November 10, 2006
“Stage-plays also drew me away”
Augustine’s Confession~ For I have not now ceased to have compassion; but then in the theatres I sympathized with lovers when they sinfully enjoyed one another, although this was done fictitiously in the play. And when they lost one another, I grieved with them, as if pitying them, and yet had delight in both. But now-a-days I feel much more pity for him that delighteth in his wickedness, than for him who is counted as enduring hardship by failing to obtain some pernicious pleasure, and the loss of some miserable felicity. . . .
Stage-plays also drew me away, full of representations of my miseries and of fuel to my fire. Why does man like to be made sad when viewing doleful and tragical scenes, which yet he himself would by no means suffer? And yet he wishes, as a spectator, to experience from them a sense of grief, and in this very grief his pleasure consists. What is this but wretched insanity? For [the more] a man is affected with these actions, the less free he is from such affections. Howsoever, when he suffers in his own person, it is the custom to style it “misery;” but when he compassionates others, then it is styled “mercy.” But what kind of mercy is it that arises from fictitious and scenic passions? The hearer is not expected relieve, but merely invited to grieve; and the more he grieves, the more he applauds the actor of these fictions. And if the misfortunes of the characters (whether of olden times or merely imaginary) be so represented as not to touch the feelings of the spectator, he goes away disgusted or censorious; but if his feelings be touched, he sits it out attentively, and sheds tears of joy.
Posted by Bob Bixby at November 10, 2006 07:17 PM | eMail this entry! | 295 WordsThis entry was posted in the following categories: Politics and Culture
Hey, Bob. I’m with you on this one, too (hey, two in a row!!), but I’m curious about something. Augustine here is certainly speaking against drama as a form in general, isn’t he? He’s not just speaking about drama that puts evil in a good light in contrast to “good drama” as you seem to be.
So how does this fit in your mind with any forms of drama, even movies, etc? If my memory serves me correctly, you feel at liberty to watch an occasional movie (as do I), so I wondered why you would quote someone who would most certainly argue against watching movies to make your point. Or are you just using Augustine’s more broad concerns to make a point about drama that delights in the wicked?
Posted by: Scott Aniol at November 10, 2006 08:44 PMCan someone explain why this critique doesn’t apply to all fiction, novels included? Personally, I’ve found books a lot more “moving” than movies or plays. It seems to me that if the “wretched insanity” gets you with a film, in which your interaction with the characters is limited to visual and auditory senses, then as you’re reading a book, when your mind is engaged with the characters’ thoughts, the fake emotions would be even more enveloping.
Posted by: Austin Matzko at November 11, 2006 12:23 AMAugustine was against drama as a form in general, yes. The Church Fathers all denounced drama of any kind. I guess even the Romans did not allow actors to be citizens.
I don’t agree with Augustine’s denunciation of drama as a form in general. I enjoy plays, movies, etc.
However, I do find his concern very provocative, if not convicting. To what extent does our emotional involvement with anything illicit or sinful blatant violation of the moral law of God? I know I am guilty of getting so caught up in the story line that I sympathize (feel with) the character either in their gain of something wrong or loss of something illegitimate.
Austin, I would think the critique would apply to all novels.
Posted by: Bob at November 11, 2006 03:35 AMThere is a certain difference between novels and drama (though Augustine may have had problems with both; it is hard to say), but this is not the sort of thing one argues on a blog.
Posted by: Ryan at November 11, 2006 08:43 AMC’mon Ryan. Is that all the better you can do?
Austin asks a basic question for understanding, evaluating, and limiting the case against the theatre. As I understand your view, drama presents a moral hazard of some magnitude, part of the current cultural apostasy. Yet, in this forum and others, we seek in vain for any kind of substantial apologia for your belief. The best we can get is a quotation from Augustine, some mumbling about Aristotle and catharsis, then a lot of eye-winking among the initiated about how this line of argumentation is something that people reared in 20th-century Christianity could never understand. End of discussion.
I’m forced to conclude that either A) you don’t really think it’s that important, or B) you don’t really understand the received wisdom from Dissidens (or whomever) well enough to regurgitate and defend it.
Some of us are actually curious to see how the argument works, particularly if the truth will show us that we are imbibing drama to our detriment. If that was the case, surely you wouldn’t leave us here foolishly staring at a bunch of evidence that doesn’t quite fit together.
If this is a game, it’s time to stop. If you’re serious, then let’s let these ideas see the light of day.
Posted by: Michael C. at November 12, 2006 01:18 AMI thought we were talking about the difference between drama and novels, not the legitimacy of drama.
Do you really want to know, Michael? Are you really trying to persuade me to speak on this matter? You really know how to win a guy over.
Posted by: Ryan at November 12, 2006 05:22 PMYeah, I’m serious. I don’t understand why a handful of fairly smart people embrace this idea, yet are so reticent to explain its basis or how they apply it.
Augustine’s logic seems to have wide-ranging ramifications if we are to take it seriously. Hence Austin’s question regarding the difference between drama and novels. If we are to forbid drama for stirring false emotions or allowing us to illicitly purge our emotions, then certainly the novel and a variety of other artforms should be forbidden for having the same effect. I see no way to single out drama and still maintain the force of the argument.
Your thoughts?
Posted by: Michael C. at November 12, 2006 10:47 PM
