Haemon, couldn’t accept the death of his bride. He blamed his father for being so stubborn. He loved Antigone so much that he couldn’t live without her. Therefore, when Antigone was hung, Haemon committed suicide by stabbing his sword to his chest.
Actually, after Teiresias, the counselor of Thebes had uttered his concern about Creon’s punishment to Antigone, Creon changed his mind. He came to the place where Polyneices’ body laid with the intention to give him a decent funeral. He even intended to cancel his decree on Antigone. But it was too late. During his way to the area, Antigone and Haemon were already dead.

However, the suffering continued. When Eurydice, the wife of Creon, heard the death of her son, she decided to commit suicide by stabbing herself in the altar of God. Creon came back to his palace just to hear another death news. And her wife’s last words, reported to Creon by a servant, was a condemn to him. Creon, because of his stubbornness to his decree, finally lost his family.


ANALYSIS
From the summary above, it became clear that death was always an inherent part of tragedy plays. In fact, almost in all Greek dramas, tragedy was always associated by deaths. The only differences among them were only the causes and the methods of deaths, while the purpose, still suitable to Aristotle’s concept in Poetics, was the same, that is to bring purification to the audience. The question then may arise: how could such play bring purification?
Before I try to answer the question, first, it is important to notice that Antigone, in some cases, is not very different from the other two plays of Sophocles, that is Oedipus Rex and Oedipus at Colonus. In fact, the three plays were often called “The Theban plays” or “The Oedipus Trilogy” (Knox, 1964: 36). But of course, it would be erroneous to say that Antigone was a continuation of the two plays, since Antigone was written by Sophocles some fifteen years before Oedipus Rex and a fully thirty-six years before Oedipus at Colonus. So, when the three plays were called “The Oedipus Trilogy”, one must remember that the similarity among them was only the theme (Knox, 1964: 38).

As noted by Knox, the main concept in Sophocles’ tragedy is his view that the position of man is subordinate in the relation to the gods (Knox, 1964: 38). This view is clearly expressed in Antigone, especially by the utterance of the chorus. Here is an example:

Chorus
Happy the man whose life is uneventful
For once a family is cursed by God,
Disasters come like earhquake tremors, worse
With each succeding generation

It’s like when the sea is running rough
Under stormy winds from Thrace
The black ooze is stirred up from the seabed,
And louder and louder the waves crash on shore.

Look now at the last sunlight that sustains
The one surviving root of Oedipus’ tree,--
The sword of death is drawn back to hack it down.
(Bowra, 1944: 47)


The context of this utterance was when the chorus heard Creon decreed capital punishment to Antigone for disobeying his orders. From the passage, we know that after learning that Antigone was about to face death, the chorus, who’s in the play were represented by old citizens of Thebes, suddenly reminded the audience about the similarity of Antigone’s fate with the fate of his father, Oedipus. Both of them, the chorus concluded, were cursed by God.
But here comes the interesting point. Although the chorus themselves told the audience that Antigone was cursed by God, Antigone herself didn’t think that God was the main root of her suffering. We would get such opinion after reading Antigone’s argument to Creon below:

Antigone
Sorry, who made this edict? Was it God?
Isn’t a man’ right to burial decreed
By divine justice? I don’t consider your
Pronouncements so important that they can
Just… overrule the unwritten laws of heaven.
You are a man, remember.
(Bowra, 1944: 43)

In Antigone’s opinion, it is clear that God has nothing to do with her fate. If she would have to face death because of her action, then, God is not the one to be blamed. It was Creon, the man, whom to be blamed, not God. From this point of view, of course, there is a kind of contradiction. If the fate of Antigone, according to the chorus, has been determined by God –through the curse— why Antigone blamed Creon?

In his An Introduction to Sophocles, Webster made an interesting comment about this. He said that in all Sophocles’ plays, it must be understood that the relation of God and human is problematic. In one side, God is often positioned as the only determinator, the cause of all fates, including tragic fate, which must be accepted without any doubt. But in the other side, God is still feared and respected. So, the positioning of God as the root of tragic fate doesn’t automatically imply bad judgment about Him (Webster, 1969: 12).

Such contradiction would become clearer at the end of the story. After the death of Antigone, Haemon and Eurydice, Creon felt very guilty. He never imagined that his decree would cost the lives of three people. He couldn’t bear the consequences that he prayed for death to come to him.

Creon
Nobody else to share the blame. Just me…
I killed you. I killed you my dear.
Servants, carry me in, away from al this.
I wish I weren’t alive.

Chorus
Try to forget. It is the only way.

Creon
I invite death. Do you only come uninvited?
Come and take me. I cannot bear to live.

Chorus
No time for such thoughts now. You’re still in charge.
You’ve got to see about these corpses, or
We’ll all be polluted.

