sign in sign up
<<
Home , Diegesis, Dramatic structure

International Journal of Language , , Culture and History Studies Vol.1, NO.2 , P: 96 - 103 Received : 08 Des 2018 Accepted : 06 Mar 2019

A Study on the Relation of Platonic with Diegetic Dramas, Focusing on the Plays by Bahman Forsi

Mozhdeh Sameti PhD in Comparative and Analytical History modern period where some modernists such of Art, University of Art of Tehran as Bahman Forsi represent diegetic . Results showed that there is a correlative [email protected] relation between diegetic Platonic dramas and diegetic Iranian dramas. These results led us to a new structure for Iranian dramas. Abstract Keywords: , , , Plato’s works have always been studied as , diegetic drama, Iranian drama, philosophical dialogues. Few scholars have Bahman Forsi considered them as dramatic texts. Plato’s approach to mimesis has made him an anti- Introduction figure. His emphasis on diegesis Talking about diegetic or dramas instead of mimesis may be one of the reasons and its counterpart, mimetic or imitative his theories disappeared from dramatic dramas, goes back to classical era. Plato’s studies. But modern drama, based more on writings were among the first ones which diegesis, have connections with Platonic began this discussion. When we relate drama concepts. Modern diegetic dramas have been to Plato it means that we considered him as a recognized as a new in modern era. dramatist and his works as a drama. But can This research is going to study these diegetic this assumption be true? Based on Plato’s dramas which go back to Platonic dialogues. theory of forms, it is always claimed that First, mimesis and diegesis were explained Plato was against mimesis and mimetic arts. through classical views. Also Plato’s So how can such a thinker be interested in a dialogues were compared with and mimetic art such as theatre and drama? comedy as the main forms of drama. Having achieved Platonic , modern Mimesis, which means , and drama is analyzed. Through comparing diegesis, which means narrativity, are two modern diegetic dramas with Platonic important concepts rooted in Plato’s and dramas we got to the components that Aristotle’s works. In and Ion Plato construct diegetic dramas. By using these expresses his views about mimesis and components we studied structure of Iranian diegesis. He believed that diegesis is more dramas. Roots and conditions of Iranian widespread than mimesis. He explains that dramatic tradition proceeded us to the when Homer talks in the third-person point

96 of view, there is ‘pure diegesis’, and when sampling method is used for studying Homer talks in first-person, we see ‘diegesis Bahman Forsi’s plays. These samples are through mimesis’ [1]. On the opposite side, chosen from the plays written in the period Aristotle believed that all modes of , between 1953 Coup d’état to 1979 Islamic such as lyrics, and drama, are different Revolution of Iran, when it was the kinds of mimesis, so mimesis is more general flourishing era of modernist dramatists in and valued than diegesis [2]. According to general, and of Forsi in particular. this defense of mimesis and mimetic art by Findings Aristotle, theatre and dramatic studies shaped on Aristotelian views since then, and so Platonic Dramas Platonic ones disappeared from these fields. The term Platonic drama raises the question But history of theatre and drama was not of relation between Plato and always in accordance with Aristotelian dramatist. Despite the common views about approach. For example modern drama, which Plato that consider him as an anti-theatrical is based mostly on diegetic forms, does not figure, he was involved in drama writings. have anything to do with Aristotelian The very first facts for this claim can be decorum and instead it has many common found in Aristotle’s , where he gives a structures with the Platonic one. Among the division of dramatic . He presents a diegetic modern theater movements, one of basic taxonomy of ancient drama which the most diegetic dramatic literature belongs includes three established genres of to Iran’s modern drama which rooted in its ‘tragedy’, ‘comedy’ and ‘satyr’; he also adds own diegetic theatrical tradition. And among two minor genres: ‘mime’ and ‘Socratic these modernist Iranian dramatists, Bahman dialogue’, which was a new literary form Forsi (1933- ) is one the most significant one introduced by Socrates’s student, Plato. This whose works shaped an important movement Socratic dialogues, being referred as a minor in Iran’s dramatic literature. Since most genre of drama by Aristotle, gained dramatic literary criticisms on dramatic texts are often prestige, and that is why we now call them based on Aristotelian views, Iranian dramas Platonic dramas. Besides Aristotle’s Poetics, and especially Forsi’s dramas have not been there are some other facts that proves Plato as considered as standard dramatic texts as they a dramatist. For example Diogenes Laertius do not follow classical decorum. This (180-240 AD), Plato’s biographer, depicts research aims to change this view by him as a person who was involved with presenting another classical decorum as theatre during all his lifetime. He says that Platonic principles which is mainly based on Plato had connections with Euripides and diegesis instead of mimesis. Epicharmus, the two significant dramatist of Methodology classical era, and sometimes he himself wrote trilogy which he burnt some time This research is based on data analysis in later [3]. quantitative method which gained its material by searching archives. Besides Despite all the anti-theatrical interpretations primary and secondary sources that provided of Plato’s works, in later eras some scholars analytical material for this research, began to focus on this dramatic aspect of

