Greek tragedy as practised by Sophocles, Aeschylus and Euripides was already a mature art form. The origins are lost but probably included theatrical enactments for religious purposes. The place of masquerades for religious purposes in contemporary African societies is probably as close as one will get to these early developments of theatre in the Western tradition. In these festivals, the masquerade was not merely representing the spirit or animal but was that spirit or animal. The re-enacted triumph of war, the dramatised recovery from illness or the play of hunter and hunted had not only representational power but also an authentic coalescence of symbol, myth and reality that had cathartic power and authority. The mask and costume transcended the symbolised object and merged with it. So, when the masquerade danced or sang, it was really the represented object dancing or singing. This aspect of theatre, the blurring of illusion and reality to make a magical world that was a transfigured real world was there in the Greek theatre and rendered theatre a more potent force. This feature still remains in our day too, but is significantly, severely diluted. Greek tragedy relied on this potency to accentuate its dramatic action and to evoke its emotional impact.

Aristotle (384–322 BC), in On the Art of Poetry, described tragedy as ‘a representation of an action that is worth serious attention, complete in itself, and of some amplitude; in language enriched by a variety of artistic devices appropriate to the several parts of the play; presented in the form of action, not narration; by means of pity and fear bringing about the purgation of such emotions’ (my italics) (Aristotle, 1965 edition, pp. 38–39). This reference to ‘pity and fear’ and ‘the purgation of emotions’ signals at once the importance of psychological processes not only to the construction and enactment of tragedy, but also to the inner experience of the audience. For Aristotle, pity is ‘awakened by undeserved misfortune’ and fear ‘for someone like ourselves’ who suffers (p. 48). These feelings presuppose in the audience the capacity for empathic engagement with the characters and their situations, a capacity to imagine the world of the characters and experience it in oneself.