Page 1
1Unit -1
POETICS –ARISTOTLE
Unit Structure
1.0Objective s
1.1 Introduction to Classical Criticism
1.2 Introduction to Aristotle
1.3Structure of Poetics
1.4Poetics :An Overview
1.5Aristotle’s Views on Tragedy
1.6Aristotle’s Views on Imitation (Mime sis)
1.7Aristotle’s Views on Catharsis
1.8Aristotle Counters Plato’s Charges
1.9Comparison between Epic and Tragedy
1.10Conclusion
1.11Key Terms
1.12Check Your Progress
1.0 OBJECTIVES
The basic objective of this unitis to familiarize the learner s
with Aristotle’s ideas of poetry, tragedy, epic and imitation. This
chapter also will explain the terms like catharsis andmimesis which
are central to Aristotle’s notion of poetics.
1.1 INTRODUCTION TO CLASSICAL CRITICISM
Literary criticism is a s ancient as literature. In ancient
Greece, scholars studying literature had developed literary
criticism, a branch of study enabling better understanding and
appreciation of literature. The word criticism itself is derived from
the Greek root krinei that means ‘to judge’. The Greek term
originated around the 4thcentury and later in English Literature, the
term criticism was applied to the study and analysis of literature.
The term criticism developed in the 17thcentury Europe and it was
further developed in the 20thcentury with more branches like
literary theory, literary history and literary criticism evolving out of it.munotes.in
Page 2
2Literary criticism has its origin in ancient Greece and Rome.
Contemporary critics still draw heavily on Plato, Aristotle, Horace,
Longinus and Quintilian, to whose writings one can trace the
beginnings of different approaches to literary criticism.
Plato was the first critic to contemplate the role of literature
in society. For Plato, poets had no place in the perfect society.
Aristotle, his disciple, did not have Plato’s anxieties about the
effects of literature on society. He was the first critic to analyse
tragedy in its constituent elements. Horace, the first important
Roman critic, suggests that poet should select a form suitabl et oh i s
material. He says: “The secret of all good writing is sound
judgment.” Longinus, who wrote “On the Sublime” emphasizes the
importance of stylistic mastery, grandeur of thought and powerful
emotion as the elements of sublimity. Quintilian in his Institutio
Oratoria provides a close study of individual works of Greek and
Roman poets.
Classical literary criticism takes its origin from classical
philosophy. It was evolved mostly from the views of Plato and
Aristotle, who made a sustained and systemat ic enquiry into the
nature, elements and forms of art.
Plato and Aristotle were two Greek philosophers who had
made some efforts in describing certain forms of poetry and in
considering their functions. Plato was the first western philosopher
to expound at h e o r yo fA r ta n dh ei n f l u e n c e dm a n yo t h e rt h i n k e r so f
his era. In his famous work, Republic ,P l a t ot r i e st od e f i n ep o e t r y
and comments on its functions. He argues that poet should be
banished from an ideal state on two grounds –metaphysical and
ethical . He says that all art forms are fictional and hence they are
untrue and they twist and distort truth. Plato comments in Republic :
This was the conclusion at which I was seeking to
arrive when I said that painting or drawing, and
imitation in general are engaged upon productions
which are removed from truth, and are also the
companions and friends and associates of a principle
within us which is equally removed from reason, and
that they have no true or healthy aim. (35)
Plato also considers Art as an im itation and he also talks
about the need of all arts to be guided by moral principles.
Aristotle, who developed his interest in Mathematics,
Philosophy, Natural Science and Arts gives his ideas about art and
literature largely in four works –Ethics ,Metaphysics, Rhetoric and
Poetics . Aristotle dismisses Plato’s view that the poet ought to be a
moral instructor and indicates that correctness in poetry is not themunotes.in
Page 3
3same thing as correctness in morals. His Rhetoric and Poetics in
particular provide his concep ts on literary forms, style, imitation and
other critical issues. His works are his lecture notes gathered by his
students and hence they are not properly developed essays. Both
Plato and Aristotle have given World Literature certain ideas and
definitions about the nature of literature, function of literature and
forms of literature.
In classical criticism, the notion of reality is closely
associated with the term Mimesis –a term that also stands for
imitation, representation or the act of resembling. Re ality and the
term Mimesis have been theorized extensively by Plato and
Aristotle. Plato writes about reality in both IonandRepublic .I nIon,
Plato states that poetry is the art of divine madness and hence it is
not directly concerned with reality. He al so maintains that writing
and acting were not sufficient in conveying the truth. In his Book II
ofThe Republic ,Plato warns the readers that they should not
seriously regard poetry as being capable of attaining truth. He
maintains that what is real is rar ely reproduced in Art. He develops
this argument with the notion of three beds. Plato says that one bed
exists as an idea made by God. It represents the ideal reality. The
second bed is made by the carpenter which according to Plato is an
imitation of God’ s idea. The second bed is a copy of reality,
according to Plato. He says that the bed represented in an art form
by an artist becomes a copy of a copy and hence twice removed
from reality. Plato interprets art as a representation of twice
removed truth. He maintains that artists, as imitators, only touch on
a small part of things.
Plato also compares the truth value of the creations of
craftsmen and poets. He argues that poets do not possess the
knowledge of craftsmen and are mere imitators who copy image s
time and again for sheer happiness. Plato also says that poets
never reach the truth the way the superior philosophers do.
Aristotle also has commented on reality and its imitation in
art. He considers mimesis as the perfection and imitation of nature.
He says that Art is not only imitation but it also uses mathematical
ideas and symmetry to attain a degree of perfection. In his Poetics ,
Aristotle explains that poetry reflects and represents reality.
However, Aristotle considers it important that there be a difference
between real life and a work of art. He also maintains that this
difference gives rise to catharsis or emotional cleansing. Yet,
Aristotle maintains that the audience should be able to identify with
the characters or events in the text and unless this identification
happens, the text does not touch the audience. He says that
mimesis is a form of simulated representation which aims to have
some response from the audience. Thus, Aristotle places reality in
art between recognizable representati on and aesthetic distance. Tomunotes.in
Page 4
4prove this point of reality in art, he compares the facts of literature
with the facts of history. Aristotle indicates that history deals with
specific facts that have happened whereas literature deals with
events that could h ave taken place or ought to have taken place.
He considers this kind of reality as ideal truth. Michael Davis, a
translator and commentator of Aristotle explains that mimesis is an
act of representing reality in a stylized manner.
Plato and Aristotle hold completely different notions of
reality. Their respective notions of reality are conditioned by their
assumptions about truth, knowledge and goodness. For Plato, Art
imitates a world that is already far removed from authentic reality,
truth. He argues tha t truth exists only in intellectual abstraction and
it is more real than concrete objects. He also believes that universal
essence –the idea or the form of a thing –is more real and hence
more important than its physical substance. Plato’s view is that t he
tangible world is an imperfect reflection of the universal world of
forms. Further, he maintains that human observations based on
these reflections are, therefore, highly suspect. He also observes
that the result of any human effort, at the best, is an indistinct
expression of truth. For Plato, knowledge of truth and knowledge of
good are virtually inseparable. He advocates a rejection of the
physical in favour of reason, in an abstract and intellectual mode.
He argues that art is removed from any notion of real truth and it is
a flawed copy of an already imperfect world. Hence, he believes
that art, as an imitation, is irrelevant to what is real.
Aristotle approaches reality from a different premise. For
him, the world exists in a diverse series of par ts. He believes that
these different parts are open to human observation and scrutiny.
He thinks that knowledge of truth and good are rooted firmly in the
observable universe. Aristotle also believes that the different parts
of the universe require differe nt discourses. In Poetics , Aristotle
considers one method of enquiry which is applicable to tragedy. He
says that tragedy attempts to imitate the complex world of human
actions and yet tragedy itself is a part of larger world of human
existence. He conside rs tragedy as a manifestation of a human
desire to imitate because he believes that each person “learns his
lessons through imitation and we observe that all men find pleasure
in imitations.” This formulation implies that the self referential
function of t ragedy gives it a place in Aristotle’s notion of reality.
Plato conceives that an artist lacks any substantial
knowledge of the subject that is imitated. He believes that an artist
merely copies the surface, the appearance of a thing without the
need for understanding of awareness of its substance. He observes
inThe Republic that the artist is “an imitator of images and is far
removed from the truth.” Aristotle on the other hand perceives the
process of imitation in a slightly different way. He describesmunotes.in
Page 5
5imitation as a creative process of selection and transformation from
one medium to another. He indicates that a literary artist attempts
to imitate human action and not specific individuals. Poetry, he
argues, can be described as human action given a new form by
language.
Though both Plato and Aristotle use the word mimesis to
describe art, the definition derived by each one is profoundly
different. The process of imitation explained by each philosopher
promotes the particular version of reality conceive d by each one. A
study of the notion of reality in classical criticism helps in tracing the
central philosophical conflict regarding the usage and importance of
imitation in art.
1.2INTRODUCTION TO ARISTOTLE
Aristotle (384 -322 BC) was an eminent Greek philosopher.
He was also devoted to many branches of knowledge like
mathematics, political philosophy ,natural science and the Arts. His
writings run into many volumes and he had established his own
academy of learning. He is also known as a tutor of Alex ander the
great, who almost conquered a part of North Western India. In his
Poetics , Aristotle addresses many problems that Plato had raised ,
about the function and nature of poetry. His other famous works
include Ethics ,Metaphysics and Rhetoric .Rhetoric and Poetics
contain the bulk of literary criticism of Aristotle and both were his
lecture notes. Poetic s raises many important critical issues
constantly debated by scholars. Since Poetics isread in transl ation,
there is a wide disagreement among the sch olars about the
meaning and implication of the terms used in the work. Poetics also
made terms like mimesis, catharsis ,hamartia andhubris popular in
literary criticism .
Poetics contains 26 chapters, which deal with different forms
of poetry, nature of poetry, poetic truth and tragedy.
1.3STRUCTURE OF POETICS
The structural division of poetics can be as follows:
Chapters 1 -3: deal with poetry as imitation, poetry as a medium and
the object and manner of representation.
Chapters 4 -5: trace the hi storical origin of poetry. They also
introduce the distinction between epic and tragedy.
Chapter 6: Definition of tragedymunotes.in
Page 6
6Chapters 7,8,10 and 11: They are about plot and tragedy –types of
plot and the requirements of plot.
Chapters 9 and25: They deal w ith historic truth and poetic truth
Chapter 12: Elements of a tragedy
Chapter 13: Reversal of fortune in tragedy
Chapter 14: Pity and fear along with the notion of catharsis
Chapter 15: Character in tragedy and the notion of tragic hero
Chapters 16, 17 and 18: Devices used in tragedy such as reversal
and recognition
Chapters 19, 28,21,22: They deal with diction language, thought
and style
Chapters 23, 24 and 26: Distinction between epic and tragedy
Poetics can also be divided according to the f ollowing concepts :
1. Theory of Imitation, as an improvement upon Plato’s theory
2. Definition of tragedy
3. Plot and character
4. Historic truth and poetic truth
5. The notion of catharsis
6. Concept of tragic hero
7. Distinction between epic and tragedy
1.4POETICS : AN OVERVIEW
Aristotle’s Poetics defines different kinds of poetry ;it
explains the structure of a good poem and considers poetry as a
form of imitation. He defines poetry as a “medium of imitation” that
tries to represent life thro ugh character ,emotion and action.
Further ,he classifies poetry into broad categories such as epic
poetry, tragedy, comedy, dithyrambic poem and some kinds of
music.
Aristotle says that tragedy evolves from the efforts of apoet
to present men as nobler as or better than they are in real life.
Comedy ,on the other hand ,represents a lower life and reveals
human beings to be worse than they are. Epic poetry, according tomunotes.in
Page 7
7Aristotle, imitates noble men like intragedy but has only onemeter
unlike tragedy (which is written in a variety of meters )and is
narrative in form.
Aristotle lays out six elements of tragedy: plot (mythos ),
character (ethos ), thought ( dianoia ), diction (lexis), melody (melos )
and spectacle (opsis ). He argues that plot is a soul of tra gedy
because action is of highest significance in a drama. Aristotle says
that all other elements are subsidiary. Further, he maintains that a
plot must have a beginning, middle and end; it must have universal
significance and should maintain unit iesof theme and purpose.
Plot, according to Aristotle ,must contain elements of
astonishment, revers al(perip etia), recognition (anagnorisis ), and
suffering (pathos ). Reversal is an ironic turn or change by which the
main action of the story changes its course. Recognition, he says,
is the change from ignorance to knowledge usually involving people
who understand one another’s true identities. Suffering is a
destructive or painful action which is often the result of reversal or
recognition. Aristotle says that th ese three elements cascade to
create catharsis which is the evocation of fear and pity in the
audience –pity for the tragic hero’s life, and the fear that the tragic
hero’s fate might be universal.
Aristotle says that poets should keep in mind four signi ficant
points in approaching characterization. First, the hero must be good
and hence should manifest moral purpose in his speech. Second,
the hero should have propriety or manl yvalour. Thirdly, the hero
must be true to life. Finally, the hero must be con sistent.
Aristotle observes that tragedy and epic fall into the same
categor ies: simple, complex (propelled by reversal and recognition),
ethical (moral) or pathetic (passion). However ,Aristotle maintains
that there are few differences between tragedy a nd epic. First, an
epic does not employ song or spectacle or achieve its cathartic
effect. Second, epic cannot be presented or read in a single sitting,
whereas tragedy is usually for a single viewing. Finally, he
observes that the heroic rhythm of epic po etry is hexameter where
tragedy uses other forms of meter to achieve varied rhythms of
different characters andspeech es.
Aristotle also lays out his theory of mimesis inPoetics .H e
says that the poet must imitate things as they are, things as they
arethought to be or things as they ought to be. He observes that
the poet also imitates in action and inlanguage. He says that errors
creep in when the poet imitates incorrectly or when the poet
accidentally makes an error (a factual error ,for instance). Ho wever ,
Aristotle does not believe that factual errors spoil the entire work.munotes.in
Page 8
8He says that theerrors that compromise the unity of a given work
are more serious.
