Aristotle's Poetics-a Critical Study

1

ARISTOTLE’S POETICS ARISTOTLE’S THEORY OF IMITATION The term ‘imitation’ was not used for the first time by Aristotle. It had already been used by Plato in his ‘Republic’. Plato distinguished art between the useful art and the imitative art. The useful arts are such as medicine and agriculture that serve our requirements. The imitative art did not have such a utility. Poetry belonged to the category of the imitative art. Aristotle’s use of the term is filled with new dimensions. He gave to it a greater precision of meaning and the greater comprehension of scope. Aristotle’s Concept of ‘Imitation Although Aristotle was not the originator of the term ‘imitation’ in connection with the fine arts yet he added new dimensions to the term. He gave it a significance, which removed the sense of inferiority attached to it by Plato. The concept of imitation, according to Aristotle, unites poetry and all other fine arts. Art however imitates not merely the appearances or the externals of this world. Art deals with the very essence of things. There is a creative reproduction of the external world in accordance with the artist’s idea. Poetry is thus not an imitation of a shadow, but it is the imitation of the ideal reality. Poetry deals with the universal and the ideal. The significance of poetic truth is that it is universal and essential. Thus, Aristotle defended poetry and offered a wider scope and greater significance to the term imitation. This imitation is not mere slavish copying. It is not mere representation of the outward appearances. This imitation is of the deeper reality, or the very basic element of human nature. Poetry Linked With Music in Aristotle’s Concept of Imitation A tragic poet represents a man with a nature better than average. This would not be possible in an imitation which copied external appearances alone. It would be possible only if the poet represented an idea of human nature. It is significant that Aristotle links poetry with music. Music is not an imitation in the sense of mere copying of appearances. Hamilton says, a composer of a symphony does not try to make noises like pigs and chickens, but creates a special atmosphere with his artistic skill. It is in this sense that a poet communicates his emotion by imitating life. It is representation of the inner feelings and ideas of man. The poet’s imagination colors this imitation. The Medium of Poetic Imitation All art is a mode of imitation. Yet there are differences in the various modes of imitation. One such difference lies in the medium of imitation. Poetry like other forms of art is also a mode of imitation. The medium of the poet and the painter are different. The painter’s medium of imitation is color and form. The poet’s is rhythm and harmony. Aristotle finds an affinity between poetry and music. The musician, too, imitates through rhythm and harmony. Poetry is nearer music than to painting, as it, too, imitates through harmony and rhythm.

2

The Objects of Poetic Imitation The objects of poetic imitation are men in action. These men may be either better than or lower than the average man in real life. Thus, imitation in poetry is clearly distinct from photographic representation. It is a process involving the creative imagination and the intellectual faculty of the poet. Imitation of the Outer and the Inner Activity. There are mental dispositions in human nature which have a permanent quality about them. Then there are the emotional moods and feelings. These are transitory aspects of the human psyche. Now, ‘men in action’ includes their thoughts, feelings, will, motive and emotions. Poetry is an imitation of human life. Action involves the inward life of man as well, not merely the outward events, which in any case, are the result of inward motives. The poet does not produce a literal copy of the world as he sees it. The landscape and animals might form only a background to the inward activity of the soul of man. Thus we see that the inner world of man is very much the object of imitation in poetry. The Manner of Poetic Imitation Another way in which the different arts may differ is in their manner of imitation. Poetry itself is of different types because of the different manner of imitation involved in different types. There is the purely narrative poet, who may continue speaking in the same person without change. Another kind of poetry is that in which the poet may imitate by now speaking in narrative, and now in an assumed role. Aristotle gives the example of Homer. The third manner of imitation is that in which the whole story is represented in the form of an action carried out by several persons, as in real life.. This, of course, is the dramatic mode of poetry. Imitation: A Process of Imaginative Re-creation Aristotle brought a new logical relation to the term ‘imitation’. His concept of imitation made the poetic process out to be, not one of mere copying, but an act of creative vision through which the poet, while taking material from phenomena of life, was enabled to make something new out of the real and actual. The poet could take things as they are, things as they were said to be or thought to be, or things as they ought to be. He could, in other words deal with facts past or present, with established beliefs or with ideals unrealized. In each instance, a process of transformation was implied. The Universal Truth of Poetry: Imitation of Ideals Poetic imitation involves a creative faculty, for it implies the transformation of material into art. Poetry is not mere photographic representation. It is not a mere copy of the world as we see it. Out of the confused and chaotic muddle of everyday life the poet tries to create a work of art which has a permanent relevance. Poets deal with the basic essentials of human nature. Aristotle asserts: “It is not the function of the poet to relate what has happened – but what is possible according to the law of probability”.

