ARISTOTLE – “THE POETICS”

Q. No.1 Explain Plato’s Attack on Poetry and Aristotle’s Defense of Poetry.

Plato’s Attack on Poetry:

Plato’s literary criticism especially his views on poetry inaugurates a new phase in
critical development. He was a teacher and philosopher. In order to understand
correctly Plato’s theory of poetry and his attack on it, it is necessary to keep it in
mind that the aim of his literary criticism was frankly utilitarian that is educating
the youth and forming them into good citizens of his ideal state. From this
practical point of view, he made a fierce attack on poetry.

In order to correctly understand Plato’s view on poetry it is essential to

understand the contemporary state of affairs in Athens (Greeks). It was a time of
Political decline and dissolution. Education was in a poor state. The epics of Homer
were considered to be the school curriculum.

Courage, heroism, magnificence and skill in the use of arms were the virtues prized
highly by the Greeks. “The wonderful flowering time of Greek art and literature
was over and creative impulse had died away”. As a result, philosophers and
orators were regarded as superior to poets and artists. Confusion was prevailed in
all spheres of life.

Plato’s attack on poetry must be judged with reference to its political and social
context for all his efforts were devoted to avoid the deterioration of character to
restore the health of both the individual and the state.

On moral grounds, he says; poetry is not conducive to social morality but it

creates a demoralizing effect. Same is the case with drama which depends
indirectly on popular patronage. Poets “tell lies about gods”. Gods and heroes are
represented as corrupt, immortal and dishonest. Indeed subject to all the faults,
follies and vices of common human beings.

Drama is even more harmful. Judgment in dramatic matter is left to the reader
and result is lawlessness. He also criticizes poetry on emotional grounds.
According to Plato the poets say that they are “divinely inspired”. It means that
they don’t compose poetry as craft but they compose poetry by virtue of some
impulse of mysterious, non-rational supernatural source, outside their own
personality. “Often the poets cannot themselves explain what they write.”

Excluding lyric poetry, which is narrative all other poetry e.g. epic, tragedy and
comedy is imitative and Plato regards all imitative poetry is pernicious. Imitation
soon becomes a second nature and the actor who imitates it he tends to behave
like the object of his imitation. “Imitation will make him cowardly, knavish or
clownish if such roles are imitated frequently”. Plato divided the soul into three
parts:

i. Rational

ii. Spiritual

iii. Desirous or appetitive

In his ‘The Republic’ and in chapter X Plato discusses the emotions of pity and
grief. These emotions should be irritated, but in tragedy people give an
uncontrolled expression to these emotions. Plato attacks poetry on intellectual
grounds as well he thinks that poets have no knowledge of truth. For “they imitate
appearances and poetry is the product of futile ignorance”.

“Poetry can serve no useful, practical purpose; it must be apart from school
curriculum”.

Thus Plato attacks on poetry on intellectual, emotional, utilitarian and moral

grounds and demonstrates its uselessness and its corruption influences.

Aristotle’s Defense of Poetry:-

Aristotle was the great disciple of Plato. He took up the challenge of Plato to show
that poetry is not only pleasant but also useful for men and society. Though
Aristotle never directly refers to Plato, yet much of his Poetics is a covert reply
to Plato.

Plato set out to recognize human life; while Aristotle set out to recognize human
knowledge. Plato was transcendentalist while Aristotle was a realist. Plato was an
idealist, he believed that the phenomenal world is but and objectification of the
ideal world. Aristotle on the other hand believed in the reality of the world of the
senses.

Plato’s language in “The Republic” is poetic and charming; whereas Aristotle’s

language in “Poetics” is dogmatic, telegraphic. Aristotle makes full use of the
terminology and doctrines of Plato. Plato was a more and original genius. Aristotle
is more comprehensive and systematic genius. Plato was the first to use the word
‘imitation’ in connection with the poetry. Aristotle took the word from his master
and breathed a new life and soul into it. Plato compared poetry to painting;
Aristotle compared it to music and rhythm.
In Plato’s view poetry presents a copy of nature as it is; according to Aristotle,
poetry may imitate men as they are. It may also imitate their better or worse.
Plato condemned poets on moral, intellectual and emotional grounds. Aristotle takes
up the objections of Plato one by one and justifies poetry morally, emotionally and
intellectually. He is the first to use the term catharsis in connection with tragedy.

