Plato’s arguments and Aristotle’s answer on Poetry
To understand Aristotle’s message in the Poetics one must know something of Plato’s attitude to
poetry.
One of Aristotle’s aims is to resolve this quarrel between poetry and philosophy. There are three
elements in Plato’s attack: theological, ethical, and metaphysical. Aristotle has a response to each
of them, but he deals with each criticism in a different manner. The metaphysical system of Plato
is rejected outright. Poetry is shown to have a significant role within Aristotle’s own ethical
system. The theological criticism is accepted, but in response tragedy is tacitly secularized.
To understand the vehemence of Plato’s attack on epic poetry one must realize that in the Athens
of his day the works of Homer enjoyed a status comparable to that of the Bible during much of
Christian history. The Iliad and the Odyssey were a principal source of information about the
divine, they contained models for ethical behavior, and they provided a common source of
reference and allusion for the discussion of a wide variety of human interests and values. Plato
combines the fervor of a Luther dethroning a debased theology and a David Friedrich Strauss
demolishing a mythological farrago.
Both Plato and Aristotle in their ethical systems treated at length of the emotions, and they shared
a psychological model in which reasoning and feeling were activities of different parts of the soul,
and the intellectual soul was paramount. The role assigned to the emotions was different in the
two systems, however. In Plato’s virtuous man the expression of emotion would be confined to
the minimum. For Aristotle an important part of virtue was the appropriate amount of feeling:
there could be too little, as well as too much emotion, in a man’s life. In emotion as in action,
Aristotle’s virtuous person aims at a happy mean. Both philosophers emphasize that there is a
close link between poetry and emotion; it is because they have different attitudes to emotion that
they have different attitudes to poetry.
Aristotle did, however, agree with Plato about the importance of universals; only, he denied that
there were any universals separated from individuals. Like Plato, he attached supreme importance
to truths that are universal and necessary: they are the province of philosophy. Like Plato, he
attaches secondary importance to contingent truths about the empirical world. But he disagrees
with Plato about the relative importance of empirical truths and dramatic fictions. Whereas Plato
ranked in descending order the disciplines of philosophy, history, and poetry, Aristotle offers a
different ranking: philosophy, poetry, and history. He does so on the basis that poetry is more
philosophical than history, since it deals with universals rather than particulars.
By rejecting Plato’s Theory of Forms, Aristotle clears the way for his empirical approach, which
emphasizes observation first and abstract reasoning second. Aristotle received his philosophical
education at Plato’s Academy, so it is natural that he would feel obliged to justify at length why
he departs from the doctrines of his teacher. He provides detailed arguments against many of
Plato’s doctrines in almost all of his major works, focusing in particular on the Theory of Forms.
In Aristotle’s view, the Theory of Forms is essentially an assertion of the superiority of universals
over particulars. Plato argues that particular instances of, say, beauty or justice exist only because
they participate in the universal Form of Beauty or Justice. On the contrary, Aristotle argues that
universal concepts of beauty and justice derive from the instances of beauty and justice in this
world. We only arrive at a conception of beauty by observing particular instances of beauty, and
the universal quality of beauty has no existence beyond this conception that we build from
particular instances. By saying that the particulars come first and the universals come after,
Aristotle places emphasis on the importance of observing the details of this world, which stands
as one of the important moments in the development of the scientific method.
Elements of Poetry
Aristotle asserts that all poetry is a form of mimesis—imitation of life—using rhythm, language,
and harmony as its medium. This imitation can represent life as it is, as it is thought to be, or as
it ought to be. Poetry thus serves as both a reflection and a recreation of experience.
• Mimesis (Imitation): Poetry imitates life and human actions, reflecting reality through
artistic representation.
• Plot (Mythos): The structure of the narrative is crucial. Aristotle emphasizes the
importance of a coherent and unified plot that evokes emotions. Aristotle argues that,
among these six, the plot is the most important. The characters serve to advance the
action of the story, not vice versa. The ends we pursue in life, our happiness and our
misery, all take the form of action.
• Character (Ethos): Characters must be believable and relatable, driving the plot forward
and eliciting audience empathy. Aristotle states that characters should be developed
deeply so they appear more lifelike and believable to the
audience. Characterization involves giving a character personality traits, emotions,
motivations, values, and goals that will shape how they view the world and how they act
within it.
