Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Theory and criticism: Aristotle


Aristotle’s view on imitation in  poetry

According to Aristotle poetic imitation is not a mere act of servile copying, but it is an act of imaginative creation by which the poet, drawing his material from the phenomenal world, makes something new out of it. Poetry shifts and orders its material, disregards the non essential, the purely accidental, and thus gives us the universal. In this way, it achieves a higher reality, even higher than nature.
 Imitation: The Common Basis of All the Arts
In Aristotle’s view it is the principle of imitation which unites poetry with the other fine arts. While Plato had equated poetry with painting, Aristotle equates it with music. It no longer remains a mere servile representation of the appearance of things, but in his theory it becomes a representation of the passions, and emotions of men, which are also imitated by music. Thus Aristotle by his theory enlarged the scope of imitation. The poet imitates not the surface of things but the higher reality embedded within. As the emotions are also the objects of imitation of music, poetry has close affinities with music. It is a mistake to compare poetry with painting as Plato did, it is more akin to music.
Imitation: Medium and Manner
In the very first chapter of the Poetics, Aristotle says, “Epic poetry and Tragedy, Comedy, also and Dithyrambic poetry, as also the music of the flute and the lyre in most of their forms, are in their general conception modes of imitation. They differ, however, from one another in three respects—their medium, the objects, and the manner or mode of imitation, being in each case distinct.” Thus the medium of the poet and the painter are different. The one imitates through forms and colour, and the other through language, rhythm and harmony. The musician imitates through rhythm and harmony. In this way, poetry is nearer to music than painting. Further, the manner of a poet may be purely narrative as in the Epic, or representation through action, as in drama. Thus different kinds of poetry differ from each other in their manner of imitation. Even dramatic poetry is differentiated into tragedy and comedy, accordingly as it imitates men as better or worse.
Poetic Imitation: Its Objects
As regards the objects of imitation, Aristotle says that the objects of poetic imitation are “men of action,” The poet may imitate “men as they were or are, or as they ought to be.” In other words, he may represent men either as better than in real life or worse or as they are. This means that according to Aristotle’s theory, imitation is not a mere photographic representation of the surface of things, but is a creative process. The poet selects and orders his material and in this way re-creates reality. He can represent men better than in real life. Thus he gives us a truth of an ideal or universal kind; he tells us not what men are but what they can be or what they ought to be. His mind is not tied to reality: “It is not function of the poet to relate what has happened but what may happen—according to the laws of probability or necessity.” History tells us what actually happened, poetry what may happen. Poetry tends to express the universal, history the particular. In this way, he demonstrates the superiority of poetry over history. The poet freed from the tyranny of facts, takes a larger or generalized view of things, represents the universal in and through the particular and so shares the philosopher’s quest for ultimate truth. There is a universal element in great poetry, and hence its permanent appeal. He thus equates poetry with philosophy and shows that both are means to a higher truth, both contribute to a better understanding of man and his life.
Scope of Imitation
The object of the poet’s imitation are “men in action”, or the actions of men. The action may be external or may be internal. It may be the action within the soul caused by all that befalls a man. In this way, he brings human experiences, emotions and passions—alt that happens or is likely to happen to man—within the scope of poetic imitation.
Tragedy and epic represent men on a heroic scale, better than they are, and comedy represents men of a lower type, worse than they are. Aristotle does not discuss the third possibility. It means that poetry does not aim at photographic realism.
Comparison with Plato’s view
Aristotle by his theory of imitation answers the charge of Plato that poetry is an imitation of “shadow of shadows”, thrice removed from truth and that the poet beguiles us with lies. Plato condemned poetry on the ground that in the very nature of things poets can have no idea of truth. The phenomenal world is not the reality, but a copy of the reality in the mind of the Supreme. The poet imitates this copy, the object and phenomena of the world, which are shadowy and unreal. Hence, Plato concluded that poetry is thrice removed from reality, it being a mere, ‘shadow or shadow of shadows.’ The poets have no knowledge of truth, they are liars, and deceive us with the lies which they tell in their poetry. Poetry, therefore, is “the mother of lies.”
Aristotle, on the contrary, tells us that art imitates not the mere show of things, but the ‘ideal reality,’ embodied in every object of the world. The process of nature is a ‘creative process’; everywhere in, ‘nature there is a ceaseless and upward progress’, everything in nature is constantly growing and moving up, and the poet imitates this upward movement of nature. Art reproduces the original not as it is, but it appears to the senses, i.e., it is reproduced imaginatively. Art moves in a world of images, and reproduces the external, according to the idea or image in his mind. Thus the poet does not copy the external world, but creates according to his ‘idea’ of it. Thus even an ugly object well-imitated becomes a source of pleasure. We are told in the Poetics, “objects which in themselves we view with pain, we delight to contemplate when reproduced with minute fidelity: such as the forms of the most ignoble animals and dead bodies.” This is so because of the imaginative coloring of reality in the process of poetic imitation.
Tragedy: Aristotle’s definition of Tragedy- is an imitation of an action, serious complete and of a certain magnitude, in a language beautified in different parts with different kinds of embellishment, through action and not narration  and through scenes of pity and fear bringing about  the ‘catharsis’ of these emotions.

