|
Teachers' Resource Web Net Comments on Aristotle's Poetics Al Drake, UCI, Criticism 100A, 1996 Note to web-reader: These notes cover all authors taught in Criticism 100A. The professor chose to stop at the New Criticism since Irvine offers an entire seminar devoted to the criticism that came along after that movement. At the outset, I employed a commentary style meant to draw out the implications of the class study questions. As the course wore on, I adopted the more direct method of providing model responses along with supplementary information. Both the professor and I considered the latter method attractive due to the difficulty of the material. All commentaries below were posted on the course website as soon as I finished them, and they served to facilitate student discussion during group meetings outside of class. Aristotle's Poetics In lieu of the long message about Aristotle that would have been sent this morning had I been divinely inspired, let me ask just a few questions. The first set concerns Plato's Republic: Why does one citizen have to be held to following only one trade or profession? What is the danger in citizens trying to do more than one thing well? Who leads them to think they can? Is the ruling class (or Socrates, for that matter) liable to be charged with trying to do or know too many things, or are they to be exempted from such charges for a legitimate reason? (These questions may help you to connect what Plato says about the individual soul to what he says about the Republic or Commonwealth. It seems that both must be ordered according to the same basic principle or set of assumptions--if you can explain this principle, you can answer the above questions in terms of Plato's mimetic theory and his theory of Forms.) The last two questions concern Aristotle's Poetics. What is the distinction between plot and action? The two are not the same, and the distinction is vital. Also, if you have read Oedipus Rex, what would you say the action is in this tragedy? Remember, you can't just recite the plot (the arrangement of incidents), even if Aristotle says that "plot is the soul of tragedy" and that the mere recitation of a well-constructed plot should stir the hearer to feel pity and fear. Please read intently Chapter VI (Six), which is on Adams pp. 53-54. Perhaps this is a good place to mention Aristotle's notions about causality: Causality is fourfold: 1) First cause--this is the cause associated with the Creator of the universe, the Unmoved Mover. 2) Formal cause--the formal cause consists in the material or matter of which a thing is composed: the silver in a silver chalice, the stone in what will become a statue, and so on. 3) Efficient cause--this cause has to do with the agent or maker, the force that works upon the matter at hand. The artisan must beat the silver into the chalice, for example. So in most instances, the efficient cause is the workman or his labor. (Facio means "I make" or "I do" in Latin.) 4) Final Cause--this cause is identified with the purpose for which the thing is produced. Why, for instance, would someone want to make a bed or a chalice? Presumably because it serves some preestablished purpose. In Aristotle's Greek for the sentence, "The plot, then, is the first principle, and, as it were, the soul of a tragedy" (53D), his word for soul is psyche; but more illuminating for me is an earlier formulation of the same basic idea: "Hence the incidents and the plot are the end of a tragedy; and the end is the chief thing of all" (53C). Significantly, I believe, the Greek word translated as "end" in this sentence is telos, the word I think we can associate with Aristotle's final cause--the purpose for which a thing is made. For those who have a little Greek, the passage in question runs: "Hoste ta pragmata kai ho mythos telos tes tragodias"--(Hence the incidents and the plot are the end, the telos, of the tragedy.) But I think Aristotle implies that even this all-important plot serves a purpose beyond itself. Can you explain? Aristotle's Poetics, Continued (1/27/96) By way of commenting on what was covered during our third meeting, I should like--without doing the work you yourselves must do--to provide some information and pose some questions with respect to the reading questions. We only covered 7 or 8 of them, but that was better than nothing. So here goes. 1. In what three respects may the arts, all modes of imitation, differ one from another? Give an example of one such difference. Here's a good mnemonic tip: the acronym is m.o.m., "mom." 2. From what two instincts "lying deep in our nature" does poetry, according to Aristotle, seem to have sprung"? Well, once you find the instincts involved, so what? What is Aristotle's further point in linking childhood and the adult's response to art, in implying that childhood instincts are satisfied in art? What does such a link say about art's role for adults? What does