Walter Pater

 

INTRODUCTION

Walter Horatio Pater flourished in the second half of the nineteenth century. This century was one which saw Arnold advocating, “Art for life’s sake” and Ruskin declaring that ‘morality and didacticism were an inextricable part of art’. However, Pater emphatically opposes the views and says that,

The work of great poets is not to teach lessons or enforce rules or even stimulate noble ends.

He was the pioneer of the Aesthetic movement which made a plea for the creation of beauty for it’s own sake.  It’s motto was ‘Art for art’s sake’. Pater echoed Dryden who believed that ‘ delight is the chief if not the only aim of poetry’. He placed importance on the ability of a work of art to place over its didactic content. He believed that the pleasing effect could be had if proper style is used to convey the sense. He believed that ‘the soul declares itself’ through ‘the shapes and gestures of body.’

HIS VIEWS ON LITERATURE

Pater’s literary criticism is extremely small in bulk. He divides the literature between two groups

·         Imaginative Literature

·         Unimaginative Literature

Pater begins his essay “Style” with the view that there is no essential difference between prose and poetry. The difference exists between imaginative and unimaginative literature. Imaginative literature is pure literature, which can move and captivate our hearts. It is full of aesthetic pleasure where as unimaginative literature such as books on science and theology is the literature of fact.

Since prose and poetry are two branches of imaginative literature, they are concerned with the expression of writer’s sense and vision. Both have no essential differences. Hence, that style is the best style which enables the writer to convey his vision exactly and truthfully.

HIS VIEWS AND CONCEPT OF STYLE

DICTION AND STYLE

To arrive at a great style the first step that a writer should take is to be careful in his selection of words. He should be aware of different shades of meaning the same word has and should use a word keeping this in mind. Pater believed that a prose writer should avoid false ornament and surplus ages.

That is, he should not use two words where  one is enough. Ornaments like figures of speech should be used only when absolutely necessary. For him the essence of art is not selection but rejection. He agrees with Schiller who says that, The artist is known by what he omits.

Pater’s advice to the artist was,

Say what you have to say in the simplest, the most direct and most exact manner possible.

He believed that each word has a sweet smell of its own and the use of every word should be justified.

COMPOSITION AND STYLE

Composition is an essential element of all art. By it Pater means that the sentences should follow logically and naturally.  Each sentence should fit into the other like bricks in a building. The end effect should be aesthetically satisfying. The artist should have an idea of the end in the beginning itself. Then only he can make a compact piece of work and avoid surplusage.

 The basic difference between composition and style is that composition is the mechanical side of writing and it requires mechanical correctness only. It depends on the mind only as it is just the combination of words, sentences and paragraphs. However, style brings into play both the mind and the soul. In style we find the genuine expression of an artist’s personality.

ROLE OF PERSONALITY

Hence the style of the writer greatly depends upon his personality. According to Pater even though a work may have unity of design and correct diction, it may still lack warmth, colour and perfume. This living touch can be provided only by the personality of the writer. By making a good use of his mind, a writer may reach us step by step but by his ‘soul’ or personality he overcomes us.

Pater admires Lamb’s style for his touch of friendship, warmth, love and care and also his deep sympathy for the weak and the oppressed. In the matter of style he considers Lamb next to Shakeshpeare on account of the sincere reflection of his personality in his essays. Lamb’s sympathy and affection bring us into close contact with his soul. And  Peter defining great art says,

 Good art depends upon the mind and great art depends upon the mind and the soul.

 Such art increases our sympathies, enables our mind and takes us near the glory of God.

 

IMPORTANCE OF CLARITY OF THOUGHT

Expression is the main aim of the writer and style is the way in which the artist uses words to express his thoughts. However the question of expressing his thoughts in a nice style arises only when the artist is clear in his thoughts. He should be clear about his subject first and then be worried about his language and style. If things are not clear in his mind then his expression will be  ordinary. The use of ornamental phrases and figures of speech without any clarity of thought is absurd.

CONCLUSION

Thus, Pater’s essay ‘On Style’ is not merely a treatment of qualities of good prose, it is also an explosion of his aesthetic creed and his principles of criticism. In this essay, while discussing diction, form and style, he also discusses the central problems of literary art.

Hence, Walter Pater  was a romantic impressionistic critic who did not judge literature according to rules and principles. He reached to a work of art and enjoyed it through recording his own impression. Therefore according to Pater, style reflects the author’s personality, his mood and mind. He agrees with De Quiency who says that,

Style is an incarnation of thought.

