QURTABA UNIVERSITY

Submitted By:SHOAIB ULLAH

Submitted To : SIR RIAZ AFRIDI
Program : Bs English
SUBJECT : FOUNDATION OF
LITERARY & CRITICISM
Paper : FOUNDATION OF
LITERARY & CRITICISM
ID : 13607
Semester :5 th
Question No # 1: Discuss Aristotle's Concept of
Imitation.
ANS: Aristotle’s Concept of Imitation:
Word imitation has great importance in literature. Aristotle explained meaning
of this word in order to defend poetry which is called Aristotle’s
concept/theory of imitation. Although he was not first to use this word yet he
comes first in redefining its meanings. Word “imitation” was used as a
synonym of copy of copy before Aristotle. Plato used this word for the first
time. He was of the considerable view that poetry was shadow of a shadow,
thus, it was twice away from reality.
It is better to understand meanings of imitation as demonstrated by Plato
before discussing Aristotle’s concept/theory of imitation.
On thing should be remembered that poetry does not mean only the modern
poetry. It nowadays is a genre of literature but in the past, drama, comedy and
epic poem was in poetic form. Furthermore, everything was called poetry and
writers were called poets. Hence, when we (or Aristotle) mentions poets it
should be considered every writers whether he is dramatist, novelist or poet.
Likewise, poetry means whole literature.
Plato was against poetry and poets. He said that the poets used to present a
copy of nature in poetry. He quoted example of a painter and said that a
painter first saw nature and then created its copy on the canvas. Plato was of
the view that the world had been created from an idea; the idea was an
original thing, whereas this world was its copy.

FOR EXAMPLE:
Let’s look at an example to clarify it; when a carpenter builds a chair, he
has an idea in his mind, which can be called a blueprint. When he builds chair,
it is a copy of that idea. Similarly, this world was created from an an idea,
therefore, it was not original but a copy. A poet imitates nature in his poetry
which is already a copy. Hence, he makes copy of a copy. In this way, poetry is
twice away from reality.
Aristotle’s Theory of Imitation:
Aristotle answered Plato and refuted charge against poets. He redefined
meanings of imitation. Regardless of that whole concept of idea and copy
remained the same. In simple words, Aristotle agreed that the world was
created from an idea and the world was its copy. He also agreed that a poet
imitated the reality/nature but meaning of word imitation did not mean mere
copy. He did not consider poetry twice away from reality
Imitation As A Creative Process:
Imitation is a creative process in the eyes of Aristotle. He links poetry with
music instead of painting. He says that poetry is pleasant just like a flute’s
sound that is full of harmony, therefore, it is not right to compare poets with
painters and poetry with painting. A poet, further says Aristotle, does not
present things as they appear but bestows them his imagination. Hence,
poetry is not the process of seeing things and simply converting it to words; a
poet reinvents things with his imagination and experiences.
Aristotle poetics
Thus, poetry is more philosophical, more conducive to understand than
philosophy itself.
There are three modes of imitation in the eyes of
Aristotle.
Tragedy
Comedy
Epic Poetry.
Poetry Presents Men in Action:
In tragedy and poetry, manner of poet is action, whereas in the remaining one,
his manner is narrative. Aristotle’s concept/theory of imitation emphasizes on
“Men in action”. Supernatural elements cannot be shown in dramatic forms on
the stage, therefore, they can be included in epic poetry. Tragedy presents
men better then they are but comedy presents them worse. However, purpose
remains the same that is to imitate things with the power of imagination.
Realistic Poetry:
Aristotle has not mentioned the third form of poetry. Critics raise objection on
it. They say that Aristotle is not aware with the third form i.e. reality. Many
dramatists, in the modern world, are sketching realism but it does not mean
that they have no creative powers. Though reality is being presented yet there
are feelings and emotions in it. Moreover, emotions and feelings can only be
added if the poet/dramatist has a good imaginative powers. A true poet
illustrates the pain and sorrows of life, which are real but it always effects.
CONCLUSION: Aristotle has encouraged the poets to write poetry.
He blows a new soul to the word “imitation”. Plato’s charges against the poets
have successfully been refuted by Aristotle in his book “Poetics”. Aristotle’s
concept/theory of imitation shows the world that it is not mere a procedure of
copying things but a creative process, which requires high imaginative powers.
Hence, it cannot be called duplicating things. It is a process of creating
something astonishing from ordinary things with the help of strong vision. A
poet, hence, through imitation brings things closer to reality instead of taking
them twice away from reality

Question No # 2:Discuss T.S Eliot’s Tradition and

Individual Talent in detail

ANS:Tradition and Individual Talent”

T.S Eliot as a critic

❖ One of the most seminal critics of his time.