it say, that is, about the way humans understand themselves and the world around them? By the way, did you know that the primary meaning of the Greek word harmonia is "a fitting together; a joint"? ( Interestingly, it seems that it can also mean "decree: hence, fate," but I wouldn't make much of that for the present.) The Greek term rythmos means, "proportion or symmetry of parts: hence form, shape." It also generally means "proportion, arrangement, order, method." Very mathematical, this rhythm, isn't it? Hmmm . . . . (But of course, we had better not get carried away with orderliness-pushing; the Greeks had their own rock music, you know--Dionysian revelry and "soft Lydian airs." Music seems to have had ritual significance for them. But I don't mean that this fact is significant for the exam.) Finally, it is worthwhile noting that when Aristotle speaks of the two instincts concerned, he is at the same time providing an account of poetry's historical development. 3. Aristotle observes that objects "which in themselves we view with pain we delight to contemplate when reproduced with minute fidelity." How does Aristotle explain this curious delight? This brings up the question of aesthetic distance--a notion that Plato would surely find abhorrent. Could it be that thanks to the distance with which poetry, painting, and the other arts allow us to view actions, art broadens our scope for learning? We can even learn from observing things that would, in vulgar everyday life, cause us pain. Even though Aristotle is still at this point embarking on his formal analysis of art, he at least implies, if I read him correctly, that art has real cognitive and pragmatic value, a valid role in Greek society. Also, what do you make of Aristotle's idea that we take pleasure in an imitation even if we have never seen the original? What is it that we appreciate about the work of art in that case? In what sense, then, can art works be studied in much the same way as the animals that Aristotle himself studied so intently? What does any good scientist want to know about a species of animal when he or she studies it in the field? 4. Of what is comedy an imitation? What is the "ludicrous"? By way of distinction from tragedy and epic, why doesn't anyone identify with the kind of person with whom comic imitation deals? 5. In what way does epic poetry "agree" with tragedy? In what ways do they differ? We know that Aristotle ultimately prefers tragedy to epic, but early in the poetics, he is willing enough to deal with epic as a valid genre from which we can learn something about ourselves and the universe. It seems fair to say that he really has nothing against epic. He isn't trying to banish it from Athens. That says something about Aristotle's interest in formal analysis of different types of art, doesn't it? As always, he is a good observer, careful to build up his sense of the universal by studying the particular "in motion," so to speak. How does an epic work? How does dance work? And so on. At the end of the day, all this inquiry will add up to a big--yet still dynamic--picture with respect to the role of art in Greek society. 6. What are the two tragic emotions? What effect does tragedy have upon these emotions? We really have beaten this dead horse into protoplasm. But it is important. See my previous message, in which I provide a potential answer to this question. But in general, you want to connect the two emotions to what they must effect: catharsis. I like Professor Schell's interpretation of this as "clarification" of pitiful and terrible events. The stirring up of pity and fear, that is, results in the audience's understanding the action of the play better. There are other interpretations of catharsis--Lucas's Oxford Edition of the Poetics contains an English appendix that provides some information on catharsis--Lucas himself seems to incline toward a kind of medical and sacral interpretation of catharsis--he says that early on, the term referred to physicians' use of homeopathic remedies: the "removal or evacuation of morbid substances from the human system." (Did you know that the so-called medieval theory of the humors goes all the way back to the ancient Greek physicians? See my diagrammatic handout on the humors--it is on reserve across from the main library.) Also, Lucas says, the term catharsis referred to the "treatment of emotional disorders by ritual and music." Interesting stuff--just like Joseph Campbell's theory that the Eleusinian mysteries were a product of Greek experiments with certain hallucinogenic mushrooms. Seems you could "turn on, tune in, and drop out" even back then. Enough already--I urge you to turn off, tune out, and--use Professor Schell's excellent and respectable idea that catharsis has to do with the clarification of pitiful and terrible events, with making the play's action intelligible in the midst of strong emotions. 