Macarena
Andrews
Barraza


Perfomer,
Dramaturge
and
Playwright

www.dramaturgistadelcuerpo.blogspot.com


Catharsis,
 a
 dramaturgical
 tool
 to
 construct
 a
 new


frame
in
social
politics


The
present
critical
essay
has
the
intention
to
discuss
the
meaning
and
purpose

of
 the
 concept
 of
 catharsis,
 in
 the
 works
 of
 Aristotle,
 and
 Bertolt
 Brecht.

Therefore
 this
 paper
 has
 the
 aim
 to
 establish
 catharsis
 as
 a
 political
 tool
 to

construct
 the
 internal
 vision
 of
 a
 nation
 or
 culture
 by
 using
 the
 audience

engagement
in
the
dramatic
form.


Under
this
outline
I
will
review
Aristotle’s
perspective
on
emotions
and
his
moral

vision
 of
 the
 politics,
 and
 the
 aesthetical
 perspective
 in
 Brecht’s
 artistic

development
of
Epic
Theatre.


Aristotle
and
Catharsis


PHAEDRA:
Many
a
time
in
night’s
long
empty
spaces

I
have
pondered
on
the
causes
of
a
life’s
shipwreck.

I
think
that
our
lives
are
worse
than
the
mind’s
quality

would
warrant.
There
are
many
who
know
virtue.

We
know
the
good,
we
apprehend
it
clearly.

But
we
can’t
bring
it
to
achievement.
(…)i


In
order
to
value
the
concept
of
catharsis
established
by
Aristotle
in
his
Poetics,
it

is
necessary
to
develop
the
idea
of
what
he
understood
as
the
main
ambition
of

art
and
how
he
visualized
the
internal
dramaturgy
of
tragedy.
In
consequence
we

will
be
able
to
recognize
which
was
the
importance
of
arousing
emotions
in
the

cultural
and
political
frame
of
Greek
society.



Aristotle’s
refers
to
catharsis
when
he
establishes:
“Tragedy
is
the
imitation
of
an

action
which
is
serious,
complete
and
substantial.
(…)
It
is
drama
(that
is,
it
shows

people
performing
actions)
and
not
narration.
By
evoking
pity
and
terror
it
brings

about
the
purgation
(catharsis)
of
those
emotions.“ii




The
 possibility
 of
 understanding
 exactly
 what
 catharsis
 means
 seems
 to
 be

reasonably
difficult
since
Aristotle
himself
did
not
offer
a
definition
per
se
in
his

Poetics;
what
we
know
about
catharsis
(purgation)
is
its
finality,
what
it
should

produce,
although
until
this
point
it
seems
uncertain
what
the
main
reason
to
set

catharsis
as
the
ultimate
purpose
of
a
well‐constructed
tragedy
was.



According
 to
 Aristotle
 “art
 creates
 a
 merely
 simulacrum”
 of
 the
 ideal
 created

from
God;
and
it
has
to
“encourage
the
emotional
response,
far
from
the
rational

and
considered
stance
of
genuine
seeker
after
truth.”iii



Therefore,
 for
 Aristotle
 the
 purpose
 of
 tragedy
 as
 a
 major
 form
 of
 art
 was
 to

construct
a
simile
of
reality,
which
would
engage
the
audience
in
a
deep
moving

experience.
 According
 to
 W.W.
 Fortenbaugh
 in
 his
 book
 Aristotle
 on
 Emotion,

“Aristotle’s
 analysis
 of
 emotion
 made
 clear
 the
 relationship
 of
 emotion
 to

reasoned
argumentation.
By
constructing
thought
or
belief
as
the
efficient
cause

of
 emotion,
 Aristotle
 showed
 that
 emotional
 response
 is
 intelligent
 behaviour

open
to
reasoned
persuasion.”iv


Hence,
 emotions
 were
 an
 essential
 element
 of
 Aristotle’s
 vision
 of
 reason
 and

consequently
 of
 truth;
 especially
 those
 that
 he
 considered
 cognitive,
 that
 is

emotions
which
made
conscious
the
ability
of
thinking:


Once
 Aristotle
 focused
 on
 the
 cognitive
 side
 of
 emotional
 response
 and

made
clear
that
an
emotion
can
be
altered
by
argument
because
beliefs

can
 be
 altered
 in
 this
 way,
 it
 was
 possible
 to
 adopt
 a
 positive
 attitude

towards
emotional
appeal.
v


In
 this
 sense,
 emotions
 were
 an
 effective
 manner
 to
 call
 for
 the
 audience’s

attention
 in
 order
 to
 accomplish
 an
 intelligent
 reading
 of
 the
 theatrical
 events.