 

 

Wordsworth

 

INTRODUCTION

William Wordsworth is one of the greatest poets of England, one to whom Mathew Arnold assigns a place next only to Shakeshpeare and Milton. He was primarily a poet and not a critic. Wordsworth was dragged into criticism in spite of himself. For neither by temperament nor by training was he qualified to be a critic. As W.J. Owens says,

Wordsworth’s literary criticism springs from his creative writing; it is almost invariable an exposition or a defense of his own poetry.

The chief of his critical papers is the ‘Preface’ to the second edition of the “Lyrical Ballads” dated 1800, which was revised and enlarged in the subsequent edition of 1802 and 1815. The revision and enlargement also include an ‘Appendix’ to the edition of 1802 and an ‘Essay Supplementary’ to the ‘Preface’ to the edition of 1815.  Two years after the publication of ‘Lyrical Ballads’, he felt he ought to write a preface to his anthology as he was attempting to overthrow the neo- classical pattern and began a new mode.

Wordsworth began with a vehement opposition to the existing poetic diction by which he meant the mechanical application of conventions of rhyme and meter that rendered poetry only as grandiose sound without substance. Consequently, the moving power of poetry, was dead, its thought and language reduced to utter triviality and inane phraseology.

HIS VIEWS ON THE THEME OF POETRY

In the beginning, he expresses his views on the theme of poetry. His principle object in these poems he says,

“Was to choose incidents and situations from common life and 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, to throw over them a certain colouring of imagination, whereby ordinary  things should be presented to the mind in an unusual aspect.”

For his choice of humble and rustic life, Wordsworth puts forward these arguments. In humble and rustic life feelings are freely and frankly expressed. In rustic life feelings are more simple, and so are expressed more accurately and forcefully. The manners of the rustics are not sophisticated. They are simple and so more conducive to an understanding of human nature and, In rustic life, human passion are connected with the grand and  noble objects of nature, and so they are more noble and permanent.

Being less under the influence of social vanity, they convey their feelings and notion in simple and unelaborated expressions. Accordingly, such a language, arising out of repeated experience, and regular feelings is a more permanent and more philosophical language. In this way, he sought,to imitate, as far as possible to adopt the very language of men.

HIS VIEWS ON THE LANGUAGE OF POETRY

Regarding the language of poetry he opines that,

There neither is, nor can be, any essential difference between the language of prose and metrical composition.

He believes that there is nothing special about poetry that requires the use of a special language. So Wordsworth intended to use, a selection of language, really used by men.

But such a language was to be purified of all that is vulgar and coarse. He was to use such a selection of language of real men, because the aim of a poet is  to give pleasure and such language without selection will cause disgust. Only such a judicious selection of such a language can give pleasure.

WHAT IS A POET?

Taking up the subject upon general grounds he comes to the question What is a poet? According to him

He is a man, speaking to men, endowed with more lively sensibility, more enthusiasm and tenderness who has a greater knowledge of human nature, and a more comprehensive soul…

The poet communicates not only personally felt emotions, but also emotions which he has not directly experienced. His enthusiasm for life is far greater than that of an ordinary man. A poet, according to Wordsworth, differs from other people only in degree and not in kind.

HIS CONCEPT OF POETIC PLEASURE

Wordsworth gives his concept of poetic pleasure. Poetic pleasure is not a more idle amusement. It is much higher and nobler.

Poetic truth is much higher than the truth of philosophy or history. Philosophy deals with particular illustration of that truth. Poetry gives us both universal truths and illustrates them through particular examples.

From a consideration of the language of poetry Wordsworth is led to a consideration of the poetic art itself. To begin with, he defines good poetry as,

The spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings; it takes its origin from emotion recollected in tranquility…

The definition tells about the poetic process. There are four stages

ž  Observation

ž  Recollection

ž  Contemplation

ž  composition

First of all, the poet observes certain objects, or situations, or phenomena of nature, which excite in him certain emotions. He does not give poetic expression to these emotions on the spur of the moment, but rather carries them in his heart.

Secondly, he recollects those emotions in the moment of tranquility. At this stage, memory plays a very important part. In tranquility, the impression received by the mind is purged of the non-essential elements, and is qualified by various pleasures.

Thirdly, in contemplation, the interrogation of memory by the poet set up or revives the emotion in mind itself. It is very much like the first emotion, but is purged of all superfluities and constitutes a state of enjoyment. However this does not mean that the creative process is tranquil one. The poet expressly points out that in the process of contemplation tranquility disappears.

The four and the  last stage, is the stage of composition. The poet must convey that overbalance of pleasure; his own state of enjoyment to others and as a result the poetic creation takes shape.

Meter is justified for it is pleasure super- added. He says,

Verse will be read s hundred times where prose is read only once.

