Peripeteia; The True Meaning Of 'Tragedy'

Peripeteia is such a tricky concept. All the articles I have browsed through online gave similar, largely unsatisfactory answers. The dominant conception is that of an Artistic concept, which honestly complicates the already complicated with even more complicated terms. If we resist the urge to seek the 'underlying' of everything, then maybe, for such a person, the definition found on the first click would suffice. But there's more to be said about Peripeteia than a rigorously written Stanford article may provide; Aristotle himself, the codifier of this concept illuminates as much of it as he obscures. Nonetheless, Peripeteia is to be conceived as part of the larger framework of tragedy as worked out by Aristotle in the poetica, as in this brief work the concept is presented as a part of a system of mutually related and logically interdependent ideas, or, as he puts it "parts of the plot" Poetica VI

In the same work, it's defined as the "Reversal of roles' ', and in Toynbee's a Study Of History is provided a useful definition and analysis of it with multiple examples. But in this study, as well as in others, the concept occurs in the form of (or has elements of) 'double entendre'. On one hand it's interpreted as a kind of 'rude awakening' and a nemesis of creativity (a prime factor, in Toynbee's study, behind the collapse of many civilizations, ChpXVI,3 )

Some illustrative examples:

'The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner.’

'Pride goes before the fall'

Or to cite a very exemplary case from the Quran; the conversion of the magicians who moments prior contested what they thought was moses' 'magic'.

This is a quintessential example of Peripeteia. This encounter here represents the highest

point in, what may here be called a Mosaic tragedy, the distinction, unique in its kind, between reality and simulacra. God, who introduced himself to moses by a formula composed of two of his names الْعَزِيزُالْحَكِيمُ, gave moses two 'signs' from among nine (27:12), and sent him to Pharoah on a mission whose 'motifs' can be found in every work of fiction produced by man.... before, as well as after Moses. The relevance of the formula الْعَزِيزُالْحَكِيمُ, cannot be understated, In fact, Introducing himself as such is an instantiation of the very principle which the formula here stands for. We made a whole video about this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYBqYxZl5Jk&t=319s

Think Liebniz's principle of sufficient reason as expounded in his works Theogony and Monadology. This Leibnizian principle quite aptly depicts this Quranic formula. None will contest, for instance, the idea that in making any particular decision, that God takes into consideration all of eternity--sub specie aeternitatis, and with the whole universe as your 'ground' of operations, it follows that particular decisions in particular fields are likewise ruled by a totalizing knowledge and consideration as regards not only the specific sphere of 'dependencies' in which they take place, but also those which transcend them and those which transcend those, recursively, till you reach the highest order. It's here, in the 'highest court' (الْمَلأِ الأَعْلَى, ch38,v69) that's found an intelligence so comprehensive as well as 'particular' and 'casuistical'--an intelligence from whose consideration not one 'component' in the universe (with all its complexity) escapes that the principle of sufficient reason can be said to be truly embodied. God's. All other intelligences possess this in an approximative sense only.

We too have this, an ‘totalizing acumen’, but in a much narrower form, a form that as such does not merit the essentializing definite article ال with which the formula is Quranically introduced. Introducing himself as such to Moses is a way of telling moses, in a rather synoptic way, the 'reasons' that he 'spoke' to him directly, that he's giving him those signs (the snake which morphed out of his staff, and his hand which turned white 27:12), that he's sending him on this historical mission and all that in between.

As said, the encounter with the magician represents the 'highest' point in the story; which coincides for a very good reason with the story's Peripatetic 'moment'. Now, we may ask the question, 'who' apart from the 'magician', the 'artificer', can best tell if something is indeed an artifice or not?. When a problem arises in any field, is it not to 'those to whom it may concern' that our attention is instinctively pointed?, isn't the problem, in this case, to its expertise, a sort of aberration whose solution starts with a casuistical identification as to its nature?, of the principles which underlie it?. I refer you to a highly pertinent passage from Aristotle's Metaphysics, where he distinguishes between the two types of knowledge..

"But yet we think that knowledge and understanding belong to art rather than to experience, and we suppose artists to be wiser than men of experience (which implies that Wisdom depends in all cases rather on knowledge); and this because the former know the cause, but the latter do not. For men of experience know that the thing is so, but do not know why, while the others know the ‘why’ and the cause. Hence we think also that the master workers in each craft are more honorable and know in a truer sense and are wiser than the manual workers, because they know the causes of the things that are done (we think the manual workers are like certain lifeless things which act indeed, but act without knowing what they do, as fire burns, – but while the lifeless things perform each of their functions by a natural tendency, the laborers perform them through habit); thus we view them as 1/149 being wiser not in virtue of being able to act, but of having the theory for themselves and knowing the causes" (Book A, 1)

"for there is nothing which would surprise a geometer so much as if the diagonal turned out to be commensurable"

To find out if a piece of what looks like gold is real or not, or to assess the quality (or price) of a particular gem you naturally look for a goldsmith.

