Name : Vishva Gajjar
Roll No. : 45
Stream : M.A.
Main Subject : English
Semester : 1
Paper no. 3 – Literary Criticism
Assignment topic : Discuss the Plato’s
Objections to
Poetry and Aristotatle’s Defense to Poetry.
Mentor : Dr. Dilip P. Barad Sir
Department of English
Bhavnagar University
Batch : 2018-2020
Introduction:
-
Here,
we will discuss the objection of Plato to poetry and defence of Aristotle to
poetry. The debate is quite logical. Let’s have a glance upon it.
Plato’s
Objection to Poetry: -
Philosophy
is better than poetry because philosopher deals with idea/truth, whereas poet
deals with what appears to him / illusion. He believed that truth of philosophy
was more important than the pleasure of poetry.
Plato was the most
distinguished disciple of Socrates. The 4th BC to which he belonged
was as age of inquiry and such Plato’s chief interest was Philosophical investigation
which from the subject of his great works in form of Dialogue. He was not a
professed critic of Literature and his critical observations are not found in
any single book.
He was the First Systemic
Critic who inquired into the nature of imaginative literature and put forward
theories which are both illuminating and dialogues are full of his gifted
dramatic quality. His Dialogues are the classic works of the world literature
having dramatic, lyrical and fictional elements.
According to Plato all
arts are imitative or mimetic in nature. He wrote in The Republic that ‘ideas
are the ultimate reality’. Things are conceived as ideas before they take
practical shapes. So, idea is original and the thing is copy of that idea. Carpenter’s
chair is the result of the idea of chair in his mind. Thus, chair is once
removed from reality. But painter’s chair is imitation of carpenter’s chair. So,
it is twice removed from reality. Thus artist/poet take man away from reality
rather than towards it. Thus, artist deals in illusion.
Plato’s three main
objections to poetry are that poetry is not ethical, philosophical and
pragmatic, in other words. He objected to poetry from the point of view of
Education, from Philosophical point of view and from moral point of view.
According to Plato,
poetry is not ethical because it promotes undesirable passions, it is not
philosophical and does not provides true
knowledge, and it is not pragmatic because it is inferior to the practical arts
and therefore has no educational value. Plato then makes a challenge to poets
to defend themselves against his criticism. Ironically it was Plato’s most
famous student, Aristotle, who was the first theorist to defend literature and
poetry in his writing Poetics.
Plato felt that poetry,
like all forms of art, appeals to the inferior part of the soul, the
irrational, emotional cowardly part. The reader of poetry is seduced into
feeling undesirable emotions. To Plato, an appreciation of poetry is
incompatible with an appreciation of reason, justice and the search for truth.
He suggests that poetry causes needless lamentation and ecstasies at the
imaginary events of sorrow and happiness.
To him Drama is the most
dangerous form of literature because the author is imitating things that he /
she does not understand. Plato seemingly feels that no words are strong enough
to condemn drama.
Plato is, above all, a
moralist. Plato’s question in Book 10 is the intellectual status of literature.
He states that, the good poet cannot compose well unless he knows his subject,
and he who does not have this knowledge can never be a poet. His point is that
in order to copy or imitate correctly, one must have knowledge of the original.
Plato says that imitation is twice removed from the truth. Stories that are
untrue have, no value, as no untrue story should be told in the city. He states
that nothing can be learned from imitative poetry.
Plato’s commentary on
poetry in Republic is overwhelming negative. Plato’s main concern about poetry
is that children’s minds are too impressionable to be reading false tales and
misrepresentation of the truth. He is essentially saying that children cannot
tell the difference between fiction and reality and this compromises their
ability to discern right from wrong. Plato reasons that literature that
portrays the gods as behaving in immoral ways should be kept away from
children, so that they will not be influence to act the same way.
Another objection is that
it is often viewed as portraying either male dominance or female exploitation.
Plato does not views may be deemed narrow-minded by today’s society, but one
must remember that Plato lived over 2000 years ago. He probably wrote Republic
with the best intentions for the people of his time. While his views on censorship
and poetry may even seem outlandish today, Plato’s goal was to state what he
judged to be the guidelines for a better human existence.
1. Plato’s objection to Poetry from the
point of view of Education :
·
In
the ‘The Republic’ Book 2- He condemns poetry as fostering evil habits and
vices in children. Homer’s epics were part of studies. Heroes of epics were not
example of sound or ideal morality. They were lusty, cunning and cruel – war
mongers. Even Gods were no better. Thus, he objected on the ground that poetry
does not cultivate good habits among children.
