Miller and Ibsen

898 Words4 Pages
As literature has progressed and advanced, the terms used to describe tragedy have become blurred. Tragedy has taken on more of a blanket term designation than a specific type of literature that had to have met several qualities. Tragedies in classic literature followed the Aristotelian model. Aristotle defined a tragedy as a situation involving a person of power and the reversal of his or her fortune. He also stated that tragic situations must be ones with high levels of complexity, importance, and distinction. Arthur Miller, in his theoretical essay, “Tragedy and the Common Man”(1949), undermined everything that Aristotle said regarding the structure of tragedy. Miller took a modernist approach of Tragedy when composing his theories for his essay. The argument of Aristotle and Miller’s theories are summed up in the analysis of Henrik Ibsen’s revolutionary play, “Enemy of the People”. “Enemy of the People” made leaps and bounds in the world of modern literature. Ibsen follows in the footsteps of Miller in hinting that tragedy does not need to revolve around a person of power, but indeed can be centered on a more mundane figure. The Aristotelian model of tragedy as referred to by Miller is “archaic”. Miller, in his tragedies, centered the conflict on a regular person. He believes “that the common man is as apt a subject for tragedy in its highest sense as kings were”. Ibsen shows the validity of this theory through the use of Dr. Stockmann as both the hero and the victim. The plot in “enemy of the People” is centered on the conflicts Stockmann encounters whilst trying to protect the town. Dr. Stockmann is the epitome of the tragic hero, when viewed through Miller’s lens. Miller thought that the true feeling of tragedy is not in the reversal of fortune, but when there is a presence of a character willing to lay everything on line, “to secure one
Open Document