Who besides an engineer would appreciate such details as go into the making of something which to the rest of us indifferent users but a handy instrument?, only the specialist would appreciate, or even see, such ‘technical’ subtleties. A software developer, even when using a random device, comes across as 'critical' and annoyingly 'pedantic' (to us non-experts) about every 'nuance' he comes across; a connoisseur where he's supposed to be a 'normal user' (picture Gordon Ramsey eating at a new restaurant, that’s not his..), inquisitive as regards aspects about which he knows nothing, and a critic as regards those he does. This is the underlying logic behind---and where the formulaic expression الْعَزِيزُالْحَكِيمُ is particularly operative--moses' supernatural endowments (the snake and the white hand). The Peripatetic moment, the reversal of roles, happened when the magicians, rightful experts in their field, saw Moses' 'magic', abruptly shifting allegiance.

'They were thrown into a state of sujood' as the Quran relays it in the above verse (Taha 20:70). The same switch that turns when a goldsmith sees a gem which he judges to be real, turned on, one imagines, when the magicians saw Moses' stuff, they saw, if you will, the 'real deal', anyone else, strangely enough, any 'average person' who knows nothing about magic will have call it 'magic' (their eyes wouldn’t be accustomed to the subtleties of magic), as pharaoh himself reacted, though he saw it up close (26:34), calling moses, rather mockingly, 'a skilled magician'. Another reason, one supposes, why God dictated that the 'Arena' that's to host the crucial moment of Peripeteia would be a kind of magic show, was perhaps due to the prestigious place that magic occupied at the time in Egypt, as we read in verses 39 and 40 of chapter 26.

It's clear here that those statements stem from 'spiritual vacuum'. How fitting!, how 'poetic' that this spiritual disaderatum's very prospects, magicians of the highest caliber, would themselves point the way to the truth in having theirs be totally divested of reality.

The significance of this story, of this peripatetic event however, is not found in it, but in its repetitions throughout history, but we're to trust that its repetitions in the Quran are strategic and, in keeping with the theme, 'plotted' in such a way as to represent the motif in all its marvels and intellectual force. The difference between a work like A Study Of History which is just as encyclopedic as the Quran in its approach to this motif, is that it diverges in one crucial and, if you will peripatetic, respect. Besides the fact that the Quran's revelation is described by means of the same formula as God introduces himself to Moses..... there's something to be said, which only someone familiar with Hermeneutics and philologist will appreciate...

The 'contexts', 'themes' and 'examples’ cited in the Quran, their peculiar structure, number, and 'length' as they appear generally and as they vary throughout the Quran, as that of Moses, the addition and omission of certain 'details' are all considerations whose 'reasons' can be deduced from the self-same book. There are no contingencies in the book, no inconsistencies, any omission from the narrative of a certain detail that's added in another chapter is to be understood as 'intentional', 'intentional' in the sense that a very precise 'meaning' is being articulated by this 'shortage' or 'excess' (comparatively speaking) with respect to other components of the chapter and whose 'addition' in any way would prove 'compromising'. Felicity we may say is the philological expression of this formula الْعَزِيزُالْحَكِيمُ.

Like a chemical compound, all the ingredients as well as the atoms that compose them, occur in the right 'amounts' and percentages' so much so that the ensuing 'balance' justifies every detail, however infinitesimal, 'why' for instance, natural iron has this atomic weight, or that melting or boiling point, or electronic configuration. Another reason to be added for why the Quran is a superior book to Toynbee's Study of History, is that, we know for a fact that Toynbee, erudite as he is in matters of history, cannot possibly know every single human event as well as of the universal into which our species is woven, thus the considerations that went into the composition of his work are based on a finite number of historical examples, which he'd been exposed to throughout his years of apprenticeship.

Another place where this motif resurfaces is in the story of Solomon, specifically the conversion of the Queen of what’s commonly thought to be the kingdom (or Queendom) of Sheba. Here the role played by the magicians is taken up by the Queen and her kingdom. The Queen of this powerful kingdom converts into Islam after being given a tour around Solomon’s kingdom.

