From “Righteous Tomfoolery” to Problematization

The Fall of an Angel and the Philosophical Tradition of Criticism of Theatre

Abstract

The nature and value of theatre have been the subject of philosophical debate since Antiquity, standing at the center of aesthetic reflections that underpinned crucial developments in the history of aesthetics. Among its earliest critics stands Plato, whose severity toward tragedy stemmed from two main reasons: on the one hand, the portrayal of morally flawed gods and heroes offers poor examples to the audience; on the other, tragedy emotionally unsettles the individual, drawing them away from the rational ideal of inner discipline. Rousseau resumes these criticisms, adding a new point: theatre, contrary to common belief, does not mobilize but rather contributes to inaction and the weakening of communal bonds. In the novel The Fall of an Angel by Camilo Castelo Branco, the protagonist Calisto Elói delivers a critical discourse on theatre that inscribes itself within this tradition, aligning in various aspects with the arguments of Plato and Rousseau. This article explores that discourse on three levels: first, it presents the main arguments advanced by Calisto Elói; second, it compares these arguments with those of Plato, Rousseau, and the epistemological critiques of art developed by the contemporary philosopher Noël Carroll; finally, it shows how Calisto’s discourse, in articulation with the narrative and aesthetic context of Camilo’s novel in which it is delivered, contributes to a deepening of the reflection on the value of theatre–not through an explicit philosophical argumentation, but through specifically artistic and literary means.