97

Platonic works. For example Friedrich it was mostly read aloud by one person in Schleiermacher (1768-1834) applied front of small ; it was based on a interdisciplinary discussions to Platonic new subject matter, philosophy; and it lacked studies and focused on dramatic aspects of the spectacular effects of choral dancing” [7]. those texts. Or James A. Arieti (1948- ) who, He then compares Plato’s dialogues with in his important book Interpreting Plato: The western modern diegetic dramas, or more Dialogues as Drama (1991), believed that specifically, with closet dramas. Through Plato’s dialogues were more similar to these studies he has obtained some specific tragedy and comedy, especially to diegetic components applied to diegetic Aristophanes’ comedy, than to scientific and dramas which can be used for further studies literary texts before Socrates. So he thinks of other dramas in other dramatic literature that we should not ignore dramatic aspects of such as Iran’s and Forsi’s dramas. these dialogues in favor of philosophical But before going to analytic study of Forsi’s ones, and we should study them as studying dramas, we should have an exact outline of ’ or Shakespeare’s works [4]. He what the Platonic drama and diegetic emphasizes that Plato did not want us to read components are. his works as only philosophical treatises but he used prosaic comedy form to lead the Platonic Dramaturgy reader to comprehend this difference [5]. For In expressing structural elements of Platonic example he sees Symposium as an dramaturgy, first we take a look at intellectual comedy than a serious discussion similarities and differences of these dramas about love [6]. with tragedy and comedy. Another important contemporary literary Classical tragedy has significant differences scholar who has studied Platonic dramas with Plato’s dialogues. First, Plato’s concentrating on diegesis and mimesis dialogues are about contemporary characters, concepts, is Martin Puchner (1969- ). He has not mythological figures. Second, they are two important books in this filed, Stage written in prose, not in verse. And Plato’s Fright (2002) and The Drama of Ideas: dialogues did not attend Dionysus festival. Platonic Provocations in Theater and Despite all these differences, there are some Philosophy (2010), which are somehow similarities between them too. For example structural framework of this research too. In of Socrates in Plato’s works has these two books Puchner analyses the tragic fate. Many of Plato’s works such as diegetic structure of Platonic dialogues as Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo depicts a dramatic texts. He says: “it is true that Plato tragic story of Socrates’ death. Although in was extremely critical of the entire theatre Phaedo Plato attacks tragedy more than any system… his critique must be understood not other book, it is the very text where he as that of an outsider but as that of a rival; he follows some tragic principles in describing was not an enemy of theatre but a radical Socrates’ death, such as tragic fate, tragic reformer. Attacking many features of , unity of time, and most of all the Athenian theatre, he sought to create an . Socrates describes himself as a alternative form of drama, the Socratic dialogue, which avoided all of these features: 98 tragic character: “as tragedians say, this was and applied this by adding narrator to the my fate” [8]. mimetic world of the drama. In other words Plato’s dialogues were not only in connection Plato was inventor of a new genre of drama with tragedy, but also with comedy. For that flourished in modern era. example Plato was interested in portraying Modern Drama issues of the society, not historical stories, and that is what is found more in comedy. The relation of with theatre is Also, his characters were from his complicated. Renaissance art was in praise of contemporary surroundings with usual mimesis. All arts and literature tried to features. Socrates, although represent the actual world in its best. But by characteristically was tragic, he was from a getting to modern era, arts began to get lower class of society which accords with distanced from mimetic representation of the classical comedy genre principles. In Plato’s world and instead tried to express their dialogues, Socrates is not only a philosopher, personal, inside conceptions. So abstract but also a rude, impolite and comic person styles began to flourish in different arts such [9]. as painting, sculpture and also in literature. So Plato’s dialogues were always in Among all of these arts theatre had a unique challenge with both tragedy and comedy condition. In to other arts that genres. Socrates was not a simple tragic or allowed abstraction easily, such as abstract comic , but he was a kind of paintings or sculptures or texts, theatre, due mixture of both, whose to its material that was alive human , intelligence put social issues into could not get totally abstracted and always philosophical questions [10]. Plato’s should have been linked to mimetic world. dialogue is a new genre combining features So it tried to decrease its mimetic aspects in of both tragedy and comedy and standing drama part. Dramatists started to write texts side by side of them. In other words, Plato’s that were far from mimetic representations dialogues were a new dramatic genre which and in this way they added non-mimetic competed not in the field of tragedy or components as much as they could. These comedy, but in a new field alongside them. non-mimetic components for a genre that So this Platonic dramaturgy has some consists of dialogues, could be nothing but specific features: a dialogue in prose, with narrativity. So diegetic dramas that were not socio-political and philosophical subjects necessarily meant to be staged began to be that are rooted in characters’ speeches written. Non-mimetic literary styles such as instead of their actions: dialogues that are , , etc… also led to written to be read in a somehow personal write dramas that were suitable for being read situation, not to be staged on public . individually because they were overqualified Plato wanted his to get involved in to be staged. Moreover, modern era provided his texts intellectually. He did not want all with socio-political issues that passive audience. This approach reminds us became the main subjects of dramas and of Epic Theatre of Bertolt Brecht (1898- significant philosopher-dramatists emerged, 1956) in modern era that was based on such as Samuel Beckett (1906-1989), Albert critical audience instead of silent spectator Camus (1913-1960), and Jean Paul Sartre