3

Artistic Imitation: A Process of Ordering and Arranging Dramatic art is the imitation which reproduces life’s emotions rather than life’s sense impressions. But in the reproduction is implied artistic selection and arrangement of material. Aristotle insists upon the law of probability and necessity. There is an implied rationality in the imitation involved in art. Poetry has no place for the irrelevant. The material has to be pruned. The chaos of life has to be brought under a design, a pattern and an order. This is imperative for the poetry to gain universality and truth. Conclusion Aristotle took the term ‘imitation’ from Plato. He gave to the term a wider significance. He rejected the charge of poetry being a pack of lies. He brought out the higher truth involved in poetry, which made it higher than history. He gave to the term ‘imitation’ a more precise as well as deeper significance. He brought creative imagination within the scope of poetic imitation.

Written and Composed By: Prof. A. R. Somroo M.A. English, M.A. Education Cell: 03339971417

4

ARISTOTLE’S POETICS ARISTOTLE’S CONCEPT OF TRAGEDY The word tragedy brings to mind Aristotle and the Poetics. Some aspects of the definition and discussion of tragedy in the book may be considered controversial, unaccepted or outdated, but its influence is not less. Tragedy is the major concern of the Poetics. The Greek Conception of Tragedy It is necessary to remind that the Greek conception of tragedy was different from ours. In the modern age, tragedy means a drama with an unhappy ending and disastrous enough to have a tragic effect. However the Greek conception of tragedy was that it was a serious drama, not necessarily with an unhappy ending. The essence of tragedy was that it handled serious actions of serious characters. The Greek tragedy has scenes and incidents of pain and sorrow, but need not end disastrously. This is clear from Aristotle’s classification of four possible tragic plots which represented a change from misery to happiness – a contention which seems unacceptable in the modern times. The Origin of Tragedy and its Superiority over the Epic According to Aristotle, tragedy developed from the heroic effort of poetry, which in its turn developed from the hymns sung in praise of gods and great men. Tragedy is considered by Aristotle to be a higher form than the epic form of poetry, because it was a later development. Tragedy has a greater degree of concentration and coherence than the epic, and has a greater effect. The Definition of Tragedy Aristotle’s famous definition of tragedy says: “ A tragedy is the imitation of an action that is serious, and also as having magnitude, complete in itself in language with pleasurable accessories, each kind brought in separately in the parts of the work; in a dramatic, not in a narrative form; with incidents arising pity and fear; wherewith to accomplish its catharsis of such emotions”. The definition clearly falls into two parts. The first part tells us about the nature of tragedy, its object, manner, and medium of imitation; the second part points out the function of tragedy. Tragedy: Different from other forms of Poetic Imitation Tragedy, like other forms of art, is a form of imitation. It differs from other arts in the object, manner and medium of imitation. Its objects of imitation are ‘serious actions’. It is always to be kept in mind that imitation in the Aristotelian sense is not slavish copying. It involves grasping and representing the essence of a universal truth. Poetic imitation is re-creation or a creative reproduction of objects. In its manner of imitation, tragedy is different from the epic. The epic uses the manner of narrative, while tragedy represents life through acting. It differs from the other forms of poetry in that it employs decorations or pleasurable accessories of different kinds. It uses, for instance, verse for dialogues, and song for the chorus.

