The
deus ex machina device is often criticized as inartistic, too convenient, and overly simplistic. However, champions of the device say that it opens up ideological and artistic possibilities.
Ancient criticism Antiphanes was one of the device's earliest critics. He believed that the use of the
deus ex machina was a sign that the playwright was unable to properly manage the complications of his plot. Another critical reference to the device can be found in
Plato's dialogue
Cratylus, 425d, though it is made in the context of an argument unrelated to drama.
Aristotle criticized the device in his
Poetics, where he argued that the resolution of a plot must arise internally, following from previous action of the play: Aristotle praised Euripides, however, for generally ending his plays with bad fortune, which he viewed as correct in tragedy, and somewhat excused the intervention of a deity by suggesting that "astonishment" should be sought in tragic drama: Such a device was referred to by
Horace in his
Ars Poetica (lines 191–2), where he instructs poets that they should never resort to a "god from the machine" to resolve their plots "unless a difficulty worthy of a god's unraveling should happen" [
nec deus intersit, nisi dignus uindice nodus inciderit; nec quarta loqui persona laboret].
Modern criticism Following Aristotle, Renaissance critics continued to view the
deus ex machina as an inept plot device, although it continued to be employed by Renaissance dramatists. Toward the end of the 19th century,
Friedrich Nietzsche criticized Euripides for making tragedy an optimistic
genre by use of the device, and was highly skeptical of the "Greek cheerfulness", prompting what he viewed as the plays' "blissful delight in life". The
deus ex machina as Nietzsche saw it was symptomatic of
Socratic culture, which valued knowledge over
Dionysiac music and ultimately caused the death of tragedy: Nietzsche argued that the
deus ex machina creates a false sense of consolation that ought not to be sought in phenomena. His denigration of the plot device has prevailed in critical opinion. In
Euripides the Rationalist (1895),
Arthur Woollgar Verrall surveyed and recorded other late 19th-century responses to the device. He recorded that some of the critical responses to the term referred to it as 'burlesque', 'coup de théâtre', and 'catastrophe'. Verrall notes that critics have a dismissive response to authors who deploy the device in their writings. He comes to the conclusion that critics feel that the
deus ex machina is evidence of the author's attempt to ruin the whole of his work and to prevent anyone from putting any importance on his work. Half of Euripides' eighteen extant plays end with the use of
deus ex machina; therefore, it was not simply a device to relieve the playwright of the embarrassment of a confusing plot-ending. This device enabled him to bring about a natural and more dignified dramatic and tragic ending. Other champions of the device believe that it can be a spectacular agent of subversion. It can be used to undercut generic conventions and challenge cultural assumptions and the privileged role of tragedy as a literary/theatrical model.
Rush Rehm in particular cites examples of Greek tragedy in which the
deus ex machina complicates the lives and attitudes of characters confronted by the deity, while simultaneously bringing the drama home to its audience. == See also ==