CONCLUSION

Wordsworth’s views on poetic diction are contradictory. The question is how with vulgarity of common speech refined by taste and dignity and variety added to it by metaphors and figures, is Wordsworth’s concept of poetic diction in any way different from that against which he protests? His poetic practice repeats the same taste. His greatest poems “Tintern Abbey”, “The Immortality Odd”, The Solitary Reaper” are not written in a selection of language really used by men.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dryden

 

INTRODUCTION

John Dryden was the representative literary luminous star of the Restoration Age. The name of John Dryden, a gentle, modest, unassuming, intelligent person, free from dogmatism and vanity of everykind commands a great respect in the field of literary criticism. Dr. Johnson goes one step ahead and calls him,

“The father of Modern English criticism, as the writer who first taught us to determine upon principles, the merit of composition.”

 

George Watson remarks,

“The first Englishman to attempt any extended descriptive criticism was John Dryden.”

Dryden’s Essay of Dramatic Poesy is one of the earliest examples of descriptive criticism. With the publication of Dryden’s essay in 1668, English criticism attained an individual character. Thomas Arnold put it as,

“The first piece of good, modern English prose on which our literature can pride itself.”

THE DIALOGUE FORM

The Essay begins with a picturesque setting, which represent the four interlocutors. The interlocutors set out to discuss the problems of dramatic poetry. The Essay is written in the form of dialogues. Crites (probably Dryden’s brother-in-law, Sir Robert Howard) speaks for the ancients while Eugenius the Borrowed name for Lord Buckhurt vindicates the moderns. Lisideius(or Sir Charles Sedley) praises the French drama and Neander (Dryden himself)defends English drama.

Through the dialogues among the above four friends Dryden discusses the ancient drama, the Elizabethan drama and Restoration drama.  In his address “To The Reader’ prefixed to the essay Dryden says that his aim was,

“To Vindicate the honor of our English writers from the censure of those who unjustly prefer the French before them.”

 

 

 

THE DEFINITION

After some brief introductory remarks regarding the bad verses, the conversation turns on the comparative merits and demerits of ancient and modern poetry. As a preliminary to the more serious discussion to follow Lisideius defines a play as,

“A just and lively image of human nature, representing its passions and humours, and the changes of fortune to which it is subject, for the delight and instruction of

mankind.”

CRITES’ ARGUMENTS

   His first argument is that the classical drama is superior to all because according to him,

“Those ancients have been faithful imitators and wise observer of that nature which is so torn and ill presented in our plays.”

Secondly he puts forward the extreme classical view that it was the Greeks and the Romans who had discovered and illustrated the immortal rules to which even the modern dramatists have added nothing. So, in this point the classical drama is superior.

  Thirdly according to him, unlike the moderns the ancient observed the three unities with full fidelity. The unity of time restricts the duration of action. Unity of place forbids the change of location or scene, where the event is depicted in the drama considered to have taken place, unity of action implies that one complete plot should dominate the full drama and subordinate incidents, episodes should be avoided.

EUGENIUS’ ARGUMENTS

In response to the arguments of Crites, Eugenius says that it is true that the Moderns have used the advantages of the Ancients but they have illustrated the fundamental rules.  The moderns construct their plays better by dividing them into five acts. As far as plot is concerned according to Euginieus, in the ancient plot,

“Appetites were cloyed with same dish the novelty bring gone, the pleasure vanished.”

And so that one main end of Dramatic poesy, which is to cause delight was of consequence destroyed.

According to Eugenius the ancients failed in the technique of play- writing and also in their moral teaching. They often show vice rewarded and virtue punished. They were strong in scenes of terror, lust, cruelty and revenge but very weak in Pathos. Love that is the most frequent of all the passions was missing in the ancient dramas.

Hence Eugenius tries to establish the superiority of the Moderns over the Ancients. At this Crites remarks that the Moderns have not actually acquired a new perfection in writing, they have only altered the mode of it. He, however admits that if the ancients had lived in later times, they would certainly have made many changes. He says that in the meantime the merits should preserve,

“The dignity of masters and give that honour to their memories.”

The moderation of Crites pleased all the company and thus, put an end to that dispute between the Ancient and Moderns.

LISIDEIUS’ ARGUMENTS

In the beginning Lisideius admits that English plays up to 1625 were better than those of French. But later England had political troubles and so,

“The Muses, who ever follow peace went to plant in another country.”

He says that Classical dramas were the finest achievement of the play writing, the rules come from classical drama, but French Neo- classical drama followed the classical conventions in the best possible way. Thus, classical drama has achieved their maturity in French Neo- classical drama.

He rejects the absurd and unnatural mixture of geners in English tragicomedy in favour of regular French plot. He further says that the mingling of tragic and comic takes away all the unity of impression. So the tone should be either be tragic or comic. In the fourth argument he says that French neo- classical playwright wrote on some well known history with the addition with some fiction. What is fact, teaches and fiction, pleases so, both the functions are performed.