5

The Action: Complete, With a Beginning, Middle, and an End Aristotle does not define the word ‘action’. But we get the implications through the qualities which Aristotle ascribes to it. For the sake of convenience, one can say that an action shows the progress of an individual from one position to another, at which he either dies, or becomes involved in a completely changed set of circumstances. Action is the plot, consisting of the logical and inevitable sequence of incidents. The action must be complete, which means that it must have a beginning, middle and end. The Magnitude Besides being serious, the action must have a certain magnitude. The term has been wrongly interpreted as ‘important’ or ‘dignified’. It actually refers to the size. A tragedy must be of a correct length. It must not be so long that it cannot be grasped in its entirety without confusion. Neither must it be so short that its parts cannot be comprehended properly. Aristotle compares tragic plot to a living organism in order to bring out the importance of the correct size. The plot should be of such a size that that it allows human memory to encompass the whole of it. It should, at the same time, be long enough to permit the orderly and natural development in the change of fortune, leading to the catastrophe. The parts of the whole should form a coherent, complete and intelligible pattern. The Formative Elements of Tragedy Aristotle gives six formative elements of tragedy – Plot, Character, Thought, Diction, Spectacle and Song. Three of these i.e. Plot, Character and Thought are internal aspects; three namely, Diction, Spectacle and Song, are external aspects. Diction and Song are concerned with the medium of imitation, while Spectacle, with the manner of imitation. Plot, Character and Thought are concerned with the objects of imitation. Unified Plot Tragedy imitates ‘men in action’. The men or the dramatis personae, must have the two qualities, namely moral and intellectual what Aristotle calls the ethos and dianoia. But even speeches which are expressive of character would not be producing the tragic effect as powerfully as well constructed plot. Aristotle considers plot to be the most important part of tragedy; indeed, it is the very soul of tragedy. Plot is the arrangement of the incidents in a logical sequence. Plot is compared to a living organism. Just as the parts of a living organism must be probably related to each other and to the whole, the parts of a tragedy should relate to one another and produce a unified effect. Each event should further the action and no part should be superfluous or irrelevant. Character Aristotle says that the most important aspect of characterization in tragedy is goodness. The character must be good. It must be appropriate to the status or type he represents. It would be improper to ascribe valour to a woman, and nobility to a slave. The character must show the truth to life. It must be the true representative of the human nature. The character should be self consistent. He should speak or behave in a given way.

6

ARISTOTLE’S POETICS THEORY OF THE TRAGIC PLOT Aristotle says that Tragedy is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete and of certain magnitude. It is an imitation of an action. It is an image of human life, which consists in a mode of action. The term ‘action’ includes a variety of aspects of human life. It involves not merely deeds, incidents and situations. It encompasses the very mental processes which make men act, and the very motives behind the external events. Character and plot cannot be unrelated. Plot contains the kernel of the action represented by a tragedy, and the action is that of human agents, involving mental processes and the manifestation of these mental processes in external acts. Distinction between Plot and Story Aristotle used the term plot that did not mean mere story. We have first to understand the meaning of the word ‘Poet’ as it was used in Greek. In Greek, the word poet meant maker. The poet is a maker not of the story, but of the plot. The making of the plot is a creative activity. It involves artistic selection and ordering of the chaotic material of life. The plot involves the arrangement of incidents and events into a coherent pattern. The poet reduces the story to its essentials; he sketches a general outline. He then realizes the plot in term of incidents. The meaning is that first sketch the story’s general outline, and then, episodize. The making of episodes is the essential activity of the poet as a maker of his plot. It requires selection and arrangement of material. It requires the rejection of anything irrelevant to the poet’s plan. It involves imagination and intellectual effort to order the material into a plot. The Construction of Plot Aristotle does not define the word ‘action’. But we get the implications through the qualities which Aristotle ascribes to it. For the sake of convenience, one can say that an action shows the progress of an individual from one position to another, at which he either dies, or becomes involved in a completely changed set of circumstances. Action is the plot, consisting of the logical and inevitable sequence of incidents. The action must be complete, which means that it must have a beginning, middle and end. There is no place for the haphazard, the chaotic, or the irrational, in the construction of the plot. In this context, one remembers E.M. Forster’s observation on the plot and story. He says that a “story is a narrative of events arranged in their time-sequence. A plot is also a narrative of events, the emphasis falling on causality. The Magnitude of the Plot Besides being serious, the action must have a certain magnitude. The term has been wrongly interpreted as ‘important’ or ‘dignified’. It actually refers to the size. A tragedy must be of a correct length. It must not be so long that it cannot be grasped in its entirety without confusion. Neither must it be so short that its parts cannot be comprehended properly. Aristotle compares tragic plot to a living organism in order to bring out the importance of the correct size. The plot should be of such a size that that it allows human memory to encompass the whole of it. It should, at the same time, be long enough to permit the orderly and natural development in the