Aristotle concludes by addressing the question whether epic
or tragedy is a higher form. Cont rary to the opinions of the critics of
his time who used to argue that tragedy was for an inferior
audience and epic was for a cultivated audience, Aristotle opines
that tragedy is a superior form. He argues that tragedy is superior
to epic because it has all the elements of epic along with spectacle
and music to provide an indulgent pleasure for the audience.
1.5ARISTOTLE’S VIEWS ON TRAGEDY
The centre pi ece of Aristotle’s Poetics is his examination of
tragedy. Aristotle defines tragedy, explains its con stituent parts and
compares it with epic. He writes :
Tragedy, then, is an imitation of an action that is
serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude; in
language embellished with each kind of artistic
ornament, the several kinds being found in separate
parts of the play; in the form of action, not of narrative;
through pity and fear effecting the proper catharsis of
these emotions.
Aristotle indicates that the medium of tragedy is drama and
not narrative. He says that tragedy “shows” rather than “tells ”.
According to him tragedy is higher and more philosophical than
history because history simply relates what has happened while
tragedy dramatizes what may happen, “what is possible according
to the law of probability or necessity. ”He says that history d eals
with the particular and tragedy with the universal. Real events that
have happened may be due to accident or coincidence and they
may not be a part of a clear cause -effect chain. Therefore ,they
have little relevance for others. Tragedy, on the other hand ,is
rooted in the fundamental order of the universe and it creates a
cause and effect chain that clearly reveals what may happen at any
time or place because that is the way the world operates. Tragedy
therefore arouses not only pity but also fear, be cause the audience
can place themselves within this cause and effect chain.
Aristotle considers plot as the first principle and the most
important feature of tragedy. He defines plot as the “arrangement of
incidents”. He implies that plot is not just the story but the way
incidents are presented to the audience. According to him, the
outcome of the tragedy depends on a tightly constructed cause and
effect chain of actions. He also considers that plot to be more
important than the character and personality of the protagonist.munotes.in
Page 9
9Aristotle also considers the ideal structure of a good plot. He says
that the plot must be a whole with a beginning, middle and end. The
beginning is described as the starting point of the cause and effect
chain. The middle is caused b y earlier incidents and itself becomes
the cause of incidents that follow it. The end must be caused by the
preceding events and should resolve the problems created during
the first two stages.
Aristotle also says that the plot must be complete ,having
unity of action. By this ,Aristotle implies that the plot must be
structurally self contained, with the incidents bound together by
internal necessity. According to him ,the worst kinds of plots are
episodic in which the episodes or acts succeed one another without
probable or necessary sequence.
Aristotle observes that the plot of a tragedy should be of
certain magnitude, both quantitatively (length) and qualitatively
(seriousness). He argues that the plot should not be too brief and
the more incidents th at the playwright can bring together in an
organic unity, the greater the artistic value and richness of the play.
Aristotle says that the plot may be either simple or complex
although the complex plot is better. According to him simple plot
have only a c hange of fortune ( catastrophe ) whereas complex plots
have both reversal (perip etia) and recognition and ( anagnor isis)
connected with the catastrophe .B o t h perip etiaandanagnor isisturn
upon surprise. Aristotle explains that a peripatia occurs when a
chara cter produces an effect opposite to that which he intended to
produce. Anagnor isisis defined as a journey from ignorance to
knowledge producing love or hate between the person sdestined
for good or bad fortune.
Aristotle is of the view that the plot must be of certain
magnitude: neither too large nor too small. He also speaks about
the unity of plot. For him ,the unity consists in the structural union of
the parts which are so arranged that, if one part is removed or
displaced, the whole will be spoilt. H em a i n t a i n st h a tc o m p l e xp l o t s
can be identified as the ones which have reversal and recognition
as in Oedipus Tyrannus .F u r t h e r ,he says that fear and pity must be
aroused in a tragedy by spectacular means but it is better if they
result from the inner st ructure of the play.
Aristotle also theorizes on the character in a tragedy. He
indicates that the character must be good. He also implies that
character must be appropriate, the right type ,i . e . a man should be
brave and a woman should not necessarily be brave but neither
she should be unscrupulously clever. Aristotle ,further ,insists that
character must be consistent and he says that the poet should aim
at either the necessary or the probable so that the character will bemunotes.in
Page 10
10credible. He says that the poet should not only preserve the type of
character but also ennoble it.
Another se gment of Aristotle’s view on tragedy is on thought.
Aristotle maintains that thought consists of every effect that has to
be produced by speech ,proof ,refutation, excitation of the feelings
or suggestion of importance. For him ,thought is one of the causes
of action and it covers mind’s activities from reasoning, perception
and formulation of emotion. He further states that thought is
expressed in speeches in a tragedy and is therefore closely linked
to diction.
Diction is one of the elements in Aristotle’s perception of
tragedy. Diction covers language and its use: the way command,
request, prayer, statement or question is expressed. Aristotle
evokes the study of rhetoric in the context of diction and proposes
analys is of words, sentence, letter, syllable, inflection and phrase.
Further ,he examines metaphors such as the metaphors of light
and darkness in Oedipus Tyrranus . He also examines lyric poetry
as it is seen in c horalodes.
Aristotle indicates that song and spectacle are the elements
concerned with the production of the play. Though they are
essential parts of tragedy, the concern of the poet is less forthem
compared to his concern for plot, character and thought. Ari stotle
considers chorus as a device that upholds both song and
spectacle. He also maintains that the chorus should be regarded as
one of the actors and even of greater importance as the chorus has
a unifying function in a tragedy.
1.6ARISTOTLE’S VIEWS ONIMITATION ( MIMESIS )
Aristotle uses the word mimesis in its various connotations
such as re -enactment, impersonation or representation. In Poetics ,
Aristotle indicates that mimesis or the act of imitation itself is a
source of pleasure. Further ,he class ifies different types of poetry
according to their respect ivemodes of imitation. He says that
certain art forms imitate by means of language alone, either in
prose or verse. When this imitation is in verse it may combine
different meters to create a rhyth m. Aristotle considers writers like
Homer and Empedocles as the best exponents of imitation in
meter . He considers three differences that distinguish artistic
imitation –the medium, the object and the manner. He
differentiates this kind of imitation from the imitation in dramatic
poetry. Aristotle says that in dithyrambic and nomic poetry, the
modes of imitation such as rhythm, tune and meter are all
employed in combination, and in tragedy, “no wone means is
employed, no wanother”. ( p-3) This, according to Aristotle, is themunotes.in
Page 11
11chief difference in the art forms with respect to the medium of
imitation.
Aristotle also speaks about the objects of imitation in
Poetics . He says that men in action are the real objects of imitation
and he classifies imitation into t wo with respect to the categories of
men:
Since the objects of imitation are men in action, and
these men must be either of a higher or a lower type
(for moral character mainly answers to these
divisions, goodness and badness being the
distinguishing mark s of moral differences), it follows
that we must represent men either as better than in
real life, or as worse, or as they are. It is the same in
painting. Polygnots depicted men as nobler than they
are, Pauson as less noble, Dionysius drew them true
to life.(p-3)
Aristotle speaks about a third difference ,the manner in
which these objects may be imitated. Heexplains his views on the
style of imitation:
For the medium being the same, and the objects the
same, the poet may imitate by narration –in whi ch
case he can either take another personality as Homer
does, or speak in his own person, unchanged –or he
may present all his characters as living and moving
before us. ( p-4)
Aristotle also traces the origin of poetry in themankind’s
interest in imit ation. He says that the instinct of imitation is
implanted deeply in man from childhood and the basic difference in
man and other animals is that he is the m ost imitative of living
creatures. Aristotle defends mimesis by stating that man learns his
earlies t lessons through imitation and that it offers a universal
pleasure. He also maintains that much of the pleasure in imitation
depends on the minute fidelity. He explains the cause of pleasure in
imitation:
The cause of this again is, that to learn gives th e
liveliest pleasure, not only to philosophers but to men
in general whose capacity, however, of learning is
more limited .(p-6)
Aristotle also defines tragedy and comedy as two different
forms of imitation. Tragedy is considered as an imitation of an
action that is serious ,complete and of certain length. Comedy is
defined as an imitation of ordinary men in action.munotes.in
Page 12
12Though Aristotle uses the basic notion of imitation as in
Plato, he disagrees with Plato on certain features of imitation. Plato
had mention ed that poetic imitation was a deviation from truth.
Aristotle ,in contrast ,thinks that imitation is a recreation of
something that is better than reality. In his Poetics ,he says:
Epic poetry and Tragedy, as also Comedy,
Dithyrambic poetry, and most flu te playing and lyre
playing are all, viewed as a whole; modes of imitation .
(p-1)
Aristotle does not discuss all types of art in his Poetics .H e
speaks only of Epic poetry, tragedy, comedy and dithyrambic
poetry and music along with their respective m imetic nature. He
equates poetry with music while Plato ha dequated poetry with
thinking. Aristotle is of the opinion that poetry and music have a
deeper significance than painting which is concerned with what has
actually happened and what may happen; not as in painting which
cannot go deep into reality. He says that the poet should imitate
men who are better than they are in natural life and thus a poet
should transform from being an imitator to be a maker. In this
context ,the term imitation is like ‘creation ’. Aristotle says that a
poet deals with human thoughts and passions as they always are.
He also opines that the poet should observe human beings very
closely and should try and imitate the passions of humanity rather
than an individual.
Aristotle i s also of the view that poetry becomes an idealized
representation of life and centuries later Hegel had considered art
as the sensuous representation of the ideal. Idealization is one of
the constituents of Aristotle’s notion of mimesis . Aristotle’s theor yo f
mimesis is best reflected in his thought ondrama. He defines
drama as an imitation of action and tragedy as falling from a higher
to a lower state.
Aristotle considers that the principle of imitation unites poetry
with other fine arts and is a commo n basis of all the fine arts. He
says that poet selects and orders his material and recreates reality.
According to him ,poet brings order out of chaos by removing
irrational or accidental and by focusing on the lasting and the
significant.
Aristotle als o talks about the nature of imitation seen in
poetry in contrast with how it figures in history. He says that history
tells us what has happened; poetry what may happen. For him
poetry tends to express the universal ;history the particular. In this
way he argues for the superiority of poetry over history. He also
maintains that poet shares the interest in the universe with the
philosopher. Aristotle explains the word ‘universal ’–how a personmunotes.in
Page 13
13of a certain nature or type will, on particular occasion, speak or act,
according to the law of probability or necessity. Elsewhere ,Aristotle
says art imitates nature. By the word nature, he does not mean the
outer world of created things but the creative force, the productive
principle of the universe. He believes th at the poet imitates the
creative process of nature though the objects of imitation are men
in action. However ,he maintains that the action may be external or
internal ,asf o ri n s t a n c e ,the action within the soul caused by all that
befalls a man. Thus ,Aristotle brings human experiences, emotions
and passions within the scope of poetic imitation. According to his
theory, moral qualities, characteristics, the permanent temper of the
mind and the temporary emotions are all action and so objects of
poetic imi tation.
Aristotle’s theory of imitation is also his refutation of Plato’s
charges on poetry. While Plato has mentioned that poetry is an
imitation of shadow of shadows and hence t hrice removed from the
truth, Aristotle tells us that Art imitates not the mere appearance of
things, but the ideal reality embodied in thevery object of the world.
Aristotle says that poetry reproduces the original not as it is, but as
it appears to the senses. He also says that the poet does not copy
the external world but cre ates according to his idea of it. Thus even
an ugly object well imitated becomes a source of pleasure. He
observes in the Poetics that the sources of pleasure include :
Objects which in themselves we view with pain, we
delight to contemplate when reproduce dw i t hm i n u t e
fidelity; such as the forms of the most ignoble animals
and dead bodies. (p-6)
Michael Davies, a translator and commentator of Aristotle
explains his views on Aristotle’s theory of im itation :
At first glance, mimesis seems to be a stylizing of
reality in which the ordinary features of our world are
brought into focus by a certain exaggeration, the
relationship of the imitation to the object it imitates
being something like the relationship of dancing to
walking. Imitation always involves sel ecting
something from the continuum of experience, thus
giving boundaries to what really has no beginning or
end. Mimesis involves a framing of reality that
announces that what is contained within the frame is
not simply real. Thus the more “real” the imit ation the
more fraudulent it becomes (Davis -23)
Aristotle not only theorizes his notion of mimesis inPoetics
but also refutes the cha rge of Plato that poetry has not truth value.munotes.in
Page 14
14He breathes a new life and soul into the concept of poetic imitation
by al igning it with creative process.
1.7ARISTOTLE’S VIEWS ON CATHARSIS
Catharsis is a Greek term which means purification, purging
or cleansing. It is generally used in relation to drama that derives
from strong feelings such as sorrow, pity and fear. Dram ai s
considered as a medium for purging such emotions. Aristotle was
the first philosopher to use the term catharsis to refer to the
emotional effects of a tragedy.
One of the most difficult concepts introduced in Poetics is
catharsis . Scholars are still debating the actual meaning of
catharsis in Aristotle’s text though it is most often defined as a
purging of the emotions that happens when one watches a tragedy.
The psychological process involved in this purging is not clear in
Poetics . However Aristotl e’s concept of catharsis is widely
understood in relation to a larger concern with the psychological
and social purpose of literature.
There are various interpretation savailable of the term
catharsis and the term has outgrown the purgation theory which is
too much occupied with the psychology of the audience. However ,
Aristotle was not writing a treatise on psychology but on the art of
poetry. Aristotle relates catharsis not really to the emotion of the
spectators but to the incidents which form the plot of a tragedy.
Hence ,catharsis can be considered more as clarification than
purgation. Aristotle suggests that the pleasure in tragedy ,
paradoxically ,springs from incidents that evoke pity and fear.
