Drama, as a literary and performative art form, has evolved significantly over centuries, reflecting cultural, social, and intellectual shifts. This essay explores the classical and modern theories of drama, examining their foundational principles, key characteristics, and divergent approaches to storytelling and representation. Classical drama, rooted in ancient Greek traditions, particularly Aristotle’s Poetics, prioritises structural unity, elevated characters, and emotional catharsis through fate-driven narratives. In contrast, modern drama, emerging from the late 19th century, focuses on realism, social critique, individual agency, and psychological depth, often portraying ordinary life. By comparing these two paradigms, this essay aims to illuminate how drama has transformed in response to changing societal values and artistic priorities, drawing on perspectives relevant to the study of Drama in English and Chichewa contexts.
Classical Theories of Drama: Foundations and Principles
The classical theory of drama finds its origins in ancient Greece, with Aristotle’s Poetics (circa 335 BCE) serving as the cornerstone text for understanding its principles. Aristotle emphasised the importance of structural unity, arguing that a play must have a clear beginning, middle, and end, often encapsulated in the concept of the “unities” of time, place, and action (Aristotle, 1996; Halliwell, 1987; Butcher, 1951). This structural focus aimed to create a cohesive narrative that would maintain audience engagement and deliver a profound emotional impact. Indeed, such unity was seen as essential to achieving the tragic effect, which Aristotle deemed central to drama’s purpose. Furthermore, classical drama typically featured elevated characters—kings, nobles, or gods—whose larger-than-life struggles often revolved around predetermined fate or divine intervention (Kitto, 1961; Easterling, 1997; Halliwell, 1987). For instance, in Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex, the tragic hero’s downfall is inescapable, driven by prophecy and fate, reinforcing the notion that human agency is subordinate to cosmic order (Kitto, 1961; Easterling, 1997; Aristotle, 1996).
Another defining feature of classical drama is emotional catharsis, which Aristotle described as the purgation of emotions such as pity and fear through the audience’s identification with the protagonist’s suffering (Aristotle, 1996; Butcher, 1951; Halliwell, 1987). This emotional release was considered not only aesthetically satisfying but also morally and socially beneficial, as it encouraged reflection on human vulnerability and the inevitability of fate. Typically, classical plays, whether tragedies or comedies, adhered to a formal structure, with plots designed to evoke specific responses aligned with their genre (Kitto, 1961; Easterling, 1997; Butcher, 1951). Generally, this focus on fate-driven plots and emotional resonance made classical drama a powerful medium for exploring universal themes, often divorced from the mundane realities of everyday life. Such an approach, while artistically profound, reflected the cultural values of ancient societies, where drama was often a communal ritual tied to religious or civic festivals (Easterling, 1997; Halliwell, 1987; Aristotle, 1996).
Modern Theories of Drama: Realism and Social Focus
Emerging in the late 19th century, modern drama marked a significant departure from classical ideals, driven by a desire to reflect the complexities of contemporary life through realism and social critique. Pioneers such as Henrik Ibsen and Anton Chekhov rejected the elevated characters and fate-driven plots of classical drama, instead focusing on ordinary individuals grappling with personal and societal issues (Williams, 1987; Styan, 1981; Brockett & Hildy, 2003). Ibsen’s A Doll’s House (1879), for example, critiques gender roles and marriage, portraying the protagonist Nora as a woman seeking individual agency rather than succumbing to predetermined destiny (Williams, 1987; Styan, 1981; Templeton, 1997). This shift towards realism prioritised authenticity in dialogue, setting, and character behaviour, aiming to mirror the lived experiences of audiences rather than presenting idealised or mythic narratives (Brockett & Hildy, 2003; Templeton, 1997; Williams, 1987).
Moreover, modern drama often engaged with social critique, addressing issues such as class inequality, industrialisation, and personal alienation, reflecting the intellectual currents of the time, including Marxism and psychoanalysis (Styan, 1981; Innes, 2000; Brockett & Hildy, 2003). Chekhov’s plays, such as The Cherry Orchard (1904), illustrate this focus by depicting the psychological depth of characters constrained by social change and economic decline, highlighting individual agency within broader systemic forces (Innes, 2000; Styan, 1981; Rayfield, 1997). Unlike the catharsis of classical drama, which often stemmed from tragic inevitability, modern drama sought to provoke thought and inspire action by exposing societal flaws and personal struggles (Williams, 1987; Rayfield, 1997; Innes, 2000). Therefore, the emphasis on ordinary life allowed modern playwrights to explore the minutiae of human experience, often revealing the tensions between personal desires and external pressures (Brockett & Hildy, 2003; Styan, 1981; Rayfield, 1997).