Plato took up the scepter on behalf of philosophy and his purpose was to show that
the philosophy is superior to poetry. Aristotle on the other hand took up the
scepter on behalf of poetry and effectively brought out its superiority to his
views, poetry is to be preferred to both philosophy and history. Plato regards the
emotions as undesirable so he advocated their repression. Aristotle on the other
hand stressed the need for emotional outlets.

From whatever angle we consider Plato and Aristotle, master and pupil, they stand
poles apart. There were radical difference between these two minds and out of the
differences came the most formidable assault on poetry, and also the most
effective defense of it.

Lassalle very beautifully summarizes the different points of view of the two as
follows: Aristotle’s liked to proceed from real to ideal, Plato from ideal to real.
Aristotle has the scientific mind and Plato had metaphysical mind.

Q. No.2 Aristotle’s theory of tragedy is valid for his times only. Discuss.

‘The Poetics’ is chiefly concerned with tragedy, which is regarded as the highest
form of poetry. Aristotle’s begins by pointing out that imitation is the common
basis of all the fine arts, which however differ from each other in their medium of
imitation, object of imitation and manner of imitation. The medium of the poet and
the painter are different. The painters’ medium of imitation is color and form. The
poet’s medium is rhythm and harmony. In its manner of imitation, tragedy is
different from the epic. The epic uses the manner of narrative, while tragedy
represents life through acting.

Tragedy differs from comedy because its object of imitation is a serious action
while comedy imitates a grotesque action. Both epics and tragedy imitate serious
subjects in a grand kind of verse but they differ from each other as epic imitates
only one kind of verse both for its choral odes and for its dialogue. Tragedy has
greater concentration so it is more effective.

“All the parts of an epic are included in tragedy. But those of tragedy are not
found in epic”.
Aristotle comes to the consideration of the nature and a function of a tragedy. He
defines;

“A tragedy is the 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 such emotions.”

This definition has wide implications. It falls naturally into two parts. The first
part starts from the imitation of an action to and not narration. The second part is
concerned with the function and emotional effects of tragedy.

As regards the function of a tragedy, Aristotle points out that the function of a
tragedy is to arise the scenes of pity and fear and thus to bring about a catharsis
of these emotions. But unfortunately Aristotle does not supply an explanation of
catharsis which is the function of tragedy.

“Catharsis, he means the equilibrium or restoration of the emotions of pity

and fear to the right proportions.”

To the desirable means which is the basis of his discussion of the human qualities
in the ethics. After examine the definition, nature and function of tragedy
Aristotle comes to a consideration of its constituent or formative parts. Aristotle
divided into six parts or six formative elements of a tragedy which are as
follows;

1. Plot

2. Character

3. Diction

4. Thought

5. Spectacle

6. Song.

Plot is the most important element of tragedy. According to Aristotle, plot is very
soul of tragedy. By plot he means the arrangements of incidents. “Incidents mean
action and a tragedy is an imitation of action both external and internal”. A
plot consists of a logical and inevitable sequence of events.

The action which tragedy imitates is its plot. The action must be complete i.e. it
must have a proper beginning, middle and an end.
Aristotle emphasis that; “the tragic actions must be in accordance with the
laws of probability and necessity”.

The action is the plot of tragedy must be of a certain magnitude means size or
length. It must be long enough to permit an orderly systematic development of
action to a catastrophe or fall. The action should be proportionate in the relation
of the different parts to each other and to the whole. It must be an organic whole.
Further, Aristotle divides the plots of a tragedy into two kinds: Simple plot or
complex plot. He calls a plot simple when the change in the fortune of hero takes
place without peripety and discovery, and the plot is complex when Peripety is the
change in the fortune of the hero and the Discovery is a change from ignorance to
knowledge.