These incidents include events such as a man blinding h imself or a
mother killing her children as seen in Oedipus and Medea
respectively. In this context ,catharsis refers to the tragic variety of
pleasure. Imitation does not produce pleasure in general, but only
the pleasure that comes from learning, and so a lso the particular
pleasure of tragedy. Learning in tragedy comes from discovering
the relation between the action and the universal elements
embodied in it. The poet might take his material from history or
tradition; but he orders it in terms of probabili ty and necessity. In
this process he rises from the particular to the general and so heis
more universal. Tragedy ,thus,enhances understanding and leaves
the spectators face to face with the universal law. Thus, according
to this interpretation ,catharsi smeans classification of the essential
and universal significance of the incidents depicted, leading to an
enhanced understanding of the universal law which governs human
life and destiny. Such an understanding leads to the pleasure of
tragedy. In this se nse, catharsis is neither a medical nor a moral
term, but an intellectual term. The term refers to the incidentsmunotes.in
Page 15
15depicted in the tragedy and the way in which the poet reveals the ir
universal significance.
According to Aristotle, the basic tragic emotions are pity and
fear which are essentially painful. He implies that if tragedy is to
give pleasure, pity and fear must be eliminated. He indicates that
fear is aroused when we see someone suffering and wethink that
similar fate might befall us. Pity is a fe eling of pain caused by the
sight of undeserved suffering of others. The spectators see that it is
the tragic error or hamartia of the hero which results in suffering
and so he learns something about the universal relation between
character and destiny.
One can say that Aristotle’s concept of catharsis is mainly
intellectual. It is neither purely didactic nor fully theoretical though it
may have some theological elements. Aristotle’s catharsis is not
just a moral doctrine that compels a tragic poet to sho wt h a tb a d
men come to bad ends. It is part of his commentary on the function
of tragedy and the function sof the different parts of tragedy.
1.8 ARISTOTLE COUNTERS PLATO’S CHARGES
AGAINST POETRY
Poetics is often read as Aristotle’s defence of poetry ag ainst
the charges of Plato. Aristotle debate with Plato is rooted on four
main areas of poetry –imitation, moral value, truth value and
emotional effects. Plato had, in his republic considered poetry as an
imitation of an imitation, twice removed from rea lity and had called
poetry ‘mother of all lies.’ Plato had also objected to poetry on
emotional grounds a s he believed poetry exited emotions in men,
making them misfits in a rational republic. He had also condemned
poetry for not punishing vices.
Aristot le’s use of the word Mimesis is different from that of
Plato ’s. He has deepened and enriched its significance by looking
at it from many sides in the light of Greek Art and Literature. He
uses the word Mimesis in its various connotations such as re -
enactme nt, impersonalisation or representation. In Poetics , Aristotle
indicates that Mimesis or the act of imitation itself is a source of
pleasure. He further maintains that poetry imitates –iti m i t a t e s men
in action and these men are either better or worse tha nthe masses
(comedy represents worse men and Tragedy ,better men). Aristotle
deals with Mimesis in a factual way and observes that men are
naturally imitative ;they enjoy imitation and learn by it. Aristotle ,
further, classifies different types of Poetry according to their
respective modes of imitation. According to him, certain Art forms
imitate by means of language alone, either in prose or verse. When
this imitation is in verse ,it may combine different meters to create a
rhythm. Aristotle considers wri ters like Homer and Empedocles asmunotes.in
Page 16
16the best exponents of imitation in meter. He considers three
differences that distinguish artistic imitation –the me dium, the
object and the manner .Earlier, Plato in The Republic had used the
term Mimesis in the sense of unpersonalisation. He had argued that
the poet continually ‘impersonates’ other people. Also according to
Plato, it is futile and misleading pursuit because of the nature of
reality and man’s limited perception of it. Everything that exists in
this world is an imperfect copy of an idea /object that exists outside
the world as one sees and understand sit. The creation of poets
and artists are me re copies of ‘Ideal’ reality –third hand distortion
of Truth –valueless and potentially misleading. Though Arist otle
uses the basic notion of imitation as in Plato, he counters certain
notions of imitation. Aristotle in contrast thinks that imitation is a
recreation of something that is better than reality.
Michael Davies, a translator and commentator of Aristotle,
explains his views on Aristotle’s theory of imitation. According to
him, at first glance, Mimesis seems to be stylizing of reality in which
the ordinary features of our world are brought into focus by a
certain exaggeration, the relationship of the imitat ion to the object it
imitates being something like the relationship of dancing to walking.
Imitation always involves selecting something from the continuum
of experience, thus giving boundaries to what really no beginning or
end has. Mimesis involves a fra ming of reality that announces that
what is contained within the frame is not simply real. Thus the more
‘real’ the imitation the more fraudulent it becomes. Aristotle does
not discuss all types of art in his Poetics . He speaks only of Epic
Poetry, Tragedy ,C o m e d y ,Dithyrambic Poetry and music along
with their respective mimetic nature. Aristotle equates poetry with
music while Plato had equated poetry with thinking. Aristotle is of
the opinion that poetry and music have a deeper significance than
painting which is concerned with what was actually happened and
what may happen, not as in painting which cannot go deep into
reality. He says that poet deals with human thoughts and passions
as they always are. Idealization is one of the constituents of
Aristotle’ sMimesis and it is best reflected in his thoughts on Drama.
He defines Drama as imitation of action and tragedy as falling from
a higher to a lower state. Aristotle’s theory of imitation is thus his
refutation of Plato’s c hares on poetry. While Plato had mentioned
that poetry is an imitation of shadow of shadows and hence thrice
removed from the truth ,Aristotle counters ,saying that, Art imitates
not the mere appearance of things, but the ideal reality embodied in
the very object of the world.
Plato’s a pproach to Poetry was strictly utilitarian; however
Mimesis is probably most misleading of his approach. It is assumed
that according to Plato, the content of a poem is important rather
than form and technical qualities. And hence, Plato’s approach to
poetry is strictly authoritarian and in favo ur of his Republic, he wasmunotes.in
Page 17
17ready to sacrifice art. Unlike Plato, Aristotle does not deal with
Mimesis in a metaphysical sense rather has a realistic approach.
He points out that the content of poetry is not everythin g; its effect
is medicated by the manner of its imitation or representation of its
form. And thus, Aristotle counters Plato’s utilitarian and
authoritarian approach towards poetry by considering the effect of
imitation.
Aristotle’s idea of i mitation seems to be equivalent to
‘producing’ or ‘creating’, a true idea. Poetry, is thus ,a creative art,
whereas Plato had said that fairest things are done by nature and
the lesser by Art. Aristotle s aysthat, Art does not cheat the mind
but provides an idea in a fo rm which under normal circumstances
cannot find adequ ate.
Aristotle also answers Plato’s objection to the poetry’s
disregard for moral values. Plato had observed that though virtues
are rewarded in poetry, vices are not necessarily punished as in a
traged y. Aristotle counters this point by stating that poetry deals
with the ideal and hence what is exemplary in poetry is more
important than its moral commitments.
Plato’s view of Truth value is another issue contested in
Poetics. Aristotle rebuffs Plato’s c harge that poetry is the mother of
all lies. He reminds that poetry deals with ‘what ought to be’ rather
than ‘what is’ or ‘what was’ and hence, it deals with the ideal truth.
Plato had condemned poetry for being emotional, having
born out of a ‘divine fr enzy.’ Aristotle counters this premise too and
redeems poetry with his theory of catharsis .H ea r g u e st h a tp o e t r y ,
by exciting emotions such as pity and fear, channelizes them to
provide psycho -moral purgation of the same .T h i sp u r g a t i o n ,h e
maintains, is better than suppressing them.
Thus, Poetics is largely Aristotle’s debate with Plato .
Aristotle counters Plato’s utilitarian approach to Poe ty, concluding
that the affect of imitation is to be considered rather than the
content of the poetry. Although it i s often said that Aristotle’s
account of Mimesis inPoetics is a critical response to Plato’s exile
of the poets in the Republic, the relationship between the two
philosophers is somewhat more complicated and remains a matter
of scholarly debate. Plato was Aristotle’s teacher, and although he
is never named in the treatise, his presence is unmistakable.
Aristotle borrows a number of formulations from Plato and
challenges his teacher’s claims about the nature and effects of
Mimesis , one of the main functions of poetry .munotes.in
Page 18
181.9 COMPARISON BETWEEN EPIC AND TRAGEDY
“For the things we have to learn before we can do
them, we learn by doing them”
-Aristotle, Nichomachea Ethics.
Poetics by Aristotle defines different kinds of poetry; it
explains the structure of a good poem and considers poetry as a
form of imitation. He defines poetry as a “medium of imitation” that
tries to represent life through character, and action .Further ,he
classifies poetry into broad categories such as epic poetry, tragedy,
comedy, dithyr ambic poem and some kinds of music .Inone of the
segments in Poetics epic poetry and tragedy are compared.
Major part of Poetics holds a discussion on tragedy. Aristotle
says thattragedy evolves from the efforts of a poet to present men
nobler or bette rt h a nt h e ya r ei nr e a ll i f e . He observes:
Tragedy, then, is an imitation of an action that is
serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude; in
language embellished with each kind of ornament, the
several kinds being found in separate parts of the
play; i n the form of action not of narrator, through pity
and fear effecting proper catharsis of these emotions .
(Poetics)
The main piece of Aristotle’s Poetics is his examination of
tragedy. Aristotle defines tragedy, explains it constituent parts and
compares it with epic. Aristotle indicates thatthe middle of tragedy
is drama and not narrative. He says that tragedy “shows” rather
than “tells”. Aristotle also lays out six elements of tragedy: plot,
character, thought ,diction, melody and spectacle.
Aristotle considers plot as a first principle and the most
important feature of tragedy. He d efines plot as the “arrangement of
incidents”. He implies that the plot is not just the story but the way
incidents are presented to the audience. Further Aristotle adds that
the good plot should have a beginning, middle and end. He also
says that plot may be either simple or complex although the
complex plot is better. According to him the simple plot has only a
change of fortune ( catastrophe )w h e r ea sc o m p l e xp lothasboth
reversal ( peripeita ) and recognition (Anagnorisis ).
The second element of tragedy that Aristotle discusses is,
“characterization”. The four significant points of character should
be:the hero must be good and hence should manifest moral
purpose in his sp eech, next , he should have propriety or manly
valor, the hero must be true to life, and finally, the hero must be
consistent. Another element of Aristotle ’sview on tragedy is onmunotes.in
Page 19
19‘thought’. Thought is one of the causes of action and it covers
mental activ ities from reasoning, perception and formulation of
emotion. He further states that thought is expressed in speeches in
at r a g e d ya n di s ,therefore ,closely linked to direction. “Diction’ is
another element of tragedy. It covers language and its use: the w ay
in which a command, request, prayer or statement is expressed.
Aristotle evokes the study of rhetoric in the context of diction and
proposes ananalysis of words, sentences, letter s, syllable s,
inflection, and phrase s.F u r t h e r ,he examines metaphors suc ha s
the f light and darkness in ‘Oedipus Tyrranus’ and also the lyrical
poetry as it is seen in choral odes. The last twoelement sof tragedy
‘song and spectacle’ are concerned with the production of the play.
Though they are essential parts of the traged y, the concern of the
poem is less for them as compared to his concern for plot,
character and thought. He adds that chorus should be regarded as
one of the actors and even of great importance as the chorus has a
unifying function in a tragedy.
Aristotle also explains the epi cform in his Poetics ,constantly
comparing it with tragedy .He states that epic form has a single
meter, a dramatic plot, unity and all other features of a tragedy. An
epic does not portray a single action, but rather single period th us
often characterizing many characters over the course of many
events. Tragedy, he reminds in contrast, has a variety of meters
befitting the emotions and characters
Epic poetry however, has the same subjects as tragedy has:
simple, complex, ethical or pathetic. Also like tragedy it requires
reversals, recognitions, scenes of sufferings and artistic thought
and diction. Rather there are few differences between the epic and
the tragedy in their themes and situations .
While pointing out the differences, Aristotle maintains that
unlike tragedy, epic will not use song or spectacle to achieve its
cathartic effect. Secondly ,epic cannot be presented at a single
setting, whereas tragedies are usually capable of being realized
within a single view. While epic h as a wide canvass with many
characters and immense time frame, these elements are
conditioned by the three unites in tragedy .Aristotle also points out
that the mode of presentation in an epic is narration while that of a
tragedy is action. Finally the her oic measure of epic poetry is
hexameter where astragedy uses other forms of meter to achieve
the rhythm of different characters ’speech.
Moreover, Aristotle adds that the element of wonderful is
difficult to accomplish inatragedy than in an epic .T h ei r rational on
which the wonderful depends for its chief effects, has wider scope
in epic poetry, because there the person acting is not seen.munotes.in
Page 20
20Thus, Aristotle says that tragedy evolves from the efforts of
the poet to present men as nobler as or better than t hey are in real
lifeandepic tooimitates noble men like in tragedy . However, epic,
he says, has only one meter unlike tragedy which is written in
variety of meters. Aristotle concludes Poetics with the observation
that though epic has a high stature, the appeal of tragedy is greater
as the action in tragedy is demonstrated and not narrated. He also
says that tragedy possesses all the elements that the epic has
while Epic has only four constituents –plot, character, thought and
diction. Aristotle indicate s that tragedy has spectacle and song as
additional elements, which contribute to greater pleasure. He also
argues that tragedy affects the spectator emotionally and strongly,
being shorter in length. Aristotle rates tragedy a higher poetic form
than epic. He points out that tragedy has all the elements of epic
whereas epic does not have song and spectacle and hence, it falls
short of the mimetic effect of tragedy.