7. What are the six parts every tragedy must have? Which, according to Aristotle, is the most important, indeed the very soul of tragedy? The different parts of a tragedy should all serve the centrality and unity of the action in some way. A play should work organically; all its parts should work together harmoniously. Here are some comments on the six parts, with especial emphasis on what I take to be Aristotle's conception of action: Plot (mythos): Plot, the arrangement of incidents, is the imitation of the action. The poet takes his story or invents it, and then arranges the incidents so as to imitate a unified action. Plot is the soul of tragedy. When Aristotle says a well-constructed plot is the aim of the good tragedian, he probably wants us to consider the matter still further. Yes, the plot is the "end of tragedy"--but why so? Isn't it because plot imitates an action and because this action reveals something universal about humans and the universe in which they live? Plot is so important, in other words, because it is the poet's manner or mode of properly imitating an action. In order to understand why the plot is the soul of tragedy, we need to understand what is so important to Aristotle about action. Aristotle writes, "For tragedy is an imitation, not of men, but of an action and of life, and life consists in action, and its end is a mode of action, not a quality" (53). Aristotle is saying that the end of action is further action. For Aristotle, action--not some static, final state of Being--is really the key to understanding and developing human potential. An action might well be defined as "that process whereby a thing becomes fully what it always was in potential." (As in Prof. Wlecke's example about zinnias, or acorns becoming oak trees--An acorn becomes an oak, but an oak is itself a living, growing thing or being. When it grows up, our particular, physical oak will act in accordance with the type or nature of an oak; it will live within the range of possibilities inherent in any oak tree. When we speak about natures and universals in Aristotle, we should remember that such terms only make sense in his philosophy if we treat them as reflective of this dynamic quality in physical beings. If I read Aristotle rightly, The universal is itself dynamic; it is immanent within, and revealed in, and does not transcend in any Platonic sense, the action or workings of particular beings. The purpose of the oak, so to speak, is to live and grow--and as Aristotle says, life is an action.) If you were to examine, say, The Nicomachean Ethics, you would see this idea about "the end of life being action" applied by Aristotle to political theory. In sum, the term "action" fits within Aristotle's overall view that becoming--not Being in the static sense--is the key to understanding human life and indeed the whole universe. So that's the best I can do in explaining why action is important to Aristotle, and why the dramatist had better be an excellent constructor of plots. Also relevant to Aristotle's statement that plot is the soul [psyche] of tragedy and that "the incidents of the plot are the end [telos] of a tragedy" is the four-fold theory of causality. The first cause refers to the creator of the universe, the unmoved mover; the formal cause to the material upon which the agent works, the matter; the efficient cause is the maker, the force or agent involved; and the final cause, the telos, is the purpose for which the thing is produced. When Ben Jonson's miser, Volpone, says, "Hail the world's soul, and mine," he is saying in Aristotelian terms that gold is the purpose human existence. He may have something there, but let's hope not. Character (ethos): [53D] Ethos, the second-most important part of tragedy, is revealed mainly through action, the end of which, as said above, is further action. The further action takes place within a framework established by the thing's developed being , in accordance with the type of which it is one particular instance or sample. The term first meant "an accustomed place; haunts." It also means "custom, usage, habit; mores; hence disposition, temper, character." [[53B] Aristotle says, "By character I mean that in virtue of which we ascribe certain qualities to the agents." [58AB] The tragedian should portray a character as true to life--i.e. to the type and as consistent. He should "preserve the type and yet ennoble it." [58B] Diction (lexis): [54A] Tone, way of speaking. "The expression of the meaning in words." Thought (dianoia): [53B, 60B] Thought is "required wherever a statement is proved, or, it may be, a general truth enunciated." Dianoia means "intellect; intention; belief, sense or meaning of a thing." It is revealed mainly through logoi, things spoken or written; in demonstrations and generalizations. Since it is revealed by logoi and argumentation, I think it has to do with a person's intellectual capacity and temperament, his "faculty of saying what is possible and pertinent in given circumstances." [53D] Spectacle (opsis): This refers to stage machinery and the like, and perhaps also to the physical appearance of the actors their clothing and masks. [54A, 57B] Spectacle should not be the sole means of arousing pity and fear--the plot (especially reversal and recognition) should do that. Song (melopoiia): This is obvious. 