As regards characterization in general, Aristotle describes four essential

qualities of character. The character must be good, appropriate, liking and have
consistency. The characters should be good but not too good or perfect to believe.
By appropriateness, he means they must be true to type. Aristotle may mean either
of these two things. The characters must be life like. They must be true
representatives of actual human nature or they must be like the traditional or
historical personage. The characters must show a consistency of development.

While coming to a consideration of the ideal tragic hero, Aristotle says that he
should neither be perfectly good nor utterly bad; A man neither of blameless
character, not a developed villain. He should be a man of ordinary qualities and
virtues like us, however leaning more to the side of good than of evil occupying a
position of eminence, falling from prosperity to adversity not because of any
deliberate wickedness but because of some error of judgment on his part.

As regards the comparative importance of plot and character, Aristotle is quite

emphatic and that plot is more important than character. He goes to the extent of
saying that;

“There can be a tragedy without character, but none without plot.”

Song is the lyrical element is to be found in the choric part of a tragedy, his odes
by chorus, as in Oedipus Rex there is the embellishment which distinguishes the
tragedy from the epic. It is one of the sources of the pleasure of tragedy.

The spectacle or the scenic effects have more to do with stage craft than with
the writing of poetry. Thought is the intellectual elements in a tragedy and it is
expressed by the speech of a character only. This implies that only such speeches
are significant in a tragedy as these express the views and feelings of a character.
The use of proper language or diction which gives the thought and feeling of the
various dramatic personae and it is through speech that their character is first
revealed. That is why the language of the tragedy must be unusually expressive.

As regards the function of tragedy, Aristotle says that the end of poetry is to
give pleasure. Tragedy has its own distinctive pleasure as well as the pleasure
which is common to all poetry.

As regards the three unities Aristotle emphasis only one of these unities, it is the
unity of action. He is against the plurality of action as it weakens the tragic effect.
Unity of time Aristotle only once mentions it in relation to dramatic action but he
never mentions the unity of place.

To conclude we can say that the theory of tragedy might have its weakness
because Aristotle knows only Greek Tragedy. So his conclusions are based entirely
on the drama with which he was familiar. Hence often his views are not universal
application but despite all that can be said against it. “Aristotle Theory of
Tragedy is the foundation on which all subsequent discussion of literary
aesthetics has mot securely based itself.” Aristotle’s view might have been
challenged, but their history is the history of tragedy.

Q. No.3 Plot of Tragedy, its structure, its constituent elements, kinds of

plots and the concepts of peripety – Anagnorosis.

In “The Poetics” Aristotle devotes much attention to the examination of the

nature, structure, formative or constituent elements of an ideal tragic plot.
Tragedy is the representation of action and action consists of incidents and
events. So the plot is an arrangement of these incidents and events in the tragedy.

Aristotle defines plot as the first principle, the soul of tragedy out of six
formative elements of a tragedy i.e. Plot character, thought, melody, diction and
spectacle. So Aristotle says that “there can be a tragedy without character but
there can be no tragedy without plot.”

Aristotle assigns the first place to plot. The Greek word ‘Poet’ means a ‘maker’.
The poet is a maker, not because he makes (writes) verses but because he makes
plot.

“The stories taken from history, mythology or legend are to be preferred.”

For they are familiar and easy to understand and they serve a guide lines for
characterization.
Only relevant incidents and situations are selected. They are arranged in a skilful
way that they seem to follow each other necessarily and inevitably. Aristotle
describes that the tragic plot must be a complete whole. By complete he means
that the plot must have proper beginning, middle and end.

Beginning must b clear and intelligible. The middle is something that is consequent
upon a situation that has gone before and which is followed by the catastrophe. So
the middle is everything between the first incident and the last. The middle is
followed by the end. The end is that which is consequent upon a given situation
which is not followed by further incident or situation.

Aristotle comes to the important question of Magnitude. The plot must have
certain magnitude. It must have a certain “length”. Here ‘magnitude’ means ‘size’.
It should be neither too small nor too large. However it should be long enough to
allow the process of change, from prosperity to adversity. He further describes
that magnitude also implies order and proportion. As in case of a living organism,
beauty and order depend upon its magnitude. Its different parts properly relate to
each other and to the whole. Thus magnitude implies that the plot must have order,
logic, symmetry and perspicuity.

