Plato's Mimesis and Aristotle's Defence
Plato's Mimesis and Aristotle's Defence
Plato's Mimesis and Aristotle's Defence
EDUCATIONAL BLOG
FRIDAY, JULY 26, 2013
In his theory of Mimesis, Plato says that all art is mimetic by nature; art is an
imitation of life. He believed that ‘idea’ is the ultimate reality. Art imitates idea
and so it is imitation of reality. He gives an example of a carpenter and a chair.
The idea of ‘chair’ first came in the mind of carpenter. He gave physical shape to
his idea out of wood and created a chair. The painter imitated the chair of the
carpenter in his picture of chair. Thus, painter’s chair is twice removed from
reality. Hence, he believed that art is twice removed from reality. He gives first
importance to philosophy as philosophy deals with the ideas whereas poetry
deals with illusion – things which are twice removed from reality. So to Plato,
philosophy is superior to poetry. Plato rejected poetry as it is mimetic in nature
on the moral and philosophical grounds. On the contrary, Aristotle advocated
poetry as it is mimetic in nature. According to him, poetry is an imitation of an
action and his tool of enquiry is neither philosophical nor moral. He examines
poetry as a piece of art and not as a book of preaching or teaching.
Aristotle replied to the charges made by his Guru Plato against poetry in
particular and art in general. He replied to them one by one in his defence of
poetry.
1. Plato says that art being the imitation of the actual is removed from the Truth. It
only gives the likeness of a thing in concrete, and the likeness is always less than
real. But Plato fails to explain that art also gives something more which is absent
in the actual. The artist does not simply reflect the real in the manner of a mirror.
Art cannot be slavish imitation of reality. Literature is not the exact reproduction
of life in all its totality. It is the representation of selected events and characters
necessary in a coherent action for the realization of the artist’s purpose. He even
exalts, idealizes and imaginatively recreates a world which has its own meaning
and beauty. These elements, present in art, are absent in the raw and rough real.
While a poet creates something less than reality he at the same time creates
something more as well. He puts an idea of the reality which he perceives in an
object. This ‘more’, this intuition and perception, is the aim of the artist. Artistic
creation cannot be fairly criticized on the ground that it is not the creation in
concrete terms of things and beings. Thus considered, it does not take us away
from the Truth but leads us to the essential reality of life.
2. Plato again says that art is bad because it does not inspire virtue, does not teach
morality. But is teaching the function of art? Is it the aim of the artist? The
function of art is to provide aesthetic delight, communicate experience, express
emotions and represent life. It should never be confused with the function of
ethics which is simply to teach morality. If an artist succeeds in pleasing us in the
aesthetic sense, he is a good artist. If he fails in doing so, he is a bad artist. There
is no other criterion to judge his worth. R.A.Scott -James observes: “Morality
teaches. Art does not attempt to teach. It merely asserts it is thus or thus that life
is perceived to be. That is my bit of reality, says the artist. Take it or leave it –
draw any lessons you like from it – that is my account of things as they are – if it
has any value to you as evidence of teaching, use it, but that is not my business: I
have given you my rendering, my account, my vision, my dream, my illusion – call
it what you will. If there is any lesson in it, it is yours to draw, not mine to
preach.” Similarly, Plato’s charges on needless lamentations and ecstasies at the
imaginary events of sorrow and happiness encourage the weaker part of the soul
and numb the faculty of reason. These charges are defended by Aristotle in his
Theory ofCatharsis. David Daiches summarizes Aristotle’s views in reply to Plato’s
charges in brief: “Tragedy (Art) gives new knowledge, yields aesthetic satisfaction
and produces a better state of mind.”
3. Plato judges poetry now from the educational standpoint, now from the
philosophical one and then from the ethical one. But he does not care to consider
it from its own unique standpoint. He does not define its aims. He forgets that
everything should be judged in terms of its own aims and objectives, its own
criteria of merit and demerit. We cannot fairly maintain that music is bad because
it does not paint, or that painting is bad because it does not sing. Similarly, we
cannot say that poetry is bad because it does not teach philosophy or ethics. If
poetry, philosophy and ethics had identical function, how could they be different
subjects? To denounce poetry because it is not philosophy or ideal is clearly
absurd.