His fifth argument is that French Neo classical writers mastered the art of exposition, which is not achieved by other dramatists. He gives the example of Shakespeare's poor art of exposition in the play like ‘The Tempest’. So, in this base also French Neo-classical dramatists are superior.

He mentions sixth point about the superiority of French Neo- Classical drama. According to him they are very careful about the unity of time and place. Aristotle had given the dictum that the scope of a play was to be restricted to the events of a day. The unity of place should be preserved by not exceeding the compass of the same town or city. This the poets carefully observed.

The next point which Lisideius puts forth in favour of the French drama is the economy of the plot in their plays.  Their plots are simple and clear. There is no multiplicity of action and incident in their plays and therefore there is enough time to represent one passion fully instead of hurrying from one to another as in English plays.

Declaring the superiority of the French drama Lisideius then indicates that in the French dramas, the main focus is on the emotional entanglements of the principle characters or the hero.  All superfluous characters are carefully avoided by French dramatists even then each character, which is present, has a subtle role to play.

The french use narration to describe things that happen, like battle, deaths and scenes of cruelty, that are ridiculous when shown on the stage. The representation of incidents that can not be portrayed as realistic, possible or believable anyway are better omitted.

Finally, Lisideius prefers the rhymed verse of the French dramatists to the blank verse of the English tragedies.  Thus, Lisideius argues in order to establish the superiority of the French Neo- classical drama over the English. His argument is answered by Neander who is Dryden himself.

NEANDER’S ARGUMENTS

Neander is Dryden himself, whose task is to prove superiority of English drama over French Neo- Classical drama. For that he accepts merits of others and faults of English dramatists. He agrees with Lisideius that the French plays are more regular and that the decorum of the stage is maintained by them with mere exactness than the English.

He also admits that the French dramatists avoid such irregularities as are found in the English drama. But then he nullifies the effect of all of Lisideius’s claims and all that he himself had agrees to by one swift stroke. He says that,

“Neither our faults nor their virtues are considerable enough to place them above us.”

Neander , in order to take the argumen to the opposite camp goes back to the commonly agreed definition of a play being a , lively image of Nature He says that the French drama may be regular but its adherence to regularity and formality succeeds only in marrying the liveliness. Unlike the English dramas the French dramas lack life and variety. Hence Neander says that the beauties of the French play are,

The beauties of a statue but not of a man.

He then answers Lisideius’s charge of mingling of tragic and comic is vice. He denies the argument and says that it is not vice nor it affects the unity of tone but adds variety to the play.

 

Moreover, the continuous dose of the tragic would ‘make our spirit too bent’ and hence a dose of comic is needed so that it may freshen the audience for the journey ahead.

Neander also defends the variety and complexity of plots in English drama against the singleness of French plots. He says,

“Variety, if well ordered afford a greater pleasure to the audience.”

By defending English drama against Lisideius’s charge regarding the variety of characters Neander says,

“It is evident that the more the persons are, the greater will be the variety of plot.”

Neander agrees with Lisideus that scenes of death and violence should not be shown on stage but then he says that the temperament of the English is different from the French and hence they seem to enjoy the violent expression of passion.

Coming to the discussion of the validity of the three unities, Neander says that the strict adherence to the three unities often results in absurdities. It affects the plot and many possible artistic beauties have to be sacrificed. He argues that rules are means and not the end. They are the part of craftsmanship, what is more important is the ultimate effect of the play. Moreover the French critic Corneille himself admitted that the unities have cramping effect.

In order to supplement all his arguments with concrete examples Neander gives a general critical estimate of Shakeshpeare, Beaumont, Fletcher and Ben Jonson.

The tribute to Shakespeare is an example of Dryden’s critical acumen and sympathetic understanding. Eulogising  Shakeshpeare, he writes,

“He was the man, who of all moderns and perhaps ancient poets had the largest and most comprehensive soul.”

Commenting on Beaumont and Flecther, Neander says that there was some gaiety in their comedies and pathos in their more sensitive play which generally suit every man’s humour.

Comparing Ben Jonson with Shakespeare, he writes,

“I admire him, (Ben Jonson) but I love Shakespeare.”

This critical estimate reveals Dryden’s comparative method of criticism. Within a short space, he discusses the development of English drama from Shakespeare to Ben Jonson. In the words of R.A. Scott James, “Dryden opens a new field of comparative criticism.”

Thereafter Neander, examines The Salient Women , a play by Jonson in order to prove that even if an English play is judged by those rules which the French so much emphasise upon, it comes off with flying colours.

Thus Neander successfully defends the English drama against the onslaught of Lisideius.