1.10CONCLUSION
Though Poetics is largely considered as Aristotle’s views on
imitatio n,tragedy and epic, it also inaugurates analytical criticism
and comparative criticism. Aristotle opens up analytical criticism by
studying drama in terms of its constituent parts. By comparing the
formal and aesthetic features of epic and tragedy ,he als oo p e n su p
the possibilities in comparative criticism. Further ,Aristotle counters
effectively Plato’s charges on poetry. However ,Poetics is not just
an intellectual debate with Plato. David Daiches observes how
Aristotle elevates the place of Poetics inthe history of criticism by
touching upon issues like imitation, imagination and emotions:
One can fairly maintain that a whole view of the value of
imaginative literature is implicit in Aristotle’s discussion of the
relation between poetry and history an dt h en a t u r eo fl i t e r a r y
probability. But he is not content with answering Plato’s contention
that art is but an imitation of an imitation, thr iceremove dfrom truth;
he wishes also to answer specifically Plato’s notion that art corrupts
by nourishing the passions. His reply to this charge is simple and
remarkable. Far from nourishing the passions, he asserts, it gives
them harmless or even useful purgation .By exciting pity and fear in
us, tragedy enables us to leave the theater “in calm of mind, all
passi on spent”. (Daiches, p-39)
1.11 KEYTERMS
Mimesis, catharsis, plot, tragedy, epic, peripetia, anagnorisis,
catastrophe ,h a m a r t i amunotes.in
Page 21
211.12 CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
Q.IDefine the following in the context of Aristotle’s Poetics :
1.Plot
2.Catharsis
3.Reversal
4.Recogniti on
5.Character
QII.Answer the following:
1.Discuss Aristotle’s views on tragedy as revealed in Poetics .
2. Explain how Aristotle argues that plot is the most integral
element in a tragedy.
3. Consider Aristotle’s views on poetry as imitation o ramimetic art.
4. What ,according to Aristotle is the function of catharsis in
tragedy ? Discuss
5. How does Aristotle compare tragedy and epic? Which, according
to him, has more merits and why?
munotes.in
Page 22
22Unit -2
“PREFACE TO SHAKESPEARE” –SAMUEL
JOHNSON
Unit Structure
2.0 Objectives
2.1 Introduction
2.2 About the Author
2.3“The Preface to Shakespeare”: An Overview
2.4 Conclusion
2.5 Key Terms
2.6 Check Your Progress
2.0 OBJECTIVES
The objec tive of this unit is to acquaint the learners with
Samuel Johnson’s views on Shakespeare’s art. This unit also
proposes to enable students to appreciate both the merits and
demerits of Shakespeare's writing.
2.1 INTRODUCTION
In October 1765, Samuel John son wrote his “Preface to
Shakespeare” which is held in high esteem due to his assessment
of Shakespeare's writings in the spirit of a true critic. He highlights
both the strengths and weaknesses of Shakespeare's works. This
text is invaluable in that unli ke other critics, who indiscriminatingly
shower praises on Shakespeare, Johnson shows courage in
pointing out flaws in the works of the immortal bard. Besides, the
essay is also a great testimony of the neoclassical criticism.
2.2 ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Dr Jo hnson (18 September 1709) was an English writer who
made lasting contributions to English literature as a poet, essayist,
moralist, literary critic, biographer, editor an dlexicographer .B o r ni n
Lichfield , Staffordshire, Johnson attended Pembroke College,
Oxford and after working as a teacher, moved to London where he
began to write for TheG e n t l e m a n ' sM a g a z i n e .H i se a r l yw o r k s
include a biography, The Life of Richard Savage (biography)
"London "a n d" The Vanity of Human Wishes " (poems), and Irene
(play).munotes.in
Page 23
23Johnson's A Dictionary of the English Language was
published in 1755. It had a far -reaching effect on Modern English
and has been described as "one of the greatest single
achievements of scholarship”. His later works included essays, an
influential annotated edition of “ William Shakespeare's plays ”, and
the widely read tale Rasselas . In 1763, he befriended James
Boswell, with whom he later travelled to Scotland. Johnson
described their travels in A Journey to the Western Islands of
Scotland . Towards the end of his life, he produced the massive and
influential Lives of the Most Eminent English Poets , a collection of
biographies and evaluations of 17th and 18th century poets. His
Lives of the Poets series, is marked by various opinions on what
would make a poetic work excellent. He believed that the best
poetr y relied on contemporary language, and he disliked the use of
decorative or purposefully archaic language. Johnson was
"arguably the most distinguished man of letters in English history"
He was also the subject of "the most famous single work of
biographic al art in the whole of literature": James Boswell 'sLife of
Samuel Johnson
2.3 “THE P REFACE TO SHAKESPEARE”: AN
OVERVIEW
In the second half of the eighteenth century, critics and poets
continued to admit and admire the neo -classical principles. But at
the same time, a reaction against some of its tenets had set in and
slowly Romanticism in literature was emerging. Clearly discernible
are the twin factors in artistic creation, unimpassioned reason on
the one side, emotion and imagination on the other. While Dr.
Johnson represented the persistence of classical dogma and was
the spokesman of doctrinal classicism, in his “Preface to
Shakespeare”, he fearlessly broke the shackles of many a neo -
classical rule. The “Preface” is the most precious part of Johnson’s
edition of Shakespeare. Approaching the dramatist from the
standpoint of neo -classic ism, he reveals the genius of
Shakespeare. But, at the same time, he did not forget to put an end
to the idolatry of Shakespeare, and rightfully, rejects the extremes
of neo -classicism.
In his preface to his edition of the collected works of
Shakespeare, Johnson claims that often past works are held in high
esteem while the recent ones are ignored. When a person is no
more, he tends to be honoured. This gives the feeling that one can
only be praised years after he has written the work or when his
work bec omes antique. So the perception of talent gets associated
with age. “Johnson tries”, observes John Bailey, “by the test of
time, Nature and universality and he finds Shakespeare supreme in
all”. According to Johnson, Shakespeare’s plays have stood themunotes.in
Page 24
24test of time. They have passed through variations of tastes and
change of manners, and they have received new honour at every
transmission from generation to generation. He has long outlived
his own century. Johnson emphasizes that the plays of
Shakespeare are “a faithful mirror of life”. As a true neo -classicist,
he extolled Shakespeare’s greatness as a poet of nature and his
acceptance of the neo -classical position on art as an imitation of
general, universal human nature. He obeyed the Aristotlean
principle that “art imitates nature and thus art was formed by
experience”. Johnson found that Shakespeare made nature
predominate over accident; that he depicted the influence of the
general passions and that he successfully presented life in its
natural colours. A ccording to Johnson, Shakespeare’s characters
are a faithful representation of humanity –“the genuine progeny of
common humanity such as the world will always supply and
observation will always find.” He deals with passions and principles
which are common to humanity. His characters are “universalized
into the type whose actions and content may have their application
to ordinary men and ordinary life”. Johnson argues that
Shakespeare’s characters are true to type; they are universal, not
purely idiosyncrat ic, but at the same time, they are individuals.
Each one of his characters is distinct from others. The speech of
one character cannot be placed in the mouth of the other. Johnson,
further, states that Shakespeare’s characters are not exaggerated.
They hav e neither unexplained excellence nor depressing
depravity. He has “no heroes”, but only human beings. They act
and think in the same way as the readers would act and think under
similar circumstances. Even when the agency is supernatural, the
dialogue is “ level with life”. Shakespeare, thus, familiarizes the
wonderful and approximates the remote, observes Johnson.
However, from his neo -classical bias, Johnson boldly sways
to the romantic notions. He brushes aside the stricter neo -classical
notions of “pro priety with respect to character”. Johnson criticizes
as “petty cavils of petty minds”, Rhymer’s accusation that
Shakespeare’s Roman Senator, Menanius in Corialanus is not
sufficiently Roman and Voltaire’s criticism that Shakespeare
violated ‘decorum’, whe nh em a d eC l a u d i u si n Hamlet a drunkard.
Johnson observes that Shakespeare, here, “makes nature
predominant over accident”. Though his story required Romans or
kings, he thinks only of men. Johnson attacks decorum of the neo -
classical school with the neo -classical principle of truth to general
nature.
While the contemporary strict Neo -classical criticism
condemned the mingling of the tragic and the comic, Johnson uses
the very fundamental principle of limitation of general human nature
against the school. The ancient dramatists selected the two aspects
of life and portrayed it dramatically, calling one a comedy and themunotes.in
Page 25
25other a tragedy. Since then, there grew a distinction which
introduced an artificial breaking up of the unity of life. Shakespeare
refused to accept the artificial division and hence, introduced both
the serious and the comic into the same play just as they are found
in actual life. So, Johnson observes that Shakespearean plays are
much closer to life than a pure tragedy or comedy. In real li fe, there
is mingling of good and evil, joy and sorrow, tears and smiles, and
so in mixing tragedy and comedy, Shakespeare, justly, holds a
mirror to nature. Tragi -comedy may be against rules, says Johnson,
but “there is always an appeal open from criticis mt oN a t u r e . ”I ti s
truth to Nature or life that Johnson demands, not truth to the rules
of critical theory. Moreover, tragic -comedy being nearer to life
combines within itself the pleasure and instruction of both tragedy
and comedy. Johnson defends such m ingling on the fundamentally
neo-classic ground that the imitation of general human nature not
only permits but demands it. Shakespeare’s plays, combining
comedy and tragedy, show real human nature which “partakes of
joy and sorrow.”
Moreover, Shakespea re’s use of tragicomedy does not
weaken the effect of a tragedy, because it does not interrupt the
progress of passions. In fact, Shakespeare knew that pleasure
consisted in variety and continued melancholy or grief is often not
pleasing. Whether Shakespea re wrote tragedies, comedies or
histories, he always fascinates us: “As he commands us, we laugh,
or mourn or sit silent with quiet satisfaction in tranquillity without
indifference”. Moreover, the language that Shakespeare uses for
his dialogue is above g rossness and below refinement. It is the
“real language of men”, as Wordsworth would describe it.
Further, Johnson defends, vehemently, Shakespeare’s
violation of the Unities. The defence is a fine exposition of dramatic
illusion and a bold criticism of t he neo -classical doctrine of
verisimilitude. Johnson begins the defence by exempting
Shakespeare’s historical plays from his censure, as they are neither
tragedies nor comedies and hence, are not subject to these rules.
The only unity he needs to maintain in his histories is the
consistency and naturalness in his characters and this he does so
faithfully. In his other works, he has well maintained the unity of
action. His plots have the variety and complexity of nature, but have
ab e g i n n i n g ,m i d d l ea n da ne nd, and one event is logically
connected with another, and the plot makes gradual advancement
towards the denouement.
Shakespeare shows no regard for the Unities of Time and
Place ,and according to Johnson, these have troubled the poet
more than it has pleased his audience. The observance of these
unities is considered necessary to provide credibility to the drama.
But, any fiction can never be real, and the audience knows this. If amunotes.in
Page 26
26spectator can imagine the stage to be Alexandria and the actors to
be A ntony and Cleopatra, he can surely imagine much more.
Drama is a delusion, and delusion has no limits. Therefore, there is
no absurdity in showing different actions in different places. With
regard to the Unity of Time, Shakespeare says that a drama
imitat es successive actions, and just as they may be represented at
successive places, so also they may be represented at different
period, separated by several days. The only condition is that the
events must be connected with each other.
Johnson, further, s ays that drama moves us not because we
think it is real, but because it makes us feel that the evils
represented may happen to ourselves. Imitations produce pleasure
or pain, not because they are mistaken for reality, but because they
bring realities to mi nd. The final verdict of Johnson is that “Unities
of Time and Place are not essential to a just drama though they
may sometimes conduce to pleasure; they are always to be
sacrificed to the nobler beauties of variety and instruction”. The
rules may be again st Johnson for defending Shakespeare’s
violation of the laws, but he justifies Shakespeare on grounds of
nearness to life and nature.
While speaking of the weaknesses of Shakespeare, we have
in Johnson the Neo -classicist and the moralist. He accuses
Shak espeare with lacking in morality, for he sacrifices virtue to
convenience. Johnson observes that there is no poetic justice in his
plays and that he cannot be excused for the barbarity of his age, for
justice is a virtue independent of time and place. John son maintains
that it is the duty of a writer to make the world better. Another
defect that Johnson points out is Shakespeare’s loosely
constructed plots and neglecting opportunities to instruct. Further,
Johnson lists out the flaws in Shakespeare. Accordi ng to him, there
are many faults of chronology and anachronisms in his play. His
jokes are often gross and licentious. Narration, in his dramas, is
often tedious as there is much pomp of diction and circumlocution.
His set speeches are cold and weak. They are often verbose and
too large for thought. Trivial ideas are clothed in sonorous epithets.
He has an irresistible fascination for puns and quibbles for which he
sacrifices reason, propriety and truth. He often fails at moments of
great excellence. When h e could achieve excellence of tenderness
or pathos and inspire the cathartic feelings of pity and terror, he lets
himself be diverted by some idle conceit and spoils the effect of his
tragic scenes.
2.4 CONCLUSION
Dr. Johnson studies and evaluates the works of
Shakespeare, as he claims himself, without “envious malignity ormunotes.in
Page 27
27superstitious reveration. He is a neo -classical critic in maintaining
that art is imitation. In his “Preface to Shakespeare”, he maintains
that a work of art like a play should be “a just representation of
human nature” and Shakespeare is above all writers the poet of
nature. However, with the independence of a Romantic critic,
Johnson brushes aside the neo -classical notion of ‘propriety’ with
respect to character and also defends Sha kespeare’s refusal to
uphold the principle of Triple Unities and the mingling of tragedy
and comedy.
2.5 KEY TERMS
Characterization, Dialogue, Tragedy, Comedy, Tragi -
comedy, Neoclassicism
2.6 CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
QI Say whether the following sentences are True or False
1. Some of Shakespeare's plots are loosely constructed and have
improbable endings.
2. Shakespeare has been blamed by Johnson for following the
unities of time and place.
3. The mingled dramas of Shakespeare fulfill the proper function o f
drama.
4. Shakespeare presents traits particular to certain individuals or
places or times rather than present general nature of
characters.