Aristotle’s
research
led
him
to
realize
the
importance
of
emotional
knowledge
in

the
perception
of
reality
and
the
further
complex
mental
process
inspired
by
it.



 2

Since,
in
Aristotle’s
perspective:
“The
word
‘reason’
includes
all
the
effects
which

can
be
produced
by
language:
proof
or
refutation
of
an
argument,
the
arousal
of

emotions
like
pity,
terror,
anger
and
the
others,
the
capacity
to
exaggerate
and

understate.”vi




Ergo,
 Aristotle’s
 new
 perspective
 to
 confront
 the
 benefits
 of
 theatre
 and

fundamentally
 tragedy
 was
 extremely
 revolutionary;
 especially
 when
 we

consider
 the
 formal
 perspective
 introduced
 by
 Plato
 in
 the
 visualization
 of

theatre.
Plato
asseverated
a
strong
critic
on
Greek
playwrights
“for
playing
upon

feelings
 that
 are
 unintelligent
 and
 destructive
 of
 man’s
 reasoning
 capacity.”vii

Aristotle,
 who
 saw
 an
 important
 benefit
 in
 the
 emotional
 appeal
 with
 the

purpose
 of
 stimulating
 reflection,
 challenged
 Plato’s
 demeaning
 conception
 of

theatre.


As
a
result,
the
single
emotional
status
usually
attributed
to
catharsis,
opens
now

a
new
perspective
of
analysis.
Pity
and
terror
were
cognitive
emotions
selected

for
 very
 particular
 motives
 by
 Aristotle,
 with
 the
 aim
 to
 build
 a
 proper
 tragedy

and
 produce
 the
 final
 state
 of
 purgation.
 Regarding
 this
 aspect,
 Fortenbaugh

declares:
“Tragedy
was
associated
with
two
emotions
which
were
recognised
not

only
 as
 intelligent
 and
 reasonable
 responses
 but
 also
 as
 important
 controls
 in

determining
the
kinds
of
actions
depicted
in
tragic
poetry.”viii



Now,
I
believed
that
we
can
comprehend
better
why
the
final
purpose
of
tragedy

was
 an
 emotional
 one.
 When
 Aristotle
 referred
 to
 the
 actions
 of
 a
 tragedy
 as:

“serious,
complete,
and
substantial”ix;
he
was
requesting
an
emotional
essence,

that
pity
and
terror
must
bring
into
the
tragic
scheme.
This
is
the
main
reason
for

Aristotle
to
demand
of
tragedies
not
to
show:


“a
virtuous
man
moving
from
good
to
bad
fortune
[which]
is,
according

[to
him],
neither
fearful
nor
pitiable
but
rather
shocking
or
revolting
and
a

vicious
 man
 changing
 from
 bad
 to
 good
 fortune
 appeals
 neither
 to

ordinary
human
sympathy
nor
to
pity
and
fear.”x



 3

Accordingly
to
this,
then,
it
is
a
valid
inquiry
to
ask:
what
did
pity
and
terror
offer

from
 the
 Aristotle’s
 reasonable
 perception
 into
 the
 Greek
 tragedy?
 In

Fortenbaugh’s
interpretation,
Aristotle’s
analyses
accomplished
to
perceive
that

“fear
 was
 shown
 to
 be
 not
 simply
 a
 shuddering
 but
 also
 and
 essentially
 an

expectation
of
destructive
or
painful
evil
and
when
pity
was
referred
not
only
to

the
 thought
 of
 unmerited
 suffering
 but
 also
 to
 educated
 men
 who
 also
 reason

well
(…).”xi


Once
 established
 the
 core
 purposes
 of
 fear
 and
 pity,
 it
 is
 translucent
 to

understand
how
Aristotle
considered
catharsis
as
a
basic
element
of
his
“theory

of
 benefit
 through
 purgation.”xii
 Then,
 the
 sensible
 person
 was
 the
 one
 who

managed
to
feel
empathy
for
human
beings
involved
in
unfair
events
because
of

damaging
 energies.
 Thus,
 these
 individuals
 were
 educated
 through
 tragedy
 to

reinforce
 a
 moral
 perspective
 in
 their
 world‐vision,
 which
 was
 for
 Aristotle
 the

definitive
method
to
construct
a
strong
politics
and
therefore
a
better
society.