❖ His literary criticism can be seen as an expression of his poetic credo.
❖ His critical works may be grouped under:
o theoretical criticism dealing with the principles of literature,
o descriptive and practical criticism dealing with the works of
individual writers and evaluation of their achievements, and
o Theological essays.
“Tradition and the Individual Talent”

❖ A Manifesto of Eliot’s critical creed;

❖ First published in 1922 in Sacred Woods, and was subsequently included
in the Selected Essays (1917-1932)
❖ Forms the basis of all his subsequent criticism.
❖ Divided into three parts
o The first part gives us Eliot’s concept of tradition;
o The second part develops his theory of the impersonality of poetry;
and
o The third part is a conclusion
Redefining the term ‘Tradition’
❖ The word ‘tradition’ generally regarded as a word of censure, disagreeable
to English ears.
❖ The English praise a poet for those aspects of his work in which “he least
resembles anyone else”, i.e.,for his/her individuality
❖ Shows the uncritical English mind; they praise the poet for the wrong thing.
But,
❖ if we approach a poet without this prejudice, we shall often find that not
only the best, but the most individual part of his work may be those in which
the dead poets, his ancestors, assert their immortality most vigorously”
Tradition and How It Can Be Acquired

❖ Tradition is not blind adherence to the ways of the previous generations, not
a slavish imitation of what has already been achieved, as “novelty is better
than repetition.”
❖ For Eliot, Tradition, is a matter of much wider significance.
❖ It cannot be inherited, can only be obtained by hard labour.
❖ It can be obtained only by those who have the historical sense.
Thus the sense of tradition implies . . .

❖ a recognition of the continuity of literature,

❖ a critical judgment as to which of the writers of the past continue to be
significant in the present, and
❖ a knowledge of these significant writers obtained through painstaking effort.

Tradition as a dynamic concept

❖ Tradition or the past is not static; when a “really new” work of art is created
something “happens simultaneously to all the works of art which preceded
it”.
❖ The “ideal order’ among “existing monuments” is “modified by the
introduction of the new work of art among them”
❖ Conformity between the old and the new happens when “the whole existing
order” is, “if ever so slightly, altered” in terms of “the relations, proportions,
values of each work of art toward the whole”
❖ Therefore “the past should be altered by the present as much as the present
is directed by the past”.
❖ The poet is thus judged by “the standards of the past” but not as good or bad,
right or wrong, but will be measured against each other by comparison; this
is conformity or fitting in.

Criticism of Eliot’s conception of tradition

❖ Eliot is aware that his doctrine seems
o To require “a ridiculous amount of erudition (pedantry)”, and
o To deaden or pervert “poetic sensibility”
He replies that .

❖ Knowledge of the past does not mean book knowledge of literature from
Homer to the present;
❖ Some absorb this while others have to sweat for it; “Shakespeare acquired
more essential history from Plutarch than most men could from the whole
British Museum”.
❖ It is a “consciousness of the past” which must be developed throughout the
career of the poet.
Eliot’s critique of Wordsworth’s definition