Then the discussion turns to rhyme and Crites attacks rhyme violently by saying that it is unnatural, because it is an artificial form of  expression. According to him Blank Verse, which is nearest prose should be used in drama. On the other hand Neander defends the use of rhyme by saying that rhyme is more effective than Blank verse. Rhyme expresses a thought musically. He further says that  rhyme disciplines the poet and controls his fancy and prevents him from running too freely.

The essay ends in a picturesque fashion. The discussion has been tentative and exploratory. In the words of Donald Daive,

“…conclusions are not reached, or rather too many conclusions are reached.”

CONCLUSION

The real greatness of this founder of descriptive criticism in English is that at a time when literature was cramped with formulas, he found it impossible to write otherwise than freely. It was he who first observed that,

“It is not enough that Aristotle has said so, for Aristotle drew his models of tragedy from Sophocles and Euripides. And if had seen ours, might have changed his mind.”

Dryden drew attention to the higher function of criticism which is the appreciation of literary excellence. He is the true father of English practical criticism.

The ‘Essay of Dramtatic Poesy’ is Dryden’s masterpiece, it is a work which presents Dryden at his critical best as Wimsalt and Brooks, correctly says,

“It is the most ambitiously constructed critical document of his career and most important for general literary theory.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Longinus

 

INTRODUCTION

Longinus, the author of the treatise ‘On The Sublime’ is known as THE FIRST ROMANTIC CRITIC. This is because in his masterpiece, he talks about aesthetic transport and probes the question of sublimity in art. He says that the true aim of literature is to move the reader and to lift them to an emotional transport. He thus, opens new areas for the interpretation of literature.

BACKGROUND

The two chief aims of the poets before Longinus, and even in his times was to instruct and delight.  Their chief goal was to make man wiser and better. But Longinus knew that this alone would not make a great work of art like ILIAD or ODYSSEY. He knew that the epics of Homer, the lyrics of Sappho and Pinder and tragedies of Aeschylus and Sophocles were great because of their sublimity. That is their ability to take the readers on an AESTHETIC TRANSPORT, made them great as he himself asserts,

“For a work of genius does not aim at persuasion but ecstasy or lifting the reader out of himself.”

WHAT IS SUBLIME?

According to Longinus Sublime means eminence of expression which pleases, excites and transports the reader out of themselves to a divine land.  He believed that a great work of art is one which pleases all and pleases every time. Such a work lifts the reader to an exalted world which is formerly unknown to him. According to Longinus,

“Sublimity, flashing forth at the right moment, scatters everything before it like a thunderbolt and at once displays the power of an orator, in all its plentitude.”

HINDRANCES OF SUBLIMITY

•      Turgidity

•      Puerility

•      Cheap display of Passions

Turgidity

According to Longinus, turgidity is unpardonable in tragedy. It means timidity of bombast of language, which is as great an evil as swelling in the body. Certain writers help writing about a passion or a particular emotion in a bombastic language, without having strength and sense in reality.

Puerility

The second vice of the sublime is puerility. This means the use of language is not able to produce the desired effect and creates disinterestedness in the audience.

Cheap Display of Passions

The third vice is the cheap display of passion. That is when the emotions are more than the demand of the audience then they tend to be.

SOURCES OF SUBLIMITY

• GRANDEUR OF THOUGHT
• CAPACITY FOR STRONG EMOTION
• APPROPRIATE USE OF THE FIGURES OF SPEECH.
• NOBILITY OF DICTION

·         DIGNITY OF COMPOSITION

 

NATURAL SOURCES OF SUBLIMITY

•      GRANDEUR OF THOUGHT

•      CAPACITY FOR STRONG EMOTION

GRANDEUR OF THOUGHT

Of all sources of sublimity Longinus places the natural sources that is, the grandeur of thought and capacity for strong emotions at the top.  Commenting on the first source of sublimity, Longinus says that desire for the noble or sublime thought is inborn or natural. But then these thoughts can  not be produced by a person who is mean or servile. Nobility of mind is necessary for producing great literature, Longinus says,

“Their words are full of sublimity whose thoughts are full of majesty.”

Moreover, he also says that one has to study the works of other great writers. Thus, a true artist is noble in thought, well read, sincere to himself and sincere to his ideas.

 

 

CAPACITY FOR STRONG EMOTIONS

The second source of sublimity is the capacity for strong emotions. Longinus believes that only an artist who is intoxicated by passions and imagination can transfer the same passion in his readers. This way he can arouse in them an emotional transport.

TECHNICAL SOURCES OF SUBLIMITY

•      APPROPRIATE USE OF THE FIGURES OF SPEECH.