James
 Jerome
 Walsh
 in
 his
 text
 Aristotle’s
 Conception
 of
 Moral
 Weakness

declares
that
for
the
Greek
philosopher:
“the
moral
strong
man
has
the
right
rule

or
 reason
 but
 the
 wrong
 desires,
 and
 he
 conquers
 his
 desires.”xiii,

consequentially,
he
adds:
“(…)
the
desires
of
the
temperate
man
are
such
that
he

is
 immune
 to
 temptation.”xiv
 Nevertheless,
 the
 moral
 person
 was
 not
 the

character
depicted
in
Greek
tragedies,
even
when
its
heroes
“should
be
people

of
high
degree
and
reputation.”xv
From
Aristotle’s
outlook,
the
main
characters
in

tragedies
usually
committed
the
act
of:



Harmatia
 (‘error’,
 which)
 is
 the
 failing
 in
 understanding
 of
 moral

character
 which
 leads
 someone
 to
 disastrous
 choice
 of
 action:
 a
 choice

which
 arouses
 our
 pity
 because
 it
 is
 both
 catastrophic
 and
 made

deliberately
 but
 not
 out
 of
 wickedness,
 and
 arouses
 our
 terror
 because

we
identify
with
both
innocence
and
the
helplessness
of
the
person
who

makes
the
choice.xvi




 4

Thence,
the
dramaturgical
configuration
of
the
Greek
tragedy
was
not
conceived

to
expose
the
perfection
of
a
moral
character,
but
it
was
envisaged
to
provoke

the
 critical
 thinking
 regarding
 intricate
 human
 actions
 in
 order
 to
 awake
 the

desire
 of
 higher
 perfection
 in
 personal
 moral
 grounds.
 In
 consequence,

temperance
 was
 a
 virtue
 expected
 to
 be
 develop
 in
 each
 Greek
 individual
 in

order
 to
 built
 up
 a
 stronger
 moral
 community
 and
 society;
 which
 was

encouraged
by
the
educative‐emotional‐reasonable
structure
of
tragedy.


Regarding
 the
 moral
 character
 and
 the
 virtue’s
 aim
 involved
 in
 it,
 Fortenbaugh

settles
that
Aristotle
says:


As
a
perfection
of
man’s
emotional
side,
moral
virtues
makes
correct
the

judgments
and
goals
involved
in
emotional
response.
A
courageous
man,

for
example,
becomes
frightened
and
desires
safety
only
when
it
is
right

to
 do
 so.
 When
 the
 situation
 calls
 for
 endurance,
 he
 perceives
 this
 and

responds
boldly
because
it
is
noble
to
do
so.

(…)
What
moral
virtue
does

not
make
correct
is
the
means‐end
deliberation
occasioned
by
emotional

response.
(…)
Moral
virtue
makes
the
goal
correct,
but
it
cannot
make
the

deliberation
correct.
xvii


Therefore,
 tragedy,
 as
 a
 simulacrum
 of
 reality,
 is
 composed
 to
 confront
 the

spectator
 with
 plausible
 circumstances,
 in
 order
 to
 arise
 purgation
 of
 those

emotions
 that
 may
 escort
 us
 into
 mistaken
 considerations
 of
 facts,
 which
 is

exactly
when
harmatia
takes
place.



In
Euripides’
tragedies
such
as
Medea
and
Hippolytus,
we
can
perceive
how
both

Phaedra
 and
 Medea
 suffer
 from
 the
 unreliable
 nature
 of
 their
 reasons.
 Their

goals
 own
 moral
 virtues,
 but
 their
 means
 are
 erroneous,
 since
 they
 have
 not

been
able
to
educate
themselves
in
the
perception
of
empathy.