5. Shakespeare sacrifices virtue to convenience.
Q II Define the following terms:
1. Comedy
2. Tragedy
3. Chara cterization
4. Dialogue
5. Tragi -comedy
QI I IA t t e m p tt h ef o l l o w i n g :
1.How does Dr. Johnson highlight Shakespeare's merit in his
essay, “Preface to Shakespeare”?
2. How does Dr. Johnson critically evaluate the demerits of
Shakespeare's works?
3. How doe s Johnson defend Shakespeare's mixing of tragic and
comic elements?
munotes.in
Page 28
28Unit -3
BIOGRAPHIA LITERARIA (CHAPTER XVII
AND CHAPTER XVIII) -SAMUEL TAYLOR
COLERIDGE
Unit structure
3.0 Objective s
3.1 Introduction to romantic Criticism
3.2Introduction to S.T. Coleridge
3.3An Overview Biographia Literaria (Chapter XVII and Chapter
XVIII) :C o l e r i d g e ’ s Views on theUse of Meter in Poetry.
3.4 Conclusion
3.5Check Your Progress
3.0 OBJECTIVES
The primary objective of this unit is to consider the
Coleridge’s scientific approach towards the process of poetic
creation in his piv otal essay “Biographia Literaria”, which also
serves to be a more logical reply to Wordsworth’s “Preface to
Lyrical Ballads” .Apart from enlightening students with the gist of
this significant work by Coleridge, this unit emphasizes on
Coleridge’s views ab out use of meter in the process of poetic
creation.
3.1 INTRODUCTION TO ROMANTIC CRITICISM
Romanticism of the 19thcentury was a continental
movement and English Romantic Revival can be considered as a
part of European Romanticism. The distinction betwee nt h e
Romantic and the Classical was first explained by Schlegel. The
writings of Rousseau and William Godwin also shaped the growth
of English Romanticism. Concepts such as truth, nature, God and
creativity were redefined in the Romantic Era. The domain o f
literary criticism too underwent changes so as to accommodate
new approaches to art and literature.
Romantic Criticism was shaped by the experience of the
French Revolution and hence one of its major concerns was how
literature should relate to society. This question weighed heavily
with William Wordsworth, whose “Preface to Lyrical Ballads” carrymunotes.in
Page 29
29the first substantial statements of Romantic Critical principles.
Wordsworth spoke about the language of poetry and he maintained
that the language of poetry s hould be democratized. Samuel Taylor
Coleridge, on the other hand, was widely read in contemporary
German philosophy. His prose writings were conditioned by the
writings of Emanuel Kant, Johann Fichte and Friedrich Schelling.
Coleridge was involved, in his Biographia Literaria toestablish the
principles of writing. He also made an attempt to define imagination
and his interest in the power of imagination marked an important
aspect of Romantic critical thinking. Reality, imagination, fancy and
aesthetics we re the key concepts put in circulation by Romantic
Criticism.
English poets like William Wordsworth, S.T. Coleridge and
P.B. Shelley gave memorable expressions to the Romantic mindset
developed by their German contemporaries. They underscored in
their wri tings the primacy of feeling, love and pleasure, and
imagination over reason. They were also convinced of the spiritual
superiority of nature’s organic forms over mechanical ingenuity; and
of the ability of art to restore lost harmony between the individua l
and nature.
Romantic Criticism especially that of Wordsworth, made
certain proclamations about the nature and function of poetry.
Wordsworth’s famous statement of poetry as the spontaneous
overflow of powerful feelings posited a different view of poetr yt h a n
was accepted at that time. Wordsworth shifted the centre of
attention from the work as a reflection or imitation of reality to the
artist. For the first time, poetry was considered an expressive rather
than mimetic art. Additionally, music replaced painting as the art
form considered most like poetry. In addition to the significance of
poet’s personality in poetry, romantic critics formulated a few
aesthetic theories. Wordsworth’s notion of poetic language in
“Preface to Lyrical Ballads” and Coleridg e’s idea of meter in
Biographia Literaria are good examples of such theories. However,
Coleridge’s critical theory differed widely from that of Wordsworth in
that they were heavily grounded in theology. Further, Coleridge was
more systematic and analytical in his critical writings.
3.2INTRODUCTION TO S.T.COLERIDGE
Samuel Taylor Coleridge ,whose literary fame rest largely on
his identity as a romantic poet, was also a note worthy critic of his
time. His Biographia Literaria presents some interesting and
insightful analysis of the process of creativity, poetic language,
imagination and the significance of meter in poetry. Compared to
William W ordsworth, Coleridge appears to be more scientific in his
approach to the theory of creativity. While Wor dsworth ap preciatesmunotes.in
Page 30
30the spontaneity and simplicity in the process of creativity, Coleridge
explains the complex processes of sense -perceptions and the
image making. His critical theory also tries to plug the logical gaps
in Wordsworth’s theory of poetry. Most import antly, Coleridge
explains the difference between the ordinary and poetic language
by justifying the features of poetic composition.
I. A. Richards considers Coleridge as a forerunner of
semantics and Rene Wellekis of the opinion that Coleridge's theory
ofi m a g i n a t i o np r o v i d e sa ni m p o r t a n tl i n kb e t w e e nG e r m a n
Transcendentalism and English Romanticism.
Coleridge's literary criticism, unlike neoclassical criticism is
neither legislative nor judicial. He proposes an impressionistic -
romantic approach to liter ary criticism, hinting fresh revaluations of
old English literary masters. He was also probably t hefirst English
critic to explore the psychology of the poet while studying the
process of poetic creation and the principles of creative mental
activity. His greatest contribution to literary criticism is his theory of
imagination. This theory makes all previous discussions on
imagination look superficial and unscientific. Apart from making a
distinction between imagination and fancy, this theory also
differen tiates between primary and secondary imagination. The
theory also revolutionizes the concept of artistic imitation. Coleridge
tries to establish the point that poetic imitation is neither a slavish
copy of nature nor is it something entirely different from nature. For
him,poetry is not imitation but creation, though the creation is
based on the sensations and impressions received from the
external world.
3.3 AN OVERVIEW BIOGRAPHIA LITERARIA
(CHAPTER XVII AND CHAPTER XVIII): COLERIDGE’S
VIEWS ON POETIC LAN GUAGE AND THE USE OF
METER IN POETRY.
Coleridge's views on meter in poetry are largely reflected in
chapter sX V I Ia n d XVIII of Biographia Literaria . These chapter s,
besides justifying the use of meter , also explain the origin and
effects of meter. Chapter XVIII concludes with Coleridge's
argument that poetry is different from prose in its order, figurative
use of language and rhythm.
Coleridge believes that poetry is a matter of ordering or
succession of images, sentences and sounds. Based on this
premis e, he examines the validity of Wordsworth’s statement –
“there neither is nor can be any essential difference between the
language of prose and metrical composition". Coleridge says that
prose itself differs from place to place and person to person. Formunotes.in
Page 31
31instance ,written language is different from the language of
conversation. Hence he argues that one can assume that there
must begreater difference between ordnance of poetry and that of
prose.
Secondly Coleridge observes that language provides scope
for individuation. This would indicate that each writer would prefer
certain types of words, sentences and figures of speech. Poetry,
Coleridge believes, provides more scope for this individuation and
hence its language ought to be different from the prose.
Coleridge examines the origin of meter and explains that it
can be considered as an effort to check the workings of emotions.
Though he considers that meter creates a state of increased
excitement for the reader, he believes that it provides some control
over the passions for the writer. According to Coleridge ,meter is an
attempt to blend delight with emotions. Further ,he considers meter
as a voluntary act which takes some control over passion. He says
that a poem written in meter combines spontaneous impu lse with
voluntary purpose. To prove this point, Coleridge quotes from
Shakespeare's play The Winter’s Tale and shows how the meter
used in the dialogue makes it a pleasurable excitement.
Subsequently, Coleridge analyses the effects of meter.
Firstly, he observes that meter increases the vivacity of natural
feelings. Secondly, he points out that meter produces continued
excitement of surprise. Thirdly ,he says that meter creates a
medicated atmosphere in poetry. Countering Wordsworth's
statement about mete rthat there is no essential difference between
the language of prose and that of metrical composition ,C o l e r i d g e
states that meter has a pleasurable purpose. Toprove this point,
Coleridge analyses Wordsworth's poem ,"Children in the Wood"
and shows that Wordsworth has used an alliterative meter in this
poem to elevate the emotions and to create a pleasing auditory
pattern .F u r t h e r ,Coleridge argues that meter gives a poem a better
chance of immortality. He points out that Wordsworth's poems like
"Simon Le e" and "Alice Fell" would have been moral essays had
they been written in prose. Coleridge also believes that meter
stimulates attention.
Coleridge observes that meter can capture low and rustic life
as Wordsworth would prefer. He says that a poem can rem ain
colloquial and yet can be written in figurative language.
Like Aristotle, Coleridge argues that different human
emotions like love, fear, rage and jealousy can be expressed in
different meters. Hence, he believes that these meters would
demand a diffe rent use of language in poetry. Coleridge is also of
the opinion that human beings like unity by harmonious adjustmentmunotes.in
Page 32
32i.e. the assimilation of the essential parts to the whole. Meter ,he
says ,is an example of this adjustment.
Finally ,Coleridge observes that the debate on whether to
have meter or not should be settled on the basis of the practice of
the poets. Hepoints out that great poets like Shakespeare ,Milton
and Wordsworth have used meter and figure sof speech to make a
difference from ordinary pr ose. He proves this point by re -
assessing Wordsworth's criticism of Gray's sonnet and points out
that the lines of the sonnet which Wordsworth liked are different
from ordinary prose, as they have metaphors and similes, meters
and alliteration. Coleridge c oncludes the chapter by re -working
Wordsworth' s statement on language of poetry and gives his
verdict –"there may be, is and ought to be an essential difference
between the language of prose and metrical composition." What
Coleridge implies is that a goo dp o e mh a sar h y t h m ,f i g u r e so f
speech and unique style which make it different from ordinary
conversation.
3.4CONCLUSION
Eventually Coleridge through his insightful and logically
sound chapters in Biographia Literaria asserts that there is huge
differe nce between the language of ordinary prose and that of
poetic composition; and this difference gets reflected with the use
of meter and figures of speech in poems. Coleridge proves thisby
illustrating how Wordsworth himself liked those compositions which
are highly figurative and metrically sound and not just in the
ordinary language of prose.
3.5CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
Q.IState whether the following statements are t rue or false:
1.According to Coleridge, there is no difference between the
language of ordin ary prose and that of poetic composition.
2.Coleridge justifies his views about the use of meter by
illustrating the great poets like Shakespeare, Milton and
Wordsworth himself.
3.Meter, according to Coleridge, adds vivacity to a poem.
QII.Answer the foll owing:
1. Discuss how Wordsworth and Coleridge perceive poetic diction?
2. Explain how romantic critics place imagination at the heart of the
creative process.
munotes.in
Page 33
33Unit -4
“A DEFENCE OF POETRY” –
Percy Bysshe Shelley
Unit Structure
4.0Objective s
4.1Introduction
4.2 About the Author
4.3 Introduction to the text
4.31 Reason versus Imagination
4.32 Production of Poetry
4.33 Nature of Poetry
4.34 Function of Poetry
4.4Conclusion
4.5 Key Terms
4.6 Check Your Progress
4.0OBJECTIVES
The objective of this essay is to sensitize students to the
perception of poetry among the Romantic poets and to enable them
to understand how they defend poetry from all accusations levelled
against it. The essay also intends to create in students an
appreciation for Shelley's views on Poetry.
4.1INTRODUCTION
The "Defence of Poetry" is considered as an important
instance of Shelley's prose writings. While his lyrical poetry does
provide an insight into his imagination, this essay supplement sthis
pictureand gives us a glimpse of his intellect as well. The essay
was originally written in 1821 as a response to Thomas Love
Peacock's "Four Ages of Poetry ",which wittily argued that society
was now sufficiently a dvanced to dispense with poetry and that a
poet was no more than ‘a semi -barbarian in a civilized community' .
Shelley's essay stands out as one of the most eloquent and
inspiring assertions of the "ideal nature and essential value of
poetry ."It was first published posthumously in 1840 in Essays,
Letters from Abroad, Translations and Fragments .munotes.in
Page 34
344.2ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792 -1822) was born at Field Place
near Horsham. He attended Eton College from 1804to 1810, and
then went on to Oxford University. At university, Shelley was
influenced by radical writings of Tom Paine and William Godwin
and began writing radical articles himself. He wrote articles
defen ding Daniel Isaac Eaton, a bookseller charged with selling
books by Tom Paine and the much persecuted Radical publisher,
Richard Carlile .
Shelley also wrote the Gothic Zastrozzi (1810) and “The
Necessity of Atheism ”(1811), a pamphlet that attacked the idea of
compulsory Christianity, as a result of which he was expelled from
Oxford University. In course of time, he wrote ma ny more radical
pamphlets like A Declaration of Rights, on the subject of the French
Revolution ,A Proposal for Putting Refor mt ot h eV o t eT h r o u g h o u t
the United Kingdom to ring in electoral reforms and to bring
improvements in working class education. articles for The Examiner
on political subjects. His long poe mQueen Mab , celebrating the
merits of republicanism, atheism, vegetarianism and free love, was
published by Leigh Hunt. Som e of his famous poems like
'Ozymandias'(1818), 'The Masque of Anarchy' (1819), 'Ode to the
West Wind' (1820), 'The Revolt of Islam' and 'Prometheus
Unbound' (1820) proved to be an influence on later poets like
Robert Browning , Dante Gabriel Rossetti, Algernon Charles
Swinburne, Lord Alfred Tennyson ,a n d William Butler Yeats .He al so
wrote a tragedy The Cenci and many other works including Men of
England and an elegy for John Keats, “Adonais” (1821). In 1822
Shelley, moved to Italy with Leigh Hunt andLord Byron where they
published the journal The Liberal. By publishing it in Italy the three
men remained free from prosecution by the British authorities. The
first edition of The Liberal sold 4,000 copies. Soon after its
publication, Percy Bysshe Shelley was lost at sea on 8th July,
1822.