Characteristics of an Aristotelian Plot: 1) Tragedy is a representation of action and action consists of incidents and events. Aristotle differentiates between plot and story, and says that it is better for the poet to choose a traditional story taken from history, mythology and legends for such stories are familiar and easy to understand. After selecting the story, the artist must then go on to the process of selection and ordering, when only relevant incidents and situations are to be selected and arranged such that they seem to follow each other logically. This is the plot of the story.
2) Next, the tragic plot must be a complete whole that is it must have a beginning, middle and an end. By beginning, Aristotle meant that the incident must not flow from a previous situation, and if it does, that situation must be made known to the audience through the chorus, soliloquy etc. Middle is everything that follows from the beginning and it is followed by the catastrophe. The End is consequent upon a given situation and is not followed by any further incident. Thus, wholeness implies the linking of the various incidents and situations that form the plot.
3) By magnitude, Aristotle meant the size of the plot, which should be neither too long (beginning will be forgotten by the audience), nor too short (the different parts will not be clearly distinguishable from each other). It should be long enough to allow the process of change from happiness to misery initiated by the beginning to be developed. It means that the plot should have order, logic and symmetry.
4) It follows that the plot should be an organic whole, such that there must be only one tragic action, and every incident must be connected to the rest of the action, so that there is no incident that is irrelevant. There may be episodes, but they must be properly integrated to the plot such that it is not possible to remove them without causing injury to the plot.
5) Next, Aristotle couples organic unity of a plot with probability and necessity, that is, the action of the tragedy must be possible acc to laws of probability and necessity. The plot is not tied to what has actually happened but what is possible under the given circumstances. Next, the words and actions must be the necessary outcome of the character of a dramatic personage. And, also, the tragic action must be convincing and credible.
6) The Three Unities: Unity of action-the plot should be an organic whole, such that there must be only one tragic action, and every incident must be connected to the rest of the action, so that there is no incident that is irrelevant. There may be episodes, but they must be properly integrated to the plot such that it is not possible to remove them without causing injury to the plot. Aristotle was against the introduction of a sub plot, similarly he is against a double ending, e.g. a tragic comedy and the introduction of comic relief. Acc to him such plurality of action and double ends distract attention and weaken the tragic effect. Unity of Time- Although Aristotle mentions nothing about the Unity of time, it does seem to be derived from him. Aristotle said that the action of the tragedy, as far as possible should remain within one revolution of the sun. Neo classic critics explained this as that the spectators would not believe in the reality of an action that compressed several days into a three hour drama. Neo classicists also believed that for verisimilitude there should be an exact correspondence between the time of the dramatic action and the time of the events being imitated, so that a play lasting three hours would depict events that took only three hours to work themselves out. Unity of Place too does not find any explicit mention in Aristotle, although when comparing Epic to Tragedy, he says that the epic may narrate several actions taking place simultaneously at several places, but this is not possible in tragedy which does not narrate but represents through action. Unity of Place and Unity of Time are of no importance and with Dr Johnson’s criticism, they have died out.

7) Kinds of plots: Simple plots are those in which the action moves forward but without peripeteia (reversal of fortune) and Anagnorisis (recognition of truth). Complex plots are those where the change of fortune is accompanied by peripeteia or anagnorisis or both. The peripeteia and anagnorisis must arise from the arrangement of the plot so that it appears necessary or probable.

8) Elements of a plot:

Peripeteia: or reversal of fortune takes place when the course of events take an opposite turn than intended, the change being also probable or necessary.  (eg: when a man tells Oedipus about his mother)
Recognition: a change from ignorance to knowledge tending either to affection or to enmity. The best sort of recognition is accompanied by peripeteia, as seen in Oedipus. Recognition may be caused by a) visible signs, eg, birthmarks, b) those manufactured by the poet, by not what the plot demands, c)is by the means of memory, that is when awareness is roused by seeing something, d) is recognition on the basis of reasoning, e) that arises from actions alone with the surprise developing through a series of likelihood.
Pathos: an act involving destruction or pain, eg death on the stage, or physical agonies and wounding etc.


Characterization: With respect to character, there are four things that a poet must aim at: a) the character must be morally good, that is the he makes a moral choice, b) The characters represented should be suitable, i.e., if the character represented is brave it is not suitable for a woman to be brave in this way, c) the characters should be life like, that is they must be true to life and have the same likes and dislikes, weakness and virtues, joys and sorrows like average humanity. Only such likeness will arouse pity, d) the characters should be consistent.
Since tragedy is an imitation of people better than are found in the world, the poet ought to make the characters life like but at the same time represent them as better than they are. Even if the characters are irascible, lazy and morally deficient in some ways, they must nevertheless be good.

The Ideal Tragic Hero: The function of tragedy is to evoke emotions of pity and fear, and from this Aristotle deduces the qualities of his tragic hero. He says that the tragic hero should not be too good or perfect, for the fall of a perfectly good man from happiness to misery would only shock and disgust. Similarly, the fall of a wicked person would not evoke tragic feelings. Therefore, a tragic hero must be a man not pre-eminently virtuous and just, whose misfortune is brought upon him not by vice or depravity but by some error in judgment.

The misfortune of the tragic hero is brought about by some fault of his own, which is called hamartia or some error in judgment that he commits. Hamartia may arise from any of the following ways: it may arise from ignorance of the facts, or it may arise out of error from hasty and careless decisions, or third, it may be voluntary, though not deliberate, as acts committed in anger or passion.
Another trait of the tragic hero is that he must be a person who occupies a position of eminence in society.

 Function of tragedy

Aristotle writes that the function of tragedy is to arouse emotions of pity and fear in the audience and through this affect the catharsis of these emotions. In Greek, catharsis has three meanings: purgation, purification and clarification.

No comments:

Post a Comment