Aristotle conceives that the plot of a tragedy is an organic whole: and also have an
organic unity in its action. An action is a process of change from happiness to
misery or vice versa and tragedy must depict only one such action. There may be a
number of incidents and events in the play but together they must constitute one
and only one action.

He further correlates organic unity of plot with probability and necessity. The plot
deals with action incidents and events which is possible according to the laws of
probability and necessity. The former discussion makes it clear that Aristotle rules
out plurality of action. He emphasis on the unity of action but he has little to say
about the unity of time and unity of place. About the unity of time he merely says
in “The Poetics” that “tragedy should confine itself, as far as possible to a
single revolution of the sun”.

He says that “tragedy is an imitation of a serious action that its purpose is to

arouse pity and fear”. Tragedy is a story of suffering with an unhappy ending.
Because it is only such a story of suffering that is likely to arouse pity and fear.
So the plot of a tragedy must be a fatal one.

Tragic plots may be of three types: i. Simple, ii. Complex, iii. Plot based on
depicting incidents and events of suffering depending on their effects. An ideal
tragic plot according to Aristotle must be simple. It must be complex, i.e. it must
have “Peripety i.e. reversal of intention and Anagnorosis, i.e. recognition of
truth.”

Peripety implies ignorance of truth while Anagnorosis is the realism of truth by

some signs or by chance. As regards the third kind of plot, the plot depending for
its effective on spectacle – incidents of suffering, Aristotle rates it very law.

In the end Aristotle says that in making their plots, the poets should take great
care to make their ‘denouements or resolutions’. It should be very effective and
successful.

Q. No. 4 Plot and character, their comparative importance, Plot as the soul of
tragedy.

Aristotle has mentioned six formative or constituent elements of a tragedy and

there elements be considers the plot as the most important. The primary thing is
the fundamental thing. It is the principle plot is first fundamental of Tragedy it is
the soul of tragedy while character is only secondary importance. He goes to the
extent of saying that. “A Tragedy is impossible without plot, but there may be
one without character.”

Tragedy according to Aristotle is to imitation of men but of men in action. Action

implies a process, the process of change from prosperity to adversity and very
such action is made up of a number of events and incidents. Plot is the organization
of the incidents and events which make up the action of a tragedy.

In drama, the characters are not described; they enact their own story and so
reveal themselves. Unlike an epic, drama is performance because we know that the
character from their performance before our eyes and not from what we told
about them. In short the plot contains the kernel of that action which is the
object of a tragedy to represent. It is the plot which shows a character passing
from prosperity to adversity. As a result of his own actions, it includes outward
events as well as the motives and moral processes which determine those events;
therefore plot is of paramount importance obviously, there can be no tragedy
without a plot.

Humphrey house emphasis that the word “character” can be used in this sense and
it may mean dramatic personage or the bend or tendency or habit of mind which
can be revealed only in what a dramatic personage says.

Now such a tendency to good or bad is not inherent by nature, but is formed as a
result of past actions. All human beings have certain physical capacities by native
that is the physical senses of seeing and hearing is in us by nature. We don’t have
to acquire these senses by act of seeing and hearings. We have a capacity for
action. By nature it is a physical action which is ethically neutral or indifferent and
therefore does not invite the roll of character at all. Our virtues and vices our
moral self, we acquire in so far as we have acted in the past, well or bad. According
to Humphrey House; “We learn to become good or bad by acting well or ill, just
as a builder learns to build by building. By repeated acts of a certain kind, we
acquire a habit or bent of character. In this way the qualities of character,
in this way, qualities of character are legacies of past acts.”

In real life, quite apart from drama, character is subordinate to action because it
is a products of action, influenced by action and reveals itself through action.
Aristotle makes a character subordinate to action in tragedy well.

“Character in the ethical sense is realized or actualized only in action”.

The plot brings out character, hence it has primary importance in life and so in
drama it is action or plot which reveals character or the moral nature of a dramatic
personage. So character can be revealed only through plot.

The choice of a character has great significance. When Aristotle says there may
be tragedies without character he means that the dramatic personages may suffer
and act but may not reveal their character in their moral act.

