Analysis of The Poetics - Chapter 25
Aristotle has given various objections and their solutions regarding criticism. He says that just like a painter or any other artist, a poet is an imitator of life. Now this imitation can be done in one of the three ways either imitating a thing as it is or was or by imitating it as it is said to be or seen to be or by imitating it as it ought to be. The medium of imitation is the language which may include admixture of metaphors, unfamiliar words and other such modifications which are allowed to a poet. One must remember that the faults in a poetry differ from the faults in politics or in any other art. There are two kinds of faults in a poetry - essential and accidental. If a poet presents something incorrectly because of the lack of skills then such a fault will be termed as an essential fault. If a poet presents something incorrectly because of the lack of knowledge in that particular field, for example, a poet presenting a horse throwing forward both of it’s off side legs then such a fault will be termed as an accidental fault. This mistake can arise in any other field also.
The work of a poet should be free of faults. If the poet presents something which is truly impossible then the poet is clearly at fault. However this fault may be justified if it attains the purpose of the poet and makes his work more striking. But if the work could have been made better without the help of the impossible then it remains a significant fault on the part of the poet.
The question which arises is whether the fault committed by the poet has something to do with his essential literary art or it was just a mere accident. The fault is not so big if a poet does not know that a female deer has no horns but the fault becomes big when he presents it as unrecognisable.
If a poet’s description is criticised by being said that it is not how they are then it could be said by the poet that it is as they ought to be. Similar to Sophocles who said that he drew men as they ought to be unlike Euripides who drew them as they were. However if this particular claim of the poet also does not hold good then it could be argued that this was how the things were considered to be by the people. For example, the stories of Gods. No one has seen them but they believe it because it has become a part of tradition. Similarly as in the passage about the arms : ‘Upright upon their butt ends stood the spears.’ This was the custom then, as it now is among the Illyrians.
Whether something that is said or done in a poem is morally good or bad does not depend upon what is said but by whom it is said and to whom it said keeping in mind the occasion, purpose and motive of the thing, whether the thing said or done secured a greater good or averted a greater evil.
Some other critical difficulties may be resolved by the proper usage of language. We may note an unfamiliar word - ‘oureas men proton’. Here by ‘oureas’, Homer means sentinels (soldiers) and not mules. Then again about Dolon, he writes : ‘ill-favoured indeed he was to look upon.’ It was not meant that his body was ill-shaped but his face was ugly; for the Cretans use the word ‘Eveides’ (well formed) in the sense of fair faced. Again, ‘mix the drink livelier’, does not mean ‘mix it stronger’ as for hard drinkers, but ‘mix it quicker’.
Sometimes an expression is metaphorical, as ‘Now all Gods and men were sleeping through the night,’ - while at the same time the poet says : ‘Often indeed as he turned his gaze to the Trojan plain, he marvelled at the sound of flutes and pipes.’ ‘All’ is here used metaphorically for ‘many’, all being a species of many.
Again the difficulties may be because of the accent or breathing. Thus Hippias of Thasos solved the difficulties in the lines, - ‘Didomen de Ombro’ (we grant him his prayer) and in ‘to men hon cataputhetai ombro’ (the wood of which is rotten with rain).
Or again, the question may be solved by punctuation, as in Empedocles, - ‘Of a sudden things became mortal that before had learnt to be immortal, and things unmixed before mixed.’
Or again, by ambiguity of meaning, - as of the night ‘Pleon’ where the word Pleon is ambiguous.
Speaking generally, the impossible in a poem may be justified as per the requirements of the artist. Probable impossibility is better then possible improbability. So the way in which Zeuxis painted his characters may be justified because the ideal must surpass the real even if some impossibility is required.
The contradiction in the language of the poet must be analysed logically to check whether the words which he has used mean the same thing, in the same sense and in the same relation. Only then the poet should be accused of using an inappropriate language.
But improbability and depravity of character are correctly censured where they are not necessary and are not employed properly. Such is the use of improbable by Euripides in introducing Aegeus in the ‘Medea’ and the depravity of Menelaus in ‘Orestes’.
The work of a poet should be free of faults. If the poet presents something which is truly impossible then the poet is clearly at fault. However this fault may be justified if it attains the purpose of the poet and makes his work more striking. But if the work could have been made better without the help of the impossible then it remains a significant fault on the part of the poet.
The question which arises is whether the fault committed by the poet has something to do with his essential literary art or it was just a mere accident. The fault is not so big if a poet does not know that a female deer has no horns but the fault becomes big when he presents it as unrecognisable.
If a poet’s description is criticised by being said that it is not how they are then it could be said by the poet that it is as they ought to be. Similar to Sophocles who said that he drew men as they ought to be unlike Euripides who drew them as they were. However if this particular claim of the poet also does not hold good then it could be argued that this was how the things were considered to be by the people. For example, the stories of Gods. No one has seen them but they believe it because it has become a part of tradition. Similarly as in the passage about the arms : ‘Upright upon their butt ends stood the spears.’ This was the custom then, as it now is among the Illyrians.
Whether something that is said or done in a poem is morally good or bad does not depend upon what is said but by whom it is said and to whom it said keeping in mind the occasion, purpose and motive of the thing, whether the thing said or done secured a greater good or averted a greater evil.
Some other critical difficulties may be resolved by the proper usage of language. We may note an unfamiliar word - ‘oureas men proton’. Here by ‘oureas’, Homer means sentinels (soldiers) and not mules. Then again about Dolon, he writes : ‘ill-favoured indeed he was to look upon.’ It was not meant that his body was ill-shaped but his face was ugly; for the Cretans use the word ‘Eveides’ (well formed) in the sense of fair faced. Again, ‘mix the drink livelier’, does not mean ‘mix it stronger’ as for hard drinkers, but ‘mix it quicker’.
Sometimes an expression is metaphorical, as ‘Now all Gods and men were sleeping through the night,’ - while at the same time the poet says : ‘Often indeed as he turned his gaze to the Trojan plain, he marvelled at the sound of flutes and pipes.’ ‘All’ is here used metaphorically for ‘many’, all being a species of many.
Again the difficulties may be because of the accent or breathing. Thus Hippias of Thasos solved the difficulties in the lines, - ‘Didomen de Ombro’ (we grant him his prayer) and in ‘to men hon cataputhetai ombro’ (the wood of which is rotten with rain).
Or again, the question may be solved by punctuation, as in Empedocles, - ‘Of a sudden things became mortal that before had learnt to be immortal, and things unmixed before mixed.’
Or again, by ambiguity of meaning, - as of the night ‘Pleon’ where the word Pleon is ambiguous.
Speaking generally, the impossible in a poem may be justified as per the requirements of the artist. Probable impossibility is better then possible improbability. So the way in which Zeuxis painted his characters may be justified because the ideal must surpass the real even if some impossibility is required.
The contradiction in the language of the poet must be analysed logically to check whether the words which he has used mean the same thing, in the same sense and in the same relation. Only then the poet should be accused of using an inappropriate language.
But improbability and depravity of character are correctly censured where they are not necessary and are not employed properly. Such is the use of improbable by Euripides in introducing Aegeus in the ‘Medea’ and the depravity of Menelaus in ‘Orestes’.
Comments
Post a Comment