4.3INTRODUCTION TO THE TEXT
Shelley’s “Defenc e of Poetry” is unusual ascompared to
similarly titled “defenses” of poetry. Shelley’s essay contains no
rules for poetry , or aesthetic judgments of his contemporaries.
Instead, Shelley’s philosophical assumptions about poets and
poetry can be read as a sort of primer for the Romantic movement
in general. In this essay, written a year before his death, Shelley
addresses “The Four Ages of Poetry,” a witty magazine piece by
his friend, Thomas Love Peacock. Peacock’s work teases and
jokes through its definitions and conclusions, specifically that poetry
has become valueless and redundant in an age of science andmunotes.in
Page 35
35technology, and that intelligent people should not waste their time
inliterary pursuits and should instead put their intelligence to good
use. Shelley refutes Peacock's arguments in his "Defenc eo f
Poetry ."Hefocuses on the role of poetry and the poet in society
and exp lains why he considers poets to be incredible, div ine, super -
human beings on whom all of civilization and human existence
relies. Shelley , in this essay provides his criticism of reason and
insists that imagination is th atwhichmakes poets productive
characters. T hus,this essay revolves around Shelley 'sargument
thatimagination is superior to reason. Thereafter, Shelley proceeds
to establish the nature of the poet .
4.3.1 Reason versus Imagination
At the beginning of the essay, Shelley compar es the hu man
mind to an aeolian lyre (or harp) .Heargues that the mind like a lyre
produces conscious thought (the melody) partly in response to
external impetuses like the wind and partly in response to internal
impressions derived from transcendental sources .S helley calls the
part of our mind which is shaped by external impressions and which
is responsible for conscious thought asreason. It is reason which
brings in a sense of harmony to our mind and to our conscious
thoughts.
Shelley says that when reason cr eates conscious thought, it
also provides a sequence of ideas. But, it is the Imagination in the
human mind that allows for ming of connections, links, associations
and combinations between the ideas. Shelley claims that since both
the reason and the Imagin ation arefaculties or functions of the
mind, found in each human being, they have a different set of
functions to perform. According to him, while reason attempts to
perceive the truth through logical processes and argumentation and
resorts to dissecting issues and splitting them into their constitutive
elements ,the Imagination is responsible for a higher level of
thought than the reason and sees beyond the physical world to the
essences or ideal forms of which physical phenomena, in the
Platonist scheme of things, are merely imperfect replicas. The
Imagination is, thus, concerned with conceptualiz ing the unification
of phenomena and expressing them in the form of logical
discourses like scientific treatises. Reason is able to differentiate
between issues while Imagination tries to bring seemingly different
and irreconcilable issues together on the basis of some underlying
sameness and focuses on discerning patterns. Thus, the
imagination is superior to reason as it makesuse of reason and
builds upon it, thereby surpassing it.
4.3.2Production of Poetry
Shelley argues that knowledge is subjective and each
individual perceives it differently. The mind creates knowledge on
the basis of its observation of things. Thus it is capable of makingmunotes.in
Page 36
36either a heave n of hell or a hell of heaven. Whatever impression we
gather from the surroundings influences us but Shelley contends
that poetry enables us to break free from fixed notions that we may
have about the incident. Poetry tends to either provide an
ornamented account of events or to reveal life's innermost secrets
but in both cases, it invariably creates a new individuality within us,
which is able to view the anomalies in the everyday world and
glimpse the reality of our existence. Poetry recreates that aspect of
the world that is lost to us as it is repeatedly veiled by more
mundane things which occupy the centre stage of life. Shelley
argues that it is human ability to accumulate wisdom -moral, political
and historical, and to load his mental faculties with al l sorts of
scientific and economical knowledge that jams his creative faculty.
It is therefore, that his creative faculty is unable to imagine the
things that are known or to act on those impulses and in turn is not
capable of generating any poetry. So alt hough all the sciences
have helped man to establish his supremacy over the outer world,
the failure of his poetic faculty renders him vulnerable to being
trapped in the smaller mental world of his own making.
Shelley claims that the poetic ability helps man in two ways.
Firstly, it helps generate new materials of knowledge, power and
pleasure and secondly, it instills a desire to rearrange them in
attractive patterns. The Imagination isthe most important mental
faculty, in Shelley’s view, responsible for composing a poem .S o,
the creative process is not one that can be consciously controlled
as unlike reasoning, it cannot be controlled by desire. Shelley
compares the mind which is in the act of creating to a fading coal
being influenced by some invisible power within the coal
transforming it into a diamond. He says that another example of a
simillar phenomenon is seen in flowers wherein it gets its colour
from within itself and later follows its own pattern of growth and
fading. The mind, therefore, is una ble to guess when its creative
juices will flow or ebb.
Poetry is the product of inspiration, coming from within and
over which the conscious portion of our mind (or reason) has little
control. Poets simply have to follow the dictates of this superior
power within their souls. He concludes that it is, therefore, a
mistake to presume that wonderful poetry is created as a result of
hard work or taught lessons. Shelley claims that the only things that
ap o e ti s conscious of are flitting thoughts and feelings with respect
to particular places or persons arising and subsiding unbidden from
the recesses of the mind creating unparalleled pleasure. It isasif a
greater power intercedes on man's behalf and vanishes leaving
behind traces as those created by the win d on the sand in the sea
shore. But, for this to happen, the poet must possess a high degree
of literary sensitivity and imagination power.munotes.in
Page 37
37Shelley claims that poets have the power to envision an
alternative world, and so they cannot be said to be mere writers. On
the contrary, they may be said to be the ones who make laws for
the civil society or they may be called teachers who are close
enough to the beautiful and the true to become agencies of religion.
ToShelley , poets are like legislators and proph ets who are able to
not only look beyond the apparent present and decide the laws for
arranging them systematically, but also glimpse the future in the
present and put forth their insightful thoughts.
4.3.3Nature of Poetry
Having defined the poet, She lley turns his attention to
comprehending the nature of poetry. Shelley argues that poetry is
the “expression of the imagination” of the poet. He admits that
reason evidently plays a part too .Atl e a s ta to n el e v e l , poetry
makes use of media like words and is an imitation of human actions
and behaviour. Poetry is in short, to some degree at least, am i r r o r
held up to the physical world .These are all functions ofthe reason.
However, poetry does more than this: poets being in direct
communication with the c reator uset h e i rI m a g i n a t i o nt oc o n v e ya
world order that is invincible . Poetry is, from this point of view, the
main site where things lying undiscovered find expression to
present timeless music. Poetry exposes the reality of life
threadbare. It makes th e familiar unfamiliar by presenting the stark
reality. Poetic devices enable comparing ordinary things to true
images rendering them extraordinary. Poets, Shelley says, are in
direct connection to both man and nature and are able to gauge the
depth of huma nn a t u r e . Shelley ,accordingly ,ranks literature in
general ,and poetry in particular ,above all other art forms likethe
visual arts, the plastic arts (sculpture), or dance. This is because
poetry is the product of imagination in combination with usage of
metrical language in unusual ways. By virtue of the nature of
language, poetry not only represents the actions and passions
locked within individuals, but also plays with different modes of
expression and thus, proves to be superior to other art forms.
Although both prose and poetry make use of language,
Shelley proposes that the status of poetry is above that of prose
fiction .He s ays that the use of language in prose is limited whereas
that in poetry is not. He further clarifies that t he difference lie sn o t
merely in the fact that one is written in verse while the other is not.
But, in that prose merely lists detached facts connected on the
basis of time, place, circumstance, cause and effect while poetry
regenerates and reconstitutes them just like the creator. Besides,
where prose fiction appliesonly to ad e f i n i t ep e r i o do ft i m e ,a n d to
certain combination of eve nts which may never recur again, poetry
isuniversal, and contains within itself a bit of every possible kind of
motive or action seen reflec ted in human nature. Moreover, prose
fiction is nothing more than a narration of particular facts whichmunotes.in
Page 38
38tends to distort the beautiful, poetry creates beauty in that which is
originally not.
Poetry, Shelley famously asserts, is the “record of the best
and happiest moments of the happiest and best minds” and i t
immortalizes all that is incredible in its existence or beauty besides
capturing the essence of fleeting moments of life in words for the
pleasure of mankind. It “redeems from decay the visitations of the
divinity in man” (527) because of its ability to render everything in
its purview beautiful .Shelley also stresses that, because of their
subject matter, the highest forms of poetry are not easily
fathomable. They are, in fact, infinitely suggestiv e and evocative in
aw a yt h a t makes it very difficul t to pinpoint meaning precisely.
4.3.5Function of Poetry
Shelley finally proceeds to discuss the functions of poetry.
He claims that while the imagination is able to generate delight,
reason has utilit y value that is equivalent to pleasure. The universal
or permanent pleasure “strengthens and purifies the affections,
enlarges the imagination, and adds spirit to sense” (525) while the
transitory pleasure merely prevents the persisting base animal
nature in man from surfacing. Poets seek to produce pleasure as
pleasure is the true utility of poetry. So, even those in society who
indulge in the pursuit of limited pleasure are following the footsteps
of poets.
Shelley also responds to the accusation that poetry is
immoral and argues that the accusation is based on a
misconception regarding the way in which poetry enhances man's
moral outlook. The pleasure generated by poetry is far different
from that created by tragedy. Shelley claims that while tragedy
rings in sorrow, poetry brings delight along with wisdom. Besides,
poetry in its divine manner rises above propagating the doctrine of
hate and subjugation and allows the mind to receive many thoughts
which were previously not grasped and thereby reveals th et r u e
beauty by making the familiar unfamiliar. According to Shelley, love
is the greatest of morals which promotes collaboration with beauty
in another's thought and action. He says that if a man is good, he
must put himself in the place of others and ex perience their pains
and pleasures. But, this requires imagination and it is poetry that
moulds imagination by providing exercise to strengthen this faculty.
So, Shelley advises that, there is no need to moralize in poetry as a
poet's morals are decided by his place and time and it may not be
universal. But, poetry itself helps overcome unbecoming desires
and paves the way for emotions like love, patriotism and friendship.
Poetry successfully arouses once experienced but presently latent
feelings and makes immortal all that is best and most beautiful in
the world. Poetry, Shelley continues, turns all things to loveliness. I t
exalts the beauty of that which is most beautiful, and it adds beautymunotes.in
Page 39
39to that which is most deformed. I tm a r r i e s exultation and horror,
grief and pleasure, eternity and change and subdues to union
under its light yoke, all irreconcilable things. It revives glimpses of
divinity in man with its Midas touch.
Shelley also argues that if literature has been instrumental in
trying to bring a bout civil and religious liberty in present times,
poetry appropriately complements the function of literature. He
argues that while it is possible to comprehend the loss in terms of
moral and intellectual growth if philosophers like Locke and Voltaire
hadnever been, one cannot even begin to gauge the impact on the
human mind of the absence of poets of the stature of Shakespeare.
Perhaps, the human mind would fail to appreciate the difference
between good and bad and would be unable to use his analytical
reasoning ability to decipher the abnormal trends in society.
4.4 CONCLUSION
“AD e f e n c eo fP o e t r y ”can be considered as a
counterpoint to Coleridge's ideas about reason and imagination in
that this essay defends the poetic imagination. H ere Shelley
emphasizes that both the poet and poetry have an important place
in society. It is poetry which adds charm to the world. It is not
concerned with just an aesthetic function but takes in its stride a
more superior role of inculcating moral judge ment. Shelley argues
that poetry brings about moral good. Poetry, Shelley believes,
exercises and expands the imagination which brings about
sympathy, compassion, love, and the ability to p utoneself in the
position of another person. Poetry makes its effe ct felt on every
realm of life. So, the role of neither, the poet or poetry can be
derided. In fact, he suggests that the world can survive without
philosophers but not without poets.
Shelley, more than other English poet sof the early
nineteenth century ,believed in t he connection between beauty and
goodness, and in the power of art’s sensual pleasures to improve
society. While Byron’s prose was marked with instances of amoral
sensuousness and controversial rebelliousness and Keats 'works
revealed his beliefin beauty an d aesthetics for their own sake,
Shelley 's poetry reflect moral optimism. He firmly believe sthat
poetry makes people and society better .T h r o u g hh is poetry he
hoped toinfluence his readers sensuously, spiritually, and morally,
all at the same time.munotes.in
Page 40
404.5KEYTERMS
Imagination, Reasoning, Knowledge, Pleasure
4.6CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
Q1 True or False
1. According to Shelley, prose is superior to poetry.
2. Poetry mirrors the physical world.
3. Shelley's essay contains rules of poetry.
4. The mind has the power to switch on and off its creative juices.
5. Poets can create an alternate world.
Q2 Define the following terms:
1. Imagination
2.Reasoning
3. Poetry
4. Pleasure
5.Knowledge
Q3 Attempt the following:
1.What does Shelley argue i nf a v o u ro f -Reason or Imagination?
Explain your answer on the basis of your study of his essay.
2.Discuss the nature and functions of poetry as envisaged by
Shelley in his essay.
3. How does Shelley define the poet’s role in society ?
munotes.in
Page 41
41Unit -5
“THE THEORY OFR A S A ”–S.N.Dasgupta
Unit Structure
5.0Objective s
5.1Introduction
5.2About the Author
5.3 Introduction to the text
5.3.1Notion of Rasa theory in Sanskrit Poetics
5.3.2 Manifestation of Rasa in Sanskrit Classics
5.3.3Rasa :D i f f e r e n tA ssociations
5.3.4Evolution of Rasa Theory
5.3.5F u n c t i o no fR a s a
5.4Conclusion
5.5 Key Terms
5.6 Check Your Progress
5.0OBJECTIVES
The basic aim of this unit is to familiarize the student with the
Rasa theory . It will also try to elucidate cert ain important terms
used in S.N.Dasgupta's essay and contextualize the essay to
Indian aesthetics.