By doing this, Aristotle argues, audiences can relate and empathize with a character on an
emotional level which is essential for any story to be engaging. This is especially key
when working with arguably unlikeable characters and anti-hero characters.
According to Aristotle, characters also need to be consistent throughout the narrative in
order to give a sense of continuity and understanding of a character's decisions and
actions.
• Thought (Dianoia): This refers to the themes and messages conveyed through the poetry,
including moral and philosophical insights. Thought-provoking ideas refer to concepts
presented in the story that challenge an audience's assumptions about the world by
prompting them to think more deeply about what they are reading.
In essence, these ideas provoke readers to consider different perspectives and reflect on
their own beliefs. Another way to understand Aristotle's concept of thought is what called
"theme."
• Diction and style (Lexis): The choice of words and language style is vital for conveying
tone and enhancing the emotional impact. Aristotle suggests that a writer should use simple,
straightforward language that is appropriate for the tone and atmosphere of the story. He
also argues that metaphors and other literary devices can be used to enhance the value of a
work.
• Melody (Melos): In the context of tragedy, the musical elements contribute to the overall
experience, enhancing the emotional resonance.
• Spectacle (Opsis): While less important than other elements, the visual aspects of a
performance can influence the audience's perception.
The first essential to creating a good tragedy is that it should maintain unity of plot. This means
that the plot must move from beginning to end according to a tightly organized sequence of
necessary or probable events. The beginning should not necessarily follow from any earlier
events, and the end should tie up all loose ends and not produce any necessary consequences.
The plot can also be enhanced by an intelligent use of peripeteia, or reversal, and anagnorisis,
or recognition. These elements work best when they are made an integral part of the plot.
A plot should consist of a hero going from happiness to misery. The hero should be portrayed
consistently and in a good light, though the poet should also remain true to what we know of the
character. The misery should be the result of some hamartia, or error, on the part of the hero. A
tragic plot must always involve some sort of tragic deed, which can be done or left undone, and
this deed can be approached either with full knowledge or in ignorance.
Aristotle discusses thought and diction and then moves on to address epic poetry. Epic poetry is
similar to tragedy in many ways, though it is generally longer, more fantastic, and deals with a
greater scope of action. After addressing some problems of criticism, Aristotle argues that
tragedy is superior to epic poetry.
Peripeteia or Anagnorisis
Aristotle introduces the concepts of peripeteia (reversal of fortune) and anagnorisis (discovery
or recognition) in his discussion of simple and complex plots. All plots lead from beginning to
end in a probable or necessary sequence of events, but a simple plot does so
without peripeteia or anagnorisis while a complex plot may have one or both of these elements.
The peripeteia or anagnorisis of a complex plot should themselves be necessary or probable
consequences of what came before so that they are a part of the plot and not unnecessary add-
ons.
• Peripeteia is the reversal from one state of affairs to its opposite. Some element in the plot
effects a reversal, so that the hero who thought he was in good shape suddenly finds that
all is lost, or vice versa.
• Anagnorisis is a change from ignorance to knowledge. This discovery will bring love and
happiness to characters who learn of good fortune, and hatred and misery to those who
discover unhappy truths. The best kind of anagnorisis accompanies peripeteia.
That is, a reversal of fortune effects a discovery or vice versa. For instance, Oedipus'
discovery of who his mother is effects a reversal of fortune from proud king to horrible
disgrace. Aristotle suggests that anagnorisis is possible by a number of other means as
well, but it is most intimately connected to the plot when it accompanies peripeteia. The
two together will help to arouse pity and fear and will also help to draw the play to its
conclusion.
Six different kinds of anagnorisis
• First, there is recognition by means of signs or marks, such as when Odysseus' nurse
recognizes him by virtue of a characteristic scar. Aristotle considers this the least artistic
kind of anagnorisis, usually reflecting a lack of imagination on the part of the poet.
• Second, also distasteful to Aristotle, is a recognition contrived by the author. In such a case,
the poet is unable to fit the anagnorisis into the logical sequence of the plot, and so it seems
extraneous
• Third is recognition prompted by memory. A disguised character may be prompted to weep
or otherwise betray himself when presented with some memory from the past.
• Fourth, the second-best kind of anagnorisis, is recognition through deductive reasoning,
where the anagnorisis is the only reasonable conclusion of an agent's thought.
