Refuting St. Augustine's attack on theatre and literature.

This is from my Medieval Philosophy course. If you like Augustine or Medieval Philosophy, I think you’ll enjoy this.

 Augustine's attacks on literature and theatre stem from an inability to realize that the will of man is not passively formed by what he absorbs. Also, he forgets to mention that it is possible for one man to take joy in the fictional creations of another man as long as his soul is already aligned properly (and understands that God is at the top of the order of priorities). What he fails to consider is that the particular piece of writing (be it Confessions or some other work) or play does not change the emotions and temperament of the viewer. This implies that the viewer is some passive receptacle of information that is formed by his environment. Even Augustine mentions that it is possible to read the Confessions (and even the Bible) incorrectly when he speaks of "fornication." Who is to say that a person could not pick up the Confessions and read of Augustine's guilt (which he expounds upon in the first nine books), and then say to himself, "Hah! Augustine was stupid to feel guilty about his early life! That guy knew how to live up it! I will live my life how he did at Carthage!" Similarly, who is to say that a person could not view Dido's death and realize the error he made and, while still feeling bad that someone has died, also notice the folly that caused the death and choose to avoid it in his own life?

 I will embark upon a journey to demonstrate that particular writings and performances are not active forces that cultivate the wills of human beings, but rather they are tests. The viewer's reaction sheds light on his will. If he is changed by a particular piece, it is because he chooses to allow the piece to move him. A man of perfect virtue could be forced to view pornography for several days straight with no sleep and still refuse to change. Similarly a wicked man could be bombarded with good literature, theatre, and (gasp) even the Confessions and still refuse to see the error of his ways.

 If the world were to reach the state of "heaven on earth" then certainly the only writings in which people would take absolute joy would be the sorts that praise the good. But how do we define such writings?  The moral state of the world is not perfect, and literature and theatre that depict the errors of man can be used as another form of praise in order to get to that goodness. I recently had to bear witness to the cinematic debacle known as Eight Mile, in which rapper Eminem is depicted and glorified as the "anti-hero" so often spoke of in contemporary pop culture. He is a rude individual who sexually exploits a particular woman and performs music that is insulting to others. However, I was disgusted that he was hoisted up on the shoulders of society and praised as "one who achieves his goals." This disgust would be much like Aristotle's concept of righteous indignation; where a man exhibits distaste for the bad being praised. And according to Augustine, distaste for the bad is praise for the good. Heck, even the Bible presents passages of men who do horrible things which, taken out of context, could be viewed as praiseworthy by the bad man or disgusting by the good (Boy, King Herod sure knew how to get shit done!). This would mean that God Himself (through the Divine Inspiration of the writers of the Bible) would be the author of literary tragedies, as well. Reading it incorrectly and praising the bad (or reading it only as a text) would fall under Augustine's definition of fornication, much like how taking pleasure in Eight Mile would do the same. Is Augustine's distaste for the theatre and literature merely distaste for his own poor perceptions of them in his early years? If so, then why the attack? Certainly he would be wary of the sin of pride were he to say that his writing of Confessions was Divine Inspiration. And since a person could possibly read Confessions in such a way that he decides to become worse, shouldn't Augustine have the same distaste for his own writing?

 If this is an error on Augustine's part, then he must concede that a man can view any literary work and, if he exhibits a reaction that upholds the good and shows disapproval of the bad, that he is praising the source of all good, and is worshipping God (A man who views the work and only thinks of the good and does not consider the source of that good is not worshipping).

 On (3.2) he writes:

 Now since mercy cannot exist apart from grief, is it for this sole reason that grief is loved? This also has friendship as its source and channel. But where does it go? Where does it flow?  Why does it run down into a torrent of boiling pitch, into those immense surges of loathsome lusts?

 He makes this in reference to theatre. This may have occurred in his own heart, in which he took pleasure in the grief, but that does not mean that all viewers will fall into that trap, and it is a bit of an overstep to make such an assumption. If I were to attend a performance of Macbeth and feel grief that his character flaw developed into an all-consuming problem, I am not necessarily exhibiting "needless grief." I can say to myself, "I have learned from this, and if I see a similar situation occurring in my own life, I can stop myself from falling down into this path." I could certainly feel grief for my friend if he murdered his boss and went to jail, but that does not mean I have to agree with him. In fact, that feeling of sorrow would be worship because it alludes that I have a sense of what should have been, and am thus praising the good. Furthermore, I may have been plotting to murder my own boss, and then change my mind after viewing the mental consequences I would reap.