From
what
Aristotle
explains
in
the
Ethica
Nicomachea,
this
is
due
to
that:
“for

each
 person
 what
 is
 wished
 is
 what
 seems
 (good
 to
 him);
 but
 different
 things,



 5

and
indeed
contrary
things
[could
be
wished
for],
if
it
turns
out
that
way,
[they

will]
appear
good
to
different
people.”xviii


This
expectation
of
moral
realization
subsequent
to
the
attendance
to
a
tragedy

conformed
 an
 important
 part
 in
 the
 political
 vision
 of
 Aristotle
 for
 the
 Greek

society.
Since,
he
recognized
the
convoluted
disposition
of
wishing
and
therefore

the
threat
existent
in
it
for
the
welfare
of
people.



According
 to
 Andrés
 Rosler
 in
 his
 text
 Political
 Authority
 and
 Obligation
 in

Aristotle:
“He
is
more
concerned
with
the
community
as
a
whole
than
with
the

fate
of
a
particular
individual.”xix
In
consequence,
the
developing
of
moral
virtues

in
 each
 human
 being
 was
 a
 strong
 strategy
 to
 insurance
 the
 correct
 moral

attitude
 in
 the
 lawgivers
 and
 in
 every
 citizen
 to
 “enable
 them
 to
 perform
 their

constitutional
role
as
political,
legal
and
judicial
decision‐makers.”xx



Hence,
 Rosler
 concludes:
 “he
 is
 far
 from
 assuming
 that
 subjects
 are
 faceless

pawns
without
any
worth
whom
the
rules
push
about
on
the
chessboard.
On
the

contrary,
 on
 Aristotle’s
 view,
 the
 subjects
 are
 actors
 of
 their
 own
 political

drama.xxi


Bertolt
Brecht
and
Astonishment,
or
the
Catharsis
of
Ideas


PELAGEA
 VLASSOVA:
 It
 wasn’t
 reason
 that
 made
 me
 weep.
 But
 when
 I

stopped,
 reason
 had
 something
 to
 do
 with
 that.
 What
 Pavel
 did
 was

right.xxii



The
German
director,
playwright,
poet,
and
dramaturge
Bertolt
Brecht
has
been

deeply
recognized
in
the
theatrical
practice
for
his
revolutionary
vision
of
what

has
been
known
as
the
Epic
Theatre.
Then,
the
Epic
Theatre
has
been
built
up
as

a
concept
in
permanent
opposition
with
the
theatrical
conception
developed
by

Aristotle,
 in
 such
 a
 manner
 that
 a
 dialectical
 conversation
 between
 both

dramaturges
has
been
ascertained
for
decades.



 6

This
antagonism
was,
above
all,
centred
in
Brecht’s
attitude
to
refuse
catharsis:

“the
purging
of
emotions
through
identification
with
the
destiny
which
rules
the

hero’s
life.”xxiii
Since,
he
expressed
regarding
“feelings
[that
they]
are
private
and

limited.
Against
that
the
reason
is
fairly
comprehensive
and
to
be
relied‐on.”xxiv



Therefore,
 from
 these
 initial
 statements,
 we
 can
 sense
 that
 Bertolt
 Brecht
 did

not
 recognize
 the
 cognitive
 capacity
 of
 emotions
 related
 with
 reason
 that

Aristotle
 attributed
 to
 them,
 and
 that
 he
 was
 confident
 in
 the
 benefits
 of
 pure

materialistic
 reason
 in
 order
 to
 construct
 his
 dramaturgy
 and
 world
 political

conception.