He is not the advocate of a generalized or typical handling a character. His theory

of action itself guarantees the subtlest development of character even when the
character are typical they would be easily distinguished from each other by the
end which they desire. In every situation in every moment of crisis, they would be
forced to make a choice and this choice bring out their individuality, the
difference in their respective and moral senses.

In drama, character exists as a character only in what they say or do. They exist
by virtue of their dramatic function. Therefore a character is not actualized
unless it is in action. Just as sports it is the movement of sportsman or player not
the physical built which leads to victory. So in life and drama it is action which
leads to success or failure happiness or misery. Thus character is subordinate to
plot which is equivalent of action in life.

If we observe we come to know that the dramatic history also justifies the
soundness of Aristotle’s action. There have been successful dramas without
character on the other hand drama without a suitable plot was failure. Aristotle’s
ideal play is a play in which there is a plot but no character in the sense that the
fate of the hero is not determined by his own action. In modern drama, or richer
and more varied inner life is opened up to the reader. The sense of passionately is
deepened. Modern dramatists try to explore the hidden recesses of human
abnormal states of feeling but they are unable to rise above the pathological study
of man.

To conclude, it can be said that plot is the first necessity if the drama. It is
primary, while character is the secondary. There can be a tragedy without a
character, but there can be no tragedy without plot.

Q. No.5 Describe nature of imitation as provided in the “Poetics”.

It was not Aristotle who used the term imitation for the first time. It had been
used by Plato in his book “The Republic” but Aristotle gave it to a greater
precision of meaning and a greater comprehension of scope with new dimensions.
According to Plato poetry is like all other imitative arts, imitative appearances and
not the truth. To Plato the idea is the truth or the real reality and the world of
senses that is, what we see and feel is a mere representation of the ideal world.
Poetry by imitating this world of appearances is thus thrice removed from the
truth. So it is the shadow of shadows.

A carpenter who makes a bed, he works on the basis of his idea of a bed. So the
idea of a bed is real what he makes is a copy if that reality. God too created the
world as we see it, on the basis of an idea. So the idea is ‘truth’ according to Plato
and thus it is real. The world we see is a copy.

But Aristotle added new dimensions to the term. He gave it a new significance and
removed the sense of inferiority. According to Aristotle art, however imitates not
merely the appearances of or the external of this world. It deals with the very
essence of things.

According to Aristotle, Poetry achieves idealization by dealing with the essentials

because it discards the accidental and transient. Poetry deals with the universal,
essential and permanent. He says that imitation is not mere slavish coping. It is not
mere representation of the outward appearance. It is the deeper reality or the
very basic elements of human nature. So the poetry is an imitation of the deep
inner feelings and the ideas of man. The poet’s imagination colors his imitation. All
poetry is imitative poetry. Poetry like other forms of art is also a made 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 medium is rhythm and harmony.
Aristotle finds an affinity between poetry and music.
The next part which comes is the object of imitation. The object of poetic
imitation is ‘men in action’. Now ‘men in action’ includes their thoughts, feelings,
motives and emotions. Poetry is an imitation of human like. Action involves the
inward life of man as well not merely the 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 the animals might form only a background to the inward activity
of the soul of man.

Yet another way in which the different arts may differ from one another is their
manner of imitation. Poetry itself is of different types because of the different
manners of imitation involved in different types. Aristotle brought a new
implication to the term ‘imitation’. His concept of imitation made the poetic
process an act of creative vision, through which the poet makes something new out
of real and actual.

Poetic imitation involves a creative faculty, for it implied the transformation of

material into art. Poetry is not mere photographic representation. The poets deal
with the basic essentials of human nature, or the possibilities of human nature.

Poetry is thus very much different from history. Poetry thus becomes more
philosophical than history. Poetry is concerned with the universal not with the
particular.

Aristotle insists upon the law of probability and necessity. There has to be
mutability about the action. Poetry has no place for the irrelevant. Critics have
found Aristotle somewhat inconsistent in his use of the word imitation Aristotle
concept of the tragic character as being better than average. The comic character
as worse than real life, may not be valid for all tragedies and comedies.