Contrasting Classical and Modern Drama: A Synthesis
The divergence between classical and modern theories of drama reflects broader shifts in cultural and philosophical perspectives over time. Classical drama, guided by Aristotle’s principles, prioritised universality and emotional catharsis through structured narratives and noble characters bound by fate, creating a sense of awe and inevitability (Aristotle, 1996; Kitto, 1961; Halliwell, 1987). In contrast, modern drama, emerging from the realist movement, sought to ground narratives in the everyday, emphasising individual agency, psychological complexity, and social critique as means of engaging with contemporary audiences (Williams, 1987; Styan, 1981; Innes, 2000). While classical drama often served a ritualistic or moral purpose within its societal context, modern drama challenged audiences to question norms and imagine change, reflecting a more secular and individualistic worldview (Brockett & Hildy, 2003; Easterling, 1997; Templeton, 1997).
However, it is worth noting that these two paradigms are not entirely disconnected; modern drama, while innovative, often draws on classical structures or themes, albeit in reinterpreted forms. For instance, playwrights like Arthur Miller in Death of a Salesman (1949) adapt the tragic hero archetype to fit the modern everyman, blending classical catharsis with realist critique (Williams, 1987; Styan, 1981; Brockett & Hildy, 2003). Arguably, this interplay suggests that while modern drama broke away from classical conventions, it did not wholly reject them, instead repurposing their elements to address new questions relevant to industrial and post-industrial societies (Innes, 2000; Kitto, 1961; Templeton, 1997). From the perspective of studying Drama in English and Chichewa, such contrasts highlight the adaptability of dramatic forms across linguistic and cultural contexts, where classical influences might resonate in oral storytelling traditions, while modern realism finds expression in contemporary theatre addressing local social issues (Easterling, 1997; Brockett & Hildy, 2003; Rayfield, 1997).
Conclusion
In summary, classical and modern theories of drama represent two distinct yet interconnected approaches to the craft of storytelling and performance. Classical drama, rooted in Aristotle’s Poetics, prioritises structural unity, elevated characters, and catharsis achieved through fate-driven plots, reflecting ancient societal values and communal purposes. Conversely, modern drama, emerging in the late 19th century, embraces realism, social critique, and psychological depth, focusing on ordinary individuals and their agency within complex social systems. This essay has demonstrated how these theories diverge in their aims and methods while also noting points of convergence, such as the adaptation of classical tragic elements in modern works. The implications of this evolution are significant for students of Drama in English and Chichewa, as understanding these theories provides a framework for interpreting both historical texts and contemporary performances, fostering a deeper appreciation of drama’s role in reflecting and shaping human experience across cultures and eras.
References
- Aristotle. (1996). Poetics (Translated by M. Heath). Penguin Classics.
- Brockett, O. G., & Hildy, F. J. (2003). History of the Theatre. Pearson Education.
- Butcher, S. H. (1951). Aristotle’s Theory of Poetry and Fine Art. Dover Publications.
- Easterling, P. E. (Ed.). (1997). The Cambridge Companion to Greek Tragedy. Cambridge University Press.
- Halliwell, S. (1987). The Poetics of Aristotle: Translation and Commentary. University of North Carolina Press.
- Innes, C. (2000). A Sourcebook on Naturalist Theatre. Routledge.
- Kitto, H. D. F. (1961). Greek Tragedy: A Literary Study. Methuen & Co.
- Rayfield, D. (1997). Anton Chekhov: A Life. Henry Holt and Company.
- Styan, J. L. (1981). Modern Drama in Theory and Practice: Realism and Naturalism. Cambridge University Press.
- Templeton, J. (1997). Ibsen’s Women. Cambridge University Press.
- Williams, R. (1987). Drama from Ibsen to Brecht. Hogarth Press.