Nevertheless,
 in
 order
 to
 start
 analyzing
 these
 provocative
 declarations
 in
 the

proper
artistic
context,
it
is
necessary
to
comprehend
what
Brecht
understood
as

the
purpose
of
art.
Topic
that
he
confronted
when
he
asked:
“Why
shouldn’t
art

try,
 by
 its
 own
 means
 of
 course,
 to
 further
 the
 great
 social
 task
 of
 mastering

life?”xxv



‘Mastering
 life’
 in
 Brecht’s
 conception
 had
 two
 different
 although


complementary
 implications:
 first,
 a
 philosophical
 one,
 since
 he
 believed
 that

was
the
future
of
theatre,
and
second,
a
social‐political
one,
given
that
he
said:

“If
 any
 theatre
 is
 capable
 of
 going
 ahead
 of
 its
 public
 instead
 of
 running
 after,

then
it
is
a
theatre
of
the
working
class.”xxvi


Thus,
 this
 social‐political‐philosophical
 task
 took
 the
 aesthetic
 and
 discursive


shape
 of
 the
 Epic
 Theatre,
 which
 he
 described
 as
 essentially
 dynamic,
 with
 a

pedagogical
 and
 entertainment
 objective,
 not
 interested
 in
 the
 ‘identification’

process
of
the
spectator
with
the
characters
portrayed
on
the
stage
and,
it
did

not
have
catharsis
as
the
main
object
of
its
dramaturgy.xxvii


Consequently,
 if
 catharsis
 was
 rejected
 as
 the
 main
 goal
 of
 his
 dramaturgical

structure:
what
was
the
final
state
of
his
theatrical
construction?
In
the
words
of

Walter
Benjamin,
in
his
book
Understanding
Brecht:




 7

 The
 art
 of
 epic
 theatre
 consists
 in
 arousing
 astonishment
 rather
 than

empathy.

To
put
it
as
formula,
instead
of
identifying
itself
with
the
hero,

the
 audience
 is
 called
 upon
 to
 learn
 to
 be
 astonished
 at
 the

circumstances
with
which
he
has
his
being.
xxviii



Hence,
 the
 purpose
 to
 produce
 the
 state
 of
 astonishment,
 for
 Brecht,
 was
 the

opportunity
 to
 start
 an
 intellectual
 dialogue
 between
 the
 spectator
 and
 the

conditions
 exposed
 on
 theatre.
 For
 this
 reason
 the
 level
 of
 shock
 that
 epic

theatre
 had
 the
 mission
to
produce
in
the
audience
commenced
an
interesting

correspondence
with
the
idea
of
catharsis
in
the
Aristotelian
view.


Catharsis
was
possible
if
pity
and
terror
were
revealed
by
the
solid
structure
of

tragedy.
 Accordingly
 Brecht
 spoke
 of
 two
 main
 concepts
 that
 helped
 in
 the

development
of
astonishment:
Verfremdung
and
Gestus.


Laura
 Bradley
 in
 her
 text
 Brecht
 and
 Political
 Theatre
 defines
 Verfremdung
 as

“‘estrangement’
or
‘defamiliarization’”,
which
is
an
interesting
conception
since

most
 of
 the
 times
 has
 been
 translated
 as
 ‘alienation’.
 In
 her
 opinion
 the

“Verfremdungseffekt
(estrangement
effect)
is
thus
another
method
of
provoking

critical
 reflection
 and
 promoting
 spectator
 to
 question
 phenomena
 which
 they

usually
 take
 for
 granted.
 As
 such,
 it
 is
 an
 important
 tool
 for
 promoting
 critical

consciousness.”xxix



Thus,
 this
 process
 of
 detachment
 created
 by
 Brecht
 through
 the
 estrangement

effect
was
meant
to
educate
the
spectators
regarding
the
proper
scientific
new

attitude
demanded
by
the
artist:



These
 spectators
 were
 prepared
 to
 mobilise
 their
 entire
 experience,


intelligence
and
fighting
spirit,
to
acknowledge
objectives
and
handicaps,

to
make
comparisons
and
objections,
and
to
criticise
the
conduct
of
the

characters
 or
 to
 generalise
 so
 as
 to
 apply
 it
 to
 their
 own
 situation
 and

learn
from
it.xxx



 8

In
consequence
Brecht
did
not
expect
from
his
audience
to
feel
empathy
for
the

events
 or
 the
 characters
 illustrated
 on
 the
 stage.
 He
 waited
 for
 them
 to

recognize
 the
 distance,
 and
 therefore,
 to
 have
 the
 mental
 space
 to
 realize
 the

context
 and
 political
 frame
 of
 the
 social
 circumstances.
 According
 to
 this,

Benjamin
 said:
 “Epic
 theatre,
 then,
 does
 not
 reproduce
 conditions,
 but,
 rather,

reveals
them.
This
uncovering
of
conditions
is
brought
about
through
the
process

being
interrupted.”xxxi



Brecht
 stressed
 the
 point
 of
 exposing
 conditions,
 since
 he
 believed
 that
 “every

act
comes
from
a
realization.
There’s
really
no
such
thing
as
acting
on
impulse.