To conclude or sum up our discussion we can say that though Aristotle took the
term imitation from Plato yet have he gave the term a wider significance. He
related the change of poetry being a pack of lies.

Q. No.6 Characterization, Ideal Tragic Hero, Concept of Hamartia.

Before discussing the four essentials of characterization and the ideal tragic hero
Aristotle discusses the ideal tragic of reality. According to Aristotle, tragedy
idealizes, it imitates men as better where as comedy caricatures it imitates men as
worse they actually are. Consequently the character in a tragedy is real man and
woman. But they are of better sort. He describes four essential elements of
successful characterization.

1. Goodness
2. Appropriateness

3. Likeness

4. Consistency

The character must be good. A character is good, if his words deal and action
reveal that his purpose is good. In ancient Greece, women were considered as
inferior human beings and slaves were considered as worthless but Aristotle says
that when they are introduced in a tragedy. They must be shown to have some good
in them. Entirely wicked character even assigned with mirror roles; are worst for
tragedy.

“Aristotle favors compels or round character”.

What does Aristotle meant by good? The word good has variously been interpreted
by various critics while some critics have interpreted the word in the sense of
general moral quality revealed in action, more specifically in the choices the
character makes.

In the Greek sense the word goodness implies a number of virtues such as courage,
magnificence, temperature, liberty, friendliness etc. Humphrey says: “Aristotle
good man is not good, unless he desires specific positive good ends and works
towards their attainment.”

Goodness according to the Greek conception does not lay in merely endurance or
humility but it lays in the strength and intensity of the character. It lays in the
greatness of soul, even in physical strength which enables a man to achieve his
ends.

The character must be ‘Appropriate’ which means that they must be true to their
type or status. A woman must be shown as womanly not manly. If the character is
taken from know or popular myth or story as the story of king Oedipus. He must be
true to tradition.

It is said that Aristotle lays down the principles that the character should be
“true to type” that they must have the characteristics peculiar to their age,
profession, sex, social rank or status.

“They must be true and appropriate representatives of the class or group to

which they belong”.

The third essential element of successful characterization is that character must

have likeness that is they must be like us ‘true to life’. Therefore “The character
must be of an intermediate sort, mixtures of good and evil, virtues and
weaknesses like us.”

The character must be ‘consistent’. They must be true to their own natures and
their actions must be consistent. He says that a character should act as we may
logically expect. A man of his nature is to act under the given circumstances. The
incidents must be casually connected with each other. They must be logically
interlinked with his earlier actions.

In short, there is uniformity in behavior unless there is a proper motivation for any
deviation, any change or development in character to take place.

The Ideal Tragic Hero:

No passage in the poetics with the exception of the catharsis phrase has
attracted. So great ideal of critical attention as his concept of an ideal tragic hero
is the function of a tragedy is to arouse the emotions of pity and fear in the
spectators.

Aristotle deduces the qualities of his hero from this essential function. An ideal
tragic hero must be good, but not too good or perfect for the fall of a perfectly
good man from prosperity to adversity, would be odious and repellent for the
spectators. On the other hand Drama requires for its effectiveness a militant and
combative hero.

Elizabethan tragedy has Macbeth that can serve as proper tragic heroes and their
fall can arouse the specific tragic emotions of pity.

“Provided a person has some redeeming quality – courage, intellect, beauty,

with, passionate”.

The down fall of hero must be by his mistake or some error of judgment. In this
regard, the Greek word used here is “hamartia”. The root meaning of hamartia is
“missing the mark”. So the tragic hero falls not because of some vice or depravity
but because of “miscalculation” on his part. Hamartia is not a moral failing but
unfortunately it has been translated rather loosely as “tragic flaw”. An ideal
tragic hero must enjoy great reputation and prosperity. Modern drama has
demonstrated that even a common individual can serve as a tragic hero.

On the whole we can conclude that Aristotle’s concept of tragic hero is not
unacceptable. Tragedy is even possible with saints. However the chief limitation of
Aristotle’s concept is that it is based on only one section of world drama i.e. Greek
drama.