8. Tragedy, according to Aristotle, is essentially an imitation, not of men, but of an action. What characteristics should this action have? How does Aristotle describe a "whole"? What must the poet invent to imitate an action? The plot which imitates the action must fit together as a causal chain--so what does that imply about the action, too? It is worth noting that unity refers to the action, not to the hero. Remember, the tragedian is not imitating men or the multiplicity or disconnected events that befall them; his purpose is to reveal some universal pattern or characteristic for the particular kind of man in question, or perhaps even about all men. 9. What, according to Aristotle, is the proper relationship between "dramatic action" and the "representation of character"? Which is in the service of the other? 10. What are two parts of the plot that are "most powerful" in producing "emotional interest"? When do these two plot elements (define them) achieve their aim best? In what way should they arise from the plot events that have gone before? 11. What is the "true difference" between poetry and history? What does Aristotle mean by the "universal"? Philosophy and politics seem to be the highest disciplines for Aristotle, and poetry comes next, but historians are about as popular with Aristotle as used-car salesmen and lawyers are with us today. Why? Why does the historian's setting down of "mere chronicle" bother Aristotle? (A good question--has the practice of writing history ever been merely what Aristotle claims it was in his day? Of course, we cannot speak strictly about the practice of history in ancient Greece--the modern concepts of history and the practice of it as a separate discipline would not really apply to ancient writers like Thucydides or Xenophon. By the way, did you know that the primary significations of the Greek noun historia are, "a learning by inquiry, a narration of what one has learnt, historical narrative"? 12. What are the two kinds of plot and how are they distinguished? Which one is the best? Why does it fulfill the purpose of tragedy better? 13. What is the distinctive mark of "tragic imitation," and how does this mark influence the poet's selection of the tragic protagonist? I think I have already commented on this question. But one thing is worth bringing up: the word hamartia does not mean anything like Christian sin. Sin implies an act of free will, or more accurately a depraved surrendering and negation of free will, in Augustinian terms. To some extent, it implies a reasonably well-defined set of obligations toward God, obligations which weak, depraved humans fail to meet. The term hamartia, however, refers to an "intellectual error, failure" (Liddell and Scott's Lexicon also uses the term "sin," but that term would apply only to Christianized Greece.) The verb hamartano means, "to miss the mark, to fail of doing or purpose, to go wrong." That is a much broader way to bring the plague to Thebes, wouldn't you say? There will be no "grace abounding to the chief of--mark-missers, purpose-failers, or wrong-goers." In any case, Oedipus' actions cannot be described as sinful; they are intellectually flawed in some way. Well, it's all a complicated affair. 14. What does Aristotle appear to think about the relationship between plot and the "deus ex machina"? This Latin term is an awful translation that refers to a concept not available to Aristotle. In any event, what is Aristotle saying about intrusions of the irrational into tragic action? If irrational and supernatural things cannot be avoided, how should the tragedian deal with them? Also, why is it all right in some cases to include something that is impossible yet probable, and not something that is possible but not probable? 15. What is the advantage that epic has over tragedy and that "conduces to grandeur of effect"? Concentrate on what Aristotle says about the episodic qualities of epic and on what he says it can do with respect to action. By the way, notice that Aristotle, always the good formal critic, uses Homer as an example of a supremely skilled craftsman. His Homer is indeed a skilled artisan, unlike the inspired Homer of Plato. 16. How, finally, does Aristotle argue that tragedy is "superior" to epic? Think of the two genres as something like living things. If you
were to observe two particular creatures of distinct species for
a long time, on what basis might you conclude that one species was
better? What would you be looking for in making such a decision?
|