2. Objection from Philosophical point of
view:
·
According
to Plato, Philosophy is far better than the poetry because Philosophy deals
with ‘idea’ and Poetry is twice removed from ‘Original Idea’.
·
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.”
3. Objection from the moral point of
view:
·
Plato
verdicts that, “Poetry waters and nourishes the baser impulses of men emotional,
sentimental and sorrowful.
·
“Soul
of man has higher principles of reason (which is the essence of its being) as
well as lower constituted of baser impulses and emotions. Whatever encourages
and strengthens and the rational principal is good, and emotional is bad.” – In
his same book – ‘Republic.’
These are Plato’s
principles charges on poetry and objection to it. Before we pass on any
judgment, we should not forget to keep in view the time in which he lived.
During his time:
1.
Political instability.
2.
Education was in sorry state. Homer was part of studies-
misrepresented.
3.
Women were regarded inferior – slavery.
4.
Best time of Greek literature was over corruption and
degeneration in literature.
5.
Confusion prevailed in all sphere of life-intellect, moral,
political and education.
·
Example: philosophers and thinkers like Socrates were
imprisoned, forced to drink wine and kill him.
·
Now,
let’s move to Aristotle; who defence poetry in very generous way.
Plato
confused the study of ‘aesthetic’ with the study of ‘moral’. Aristotle removed
that confusion and created the study of aesthetics.
Plato
was great poet, a mystic and philosopher. Aristotle- the most distinguished
disciple of Plato was critic, scholar, logician and practical philosopher. The
master was an inspired genius every way greater than the disciple except in
logic, analysis and common sense.
He is
known for his critical treatise: 1) The poetics and 2) The Rhetoric, dealing
with art of poetry and art of speaking.
For
centuries during Roman age in Europe and after renaissance, Aristotle was
honoured as a law-giver and legislator. Even today his critical theories remain
largely relevant, and for this he certainly deserves our admiration and esteem.
But he
was never a law-giver in literature. The poetics is not merely commentary or
judgement on the poetic art. Its conclusion is firmly rooted in the Greek
literature and is actually illustrated form it. He was a codifier; he derived
and discussed the principles of literature as manifest in the plays and poetry
existing in his own day.
His main
concern appears to be tragedy, which in his day was considered to be the most
developed form of poetry. In his observations on the nature and function of
poetry, he has replied the charges of Plato against poetry, wherein he partly
agrees and partly disagrees with his teacher.
The
nature of poetry:
poetic inspiration:
Theory of Inspiration:
·
Aristotle
agrees with Plato in calling the poet an imitator and creative art, imitation.
He imitates one of the three objects – things as they were /are, things as they
are said / thought to be or things as they ought to be. In other words, his
imitation what is past or present, what is commonly believed and what is ideal.
Aristotle believes that there is natural pleasure in imitation which is in-born
instinct in men. It is this pleasure in imitation that enables the child to
learn his earliest lessons in speech and conduct from those around him, because
there is a pleasure in doing so. In grown up child – a poet, there is another
instinct, helping him to make him a poet – the instinct for harmony and rhythm.
·
He
does not agree with his teacher in ‘poet’s imitation is twice removed from
reality and hence unreal/illusion of truth. To Prove his point, he compares
poetry with history. The poet and the historian differ not by their medium, but
the true difference is that the historian relates ‘what has happened? the poet,
what may/ought to have happened? – the ideal. Poetry, therefore, is more
philosophical and higher thing than the history, which expresses the
particular, while poetry tends to express the universal. Therefore, the picture
of poetry please all times.
·
Aristotle
does not agree with Plato in function of poetry to make people weaker and
emotional/too sentimental. For him, Catharsis is ennobling and humble human
being.
·
So
far as moral nature of poetry is concerned, Aristotle believed that the end of
poetry is to please; however, teaching may be given. Such pleasing is superior
to the other pleasure because it teaches civic morality. So, all good
literature gives pleasure which is not divorced from moral lessons.
Conclusion:
-
Plato judge’s poetry now
from the educational standpoint, from the philosophical standpoint and the
ethical one. But he does not care to consider it from its own standpoint. He
does not define its aims. He forgets that everything should be judges in terms
of its own aims and objective its own critic 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 of 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.
Evaluation Link for above Topic