There
 again
 the
 intellect
 is
 lurking
 in
 the
 background.”xxxii
 In
 Bertolt
 Brecht’s

perspective
the
real
possibility
of
change
existed
only
in
the
reasonable
process

of
 understanding
 why
 are
 we
 in
 the
 situation
 that
 we
 find
 ourselves.
 Once
 the

conditions
 of
 a
 certain
 position
 came
 into
 acknowledge,
 people
 will
 have
 the

power
to
decide
and
transform
themselves
and
their
reality.

In
 order
 to
 expose
 the
 conditions
 for
 the
 rational
 understanding,
 Brecht
 made

use
of
the
concept
Gestus,
which
is
explained
by
Benjamin
in
the
following
way:

The
epic
theatre
is
gestural.
(…)
First,
the
gesture
is
falsifiable
only
up
to
a

point;
in
fact,
the
more
inconspicuous
and
habitual
it
is,
the
more
difficult

it
 is
 to
 falsify.
 Second,
 unlike
 people’s
 actions
 and
 endeavours,
 it
 has
 a

definable
beginning
and
definable
end
(…)
Hence,
the
interruption
of
an

action
is
one
of
the
principal
concerns
of
the
epic
theatre.xxxiii



Therefore,
 Gestus
 is
 present
 in
 the
 performance
 of
 his
 plays
 as
 in
 the
 internal

configuration
of
the
written
text.
The
detention
of
the
human
actions
depicted

on
 the
 stage
 allows
 the
 space
 to
 recognize
 the
 diverse
 stations
 that
 make

possible
the
social
context.


For
Brecht:
“The
principle
of
Epic
Theatre:
[is]
one
thing
after
an
other.”xxxiv
And

this
 statement
 is
 set
 as
 the
 final
 methodology
 of
 constructing
 an
 experimental



 9

world
 in
 the
 theatre
 piece.
 The
 pauses
 and
 detentions
 in
 his
 dramaturgy

intended
 to
 make
 the
 distance
 necessary
 to
 recognize
 the
 steps
 in
 the
 political

frame.
Thence,
time
and
structure
were
primary
elements
in
the
recognition
of

factors
 in
 a
 historical
 perspective,
 since
 it
 was
 essential
 for
 the
 pedagogical

purpose
in
Brecht’s
dramaturgy.


Brecht
 understands
 the
 world
 by
 cause
 and
 effects
 laws.xxxv 
 The
 connections

established
 through
 history
 in
 our
 social‐political
 circumstances
 were

indispensable
 to
 awake
 in
 the
 spectator
 the
 feeling
 of
 watching
 something
 he

already
knew
but
from
a
new
perspective.



For
 Bertolt
 Brecht:
 “There
 is
 a
 decision
 carried
 out
 and
 call
 for
 spectator

acquiescence.”xxxvi 
Thence,
his
spectators
after
attending
his
plays
had
a
decision

to
make
regarding
his
social
situation.
This
imperative
of
being
in
control
of
your

own
existence
was
possible
because
of
the
acknowledgment
acquired
during
the

interpretation
 by
 Gestus
 and
 the
 distance
 to
 reflect
 delivered
 by
 the

estrangement
effect.
This
two
factor
allowed
the
audience
to
enter
in
a
state
of

astonishment
and
experience
the
catharsis
of
ideas
to
change
the
world.


Final
remarks


After
 analyzing
 the
 concept
 of
 catharsis
 in
 Aristotle
 and
 Brecht
 dramaturgical

vision
 of
 theatre.
 It
 seems
 evident
 that
 in
 the
 history
 of
 western
 theatre.
 The

state
of
enlighten
stimulated
by
catharsis
has
been
a
permanent
search
from
the

Greeks
into
the
present
times.