•      NOBILITY OF DICTION

•      DIGNITY OF COMPOSITION

APPROPRIATE USE OF THE FIGURES OF SPEECH

Longinus knew that the technical sources of sublimity are not mere ornaments. They appeal to our passions and provide us a pleasant surprise. Therefore Longinus calls the appropriate use of the figures of speech as the third source of sublimity. He believes that figures of speech adds grandeur to the work. They should however be used with definite purpose and not artificially imposed. Proper use of the figures of speech appeals to our passions. He says that,

“Art is perfect, when it seems to be nature.”

NOBILITY OF DICTION

Longinus calls correct diction the forth source of sublimity. He believes that suitable words have a moving effect upon the readers and this leads to sublimity. The diction should change as situation and characters change. With proper diction a reader experiences in idea emotionally. He says that the proper use of metaphor contributes a great deal of leading the audience to sublimity.

DIGNITY OF COMPOSITION

Finally Longinus comes to the fifth and final source of sublimity. This is the combination of all the previous sources. It emphasizes on the dignity of composition, that is proper arrangement of words. It combines thought, emotion, figures and words into an organic whole. Such a combination can please, instruct, persuade and also set the reader’s heart on to an emotional transport.

CONCLUSION

Thus, in this way Longinus gives a new direction to Western literary criticism. He makes a happy compromise between the romantic and classical approach. He concludes that the ultimate function of a work of art is to be sublime. Great literature opens new frontiers, new dimensions to the reader and transports them to a divine land.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aristotle

 

INTRODUCTION:

Aristotle, the illustrious disciple of Plato, is according to R. A  Scott James The law giver and absolute monarch to the poets and critics. While Eliot calls him,

“Of universal intelligence displayed an intellect of incredible versatility, Aristotle, an ontological critic, is the worthiest disciple of Plato.”

Aristotle is one of the greatest and most influential philosophers- critics of the world; and his magnum opus, the Poetics is possibly the most famous treatise in Western literary criticism. As Atkins has said,

“The miracle of ‘The Poetics’ is that it contains so much that is of permanence universal interest.”

In this critical book Aristotle cleverly defended poetry from the charges made by Plato He reinterpreted doctrines made by Plato and gave fresh meanings and views on dramatic art. He took tragedy as the most representative form of art. For him tragedy was a grand type of forms of all arts.

HIS OBSERVATIONS ON POETRY:

Aristotle opens The Poetics by defining poetry as Mimesis or Imitation. Aristotle had taken the terms from his teacher Plato.  According to Aristotle imitation is a creative process. In it, the poet draws the material from the phenomenal world. In this way, poet, instead of coping makes something new out of it.

·         IMITATION( The common base of all arts)

In Aristotle views, it is the principle of imitation, which unifies poetry with other fine arts. Imitation is the common base of all arts.

·         IMITATION(Medium and manner)

In the very first chapter of THE POETICS, points out how poetry and other arts differ from one another. He gives the difference considering the medium and manner. Thus, the medium of poet and the painter is different. The poet imitates through language, rhythm and harmony of words while the other imitates through form and colours.

·         Nature and Object of Poetic Imitation:

As regarded to the object of imitation, Aristotle says that the object of poetic imitation is to imitate man in action. The post imitates men not as they are but as they ought to be. According to his theory of imitation.

 Imitation is not a mere photographic representation.

According to Aristotle, imitation means a creation of something , according the idea. He says that an artist imitates because he gets pleasure in imitation. Here Aristotle differs from Plato’s aim of poetry that ‘To teach’. In brief the poet imitates the reality and reconstructs it with his imagination. Therefore imitation is highly necessary for the creation of literary art.

·         SCOPE OF IMITATION:

The object of imitation is the man in action. The action may be internal or external. The poet’s such human experiences emotions and passions are depicted in poetry which can happen in every man. So, the scope of imitation is endless. In this way, Aristotle gives a complete interpretation of the entire nation of imitation and then he comes to tragedy.

THE DEFINITION OF TRAGEDY:

Aristotle’s definition of tragedy in Prof. Butcher’s rendering is as follows:

“Tragedy then is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete and of a certain magnitude, in language embellished with each kind of artistic ornaments, the several kinds being found in separate parts of the play; in the form of action not of narrative, through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation of these emotions.”

According to Aristotle the first most important aspect of a tragedy is imitation. Tragedy imitates ‘actions’. He says,

“Tragedy is not an imitation of persons, that is to say, of what people have in them… but of action and of life and life consists of action.”

The good and serious action include all human actions, or activities like deeds, thoughts and feelings. The action should be serious enough to arouse the emotions of pity and fear.  It should be ‘complete’. That is it should have a beginning, a middle which logically follows the beginning and the middle. The action for the plot of a tragedy should be of a ‘certain magnitude’. By this Aristotle means that it should not be very large or very small. It should be of such a size that it can show the hero passing through certain stages from misfortune to happiness or from happiness to misfortune.