5.1 Introduction
The ancient Sanskrit Acharyas understood poetry as a
verbal complex, profoundly emotive and they explained poetry on
the basis of Rasa Th eory. Rasa siddhanta is an affective theory.
Though it is Bharata who is credited with having originated the rasa
theory ,it was Abhinava G upta whodeveloped it into a systematic
poetic principle.
Although the concept of rasa is fundamental to many forms
ofIndian art including dance ,music , musical theatre, cinema and
literature ,t h et r e a t m e n t ,i n terpretation, usage and actual
performance of a particular rasa differs greatly between different
styles and schools of abhinaya ,a n dt h e re exist huge regional
differences tooeven within one style.munotes.in
Page 42
42S.N.Dasgupta attempts to explain the place of this theory in
Indian poetics. He throws light on the different types of Rasas and
traces its development across ages.
5.2ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Surendranath Dasgupta (1885 -1952) was an Indian
philo sopher who wrote the scholarly work A History of Indian
Philosophy ,5v o l .( 1 9 2 2 –55). Dasgupta received master’s degrees
in Sanskrit and philosophy from Sanskrit College in Calcutt a.
During the early 1920s, he travel led to England, where he earned a
doctorate in philosophy from the University of Cambridge. His other
major works include Yoga as Philosophy and Religion (1924) and
Indian Idealism (1933). His philosophical system synthe sized
aspects of Vedantic literature, Indian Jainism (particularly its
mysticism ), the British and American school of new realism ,a n dt h e
theory of emergent evolution .
Dasgupta was the Principal at Government Sanskrit College,
Calcutta and King George V. He also served as a Professor of
Mental and Moral Science, at the Calcutta University. He
represented India at the International Congress of Religion in
London in 1936 and in Paris in 1939.
5.3INTRODUCTION TO THE TEXT
S.N.Dasgupta’s essay ,“The Theory of Rasa ,”is an
interpretation of the Rasa Theory and also a commentary on
different Sanskrit critics who have explained Rasa. What Dasgupta
does in this essay is to define Rasa and to explain the
psychological process which combines emotions, itsphysical
expressions and the setting which evokes Rasa.
5.3.1 Notio n of Rasa Theory in Sanskrit Poetics
T he Theory of Rasa has been central to Indian aesthetics or
Sanskrit poetics which was developed around six hundred AD.
Rasa Theory is generally considered as an explanatory formula for
the aesthetic experience of Indi an Drama and Literature and
Bharata’s Natyashastra is considered as the source of this theory.
In Indian aesthetics Rasa refers to the emotional or aesthetic
experience crafted into the work by the writer and relished by a
sensitive and responsive spect ator or sahrdaya, one with a positive
taste and mind. Bharata states that Rasa are created by Bhavas or
emotions. He also maintains that a Rasa is developed out of a
permanent mood which is also known as Sthayi Bhava. However,
this development results from interplay of emotions and emotional
conditions which are called Bhavas and Vibhavas.munotes.in
Page 43
435.3.2 Manifestation of Rasa in Sanskrit Classics
Prof. Dasgupta opens the essay by explaining that the
completion of a Rasa depends on the right blend of Vibhava,
Anubhava and Vyabhichari bhava. Further ,he interprets and
explains these three terms in the context of the Bharata’s writing.
Dasgupta explains Vibhava into two –Alambana and Uddipana.
Alambana Vibhava indicates the person or persons with reference
to whom the emotion is manifested in an art form. For instance, in
Kalidasa’s Shakuntala, the emotion of love or Rati is manifested by
Dushyanth and Shakuntala who becomes the Alambana Vibhava.
Uddipana Vibhava is the term used to indicate the circumstances
which excite the emotion. These circumstances may include the
setting, the weather, the nature, sounds and the time of the day.
For instance, in Shakuntala ,beautiful scenery of Ashram including
the greenery, the fawns, the river, flowers and the easy lifestyle
induce love in Dushyanth and Shakuntala ,making the Uddipana
Vibhavas. Dasgupta explains Anubhava as the bodily expressions
by which the emotion is articulated. For instance, in Shakuntala ,the
heroine’s glances smiles and her coyness may indicate the phy sical
expressions of love. Vyabhichari bhavas area series of diverse
emotions that feed the dominant emotion. For instance, in
Shakuntala , when Shakuntala is rejected by Dushyant, she drowns
in the dominant feeling of sorrow or shok. However, in her
interactions with Dushyant, she weeps, screams and finally faints ,
showing the range of Vyabhichari bhavas and the corresponding
bodily expressions to feed the dominant emotion of sorrow.
Similarly, it is possible to see in a play or a cinema, a beloved
waiting for her lover ,experiencing the dominant emotion of love but
also showing impatience, anxiety, jealousy and remembrance to
make the emotion of love very realistic.
5.3.3 Rasa : Different Associations
Prof. Dasgupta considers Vibhavas as the causes or ka rma
of Rasa. He considers Anubhava as the effects following the rise of
the emotion.
It is also necessary to consider the primary Rasas proposed
by Bharata. Th ese Rasas are also associated with certain colours
and deities. SrIngar (love), Hasya (mirth), Raudra (Fury), Karuna
(sympathy), Bibhasta (disgust), Bhayanak (horror), Vira (heroic),
Athbhut (surprise) are thes eRasas. The ninth Rasa is considered
more stable and it is Santh (tranquility/peace). Natyashastra also
provides eight bhavas or emotions wh ich correspond to these eight
Rasas. Thes eemotions are Rati, Hasya, Krodha, Bhay, Jugupsa,
Vismay, Utsaha, Shok.munotes.in
Page 44
44In addition, Natyashastra explains the effects of the thirty
three Sanchari bhavas which are crossing feelings, additional to the
permanent moods and Vyabhichari bhavas or the transc ient
emotions which arise in the course of maintaining and developing
the basic mood. Bharata also talks about the expression of
emotions, Anubhavas s uch as blushing or perspiration . A significant
point in Natyasha strais the qualification of a worthy spectator who
is also described as ‘rasajna’ for wh om Rasaanubhava or the
experienc e of Rasa his understanding of Vibhavas and Vyabhichari
bhavas isthrough Anubhavas or acting, gestures, physical
expressions.
5.3.4 E volution of Rasa Theory
Prof. Dasgupta also makes a quick historical survey of the
evolution of Rasa Theory with reference to critics such as Abhinav a
Gupta, Mammata, Bhatta Lollata, Bhatta Nayaka andBhatta Tauta.
In this process ,he appreciates the effo rts of these critics as
aesthetic psychologists who could explain the link between
simulated emotions of the actors and the feelings of the spectators.
He also points out that an emotion cannot be called Rasa unless it
is presented through the medium of ar t and aesthetically excited.
For instance, he argues that if a man falls in love with a woman, he
may experience the emotion of love or rati but he need not
experience Sringar Rasa. Dasgupta claims that Rasa is an emotion
excited by artistic circumstances anddoes not exist in real life.
Dasgupta also maintains that the Alankara Critics or the
critics who focused on techniques and forms had a problem with
Rasa Theory because they could not explain how dominant
emotions could be aroused by artistic means. However, he
appreciates critics like Mammata and Samkuka for considering
Vibhavas as the causes of Rasa. He also appreciates the efforts of
Bhatta Nayaka who had suggested that Rasa is not a subject of
ordinary psychology but of aesthetic psychology i.e. t he psycho
motive changes in a spectator. Dasgupta also considers positively
the efforts of Abhinav aGupta in developing Rasa Theory and
maintains that it was this critic who had effectively, explained the
pathological symptoms of an emotion and how these s ymptoms ,
when presented in art ,l ed to enjoyment. For instance, he explained
how the experience of tragedy also leads to aesthetic enjoyment in
art though the subject matter is grief. Dasgupta also tries to explain
Rasa in terms of emotio -motive complexes through which emotions
like fear or love, which are personal in real life ,become universal in
a play or art. This also explains how the personal and emotional
gets transformed into artistic universal and artistic joy (Rasa).
Dasgupta ,in particular ,ishighly appreciative of Bhatta
Tauta, the teacher of Abhinav aGupta who had explained Rasa in
the context of drama. Bhatta Tauta had argued that the actor whomunotes.in
Page 45
45plays the role of Ram may not appe ar to us as the Ideal Ram but it
may not appear to us that he ca nnotb eR a me i t h e r .S u c ha na c t o r
is somewhere between theActual and the Ideal. According to
Bhatta Tauta ,the physical expressions of this actor along with
music and scenery may evoke a vision of reality. It may also lead to
a new experience for the spec tators where they can star t
interpreting a physical occur rence and move towards a pure
spiritual enlightenment. This experience, which begins at the
personal and move stowards the universal is technically the
process of Rasa asvadhana or Chamatkar (Transcen dental
experience). This also explains how a drama objectively deals with
emotions and transforms the experience of these emotions to a
universal realm.
5.3.5 Function of Rasa
In S. N.Dasgupta’s view, art tries to universalize the local or
the personal with the help of aesthetic enlight enment or Rasa. He
believes that emotion -motive complexes are dormant in the minds
of spectators which are evoked by the art that begins at the worldly
level of Bhava or emotions that gradually moves to Alaukika or
chamatk ara, enabling the spectators to experienc eRasa by
interpreting the bodily manifestation of emotions or Anubhavas.
Dasgupta also maintains that Rasa Theory is the best aesthetic
explanation available in Indian poetics and he believes that it is
highly usef ul in explaining and an alyzing drama, dance and
literature ,especially with a focus on thespectator or the reader.
One can align Dasgupta’s interpretation of Rasa Theory and Rasa
Theory developed by the Sanskrit critics with Reader Response
Criticism.
5.4CONCLUSION
Thus ,S.N. Dasgupta not only appraises the many
progression of Rasa theory across the ages but also interprets and
collates the theory with much acclaimed western critical theory of
the twentieth century. He explains the different elements of Rasa
theory. He also elaborates on the working of Rasas and Bhavas
and creates a bridge for the understanding of Sanskrit aesthetics.
He,thus,provides us with a critical tool to examine Indian art forms
and their emotional and aesthetic impacts .
5.5KEYTERMS
Rasa siddhanta, sahrdaya, Bhavas, Alambana Vibhava. Uddipana
Vibhava ., Vyabhichari bhava, Rasasvadhana or Chamatkar ,
‘rasajna’munotes.in
Page 46
465.6CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
Q1 True or False
1. Alambana and Uddipana are types of Vibhavas.
2. Rasas and Bhavas mean the sam e.
3. Vibhavas a rethe causes of Rasa .
4. Rasas are associated with fruits .
5. Anubh avas are expression of emotions .
Q2 Define the following terms:
1. Alambana Vibhava
2. Sthayi Bhava
3. Vyabhichari bhava
4. Rasa asvadhana
5. Sahrdaya
Q3.Attempt the following:
1.How does Das gupta trace the evolution of Rasa Theory?
2. How does Dasgupta explain the working of Rasas and Bhavas?
3. What is Rasa Theory? How does Dasgupta explain it?
munotes.in
Page 47
47Unit -6
“KUNTAKA ’STHEORY OFPOETRY:
VAKROKTI” –S.K.De
Unit Structure
6.0Objective s
6.1Introduction
6.2About the Author
6.3 Introduction to the Text
6.3.1 Kuntaka's Notion of Vakrokti
6.3.2 Levels of Operation of Vakrokti
6.3.3 Classification of Riti
6.3.4 Various Forms of Vakrokti
6.3.5I m p o r t a n c eo fD h v a n i
6.4Conclusion
6.5 Key Terms
6.6 Check Your Progress
6.0OBJECTIVES
The primary objective of this unit is to enable the students to
comprehend the key notion of Vakrokti as conceptualised by
Kuntaka. The unitalso tries to explain the basic tenets of Vakrokti
Theor y as discussed by B. N De.
6.1INTRODUCTION
Indian philosophy abounds in theories that throw light on the
nature of poetry. A number of Indian critics have referred to
Vakrokti and its role in poetry in their works. Some of these were
renowned scholars l ike Bhamaha, Dandin, Vamana, Rudrata,
Kuntaka, Abhinava Gupta, and Bhoja. All these critics approach
Vakrokti differently. For Bhamaha, it is Vakrokti that converts a
piece of writing in to Poetry ,the use of poetic figure to give a
suggest ivemeaning of t he literary expression. But, for Vamana, it
indicates a particular figurative expression. And for Rudrata, it
becomes a verbal figure. However, all these critics give Vakrokti a
sketchy treatment in their works. It was Kuntaka who elaborated on
Vakrokti su fficiently to develop a theory of literary criticism.munotes.in
Page 48
48Kuntaka attached a special importance to Vakrokti. Prior to
Kuntaka, although a lot of work has been done on Alamkara,
emphasis has not been on the pleasure generated by poetry. Since
it is this joy th at is of paramount importance in literary studies,
Kuntaka works around different ways of expression of ideas in
poetry and shows how some turn of phrases are more satisfying
than others. He uses this ability to turn phrases and to generate
delight in poet ry as a yardstick to measure its effectivity. So
Vakrokti, which has two parts 'vakra' meaning crooked or unique
and 'eukti' meaning expression or speech, becomes his tool for
evaluating poetry.
Today, Vakrokti is said to mean obliquity. As a term, we
find it in use in the vedas and puranas, especially in Atharvaveda
and Agnipurana . However, the later poets who wrote in Sanskrit
continued playing with the word and used it in many different
senses . Some used it to express anger while others used it to
express humour. But, its importance in poetry was never denied .
6.2ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Dr. S. K.De was Professor Emeritus of Sanskrit at the
University of Calcutta. He is a great Indian scholar who wrote
extensively in the field of aesthetics. His acquaintan ce and
understanding of Indian society was immense and he contributed
freely to the perception of Indian Aesthetics as an independent
entity with its own unique flavour, distinctly different from Western
Aesthetics. His contribution in the area of Comparat ive Aesthetics
has been enormous. He has written a number of articles and
books. Almost all works on Sanskrit Poetics invariably provide
reference to De's two volumes of The History of Sanskrit Poetics.