Theatre
 cannot
 avoid
 the
 dramatic
 motivation
 of
 catharsis;
 it
 is
 in
 its
 very

essence
to
function
in
structures,
which
will
arouse
the
spectator
into
a
different

frame
of
reflection.
In
Aristotle’s
understanding
this
arousing
had
the
purpose
to

assist
the
moral
education
in
the
individual,
in
order
to
build
a
better
society.
In

the
other
hand,
Brecht
thought
that
his
theatre
should
arouse
the
ideas
and
the

mental
process
of
thinking
in
the
audience.



 10

Hus,
it
is
possible
to
realize
that
Aristotle
and
Brecht
were
not
so
distance
in
his

dramaturgical
and
political
agendas.
In
terms
of
the
objectives
pursued.
Both
at

the
 end
 wanted
 a
 better
 world
 according
 to
 his
 conception.
 Aristotle
 a
 moral

world,
and
Brecht
a
political‐intelligent
world.


Therefore,
 we
 can
 conclude
 Catharsis
 has
 been
 a
 dramaturgical
 device
 to

accomplish
 political
 agendas
 in
 different
 periods
 across
 history.
 The

manipulation
 of
 the
 spectator
 both
 intellectual
 and
 emotional
 at
 the
 end;
 it
 is

one
of
the
basic
asses
of
theatre.


Theatre
 because
 of
 its
 nature
 literally
 and
 performative
 encounters
 multiple

possibilities
 to
 reach
 the
 audience
 and
 educate
 them
 in
 different
 purpose.

Theatre,
thus,
it
is
open
scenery
to
discuss
the
political‐philosophical
image
that

we
visualize
for
our
society.



Nevertheless,
it
is
important
to
keep
in
mind,
nor
Aristotle
or
Brecht
were
able
to

see
his
vision
of
theatre
completely
realized
in
their
contemporary’s
situations.

Aristotle
 saw
 moments
 of
 what
 he
 thought
 catharsis
 should
 do
 and
 how
 to

accomplish
it.
Brecht
experienced
successful
instants
in
his
plays,
where
he
saw

as
possible
to
educate
the
spectatos.


Although,
 Brecht
 in
 several
 occasions
 discussed
 the
 problematic
 situation
 of

people,
who
were
not
able
to
follow
the
right
attitude,
when
they
are
in
frot
of

and
epic
theatre
piece.
In
the
same
way,
as
Aristotle
settled
that
some
tragedies

and
some
moments
on
them
truly
accomplished
the
major
goals
of
this
elevated

form
of
art.


Aristotle
 and
 Brecht
 were
 strong
 and
 lucid
 dramaturges;
 although
 the
 cultural

and
 theatrical
 environment
 were
 they
 put
 out
 their
 thoughts
 did
 not
 follow

completely
their
artistic
and
political
agendas.
Once
again
the
conflict
between

theory
 and
 practice
 in
 theatre
 has
 been
 present.
 It
 seems
 that
 the
 distance

between
 what
 we
 think
 should
 do
 theatre
 and
 what
 in
 fact
 makes
 is
 still
 deep



 11

and
cryptic.
Perhaps
not
all
the
theatre
practitioners
are
able
to
notice
the
major

power
 existent
 in
 the
 theatrical
 structure,
 which
 can
 be
 use
 to
 discuss
 and

approach
to
people
that
make
the
world
go.





























































i

 Euripides.
 Cited
 by
 James
 Jerome
 Walsh,
 Aristotle’s
 Conception
 of
 Moral
 Weakness

(United
States
of
America:
Columbia
University
Press,
1963)
16‐17.

ii

 Aristotle.
 Translated
 and
 introduced
 by
 Kenneth
 McLeish,
 Poetics.
 (London:
 Dramatic

Contexts.
NHB,
2008)
9.

iii

McLeish,
vii.

iv

W.
W.
Fortenbaugh,
Aristotle
on
Emotion
(Great
Britain:
Duckworth,
2002)
17.

v

Fortenbaugh,
18.

vi

McLeish,
27.

vii

Fortenbaugh,
18.

viii

Fortenbaugh,
19.

ix

McLeish,
9.

x
Fortenbaugh,
19‐20.

xi

Fortenbaugh,
19.

