Aristotle proposes to study poetry by analyzing its constitutive parts and
then drawing general conclusions.
Poetics by Aristotle
(Spark)
Summary
Aristotle proposes to study poetry by
analyzing its constitutive parts and then drawing general conclusions. The
portion of the Poetics that survives discusses mainly tragedy and epic
poetry. We know that Aristotle also wrote a treatise on comedy that has been
lost. He defines poetry as the mimetic, or imitative, use of language, rhythm,
and harmony, separately or in combination. Poetry is mimetic in that it creates
a representation of objects and events in the world, unlike philosophy, for
example, which presents ideas. Humans are naturally drawn to imitation, and so
poetry has a strong pull on us. It can also be an excellent learning device,
since we can coolly observe imitations of things like dead bodies and disgusting
animals when the real thing would disturb us.
Aristotle identifies tragedy as the most
refined version of poetry dealing with lofty matters and comedy as the most
refined version of poetry dealing with base matters. He traces a brief and
speculative history of tragedy as it evolved from dithyrambic hymns in praise
of the god Dionysus. Dithyrambs were sung by a large choir, sometimes featuring
a narrator. Aeschylus invented tragedy by bringing a second actor into dialogue
with the narrator. Sophocles innovated further by introducing a third actor,
and gradually tragedy shifted to its contemporary dramatic form.
Aristotle defines tragedy according to
seven characteristics: (1) it is mimetic, (2) it is serious, (3) it tells a
full story of an appropriate length, (4) it contains rhythm and harmony, (5)
rhythm and harmony occur in different combinations in different parts of the
tragedy, (6) it is performed rather than narrated, and (7) it arouses feelings
of pity and fear and then purges these feelings through catharsis. A tragedy
consists of six component parts, which are listed here in order from most
important to least important: plot, character, thought, diction, melody, and
spectacle.
A well-formed plot must have a beginning,
which is not a necessary consequence of any previous action; a middle, which
follows logically from the beginning; and an end, which follows logically from
the middle and from which no further action necessarily follows. The plot should
be unified, meaning that every element of the plot should tie in to the rest of
the plot, leaving no loose ends. This kind of unity allows tragedy to express
universal themes powerfully, which makes it superior to history, which can only
talk about particular events. Episodic plots are bad because there is no
necessity to the sequence of events. The best kind of plot contains surprises,
but surprises that, in retrospect, fit logically into the sequence of events.
The best kinds of surprises are brought about by peripeteia, or reversal
of fortune, and anagnorisis, or discovery. A good plot progresses like a
knot that is tied up with increasingly greater complexity until the moment of peripeteia,
at which point the knot is gradually untied until it reaches a completely
unknotted conclusion.
For a tragedy to arouse pity and fear, we
must observe a hero who is relatively noble going from happiness to misery as a
result of error on the part of the hero. Our pity and fear is aroused most when
it is family members who harm one another rather than enemies or strangers. In
the best kind of plot, one character narrowly avoids killing a family member
unwittingly thanks to an anagnorisis that reveals the family connection.
The hero must have good qualities appropriate to his or her station and should
be portrayed realistically and consistently. Since both the character of the
hero and the plot must have logical consistency, Aristotle concludes that the
untying of the plot must follow as a necessary consequence of the plot and not
from stage artifice, like a deus ex machina (a machine used in some
plays, in which an actor playing one of the gods was lowered onto the stage at
the end).
Aristotle discusses thought and diction
and then moves on to address epic poetry. Whereas tragedy consists of actions
presented in a dramatic form, epic poetry consists of verse presented in a
narrative form. Tragedy and epic poetry have many common qualities, most
notably the unity of plot and similar subject matter. However, epic poetry can
be longer than tragedy, and because it is not performed, it can deal with more
fantastic action with a much wider scope. By contrast, tragedy can be more
focused and takes advantage of the devices of music and spectacle. Epic poetry
and tragedy are also written in different meters. After defending poetry
against charges that it deals with improbable or impossible events, Aristotle
concludes by weighing tragedy against epic poetry and determining that tragedy
is on the whole superior.