2. True to type
3. True to life
The tragic hero having all the characteristics mentioned above, has, in addition, a
few more attributes. In this context Aristotle begins by the following
observation,
● A good man – coming to bad end. (Its shocking and disturbs faith)
● A bad man – coming to good end. (neither moving, nor moral)
● A bad man – coming to bad end. (moral, but not moving)
● A rather good man – coming to bad end. (an ideal situation)
Aristotle disqualifies two types of characters – purely virtuous and thoroughly
bad. There remains but one kind of character, who can best satisfy this
requirement – ‘A man who is not eminently good and just yet whose misfortune is
not brought by vice or depravity but by some error of frailty’. Thus the ideal
Tragic Hero must be an intermediate kind of a person- neither too virtuous nor
too wicked. His misfortune excites pity because it is out of all proportion to his
error of judgement, and his over all goodness excites fear for his doom. Thus, he
is a man with the following attributes: He should be a man of mixed character,
neither blameless nor absolutely depraved. His misfortune should follow from
some error or flaw of character; short of moral taint. He must fall from height of
prosperity and glory. The protagonist should be renowned and prosperous, so
that his change of fortune can be from good to bad. The fall of such a man of
eminence affects entire state/nation. This change occurs not as the result of vice,
but of some great error or frailty in a character. Such a plot is most likely to
generate pity and fear in the audience. The ideal tragic hero should be an
intermediate kind of a person, a man not preeminently virtuous and just yet
whose misfortune is brought upon him not by vice or depravity but by some error
of judgement. Let us discuss this error of judgement in following point.
2. The unity of time: the action in a play should not exceed the single revolution of
the sun.
3. The unity of place: a play should cover a single physical space and should not
attempt to compress geography, nor should the stage represent more than one
place.
These three principles are called unities, and the Three unities were unity of
action, place and time. Let us understand them.
Unity of Action
The combination of incidents which are the action of the play, should be one –
one story told, which is not to say it has to be about only one person, since
characters are not in the centre of the tragedy, but the action itself is. He is
against the plurality of action because it weakens the tragic effect. Number of
incidents should be connected to each other in such a way that they must be
conducive to one effect.
The Unity of Action limits the supposed action to a single set of incidents which
are related as cause and effect, "having a beginning, middle, and an end." No
scene is to be included that does not advance the plot directly. No subplots, no
characters who do not advance the action.
This unity of action evidently contains a beginning, a middle and an end, where
the beginning is what is “not posterior to another thing,” while the middle needs
to have something happened before, and something to happen after it, but after
the end “there is nothing else.”
The chain of events has to be of such nature as “might have happened,” either
being possible in the sense of probability or necessary because of what forewent.
Anything absurd can only exist outside of the drama, what is included in it must
be believable, which is something achieved not by probability alone, “It is,
moreover, evident from what has been said that it is not the function of the poet
to relate what has happened but what may happen- what is possible according to
the law of probability or necessity.”(Poetics in Critical Theory Since Plato, ed.
Adams. P. 54) Aristotle even recommends things impossible but probable, before
those possible but improbable. What takes place should have nothing irrational
about it, but if this is unavoidable, such events should have taken place outside of
the drama enacted.
Unity of Time
As for the length of the play, Aristotle refers to the magnitude called for, a
grandness indeed, but one which can be easily seen in its entirety – in the aspect
of length, than, one that can easily be remembered. The ideal time which the
fable of a tragedy encompasses is “one period of the sun, or admits but a small
variation from this period.”
The Unity of Time limits the supposed action to the duration, roughly, of a
single day. Aristotle meant that the length of time represented in the play should
be ideally speaking the actual time passing during its presentation. We should
keep in our minds that it is a suggestion i.e. to be tried “as far as possible”; there
is nothing that can be called a rule.
Unity of Place
According to the Unity of Place, the setting of the play should have one place.
Aristotle never mentioned the Unity of Place at all. The doctrine of the three
unities, which has figured so much in literary criticism since the Renaissance,
cannot be laid to his account. He is not the author of it; it was foisted on him by
the Renaissance critics of Italy and France.
Functions of Tragedy
“Tragedy is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete and of a certain
magnitude…through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation of these
emotions.”(Poetics, p. 10)
The above given definition of Aristotle indicates that the function of tragedy is
to arouse ‘pity and fear’ in the spectator for both moral and aesthetic purpose.
One has to remember in this context that he had Plato’s famous charge against
the immoral effects of poetry on people’s minds. Aristotle uses the word in his
definition of tragedy in chapter –VI of Poetics, and there has been much debate
on exactly what he meant. The key sentence is: ‘Tragedy through pity and fear
effects a purgation of such emotions.’ So, in a sense, the tragedy, having aroused
powerful feelings in the spectator, has also a salubrious effect; after the storm
and climax there comes a sense of release from tension, of calm. His theory
of Catharsis consists in the purgation or purification of the excessive emotions of
pity and fear. Witnessing the tragedy and suffering of the protagonist on the
stage, such emotions and feelings of the audience are purged. The purgation of
such emotions and feelings make them relieved, and they emerge as better
human beings than they were. Thus, Aristotle’s theory of Catharsis has moral and
ennobling function.
2. Imitation:- Representation.
http://vijaychavan70.blogspot.com/2013/07/platos-theory-of-mimesis-and-aristotles.html