However, the author should keep in mind the limitations of human memory. Aristotle then comments on diction and language of plot. He believes that the language should be artistic and appropriate throughout the play. He places special emphasis on the use of metaphors. Aristotle then reminds us that tragedy is meant to be enacted on stage and hence emphasis should be on action rather than narration.

According to Aristotle, the function of a tragedy is to arouse the emotion of pity and fear, and in this way to affect the ‘Catharsis’ of these emotions. ‘Catharsis’ is on Greek means purgation. Thus the emotions of pity and fear are purged and the audience gains emotional health. So, the purpose of imitation is to bring out the purgation of excess emotions of us.

CONSTITUENT PARTS OF TRAGEDY:

Having examined a complete definition of tragedy, Aristotle shows its formative or constitutional parts, which are as under

•      Plot

•      Character

•      Thought

•      Diction

•      Melody, music, song

•      Spectacle

PLOT:

According to Aristotle, The first essential, the life and soul, so to speak of tragedy, Is plot. He defines it as,  The combination of the incidents or things done in the story. Aristotle says that plot is superior to all other parts. Aristotle insists on the magnitude of the plot. In a good plot the action must be shown convincing and credible. According to Aristotle there are three kinds of plot Episodic, simple and complex. And he considers complex plot as the best for tragedy.

CHARACTER:

As regarding to the character Aristotle lays down on four essential qualities. The character must be good but not thoroughly good or not thoroughly bad. The character must be appropriate to the action and the story of tragedy. The character must have life- likeness. The character must have consistency.

THOUGHT:

Thought is the intellectual want in a tragedy. It is expressed through the speech of character. Tragic dramatists present his views on life through the mouth of tragic character. In this way thought conveys the character’s error and mental development.

DICTION:

According to Aristotle,

It is diction, which distinguishes a good writer from the ordinary writer.

Diction should be embellished and of the higher level, the poet should use artistic ornaments, such as symbols, metaphors, images, and figures of speeches etc. Moreover it should be simple without being cheap and grand without being complex.

SONG AND MELODY:

It is the musical aspect of tragedy. He values ‘spectacle’ very low for which David Daiches points out the reason,

“Because Aristotle is concerned with essential meaning and value of a play not with techniques of getting that meaning and value across to an audience.”

CONCEPT OF TRAGIC HERO:

The emotions of pity and fear is possible only when the tragic hero is an appropriate person. Aristotle says, Pity is occasioned by undeserved misfortune and fear by that of one like ourselves. According to Aristotle, a tragic hero should not be a virtuous man who is lowered from prosperity to bad fortune. He should not be an impious man who is punished for his wickedness. The real tragedy which arouses the emotions of pity and fear in the spectator is possible when the hero is not exceedingly pious. However, the hero should not posses any vice or depravity. He comes to disaster because of some minor fault of his own. This fault is called ‘hamartia’ or ‘tragic flow’.

CONCLUSION:

Therefore, for Aristotle, the father of Western principles of literary criticism the grand type of all arts and imitation is not something which is false and by which the poets cheats us. It is something more than reality and the poet is a creator, not a culprit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plato

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

Plato, the celebrated disciple of Socrates, lived between 427-347 B.C. Plato’s works are the earliest example of literary criticism. His writings began the arguments for and against the merits of poetry. Plato was not a professed critic of literature and his critical observations are not embodied in any single work. His interest was philosophical investigation, which forms the subject of his great work ‘Dialogues’. His utterances on literature which occur during the course of philosophic al discussion in several of his dialogues particularly in ‘Ion’, ‘Cratylus’, ‘Laws’, Philebus’, ‘Republic’ etc. They are no more than scattered references in a bigger context, the profundity of their thoughts makes them a very important contribution, the first of its kind to the art of criticism. Atkins has rightly said,

“In the suggestive and stimulating quality of his writings he remains unsurpassed.”

REASONS FOR PLATO’S OBJECTION AGAINST POETRY:

Plato is the rationalist devoted to the proposition that reason must be followed whatever it leads. Thus the care of Plato’s philosophy, resting upon a foundation of external Ideas or Forms, is a rationalistic ethics.

In his Republic Plato expresses his distrust for poetry. He was primarily concerned to construct an ideal state and ideal citizens who would be a part of this state. In order to create a good society, he makes everything including are subservient to morality. He examines the effect of literature on public life and tries to analyze the role it would play in moulding the life of the citizens of his ideal state. His analysis leads him to the conclusion that the guardians of the Republiic Inspic should send the poets and poetry to permanent exile. He criticized poetry on four grounds.

