The value of imitation: a vision of Aristotle's Poetics
Aristotle wrote his Poetics thousands of years before Matthew Arnold's birth. His reasons for composing it were different from Arnold's reasons for using it as an element of his own poetic criticism. We can safely say that Arnold was inclined to use the Poetics as an inspiration for his own poetry, and as a cultural weapon in the fight for artistic and social renewal. Aristotle, by contrast, was more concerned with discovering general truths, and with formalising truths already known intuitively within his own society.
I wish, in this article, to make some observations about the way in which some of the seminal ideas in the Poetics affected one key writer within the English literary tradition. Curiously enough the first thing to be said about Arnold's view of Aristotle is that it is more a Platonic than an Aristotelian view. In short Arnold was primarily, though not merely, an idealist. If, for the sake of clarity we could for the purpose of this analysis call Aristotle a realist, we might be better able to see the proper scope of this account. What we have then is the case of a man who was primarily a scientist and philosopher -- a realist in the best sense of the word, influencing a poet and visionary -- an idealist in the best sense of the word.
I have decided, despite many references in Arnold's work to Aristotelian ideas generally, to concentrate on one piece of work by Arnold; a piece of work where he more specifically refers to Aristotelian ideas of imitation. This is the 1853 Preface to The Poems of Matthew Arnold 1840-1866. I will therefore, where appropriate, compare and contrast this Preface to the Poetics. Such an approach gives us a chance to look at Ari...
... middle of paper ...
... by Ingram Bywater (Oxford 1909).
Aristotle, Aristotle on the Art of Poetry, Introduction and Translation by T. S. Dorsch, in Betty Radice (ed.), Aristotle, Horace, Longinus: Classical Literary Criticism, (London 1978).
M. Arnold, Preface to The Poems of Matthew Arnold 1840-1866, (London 1908) 3-17
M. Arnold, "The Function of Criticism at the Present Time", National Review (November 1864), Rpt. in Matthew Arnold's Essays in Criticism, (London 1964) 9-34
S. Collini, Arnold, Past Masters series, (Oxford 1988).
L. Johnson, "Review of the 1891 Edition of The Poetical Works of Matthew Arnold", Academy (1891) in Carl Dawson (ed.), Matthew Arnold: The Poetry: The Critical Heritage, (London 1973) 386-91.
Plato, The Symposium Translation by Benjamin Jowett as part of The Works of Plato (New York n. d.) in Candace Ward (ed.), Plato: Symposium and Phaedrus (New York 1993).
Everett, Nicholas From The Oxford Companion to Twentieth-century Poetry in English. Ed. Ian Hamiltong. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. Copyright 1994 by Oxford University Press.
West, Grace S., Thomas West. Texts on Socrates: Plato and Aristophanes. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998.
The Romantic period at its height extended over just a bit more than a century, from the latter half of the eighteenth century through to nearly the end of the nineteenth century. During this period, a new school of poetry was forged, and with it, a new moral philosophy. But, as the nineteenth century wound down, the Romantic movement seemed to be proving itself far more dependent on the specific cultural events it spanned than many believed; that is, the movement was beginning to wind down in time with the ebbing of the industrial and urban boom in much the same way that the movement grew out of the initial period of industrial and urban growth. Thus, it would be easy to classify the Romantic movement as inherently tied to its cultural context. The difficulty, then, comes when poets and authors outside of this time period-and indeed in contexts quite different then those of the original Romantic poets-begin to label themselves as Romantics.
Leavis, Q. D. “Hawthorne as Poet.” In Hawthorne – A Collection of Critical Essays, edited by A.N. Kaul. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966.
Smithson, Isaiah. "The Moral View of Aristotle's Poetics." Journal of the History of Ideas 44.1 (1983): 3-17. JSTOR. Web. 4 Dec. 2013. .
Emerson, Ralph Waldo. "The Poet." The Heath Anthology of American Literature, Vol. 1. Third Ed.
Plato and Aristotle are two rhetoricians than had a great impact on the history of rhetoric. Although they were similar in many ways, their use and definition of rhetoric were different. Plato had the more classical approach where he used rhetoric as a means of education to pass down his beliefs and practice of rhetoric to his students. He believed that it should be used to educate the masses, provoking thought, and thereby preserving that knowledge. Plato thought that rhetoric should be used to convey truth, truths already known to the audience, revealed through that dialectic critical thought. Plato also operated on absolute truths, things that are right or wrong, black or white. Aristotle was more modern in that he used rhetoric as a tool of persuasion in the polis. He thought that the main purpose of rhetoric was to persuade, provoking emotions for his audience as a tool of persuasion. Aristotle’s rhetoric was more science based, using enthymemes and syllogism to foster logical thinking. He believed that rhetoric was a means of discovering truth. His rhetoric was highly deliberative since he used it mainly for persuasion. I will discuss their differences in more depth in the following essay.
Bloom, Allan. The Republic of Plato. United States of America: Basic Books. 1991. Print. 24 May, 2014.
Shackford, Martha Hale. "The Poetry of Emily Dickinson." The Atlantic Monthly 3.1 (Jan. 1913): 93-97. Rpt. in Nineteenth-Century Literature Criticism. Ed. Janet Mullane and Robert Thomas Wilson. Vol. 21. Detroit: Gale Research, 1989. Literature Resource Center. Web. 16 May 2014.
Aristotle was said to be the most memorable philosopher in Roman Times. Being in a part of the lower-class, he had more opportunities than the people in his same social class. With these opportunities, Aristotle took full advantage of them and built a life for himself. Throughout his lifetime, he accomplished many things. Aristotle’s findings have proven throughout the many years they have been useful. 1
In the early eighteenth century England witnessed the peak of the tumultuous changes that is presently known as the Age of Enlightenment. Trapped deep within the chaotic changes of politics, religion, art and social mores, Alexander Pope proved a master at exploiting these changes circumstances in order to become an admired poet. (page 558, Wilson)
Wilbur, James B, Harold J. Allen. The Worlds of Plato and Aristotle. American Book Company.
Aristotle defined philosophy as the love of wisdom in logic, ethics, and metaphysics. He classified logic as a tool to get deeper into philosophy and his studies. He thinks of logic as a toolbox for philosophy and that philosophers carry logic with them to do their work, but they don 't consider it part of their work. He also said that logic is the handmaid of philosophy. Aristotle’s followers, the Peripatetics called his works of logic Oranon. He divides philosophy into three different branches which are, Theoretical Philosophy, Practical Philosophical, and Poetic Philosophy. Theoretical Philosophy is physics or natural philosophy, mathematics, and metaphysics. Practical Philosophy is the philosophy of politics and ethics. Poetic Philosophy is the philosophy of aesthetics or theory of art. Aristotle also has his own branch of philosophy with Prior Analytics, Posterior Analytics, and more. Theoretical Philosophy was Aristotle’s favorite because it was the study of animals and nature, he liked to study animal and plant specimens from his travels. Aristotle made a huge contribution to philosophy because of the way he organized it. He was one of the best philosopher in history and without his studies we might not even know about half of the stuff we know
Morris, David B. "Civilized Reading: The Act of Judgment in An Essay on Criticism," in Alexander Pope, edited and with an introduction by Harold Bloom. Modern Critical Reviews. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1986.