 The above idea was taken from Aristotle's Poetics. In chapter six (to paraphrase), Aristotle states that tragedy, when put together correctly, can arouse feelings of pity and fear in the viewer and purge him of the improper ideas and emotions. I might add that the viewer has to make the decision to allow these feelings to overcome him. A complete monster of a human being is not likely to change after watching one tragedy unless he somehow finds the profundities and is able to utilize them. Viewed correctly, the grief one exhibits from viewing a tragedy would hardly be a "surge of loathsome lusts," but more of a cure (catharsis).

 Further evidence points to Augustine's own viewing of the theatre as the cause of his problems, in (3.2.4) he writes:

 But in my wretchedness at that time I loved to feel sorrow, and I sought out opportunities for sorrow. In the false misery of another man as it was mimicked on the stage, that actor's playing pleased me most and had the strongest attraction for me which struck tears from my eyes.

 What exactly is a false sense of misery? Is a man guilty of feeling "false misery" when he views a play or reads a book about a hero who meets a tragic end? What if he is feeling this misery while thinking to himself, "If this sort of event were to actually happen, I would feel a great sense of misery."

 If this man is guilty of false misery, then so is any person who reads and understands the Parables of Christ. These parables did not necessarily happen in a historical sense, but they were all possibilities. While telling the Parables, Christ could have asked the Apostles to act them out to give the audience a clearer picture of what was going on. Do we dare say that Christ (being God in the form of man) was guilty of providing people with material that could give them a "false sense of misery" because the viewer felt pity for those who erred in the story?

 Imagine how odd it would be for a preacher to speak on the Prodigal Son and then give a sermon on how Christ was giving the audience a sense of false misery! Certainly this cannot be congruent with the actions of the Son of God! This must mean that Augustine was replacing his own incorrect perceptions of theatre and literature with an all-out attack on them. A person with a "bad will" could look at the Prodigal Son and say, "Sex, drugs, and rock and roll for me!" but that does not put blame on the speaker. Even Christ, the speaker of the Parables, did not force anyone to believe in Him, nor did he bend their wills to agree with Him. Conversely, a person could listen to His Parables and see the error of the protagonist and keep a watchful eye on his own actions as a result.

 In Philosophy of Literature, the class has been reading many of the works of Nathaniel Hawthorne. In his stories, Hawthorne often depicts men who are "too much head and not enough heart." For example, the character Aylmer (in The Birthmark) loses his wife because he is unable to put his love for her in front of his love of science and obsession with perfection. For Augustine, Aylmer would be accused of putting the "love of things" above the "love of others," and would not be partaking in orderly affection. Why is it so bad for a person to read works like The Birthmark and come to realize that character failed because he did not have his priorities straight? Would this not be an affirmation of the good and a worshipping of God?

 It is quite silly to assume that a person only goes to the theatre or picks up a book for amusement. And Augustine is teetering a very dangerous and hypocritical line by accusing others of committing the same errors that he did in the past. The above examples have clearly shown that the will is not some passive thing that is completely malleable to all writings and performances it encounters. In fact, the complete opposite is true. The will is employed upon the writings and performances to determine whether they are encouraging the good or the bad. When this is done correctly, the viewer is essentially worshipping the source of all good- God. If this were not the case, then philosophy students would never read Modern Philosophy. Most of the authors of that time period were mired in confusions, and being able to discern those confusions strengthens and upholds what is true.

 By using the Parables of Christ, classical literature, Shakespearean theatre, and even a crappy hip-hop artist, I have shown that the human will can praise God in any fictional situation, no matter how bleak it may seem at the outset.

 Thus, I have satisfactorily defended literature and theatre as beneficial when the will is correctly employed upon them, and have also shown that "good" writings can be twisted and used to rationalize the bad (though poorly). Augustine's problems with literature and theatre are the result of his own misconceptions about them, and his inability to note that even the Bible or his own writings could be misconstrued in the same manner as a tragic play or a novel. Theatre, literature, The Confessions, and even Eight Mile (though this is a stretch) are thus redeemed when viewed properly. If Aristotle were here, he may say, "So much for Augustine's problems with literature and theatre."