99

(1905-1980). So modern drama found its many critics haven’t considered them as own identity by some definite characteristics: drama. But now that we know there exists more narrativity than dialogue, lots of another approach as Platonic one with its symbolic or metaphoric elements, with own dramaturgy, it is necessary to analyze social, political, and philosophical subjects, Forsi’s dramas according to Platonic dramas. without being needed to be staged and Before going to Forsi’s dramas, it is helpful instead being read individually. As it is to take a general look at Iranian dramas’ obvious these are the same Platonic structure since ancient theatre tradition till dramaturgy that mentioned above. So beginning of drama writing in Iran. modern drama, which has been called sometimes as closet drama, is the legacy of Narrativity has always been an important part Platonic drama. of Iranian culture. Oral in ancient history of Iran made its way to narrative Diegetic Drama Components forms of theatre such as ‘Naqali’ and Based on Puchner’s studies on many western ‘Pardehkhani’, where a narrator performs an modern diegetic dramas, we can provide a epic or religious story [11]. ‘Siah Bazi’ is list of diegetic components that can be also another old form of Iranian theatre based applied to other dramatic structures. Some of on comic of one performer. But these important diegetic components are: most important of all is ‘Ta’zieh’ which is descriptive stage directions, narrators, considered as the most complete theatrical soliloquies, asides, narrative passages about form of Iranian culture. We know that in the past, descriptive speeches, chorus, Ta’zieh also the main part of the performance messengers, prologues, epilogues, is based on the narrative recounts of the commentators, and shifting point of view performers from Karbala events. “The actor from first person to the third person. in Ta’zieh is an actor and narrator at the same time. He just reads the text with . He is a Iranian Dramas medium between the spectator and a sublime These components are a kind of touchstone world whose spectator is himself. In fact he for recognizing the diegetic or mimetic is an actor, a narrator and a spectator at the weight of a drama. They are very helpful for same time’ [12]. So narrativity is an essential studying dramas of some dramatic literature component of Iranian theatre since the that are usually known as diegetic. Iranian ancient time, and it definitely affected the dramatic literature is one of those which has tradition of drama writing in Iran. always convicted to be less mimetic and so In addition to narrative of Iranian not enough dramatic. One of the most theatre, structure of general Iranian literature significant Iranian dramatists who wrote in a is based on three parts which is different from period when ‘National Theatre’ movement that Aristotelian . Iranian originated to shape the future dramatic fictional and dramatic literary texts, in almost literature, was Bahman Forsi. Forsi’s dramas all genres, generally follow three phases: have always been criticized as texts between ‘first selection, then journey, finally drama and narrative . And as they did returning to recount’ [13]. These three phases not follow Aristotelian dramatic principles, or stages are found in almost all Iranian 100 literary works; from Shahnameh to even example all of his dramas start with prologue. Imam Hussein’s Ta’zieh. These three stages Although these prologues are not those and their various forms of depiction is traditional Iranian theatrical prologues where completely different from western a narrator gives a general overview of the Aristotelian literary structures that consist of story to the audience. Here, Forsi’s prologues ‘problems, pitch, and solution’. The eastern- come after stage directions, and they have a Iranian structure is linear while the western- separate title from prologue: ‘Perspective’. In Aristotelian one is ascending-descending. So these ‘Perspectives’ the expresses his Iranian drama, naturally, is distinct from personal view in detail about the general Aristotelian drama, and it is more akin to world of the drama and its characters. For modern dramatic texts of Platonic dramatists example at the beginning of Flowerpot there such as Brecht and Beckett who definitely are some separate prologues for the tried to disobey Aristotelian decorum. Now characters: the best example of an Iranian dramatist for 1. The girl is sitting on icebox, hugging this Platonic diegetic drama is Bahman Forsi. herself, noises and narrow place is frightening Bahman Forsi her, she is trapped in her childish fears. 