❖ The particular emotions of a poet may be “simple, or crude, or flat” but the
“emotion in his poetry will be a very complex thing” because of the poetic
mind.
❖ The emotional complexity in the poem is not the same as the “complexity of
the emotions of people who have very complex or unusual emotions in life”.
❖ The poet works up ordinary emotions into poetry and creates “feelings which
are not in actual emotions at all”
❖ Poetry is “a concentration, and a new thing resulting from the concentration,
of a very great number of experiences”, not necessarily relevant or one’s own
❖ This concentration does not happen “consciously or of deliberation”.
❖ Thus there is no ‘emotion’ or ‘recollection’ or ‘tranquillity’ in poetry and
Wordsworth’s definition is “an inexact formula”.
❖ Thus “Poetry is not a turning loose of emotion, but an escape from emotion;
it is not the expression of personality, but an escape from personality”
Conclusion:
❖ “The emotion of art is impersonal.”
❖ The poet cannot reach this impersonality without “surrendering himself
wholly to the work to be done”.
❖ Thus “Honest criticism and sensitive appreciation is directed not upon the
poet but upon the poetry”.

Question No # 3:What is the main concept in "Preface to Lyrical

Ballads" by William Wordsworth?
ANS: Main Idea in “Preface To Lyrical Ballad”

Poetry as the Language of Common People

The Preface to Lyrical Ballads presents Wordsworth's explanation for
the new type of poetry he published in 1798. He continued to revise the
Preface in the hope of gaining a larger reading audience and further
recognition by other writers. He rejects previous conventional approaches to
literature as emotionally barren, overlooking the connection he values
between the thoughts and language of common people and the poet's ability
to transmit the experience at the same accessible level. He speaks of poetry as
existing from the poet as one person to other persons, with minimal or no
intermediary needed. He recognizes some refinement of anything considered
vulgar or offensive would need revising, but otherwise no real barriers need
exist.
As a Romantic, Wordsworth values the humble, rustic ways of
countryfolk, people who he believes have directly experienced the truths of
nature. Their experiences can be transmitted in poetry that includes the same
honesty and directness that he finds in homogenous rural settings. Poems he
creates spring from the overflow of genuine feelings. These lead to reflection
and simple wisdom and then are restated in ordinary language to recreate the
original emotion.
The Preface rejects reliance on standards from the Classical or Enlightenment
eras Pope and Johnson among the British poets he names because they
overlook the lives of common people who speak humble and unadorned
language.
Prose and Poetry:
Devoting much attention to emphasizing the close connection of
poetry with prose, Wordsworth shows little patience for efforts in past eras to
perfect standards for either poetry or prose at the expense of the other. For
him, both share the same purpose: to speak plainly and honestly in language
reflecting the lives of living people and not close themselves off to the other
form. He does not believe in a separation of poetry and prose as two opposed
approaches but instead states repeatedly they come from the same origins and
spirit and should be accessible at equal levels.
Wordsworth places little value on the factual or scientific in
literature. He is far more interested in the emotions arising from an immediate
experience that is later reflected upon, assimilated, and understood. He can
see the significance of scientific inquiry and knowledge, but for speaking the
truths of the lives of his contemporaries, he keeps a distance between
instinctive literature and applied scientific literature.

The Principal Object of his Poetry

❖ to choose incidents and situations from common life.
❖ to relate or describe them.
❖ throughout, as far as was possible in a selection of language really used by
men.
❖ and, at the same time, (A) to throw over them a certain coloring of
imagination, (B) whereby ordinary things should be presented to the mind
in an unusual aspect.
❖ the primary laws of our nature: chiefly, as far as regards the manner in
which we associate ideas in a state of excitement. (spontaneous overflow of
emotion

The Subject of Poetry

❖ he chooses humble life because it’s simple, easy to remember in tranquility,
easier to express, they’re essential through the passions, they’re easily
understood, they’re durable, and it’s not only about man or Nature it’s
between both.

The Language of Poetry:

❖ he will not use terms that are shocking, bad, or dishonorable. He chose
everyday language that’s suitable because:
 ❖ such men hourly communicate with the best objects from which the
best part of language is originally derived.
❖ and because, from their rank in society.
❖ and the sameness and narrow circle of their intercourse.
❖ being less under the influence of social vanity.
❖ they convey their feelings and notions in simple and unelaborated
expressions
According to him a poet is:
❖ there’s no difference between the poet and poetry.
❖ poetry is about the real language of men. a poet is a man speaking to men.
❖ a poet is not nobler than other men.
❖ poets have a more organic and comprehensive soul than other men.
❖ he is more in touch with his own feelings.
❖ he needs little stimulation to experience deep emotions.
❖ he’s able to feel absent pleasures as though they were present.
❖ he rejoices in his own spirit of life and seeks to discover the joy in the world.
❖ has a rich memory that serves his writings.
❖ he can sustain a mood of tranquility and peace.