7

change of fortune, leading to the catastrophe. The parts of the whole should form a coherent, complete and intelligible pattern. Organic Unity of Action Tragedy imitates ‘men in action’. The men or the dramatis personae, must have the two qualities, namely moral and intellectual what Aristotle calls the ethos and dianoia. But even speeches which are expressive of character would not be producing the tragic effect as powerfully as well constructed plot. Aristotle considers plot to be the most important part of tragedy; indeed, it is the very soul of tragedy. Plot is the arrangement of the incidents in a logical sequence. Plot is compared to a living organism. Just as the parts of a living organism must be probably related to each other and to the whole, the parts of a tragedy should relate to one another and produce a unified effect. Each event should further the action and no part should be superfluous or irrelevant. Conclusion Aristotle’s concept of the tragic plot is in keeping with what we have come to call classical. There is an insistence on order, pattern and design. The chaotic material of life should be brought under systematic discipline, so that events seem to happen in a logical sequence with no irrelevancies. It is true that the modern concept of tragedy has changed a great deal—any living literature naturally involves change and modifications. Yet we find that in some aspects Aristotle’s theory of plot is still very much valid, for they are universal principles.

Written and Composed By Prof. A. R. Somroo M.A. English, M.A. Education Cell: 03339971417

8

ARISTOTLE’S POETICS CONCEPTION OF CATHARSIS The word catharsis means in general “outlet of strong emotions” or a willing account of deep feelings given to another person. Anyhow its roots are found in a Greek word “Katherine” meaning to clear and purity. The term “Catharsis” is used only once in the course of Aristotle’s poetics in 6th chapter as he says: “Tragedy is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete and of a certain magnitude, in language embellished with each kind of artistic ornaments in a dramatic form, with incidents arousing pity and fear to accomplish the catharsis of such emotions”. The theory of catharsis has been long and vitally accepted, so often quoted but less understood. Yet there is hardly any other single term which has given rise to so many different interpretations and controversies. The difficulty arises out of the fact that Aristotle does not fully define or explain the term. The term has been explained by critics in the light of its use in Aristotle’s other works such as politics and ethics. It has been noted that the term Catharsis has three meanings: Purgation, Purification and Clarification. Purgation The term catharsis has been interpreted in medical terms, meaning purgation and according to medical terms purgation is the partial removal of excess humour. The health of body depends upon a true balance of the humours. Thus the purgation of emotions of pity and fear does not mean the removal of these emotions, but that the passions or emotions are reduced to a healthy, balanced proportion. Catharsis in this sense denotes a pathological effect on the soul comparable to the effect of medicine on the body. Purification One meaning of catharsis is purification. Some critics have interpreted the term in the light of this meaning. These critics reject the interpretation of catharsis in the light of medical terminology. H. House, for instance says, “Aristotle’s concept of catharsis was not as a medical term. He interprets that word to mean a kind of moral conditioning, which the spectator undergoes. He comments that purgation means cleansing”. According to H. House Aristotle’s whole doctrine only makes sense if we realize that the proper development and balance of emotion depends upon the habitual direction of them towards worthy objects. Butcher, too, agrees with the purification theory. He observes that catharsis involves not only the idea of emotional relief but also the idea of purgation of the emotions. Clarification There are some critics who show that the implication of catharsis is to be found in the poetics itself without any need to refer to the Politics and Ethics. Writing of imitative arts is connected with learning. Pleasure does not come from joy alone. A paradox lies there in tragedy. The

9

incidents of tragedy are painful yet in tragedy, they afford us a special pleasure. It is a pleasure peculiar to tragedy. It is said that Aristotle ignored pleasure as the function of tragedy. It is wrong to say that Aristotle totally ignored pleasure but Aristotle in his treatise tells us that tragedy has its own two kinds of pleasure: Catharsis of emotion and the consequent pleasure. Catharsis Involves a Process of learning Tragic pleasure rises from the fact that imitation produces that sort of pleasure which comes from learning. This learning comes from our discovery of a certain relationship between the particular events presented in the imitation and certain universal elements embodied in it. The tragic poet selects incidents embodying pity and fear and then presents them in such a way as to ring out the probable principles that unite them in a single action and determine their relation to this action as it proceeds from its beginning to its end. When the spectator has witnessed a tragedy of this type, he will have learned something. In the light of this theory, Catharsis refers to the incidents of the tragedy rather than to the psychology of the audience. Catharsis is not purgation of emotions, nor is it a purification of emotions. It refers to the way in which the poet has presented his incidents of pity and fear., to rise from the particular to the universal. Conclusion Aristotle is a great critic, and what he said centuries ago will continue to influence thinking as it has done all this time. It is unfortunate that he has not explained some of the terms which seem so much significant to his central thesis. The term Catharsis has been interpreted so variously that it is difficult to come to an agreement as to what Aristotle really meant. Of the theories advanced to explain catharsis, the clarification theory is the most acceptable. It tends to relate catharsis to the work rather than to the psychology of the audience.