• Fifth, there is recognition through faulty reasoning on the part of a disguised character.
The disguised character might unmask himself by exhibiting knowledge that only he could
know.
• Sixth, the best kind of anagnorisis, is the kind of recognition that is naturally a part of the
logical sequence of events in the play, such as we find in Oedipus Rex.
Aristotle distinguishes four ways metaphor can be used
1. The genus to species relationship, where a more general term is used instead of a specific term.
Aristotle uses the example of "Here stands my ship," where "stand" is a more general way of
saying "is anchored."
2. The species to genus relationship, where a more specific term is used in place of a general term.
Aristotle's example is "Truly ten thousand good deeds had Ulysses wrought," where "ten
thousand" is a specific term representing the more general "a large number."
3. The species-to-species relationship, where one specific term replaces another.
4. Metaphor from analogy, which consists of substitutions between "x is to y"-type relationships.
For instance, old age is to life as evening is to day, so we can speak metaphorically about the "old
age of the day" or the "evening of life."
The tragic hero and four requirements
• First, the hero must be good. The character of the hero denotes the hero's moral purpose in
the play, and a good character will have a good moral purpose.
• Second, the good qualities of the hero must be appropriate to the character. For instance,
warlike qualities can be good, but they would be inappropriate in a woman.
• Third, the hero must be realistic. In other words, if he is drawn from myth, he should be a
reasonable semblance of the character portrayed in myths.
• Fourth, the hero must be consistent (by which Aristotle means the hero must be written
consistently, not that the hero must behave consistently).
• He accepts that some characters are inconsistent but that they should be written so as to be
consistent in their inconsistency. Like the plot itself, the behavior of the characters should
be seen as necessary or probable, in accordance with the internal logic of their personality.
Like the plot itself, the behavior of the characters should be seen as necessary or probable, in
accordance with the internal logic of their personality. Thus, a character may behave
inconsistently so long as we can perceive this inconsistency as stemming from a personality
that is internally consistent.
Differences between tragedy and epic poetry
• First, tragedy is told in a dramatic, rather than narrative, form, and employs several
different kinds of verse while epic poetry employs only one.
• Second, the action of a tragedy is usually confined to a single day, and so the tragedy itself
is usually much shorter than an epic poem.
• Third, while tragedy has all the elements that are characteristic of epic poetry, it also has
some additional elements that are unique to it alone.
• First, epic poetry must maintain the unity of plot. In this it is allied with tragedy against
history. History tells us all that happened during a certain time period or to certain
people, and as such it is often somewhat disconnected. Epic poetry should focus on one
particular story that remains an organic whole. Homer is an excellent example of such an
epic poet, as he tells a particular, connected story in the Iliad rather than trying to narrate
everything that happened during the Trojan War.
• Second, epic poetry must share many of the elements of tragedy. Like tragedy, it should
be either simple or complex, and it should deal primarily either with a character or with
suffering. Aside from spectacle and melody, the six parts of tragedy are all present in epic
poetry, and epic poetry can also feature peripeteia and anagnorisis.
• There are also two notable dissimilarities between epic poetry and tragedy. The first is
the length: an epic poem can reasonably last as long as a whole series of tragedies,
provided it can be presented in one hearing. The plot of an epic poem can be far more
expansive because it is not limited by the stage. Epic poetry can jump back and forth
between events happening at the same time in different places in a way that would be
impossible on stage. Second, epic poetry should be narrated in heroic meter, while
tragedy is normally spoken in iambic meter.
• Aristotle is clearly an admirer of Homer's, as almost all his examples of good epic poetry
are drawn from Homer. He praises Homer for reducing his own voice in the narrative and
letting the actions and the characters tell the story themselves. He uses Homer to show
how epic poetry can recount exaggerated events in a believable manner. A tragedy could
never get away with such marvels, since they are less credible when we see them
performed. Having said this, he remarks that no plot should ever hinge on improbable
events but praises Homer for managing through his art to make this flaw in
the Odyssey seem insignificant. He also praises Homer as a master of using paralogisms
(conclusions resulting from faulty or illogical arguments) to make lies seem believable.
• Aristotle cautions against an overenthusiastic use of elaborate diction. While it is pleasing
when there is no action to recount, and no character or thought to reveal, ornate diction
can often obscure these more important elements when they are found together.