Question No # 4:What are the six parts every tragedy must

have? Which, according to Aristotle, is the most important?

Ans: Aristotle defines tragedy as "the imitation of an action that is serious

and having magnitude, complete in itself" in the medium of poetic language
and the manner of dramatic presentation which incorporates "incidents
arousing pity and fear, wherewith to accomplish catharsis of such emotions".
An undeniable fact associated with this cathartic effect is that tragic
representation of suffering and terrific defeat leaves an audience, not
depressed, but relieved or even exalted. This distinctive effect on the reader,
"the pleasure of pity and fear", is a basic way to distinguish it from comic and
other forms of dramatic representation. Moreover, Aristotle makes the
pleasure of pity and fear a rule that governs the organization of the tragic plot
and choice of tragic hero and sees that a dramatist's aim should always be how
to achieve this end in his drama.
There are six major components in tragedy according to Aristotle. They
are:

• Plot
• Character
• Thought
• Diction
• Song
• Spectacle

1. Plot:
Aristotle defines plot as the soul of tragedy and emphasizes much on its
unity. He treats it as a unified artistic whole directed toward the intended
effect, that is, pleasure of pity and fear and catharsis of such human emotions.
Being a unified whole, a plot should have a proper beginning, a middle and an
end in which every part supports the whole and none of the parts are non-
functional. And being an imitation of an action, the plot should imitate single
action. The inclusion of a series of actions simply because they happen to a
single character does not make an artistic whole.
In the plot, the events develop through complication to catastrophe. The
"hamartia" or a severe tragic flaw of the protagonist leads to the complication
and a sudden revelation, or "anagnorisis", of this flaw intensifies the
complication and it in turn anticipates the tragic end of the character, or
catastrophe after a sudden reversal in the fortune of the character, that is,
"peripeteia". In this way, the plot moves from hamartia through anagnorisis
and peripetiea to catastrophe. This shows that Aristotle favors the complex
plot as opposed to the simple plot in which reversal of the situation is almost
impossible.

2. Character: It has a secondary place after the plot. By character,

Aristotle means the tragic hero who is always a noble man who in turn is
neither thoroughly good nor thoroughly evil but a mixture of both. He is
 always higher than the ordinary moral worth. If, according to Aristotle, the
character is better-than-we-are, the tragic effect will be stronger. The tragic
and unfortunate end of such a character moves in us pity and fear. He
moves in us to pity because his misfortune is greater than what he actually
deserves from his hamartia. Likewise, he moves us to fear, for we think of
what will happen to our lesser and fallible selves.

3. Thought: It is a way of saying what is appropriate to a given

circumstance or situation. There should be a proper relationship between
thought and situation. For example, a grave situation always expects a
grave thought and vice-versa.

4. Diction: It refers to the expression of meaning in words, or it is a primary

mode of imitating the action. Words are medium of representation, and
bearer of tragic meaning and effect.

5. Song: Song is taken to be chief among the embellishments used in

tragedy. It particularly refers to the song sung by a group of people known
as chorus. Or, in other words, it refers to what is generally known as choric
commentary in tragedy. It includes analysis of the major events of past,
present and what will happen in the future that intensify the dramatic
effects. It narrates the major events that are not shown on stage.

6. Spectacles: It means the scenes used in drama for the sake of

emotional attraction of the audience. It heightens the emotional
significance of an event in the drama. But this is the sole work of a stage
machinist or manager to set the scene as described by the dramatist.
This theory of tragedy later developed through Castlevetro to neo-classical
theorists like Cornellie in 16th and 17th centuries. But where Aristotle is
descriptive in his own right, the neoclassical theorists developed it as a rule of
tragedy with an addition of two other elements to make up three unities of
drama assimilating Aristotle's emphasis upon the unity of action.

THE END