xii

 Fortenbaugh,
 18.
 It
 seems
 relevant
 to
 add
 to
 the
 concept
 of
 cognitive
 emotions
 the

following
 quote:
 “Perhaps
 we
 can
 say
 that
 Aristotle
 understood
 the
 way
 in
 which

emotional
response
varies
according
to
bodily
condition
and
used
this
understanding
to

develop
a
homoeopathic
theory
of
purgation.
In
watching
and
responding
to
a
tragedy

the
spectator
is
not
only
stimulated
intellectually.
He
is
also
purged
in
so
far
as
his
bodily

condition
 is
 altered.
 He
 undergoes
 a
 quasi‐medical
 treatment
 which
 improves
 his

disposition
in
regard
to
the
everyday
emotions
of
fear
and
pity.
(22)



xiii

Walsh,
92‐93.

xiv

Walsh,
93.

xv

McLeish,
17.

xvi

McLeish,
17.

xvii

Fortenbaugh,
75‐76.

xviii

 Andrés
 Rosler,
 Political
 Authority
 and
 Obligation
 in
 Aristotle
 (United
 States:
 Oxford

University
Press,
2005)
24.

xix

Rosler,
13.

xx

Rosler,
18.

xxi

Rosler,
18.

xxii

Bertolt
Brecht.
Cited
by
John
Willet
and
Ralph
Manheim.
Bertolt
Brecht:
Plays,
Poetry

and
Prose.
The
Collected
Plays
Volume
III
Part
II
(London:
Eyre
Methuen,
1997)
140.

xxiii

Walter
Benjamin,
Understanding
Brecht
(London:
Verso,
1998)
18.

xxiv

 Bertolt
 Brecht.
 Edited
 and
 Translated
 by
 John
 Willet,
 Brecht
 on
 Theatre.
 The

development
of
an
aesthetic
(Great
Britain:
Methuen
Drama,
1964)
15.

xxv

Willet,
Brecht
on
theatre,
96.

xxvi

Willet,
Brecht
on
theatre,
81.

xxvii

Willet,
Brecht
on
theatre.



 12


























































xxviii
Benjamin,
18.

xxix

Laura
Bradley,
Brecht
and
Political
Theatre:
The
Mother
on
Stage
(United
States:

Oxford
University
Press,
2006)
6‐7.

xxx
Willet,
Bertolt
Brecht:
Plays,
Poetry
and
Prose,
244.

xxxi
Benjamin,
4‐5.

xxxii
Willet,
16.

xxxiii
Benjamin,
3.

xxxiv

Bertolt
Brecht.
Edited
by
John
Willet
and
Ralph
Manheim,
Bertolt
Brecht.
Collected

Plays.
Volume
5
Part
II
(London:
Eyre
Methuen,
1980)
107.

35
Willet,
Brecht
on
theatre.

36


Willet,
Brecht
on
theatre,
28.











































































 13




























































Bibliography


Benjamin,
Walter.
Understanding
Brecht.
London:
Verso,
1998.


Bradley,
Laura.
Brecht
and
Political
Theatre:
The
Mother
on
Stage.
United
States:



Oxford
University
Press,
2006.


Brecht,
Bertolt.
Edited
by
John
Willet
and
Ralph
Manheim.
Bertolt
Brecht:
Plays,



Poetry
and
Prose.
The
Collected
Plays
Volume
III
Part
II.
London:
Eyre
Methuen,

1997.


Brecht,
Bertolt.
Edited
by
John
Willet
and
Ralph
Manheim.
Bertolt
Brecht.



Collected
Plays.
Volume
5
Part
II.
London:
Eyre
Methuen,
1980.


Brecht,
Bertolt.
Edited
and
Translated
by
John
Willet.
Brecht
on
Theatre.
The



development
of
an
aesthetic.
Great
Britain:
Methuen
Drama,
1964.


Fortenbaugh
W.
W.
Aristotle
on
Emotion.
Great
Britain:
Duckworth,
2002.


Rosler,
Andrés.
Political
Authority
and
Obligation
in
Aristotle.
United
States:



Oxford
University
Press,
2005.


Walsh,
James
Jerome.
Aristotle’s
Conception
of
Moral
Weakness.
United
States



of
America:
Columbia
University
Press,
1963.








 14