1.     Poetic Inspiration

2.     It does not deal with reality

3.     It is immoral

4.     The emotional appeal of poetry

 

PLATO’S CHARGES AGAINST POETRY

 

 

POETIC INSPIRATION:

Plato disapproves of poetry because according to him the poet writes not because he has thought over what he has to say but because he is inspired. The Muse suddenly fills him and makes him sing. And such a sudden outpouring of the soul can not be a reliable substitute for truths based on reason. Guided chiefly by the impluse of the moment instead of cool deliberation, like philosophy, it can not be relied upon to make the individual a better citizen and the state a better organization. So Plato says,

“….Hyms to the god, panegyrics on famous men are the only poetry which ought to admitted in our state.”

IT DOES NOT DEAL WITH REALITY

Plato, the philosopher disapproves of poetry because it is based on falsehood. He believes that all arts make an attempt at emulating the ultimate reality. In the ‘Republic’ Plato says that ideas are the ultimate reality. Things are conceived as ideas before they take practical shape as tings. The idea of everything therefore, is its original pattern, and the thing itself its copy. As the copy ever falls short of the original, it is once removed from the reality. Now art- literature, painting, sculpture- reproduces but things, the first in words, the next in color, and the last in stone. So it merely copies a copy, it is twice removed from reality.

Plato gives the theory of mimesis. According to this theory poetry is twice removed from truth.To explain it he gives very famous example of carpenter’s chair. In ‘The Republic’ Plato says that “ideas are the ultimate reality”. Carpenter first gets an idea to make a chair, then he shapes a chair(it is imitation of idea), then a painter draws that chair(it is imitation of imitation), then a poet with his idea writes a poem on the painting.

 

Like the example of carpenter's chair there is another example of mimesis.                                       That first God imagined nature and the universe in his mind(ultimate reality), Then he created it(imitation of an idea), then what a poet does? he writes a poem on nature which becomes imitation of an imitation. According to Plato when such imitation takes place something is lost from original. And then Plato says:

        "The imitator or maker of the image knows nothing of true existence ; he knows appearance only...The imitative art is an inferior who marries an inferior and has inferior offspring."

Plato was not willing to accommodate anything but the ultimate truth in his ideal Republic. So, according to him the production of art take men away from reality rather then towards it.

IT IS IMMORAL:

Plato indicts poetry for its lack of concern with morality. In the treatment of life it  treats both virtue and vice alike, sometimes making the one and sometimes the other triumph indifferently, without regard for moral consideration. It pained Plato to see virtue often coming to grief in the literature, esteemed in his day- the epics of Homer, the narrative verse of Heroid, the odes of Pinder and the tragedies of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides. In his words from the Republic.

“They give us to understand that many evil livers are happy and many righteous men unhappy: and that wrong-doing, if it be undetected, is profitable, while honest dealing is beneficial to one’s neighbour, but damaging to one’s self.”

However he found that poetry showed God to be lustful and revengeful and it painted a hero like Achilles as vengeful and bad tempered. The poets who portrayed the very icons whom the people emulate as degraded and corrupt were not accepted to Plato. Homer and other tragedians and comedians taught immorality and imitated unworthy objects and were therefore not fit to live in his ideal republic.

THE EMOTIONAL APPEAL OF POETRY

Plato’s last charge against poetry arises from its appeal to the emotions. Being a product of inspiration, it affects the emotions rather than reason, the heart rather than the intellectual. Plato illustrates this with reference to the tragic poetry of his age, in which weeping and wailing were indulged to the full to move the hearts of the spectators.

In the Republic he says that,

“If we let our own sense of pity grow strong by feeding upon the grieves of others, it is not easy to restrain it in the case of our own sufferings.”

So Plato believes that poetry makes one weak by placing emphasis on emotions rather than reason. Reason is the best guide as we act with cool and logically when under the influence of reason. According to Plato.

“Poetry feeds and waters the passion instead of drying them up and lets them rule instead of ruling them.”

CONCLUSION:

Atkins has rightly said about Plato,

“It is as a pioneer in literary theory that he figures mainly in the critical development; with him begins the larger and more philosophical criticism which aimed at viewing literature, in relation to life and at arriving , if possible, at the innermost laws of its being.”

 

So, Plato has given us some important startling points which can be listed as follows,

He has shown us that arts are imitative and that the poet imitates life. He told that this imitation gives pleasure.

He made an important contribution by suggesting that the art of a poet or a painter is less than reality. He thereby prepared a ground for Aristotle to prove that it was also something more than reality.

He understood this hidden links between the different forms of art. He understood that all arts are based on life, are mimetic and offer pleasure even though the medium of expression differs.

Plato’s contribution to the critical art, thus, is considerable. Scattered in fragments though it might be, all together read like a systematic tratise on the art of writing. Atkins has correctly gives credit to him by saying

“With him literary theory really begins, he set men thinking…it was in this way he made later criticism possible.”