Creon
I meant what I said

Chorus
No use in such prayers. You’ll get what’s destined.
(Bowra, 1944: 65)

It’s interesting to see that although Creon prayed for death, the chorus consistently said that it would be useless since he would get what was destined for him. But similar to Antigone, Creon didn’t blame God for his fate. He could only blame himself for being so stubborn. So, although his stubbornness was also destined by God, contradictly, Creon couldn’t blame God for it (Webster, 1969: 14).

To solve the contradiction, then one may remember that tragedy plays were performed on stage during the Dionysis festival, which its main context was a celebration to Dionysis so that the wine harvest would be better in the following year. Based on this context, it is of course impossible to expect Greek plays to represent some kind of rebellion against God, since raison d’ etre of the plays themselves was a devotion to Him. Therefore, it will be better to view this contradiction from another standing point.

As noted by Webster, one of the keys to understanding Sophocles’ plays is to pay careful attention to relation between God and human (Webster, 1969: 12). Not only because it is important, but more essentially, the comprehensive understanding of such relation would reveal the message, motive, and also the main purpose of the play itself. And in Webster’s opinion, the clearest aspect of relation of God and human in Sophocles’ plays was that man, in some ways, was forced to discover his own potentialities or his own status of divinity through tragic fate (Webster, 1969: 14).

In Antigone, such discovery was clearly represented. Both Antigone and Creon were persons with their own view of virtue. For Antigone, it was a virtue that she should give an honorable funeral to his brother. But for Creon, considering his status as the king of Thebes, the only virtue that seemed right was only to give honorable funeral to Eteocles, the hero, not to Polyneices, the runaway. Both of them insisted to their own point of view. Both of them also believed that it was their opinion which was right according to the rules of God. But since God didn’t show clearly which one of them was right, each of them had to follow his or her own way until the extreme point: death. Only after death comes, then the true virtue, the real rule of God, could be revealed (Webster, 1969: 15).

From this standpoint, it is clear that in Sophocles’ play, death didn’t function as a dramatic element. Its function is much more important than merely a dramatic event to evoke sadness. Death, the extreme cost of one’s discovery, has a very high status as the only possible way of revealing God’s virtue. That is why Webster said that in most Sophocles’ play, as if the veil of God was only lifted halfway, and man was expected to guess what lay behind it (Webster, 1969: 17). We can find such a conclusion from the last words of the chorus below:

Chorus
Who wants happiness? The main
Requirement is to be sensible.
This means not rebelling against
God’s law, for that is arrogance.
The greater your arrogance, the heavier God’s revenge.
And proud men in old age learn to be wise.
(Bowra, 1944: 65)

Chorus, who in Greek drama was usually positioned as the narrator and participated in each opinion of the actors, at the end of the play, finally revealed the true virtue of God: that Creon was wrong; that the main requirement to gain happiness from God is to be sensible. It is, of course, a simple thing to understand. But in reality, in order to be sensible is not as easy as it seems. The story of Creon is an example. Creon had to loose three lives of persons whom he loved much just to understand such a simple virtue. And that’s the tragedy (Webster, 1969: 19).
From such point of view, then it is clear how a play like Antigone could bring purification to its audience. Watching the story of Creon, his stubbornness on his own “virtue”, and the cost he had to bear, presumably would give audience a sense of sadness, but at the same time, a sense of reveal. As deaths happened, Creon finally recognized that his action was mistaken, that he had been misguided by his arrogance, meaning that he had moved from ignorance to knowledge. But the recognition gained by Creon, tragically, hit him at same instant as the lost he felt from the death of the three persons. It was such slight movement from lost to recognition that would lead audience to purification, to the higher stage of mental awareness (Webster, 1969: 21). So, in short, we may say that the method of purification in Antigone, and I think it can also be applied in most Sophocles’ tragedy plays, derived from such slight mental movement. A simple mental movement which, in Webster’s words, needed the cost of three lives.

CONCLUSION
From the discussion above, it can be concluded that purification, the main purpose of Greek tragedy, was derived from the tragic fate that befell to actors and, at the same time, a mental awareness that accompanied it. Usually, the greater the tragedy, the greater the awareness would rise. If death happened to be the most common event of tragedy, it is because death is viewed as the greatest tragedy of all. And Antigone is a good example of such method.


BIBLIOGRAPHY
B. M. W. Knox, Studies in Sophoclean Tragedy (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1964).

C. M. Bowra, Sophoclean Tragedy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1944).

Webster, T. B. L., An Introduction to Sophocles, 2nd edition, [London: Cornell
University Press, 1969).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*This article is writen by Leny Nuzuliyanti, alumni of English Department Student of Diponegoro University, Semarang, Indonesia. The copy right of this article is on the writer. You have to mention "the source" (the writer and this site) for any publication.

Read More......