This is the same as that which we find in the Mosaic narrative, only the locus of the event is the concept of ‘power’, of ‘capacity’ and ‘grandeur’, which is to be expected since the encounter is between the leaders of two powerful countries, and Solomon, we're told was given the epitome of the sort of 'power' which any king wishes to have; he's army was composed of different species, was given knowledge and command over the birds, over jinn, and over the wind, knowledge and other capacities whose extent only God knows (He heard a conversation being had by ants!, never mind understood! 27:18), much can be imagined here but it's enough to consider how much stuff can be done with just the above three! (27:15-17).

I here want to note the significance of the concept of 'sun worship' (the old ways of the Queen's kingdom). It's not accidental or 'of secondary importance' that Sun worship (Sujood is the word used 27:24) is mentioned in connection with 'power', as power in this scenario is the locus of the story. What caused the Queen to suddenly acquiesce to Solomon is mainly the fact of seeing a more powerful peer whose main 'object' of worship is not 'power', but he who is all powerful. Her expectations as to what kind of king Solomon would be, were disappointed, but in a serendipitous sort of way. What she expected is a Napoleon, or a Ceaser, a Pharaoh, or any of your typical 'megalomaniac'; those who are 'actuated' by--what Plato opposes, in the republic, with the traits of the philosopher king--'love of power', as she relays

This is expected from a power driven by such a motive. To test this seemingly well-documented (even then) fact, she offered those things which conquerors usually demand of those countries whom they subdue; a sizable part of their 'GDP', unrestricted access to their gold, their goods, you know, those things… concessions. No enemy actuated purely by power would resist such a handsome offer, even the mongol who are raiders and pillagers, accepted (and later demanded) offers of this sort.

The response to the Queen, however, was unexpected.

“Do you offer me wealth?!" exclaimed Solomon "What Allah has granted me is far greater than what He has granted you. No! It is you who rejoice in ˹receiving˺ gifts. (27:36). "Go back to them" He followed, perhaps in anger, "for we will certainly mobilize against them forces which they can never resist, and we will drive them out from there in disgrace, fully humbled" (27:37).

Eventually, she accepted the original invitation.

أَلَّا تَعْلُوا۟ عَلَىَّ وَأْتُونِى مُسْلِمِينَ

"Do not be arrogant with me, but come to me, fully submitting ˹to Allah˺.’”

Also noteworthy, is the fact that peripeteia here, unlike in the Mosaic narrative, occurs not in the middle, but in the end of the Story (gives us a glimpse of Pharoah alternate fate). The reason for this lies in the nature of peripeteia, its functional rather than poetic 'import'; an excellent interpretation of which is given by Toynbee

Therefore, on the longer view, we must pronounce that the evocation of the greatest immediate response is not the ultimate test of whether any given challenge is the optimum from the standpoint of evoking the greatest response on the whole and in the end. The real optimum challenge is one which not only stimulates the challenged party to achieve a single successful response but also stimulates him to acquire momentum that carries him a step farther: from achievement to a fresh struggle, from the solution of one problem to the presentation of another, from Yin to Yang again. (chpx,1)

As he put it, it's an 'optimum challenge', "there must be an elan vital (to use Bergson’s term) which carries the challenged party through equilibrium into an overbalance which exposes him to a thresh challenge and thereby inspires him to make a fresh response in the form of a further equilibrium ending in a further overbalance, and so on in a progression which is potentially infinite".

This Elan Vital, takes not only many forms, but also the appropriate form, depending on the nature of the person/s to whom it is directed, we saw with the magicians, that it was that to which magic pretends to do, now with 'power', we see in Solomon's case something unconventional. If we take 'power' to mean pure 'capacity', then what Solomon possessed is something rather 'supernatural', wind control, Jinn, command over non human species, and the best of all, and what would throw off someone like Caesar or Napoleon, he was neither doing for himself, nor was he under the impression that the riches of his kingdom were 'his'

وَلَقَدْ ءَاتَيْنَا دَاوُۥدَ وَسُلَيْمَـٰنَ عِلْمًۭا ۖ وَقَالَا ٱلْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ ٱلَّذِى فَضَّلَنَا عَلَىٰ كَثِيرٍۢ مِّنْ عِبَادِهِ ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ

Indeed, We granted knowledge to David and Solomon. And they said ˹in acknowledgment˺, “All praise is for Allah Who has privileged us over many of His faithful servants.” 27:15

For the 'power' is God's not anybody else's

يُؤْتِى مُلْكَهُۥ مَن يَشَآءُ ۚ وَٱللَّهُ وَٰسِعٌ عَلِيمٌۭ

Allah grants kingship to whoever He wills. And Allah is All-Bountiful, All-Knowing.”