Written and Composed By: Prof. A. R. Somroo M.A. English, M.A. Education 03339971417

10

ARISTOTLE’S POETICS THEORY OF IDEAL TRAGIC HERO The greatest modification in Aristotle’s concept of tragedy has to be made in connection with the tragic hero. Aristotle formed his conception of tragic hero as a result of his inductive research. He read all the tragedies that were available at that time and then formed his conception of tragic hero. Aristotle in his poetics puts forward a number of characteristics for the ideal tragic heroes which however have proved to be quite controversial. Different critics have interpreted them in different manner. Characteristics of a Tragic Hero Aristotle gives four points to aim at the treatment of ideal tragic hero. These are as under: Goodness Many critics think the first characteristic somewhat strange and extraordinary. But it is essential to Aristotle’s theory because it is the foundation for the basic sympathy in the reader or audience, without which neither tragic emotions nor the tragic pleasure be evoked. Sympathy is necessary as it is the very basis of the whole tragic pleasure. The ad man does not arouse pity in us if he falls from happiness to misery. According to Aristotle, entirely wicked person has no place in tragedy, except he is indispensable to the plot. But the action of the play as a whole should be good. Any how Aristotle’s dictum of goodness in the tragic hero has given rise to a great deal of controversy. Aristotle’s concept of the effect of tragedy is that it arouses pity and fear. But a perfectly good man, if he suffers the fall from prosperity to misery, it will not arouse pity and fear. It would simply shock the spectator’s sense of justice. The shock arises from the fact that a completely virtuous man is suffering, the suffering is wholly undeserved. It is an irrational suffering. So he says that he must be a great soul but there must be some tragic flaw or error in his judgment which brings his downfall. Only in this case the feeling of pity and fear would be aroused in the spectator. Appropriateness The next essential, as for as, hero is concerned, is appropriateness. The term has been interpreted variously. Some critics take it to mean “True to type”. Yet this is not to mean that Aristotle meant character to be mere type and not individual. He means that the characters should be true to the characteristics of their particular ages and at the same individual too. Another object of appropriateness has been pointed out by the critics that Aristotle could have meant the hero should be appropriate to the historical or traditional portrait of him. Apparently, if Aristotle meant this, he had the practice of the Greek dramatists in his mind, which too formed their characters from traditional sources.

11

Likeness The third essential is likeness. Aristotle gives no example to illustrate his meaning in his context. Thus, one interpretation is “To the original in the sense of how the painter is true to the original”. This would reduce the freedom of creative artist. So it would be more acceptable to interpret the term as “true to life”. So we identify ourselves with the character. If we do not see the character as we see ourselves, the tragic emotions of pity and fear become irrelevant. Consistency The fourth characteristic is consistency. The hero must be seen as a whole and consistent to what he represented from beginning to end. The character, in words should act and seem to think in a manner which we can logically expect from that particular individual So, the person who stands between complete villainy and complete goodness according to Aristotle is the ideal tragic hero. He is a man like us. Yet, he has a moral elevation. He is more intense person. His feelings are deeper; he has heightened powers of intellect and will also. Aristotle says, “A tragic hero must be an intermediate sort of person, a man not pre-eminently virtuous and just whose misfortune, however is brought upon him not by vice or depravity ut by some error of judgment or Hammartia”. Aristotle makes it clear that Hammartia is some error of judgment that lets fall of the hero come about not because of some depravity but from error on his part. The Hammartia is an error that may arise in three ways: ignorance of fact, error of judgment, voluntarily error Conclusion On the whole, we can say that Aristotle’s concept of tragic hero is not acceptable. In some ways he has a limited vision. Tragedy is possible with saints and high rank people. This is not a generally found fact. Further, the tragedy found from Hammartia is not always in all cases. However, the chief limitation of Aristotle’s concept is based on one section of world of drama.

12