Analysis
Aristotle takes a scientific approach to
poetry, which bears as many disadvantages as advantages. He studies poetry as
he would a natural phenomenon, observing and analyzing first, and only
afterward making tentative hypotheses and recommendations. The scientific
approach works best at identifying the objective, lawlike behavior that
underlies the phenomena being observed. To this end, Aristotle draws some
important general conclusions about the nature of poetry and how it achieves
its effects. However, in assuming that there are objective laws underlying
poetry, Aristotle fails to appreciate the ways in which art often progresses
precisely by overturning the assumed laws of a previous generation. If every play
were written in strict accordance with a given set of laws for a long enough
time, a revolutionary playwright would be able to achieve powerful effects by
consciously violating these laws. In point of fact, Euripides, the last of the
three great tragic poets of Ancient Greece, wrote many plays that violated the
logical and structured principles of Aristotle’s Poetics in a conscious
effort to depict a world that he saw as neither logical nor structured.
Aristotle himself gives mixed reviews to Euripides’ troubling plays, but they
are still performed two and a half millennia after they were written.
Aristotle’s concept of mimesis helps him
to explain what is distinctive about our experience of art. Poetry is mimetic,
meaning that it invites us to imagine its subject matter as real while
acknowledging that it is in fact fictional. When Aristotle contrasts poetry
with philosophy, his point is not so much that poetry is mimetic because it
portrays what is real while philosophy is nonmimetic because it portrays only
ideas. Rather, the point is that the ideas discussed in philosophical texts are
as real as any ideas ever are. When we see an actor playing Oedipus, this actor
is clearly a substitute through which we can imagine what a real Oedipus might
be like. When we read Aristotle’s ideas on art, we are in direct contact with
the ideas, and there is nothing more real to imagine. Art presents reality at
one level of remove, allowing us a certain detachment. We do not call the
police when we see Hamlet kill Polonius because we know that we are not seeing
a real event but only two actors imitating real-world possibilities. Because we
are conscious of the mimesis involved in art, we are detached enough that we
can reflect on what we are experiencing and so learn from it. Witnessing a
murder in real life is emotionally scarring. Witnessing a murder on stage gives
us a chance to reflect on the nature and causes of human violence so that we
can lead a more reflective and sensitive life.
Aristotle identifies catharsis as the
distinctive experience of art, though it is not clear whether he means that
catharsis is the purpose of art or simply an effect. The Greek word katharsis
originally means purging or purification and refers also to the induction of
vomiting by a doctor to rid the body of impurities. Aristotle uses the term
metaphorically to refer to the release of the emotions of pity and fear built
up in a dramatic performance. Because dramatic performances end, whereas life
goes on, we can let go of the tension that builds during a dramatic performance
in a way that we often cannot let go of the tension that builds up over the
course of our lives. Because we can let go of it, the emotional intensity of
art deepens us, whereas emotional intensity in life often just hardens us.
However, if this process of catharsis that allows us to experience powerful
emotions and then let them go is the ultimate purpose of art, then art becomes
the equivalent of therapy. If we define catharsis as the purpose of art, we
have failed to define art in a way that explains why it is still necessary in
an era of psychiatry. A more generous reading of Aristotle might interpret
catharsis as a means to a less easily defined end, which involves a deeper
capacity for feeling and compassion, a deeper awareness of what our humanity
consists in.
Aristotle insists on the primacy of plot
because the plot is ultimately what we can learn from in a piece of art. The
word we translate as “plot” is the Greek word muthos, which is the root
for myth. Muthos is a more general term than plot, as it
can apply to any art form, including music or sculpture. The muthos of a
piece of art is its general structure and organization, the form according to
which the themes and ideas in the piece of art make themselves apparent. The
plot of a story, as the term is used in the Poetics, is not the sequence
of events so much as the logical relationships that exist between events. For
Aristotle, the tighter the logical relationships between events, the better the
plot. Oedipus Rex is a powerful tragedy precisely because we can see the
logical inevitability with which the events in the story fall together. The
logical relationships between events in a story help us to perceive logical
relationships between the events in our own lives. In essence, tragedy shows us
patterns in human experience that we can then use to make sense of our own
experience.
No comments:
Post a Comment