The symbolic import of the Sun is found here, not megalomania per se, but that element in it, 'self-actuation', of being purely self-motivated. It tends to express itself in cyclical form, 'Power' for 'Power's sake', it's this basic impulse (self actuation) which, when applied to the domain of politics, produces megalomania, or when applied to the financial domain, produces 'avarice' etc.. Toynbee discusses the rise of this phenomenon under the rubric of 'The industrialization of Historical Thought', calling it a 'pathology'

The industrialization of historical thought has proceeded so far that it has even reproduced the pathological exaggerations of the industrial spirit. It is well known that individuals or communities whose energies are concentrated upon turning raw materials into light, heat, locomotion, or manufactured articles are inclined to feel that the discovery and exploitation of natural resources is a valuable activity in itself, apart from the value for Mankind of any results produced by the process. They are even tempted to feel it reprehensible in other people when they neglect to develop all the natural resources at their disposal; and they themselves readily become slaves to their fetish if they happen to live in a region where natural resources, and opportunities for developing them, abound. (A Study Of History; The Relativity Of Historical Thoguth, chp1, p5)

A third example of peripeteia is found in the story of Abraham, a story which also occurs in the bible. Abraham saw in a dream that he was slaughtering his son.

Mind you, Abraham did not become a father until much later in life, as we read in the story

قَالَ أَبَشَّرْتُمُونِى عَلَىٰٓ أَن مَّسَّنِىَ ٱلْكِبَرُ فَبِمَ تُبَشِّرُونَ

He wondered, “Do you give me good news despite my old age? What unlikely news!” (15:53)

It's safe to say, based on his reaction, that he's been wanting a child for a while. Now add to this, the fact that, just as he finally recieved this long-awaited wish, he has a vision in which he sees himself slaughtering him. There was no denying what it meant, it was a command. The fact is, he must have seen this vision multiple times for the meaning to have actually crystallized. We say multiple times judging by the 'wording of the sentence'

إِنِّىٓ أَرَىٰ فِى ٱلْمَنَامِ

I have seen in a dream that I ˹must˺ sacrifice you (37:102)

The Arabic expression run 'I See' not 'I Saw'-i.e in the present tense. Not the past tense as we find in the translation. This suggests that it was not one instance on whose basis Abraham formed the idea, but multiple instances as the 'present tense' sense of the word أَرَىٰ adduces. Imagine the difficulty, the weightiness of this realization; especially as he disclosed it to his child, who accepted it, not reluctantly, but, as the verse suggests, 'readily'.

تَرَىٰ ۚ قَالَ يَـٰٓأَبَتِ ٱفْعَلْ مَا تُؤْمَرُ ۖ سَتَجِدُنِىٓ إِن شَآءَ ٱللَّهُ مِنَ ٱلصَّـٰبِرِينَ

“O my dear father! Do as you are commanded. Allah willing, you will find me steadfast.”

It's here where the peripatetic moment takes place, when Abraham and his son proceeded.

فَلَمَّآ أَسْلَمَا وَتَلَّهُۥ لِلْجَبِينِ

Then when they submitted ˹to Allah’s Will˺, and Abraham laid him on the side of his forehead ˹for sacrifice˺

Immediately, they were called by God, O'Abraham, "You have already fulfilled the vision.” Indeed, this is how We reward the good-doers". God Rewarded them instead with a 'great sacrifice', a slaughter, a beast.

Somewhat different in its general setting than the previous two, but the same principle is operative in this case. It's clear that peripeteia afflicts absolutely everyone, whether it's Pharoah, a genocidal emperor, or Abraham, a prophet, and that, it's rather, in Toynbee's phrase, 'elan vita' or optimum challenge, whose purpose is radically opposite to that form in which it likes to disguise itself. Again peripeteia occurs frequently in the Quran, and in not one instance does it afflict a prophet; Moses being charged with murder and turning fugitive, Joseph spending years in jail (12:35), Ayub with his protracted sickness (38:41-44), Solomon when he thought he'd been dethroned (38:34-35), His father, Dawud, in making a judgment error while settling a dispute between two shepherds who happened to be siblings (38:23-25).

What is noteworthy, and what's distinguishable in peripeteia is, clearly, its 'bountiful' outcome, exceedingly bountiful, as in the examples of Solomon and Joseph who were granted 'political' power. Thus the Aristotelian interpretation is here given justice and is carried to extents, as is only to be expected, which no other literary work could possibly reach, for reasons which only a deeper study of the Quran could fully, and progressively, expound…