2. The vagabond child holding a stone sits Bahman Forsi (1933- ) is one of the pioneer on his knees. He holds his breath, points his stone modernist dramatists of Iran. He had many and throws it. Short silence waiting for result. innovations in form and style of playwriting. Suddenly he stands up franticly and follow the In 1960 he wrote a , Flowerpot, and track of flown bird with his look. introduced a new kind of dramatic language 3. A lame person holding a mirror box and style by it. “Forsi’s works had somehow around his neck and looks like a peddler, moving been influenced by western modern theatre, awkward, come to the tree and sits there on the street. [16] namely absurd theatre that recently were introduced to Iranian intellectuals and As it is obvious, these epilogues have philosophers by of Beckett and descriptive narrative which looks more like Ionesco” [14]. Innovations in Forsi’s fictional language style than dramatic one. If dramatic style was so much that many critics they have not been put into drama texts, one believed that “he entered narrative fictional could not find any mimetic feature in these spirit to drama form” [15]. Forsi’s most passages that implies dramatic genre. important dramas, which were written in the Besides these diegetic ‘Perspectives’ that are period of ‘National Theater’ movement, i.e. found in almost all of Forsi’s works, there are 1953 Coup d’état to 1979 Islamic Revolution some short poems by Forsi himself or of Iran, are Flowerpot (1960), Crutch (1962), by other famous writers that come Steps of a Ladder (1962), Mouse (1963), even before ‘Perspectives’. This feature is Spring and the Doll (1964), Green in Green like Brechtian titling of each scene with a (1964), Two Multiplied by Two Equals word or verse which asks the audience to get Infinity (1968), Breaking Sound (1971), distanced from the mimetic world of the Hoscalmpice (1977). theatre by reading them. In addition to these diegetic components of Forsi’s dramas, Forsi’s dramas have some components that almost all of his dramas have narrators who can be found in almost all of his works. For 101 recount the story directly to the audience. For addressing of audience, third-person point of example in Crutch the narrator is called ‘Man view, diegetic verses and quotations, abstract of History’, who implies to narrativity: world, and written codes between dramatist and reader that can only be solved by being Man of History (in declamatory ): narrators read. All of these components have made have narrated… [17] Forsi’s dramas the most diegetic dramas that And after ‘Man of History’ there is ‘Witness’ their meaning can be realized without who removes the mimetic fourth wall by necessarily being staged. They also accord addressing the audience directly and with Platonic dramaturgies: they are introducing himself: dialogues with social, political, philosophical Witness: ok, I’m ready. (To the audience). Let me issues that are shaped more on characters’ introduce myself. I’m the witness [18] speeches than on their actions and they are meant to be read instead of being staged. This way of direct addressing the audience These dramas which are rooted in diegetic continues to the end of the drama and tradition of Iranian literature, have become as constantly breaks the mimetic world. a kind of model for the next generation of Besides, there are many long monologues in dramatists in Iran. the form of soliloquies and asides thorough the texts that emphasizes the diegetic aspects As we have seen, drama genres are not only strongly. In Forsi’s dramas time and place are limited to only Aristotelian ‘tragedy and indefinite. There is no trace of Aristotelian comedy’ anymore. There exist other genres, unity of time and place. The most evident such as Platonic diegetic one, which example is Green in Green, a play without originated in classical time but flourished in dialogue and totally descriptive. At the modern era. Iranian drama also, due to its beginning of this play it is mentioned that: diegetic nature and based on modern “place of story: anywhere on the earth; time necessities, shaped a kind of diegetic drama of the play: till today” [19]. Abstract world of which can stand separately next to tragedy his dramas sometimes get mysterious too. and comedy. For example in Hoscalmpice, in addition to Conclusion long diegetic monologues, the dramatist has put some codes for the reader that can be Plato’s dialogues, although usually have solved only by reading, not in watching the been considered anti-theatrical, are dramatic play on the stage: texts. Plato’s defense of diegesis instead of mimesis, has made him disappeared from If you add 1300 to the two-digit numbers that dramatic studies. But by development of actors announce, you can find the important date diegetic dramas in modern era, paying of historical events in our country… I did not attention to Platonic dramas as the pioneer of mention this secret in our practices and performances [20]. this genre found its place. Now diegetic drama is considered as a separate genre next So Forsi’s dramas are full of diegetic to Aristotelian genres of tragedy and comedy. components, such as prologues, narrative Confirming this diegetic dramas lead us to stage directions, various narrators, long and study and analyze some diegetic literature different kinds of monologues, direct more exactly. One of those literary traditions 102 that have always been dominated by diegesis, Philosophy]. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford is Iranian literature which gets more diegetic University Press; 2010: 5. in modern era by some dramatists like [8] Plato. [Complete Works: Volume I] 4th Bahman Forsi. Forsi’s dramas, with various ed. Tehran: Kharazmi; 2011:141. (Persian) diegetic components such as descriptive stage directions, prologues, monologues, [9] Arieti J. A. [Interpreting Plato: The narrators, abstract worlds, etc. … are Dialogues as Drama]. 1st ed. Maryland: completely diegetic dramas that accord with Rowman and Littlefield; 1991: 89. Platonic dramaturgy. This comparative study [10] Bakhtin M. M. [The Dialogic between Iranian diegetic drama and Platonic Imagination]. 1st ed. Tehran: Ney; 2008: 24- drama proves that although some kinds of 25. (Persian) drama do not follow Aristotelian principles, they can be identified as a third genre next to [11] Beyzai B. [Theatre in Iran]. 5th ed. those classic tragedy and comedy. This Tehran: Roshangaran; 2006: 65-70. (Persian) paper, through studies on Forsi’s drama, is a [12] Gooran H. [Abortive Attempts: Tracing starting point for proving that diegetic One Hundred Year Iranian Theatre]. 1st ed. Iranian drama is drama. We hope that other Tehran: Agah; 1981: 27. (Persian) researchers study other Iranian dramas to gain broader view about this literary [13] Yari M. [Structuralism of Iranian structure. Theatre]. 1st ed. Tehran: Sooreh Mehr; 2000: 30. (Persian)

[14] Khalaj M. [Iranian Playwrights from References Akhundov to Beyzai]. 1st ed. Tehran: [1] Plato. [Republic]. 1st ed. Tehran: Ibn Akhtaran; 2002:179-180. (Persian) Sina; 1974: 127-129. (Persian) [15] Ibid.: 185. [2] Aristotle. [Poetic]. 3rd ed. Tehran: [16] Forsi B. [Eight plus One: A Collection Amirkabir; 2002: 33-36. (Persian) of Plays by Bahman Forsi]. 1st ed. Tehran: [3] Laertius D. [Lives and Opinions of Ghatreh; 2006: 13-15. (Persian) Eminent Philosophers: Socrates and Plato]. [17] Ibid.: 52. 1st ed. Tehran: Danesh Cultural Institute; 2008: 10-14. (Persian) [18] Ibid.: 53. [4] Arieti J. A. [Interpreting Plato: The [19] Ibid.: 644. Dialogues as Drama]. 1st ed. Maryland: [20] Ibid.: 552. Rowman and Littlefield; 1991: 1. [5] Ibid.: 51. [6] Ibid.: 99. [7] Puchner M. [The Drama of Ideas: Platonic Provocations in Theater and

103