6.3INTRODUCTION TO THE TEXT
Dr. De in this essay places Kuntaka in the chronology of
Indian Poetics and provides insight in to his historical standing and
importance. He elaborates on Kuntaka's theory of poetry which has
not found much patronage among the later writers. According to
him, Kuntaka attempts to reveal the true nature of poetic beauty.
He belonged to the 7th Century and has based his theory on
Bhamaha's conception of Vakrokti. According to K. Krishnamoorthy,
"aesthetic theory of Kuntaka bears very close affinity to the
Crocean aesthetics all a rt is expression and that it is creative
intuition which culminates in poetry."munotes.in
Page 49
496.3.1 Kuntaka's Notion of Vakrokti
Prof De explains that Kuntaka wrote this theory based on the
central premise that the charisma of poetry is grounded on Vaicitrya
or a strikingness of expression. So , De maintains, Vakrokti avoids
expression of ideas by using conventional mode of speech.
Instead, it demands the use of striking words. This is unlike
sciences and the scriptures which require one to use established
words or ways.
Generally, every word in a poe mhas a meaning but
Kuntaka , as De reminds, says that every word in the poetry must
be used in a unique way so that its meaning stands out
conspicuously. According to Kuntaka, the poet must be skilled
enough (K a v i -kausala) to use his imagination (kavi -vyapara) in
innovative ways. This usage of the unusual in new ways in poetry
(Kavi -vyapara -vakratva) is the ultimate source of poetry. Thus
Vakrokti is a Bhaniti -prakara which requires the use of new and
non-conservative phrases. Ruyyaka refers to this as Ukti -Vaicitrya
or an extraordinary expression which depends on poetic talent.
While Dandin and some other critics give a lot of importance
to Svabhavokti or a natural description of an object, both Bhamaha
and Kuntaka do not accept their version. They argue that
decorations are meant to beautify the nature of an object, but if the
nature or Svabhava is already decorative, further decoration
becomes pointless. Kuntaka ,includes decorating of the nature of
an object under Vakya -vakrata in which the nature of an object in
both Sahaja and Aharya forms become the correct premise for
heightened expression. Kuntaka includes Svabhavokti as an
element of Sukumara -marga. Simillarly, both Bhamaha and
Kuntaka feel that Atisaya (stri king quality) or Prakarsa -
kasthadhiroha (climax of excellence) is necessary for a striking
style or Vicitra -marga and leads to Vakrokti -vaicitrya. The highest
point of enjoyment ,beyond what is achieved through usage of the
best words, ideas or decoration is called Tadvid -ahlada -karitva and
it is what Vaicitrya in poetry, which diverges from the usual trends ,
seek sto achieve. The Tad -vid or Sahrdaya or the man of taste who
possesses a certain degree of culture and aesthetic instinct
appreciates Vaicitrya in poetry by identifying with the feelings and
moods of the poet. Abhinava Gupta defines, the Sahrdaya as
persons with responsive hearts whose sensibilities are rendered
transparent by a regular contemplation of poetry and who are
capable of identification with the described object.
Kuntaka believes that Vakrokti alone can decorate the poetry
or become its Alamkara. While actually it is the word and its
meaning or Alamkarya which is in need of embellishment or
decoration or Alamkara, Kuntaka does not give importance to themunotes.in
Page 50
50difference between Alamkarya and Alamkara and includes them
under Vakya -vakrata. He, like Dandin, uses the term Vakrokti as
co-extensive with the generic term Alamkara. Vakrokti, he argues,
is the only embellishment possible to word and its meaning and so -
called poetic figures are different aspects of the Vakrokti.
6.3.2Levels of Operation of Vakrokti
Deobserves that, a ccording to Kuntaka, V akrokti is the oblique use
of languag e and it operates at six levels:
1. Varna : shabdalankara so rp h o n e t i co b l i q u i t y
2. Padapurvardha : suggestive use of linguistic elements & gunas
or lexical obliquity.
3.Padaparardha : suggestive use of affixes etc. or grammatical
obliquity
4.Vakya : figures of sense or sentential obliquity
5.Prakarama : episode in plot with unity and originality or episodic
obliquity
6. Prabandha : whole plot or compositional obliquity
The first level is V arna-vinyasa -vakrata (phonetic obliquity
or obliquity in the arrangement of phonemes or consonants or
syllables). It works at three level sof phonemes :when similar or
identical phonemes or consonants are repeated at varying
intervals; when phonemes or consonants are arranged without any
interval, when new phonemes or consonants are employed an d
when stops are combined with their homorganic nasals .
The second type of Vakrata is Pada -purvar dha-vakrata
(lexical obliquity). It is found in the base forms of substantatives. Its
sub-varieties are based on obliquity in R udhi (usage), P aryaya
(synony m), U pacara ( transference or fancied identification founded
on resemblance), Vis esana (adjective), Samvrti (concealment or
covert expression ),Vrtti (indeclinable), Bhava (roots of words),
Linga (gender) and Kri ya (verb).
The third type of V akrata is Pada-parar dha-vakrata
(grammatical obliquity or obliquity in the inflectional forms of
substantives) i.e. tense, case, number, person, voice, affix and
particle and accordingly they deal with peculiar uses of K ala
(tense), K araka (case) Samkhya ( number) Puru sa(person),
Upagraha ( voice), U pasarga ( affix) andNipata (particle s).munotes.in
Page 51
51The fourth type of V akrata is Vakya -vakrata (sentential
obliquity) which has obliquity in a whole sentence admitting of a
thousand varieties, including a whole lot of figures. It ca nb e Sahaja
(natural )or Aharya (imposed) .
The fifth type of Vakrata is P rakara na-vakrata (episodic
obliquity or obliquity in parts or episodes or incidents). It involves
obliquity of emotional state, modified source story, episodic
relationship ,partic ular event and episode, dominant rasa,
secondary episode, device of play within play, andjuncture.
T he last type of Vakrata is prabandha -vakrata
(compositional obliquity or obliquity in the entire composition). It
involves obliquity of changing the ras a,winding up the story,
intending end, contingent objective, title, etc.
Kuntaka feels that Vakratva may be of infinite types as it
solely depends on the individual creative talent of poets.
6.3.3Kuntaka's Ideas on Ritior Marga
Kuntaka was influenc ed by the Riti -school of thoughts and
had more elaborate views on Riti and Gunas than his master ,
Bhamaha had. Like Dandin and Vamana, he uses the word Marga
as equivalent to Riti but he found faults with their system of
nomenclature and classification of Ritis. His first objection to Riti
classification is the practice of naming Ritis after places.While
criticising Vamana and Dandin ,Kuntaka says that it is wrong to
associate poetic styles with particular countries or places or
regions. Instead due import ance must be given to the personality of
the poet and to his abilities or power and to the reflection of his
culture and extent of pract ice. As these are not determined by
location, such practices cannot be considered healthy.
Secondly, he also objects to the gradation of Ritis on the
basis of their quality. He argues that classifying Ritis as Uttama
(good), Adhama (bad) and Madhyama (indifferent) is inadequate as
only the good Ritis appeal to readers who are disinterested in the
details about the other two. Thus the other two ,Adhama and
Madhyama ,should not find any place in the classification.
Kuntaka puts forth two styles: Sukumara -marga and
Vicitra -marga and distinguishes between them clearly as follows:munotes.in
Page 52
52
6.3.4Kuntaka's Treatment of Rasa and Bhava
According to De, Kuntaka also negotiated the place of
Rasa in the Alamkara theory. Writers like Bhamaha and Dandin
had said that when the rasa is subordinate to the ordinary meaning ,
it is a rasavat alamkara. Kuntaka did not deny rasa as emotion butVicitra -marga
1.Svabhava o ft h i n g s
important .2.2.Natural powers of poet
emphasized and poetic talent
is not artificial.
3.Exhibits Dhvani or
suggestiveness.
4.Rasa is according to
Svabhava.
5.Demands skill and maturity of
treatment and so more difficult.
6. Itis characterized by
Madhurya or sweetness due to
compact structure and no laxity.7.7.It is characterized by Prasada
or lucidity due to use of
expressive words and easy
syntax.8. 8. It is characterized by Lavanya
or beauty due to the
arrangement of sh ort and long
syllables.9.9.It exhibits Abhijatya in the form
of elevatedness, neither too soft
nor too hard.10.10Characterized by Aucitya or
usage of befitting words &ideas
& Saubhagya or excellence due
to realisation of all the resources
of the comp osition.Sukumara -marga
1.Striking quality of figure
important.
2.Poetic effort subordinated
to object and art is chiefly
decorative.
3.Exhibits Dhvani or
suggestiveness.
4Ornamentation is according
to Rasa.
5.Not as difficult.
6.It is characterized by
Madhurya or sweetness due to
usage of fewer compound
words.
7. It is characterized by
Prasada or lucidity due to
articulateness or perspicuity.8.8.It is characterized by Lavanya
or beauty due to proper
arrangement of letters a nd
words.9.9.It exhibits Abhijatya in the form
of smoothness.10.10.Characterized by Aucitya or
usage of befitting words &
ideas & Saubhagya or
excellence due to realisation of
all the resources of the
composition.munotes.in
Page 53
53he regarded it only as a mode of Vakratva in a composition.
According to Kuntaka, Rasa is involved in the poetic figures of
different Margas which give life to the poet's words and add to the
charm of episode and plot -structure. According to Ku ntaka, art is
notdifferent from arth alankara (figure of sense). It transforms the
subject -matter and describes it in various ways. In other words, the
writer describes the subject -matter in many ways based on the
kinds of this obliquity produced by arth alankara. Kuntaka admits a
thousand varieties of it and includes the whole lot of alank ara in it.
But he considers the m useful only for produc inggrandeur and
beauty. This is why, he holds that the writer should not employ
them arbitrarily to describe the su bject -matter. By introducing an
element of strangeness into what one speaks or hears everyday ,
the alank aras satisfy a basic demand of human nature –ap l e a s a n t
surprise.
According to Bhamaha and Dandin, Rasa was considered
as a decoration for the poeti c content. But consequent to
Dhvanikara and Anandavardhana's insistence on Rasa as an
essential part of poetry, Kuntaka theorized that rasa (sentiments)
and bhavas (emotions) can be considered to be a part of poetic
content. He contended that sentient obje cts can be characterized
through proper development of sentiments like love. LIke
Anandavardhana, he believes that rasas cannot be described by
their name and poetry becomes appealing when it consists of rasas
and bhavas. Kuntaka cites how love in separati on in
Vikramorvasiya and pathetic sentiments from Tapasa -vatsaraja
make the poetry conducive to beauty by virtue of the charming
words.
Kuntaka does not accept Rasavat as an alamkara.
According to him, Rasa is invariably pradhana and can never take a
subservient position to anything else. At the same time, it is not
possible for Rasa to function as both alamkara and alamkarya. For
Kuntaka, it is the poet who uses Rasa to create Vakrokti so that the
fascinating element of the poetry is enhanced. Nothing else –no
story, no plot –can evoke the magic in poetry. Sheer words that are
selected carefully and used in fascinating ways by the poet with the
right delineation of rasa enables a piece of writing to be raised to
the stature of a poem. Thus, for Kuntak a, it is Vakrokti which allows
one to experience Rasa. He says that whenever there is rasa that
alone is predominant. Rasa is taken to be the artha of Kavya.
De reminds the readers that Kuntaka ,thus,allotted an
important place to Rasa in both styles, the Sukumara and the
Vicitra and to both the modes of composition –acomplete
composition or one in parts or episodes. In the episodal
composition, the function of the plot whether ingenuous or
traditional, is to allow the development of the Rasa. Kuntakamunotes.in
Page 54
54provides a number of instances of such use of Rasa. He says, it is
possible to take the dominant Rasa to new heights as in
Vikramorvasiya , Act IV or to develop and sustain a single Rasa in
new and brilliant ways in spite of constant repetition of the them eo r
the dominant Rasa of the original story bereplaced by some other
Rasa.
6.35Kuntaka's Treatment of Dhvani
De also comments on Kuntaka’s views on Dh vani. Kuntaka
treated Dhvani in the same vein as he treated other principles of
literary criticism . He comprehends dhvani in some aspects of
Vakrata. Dr. De uses Ruyyaka's explanation of this phenomenon to
clarify Kuntaka's stand. He suggests that perhaps Kuntaka
acknowledges dhvani in the form of Upacara -vakrata for here the
differences between object sarecovered up by highlighting their
similarities. For instance, in the phrase 'particle of abuse', 'particle'
in the sense of littleness has a pleasing effect when applied to the
object 'abuse'. It may also be considered as Laks hana or
transference of i ndication by writers of Dhvani school of thought.
Like Bhamaha, Dandin, Udbhata and Vamana, Kuntaka
believes that Dhvani or suggestion is not the essence or soul of
poetry but is only a secondary element. However, he appreciates
its importance and does not just attribute it to Upacara -vakrata. He
accepts the importance of Dhvani in Sukumar marga, but lauds it in
Vicitra marga. He admits most of the broad divisions of Dhvani
propagated by the Dhvani school like Dhvani based on
transference and Dhvani base d on power of word. He also
indicates that suggestive expressions are as effective as expressed
words Thus he is open to possibilities of suggestion of the object
and seems to acknowledge the use of Alamkara -dhvani. For
Kantaka ,dhvani was therefore an imp ortant feature for the
expression of the poets ’Pratibha or genius. Though later writers did
not accord a high place to Kuntaka yet it appears clear that an all -
round estimate of literature with emotion and beauty as its root, as
conceived by Kuntaka, seem st ob e a te v e nt h ea u t h o r so ft h e
dhvani school, who were more or less obsessed by the dhvani and
the rasa perspectives.
6.4CONCLUSION
To conclude, one may say that Kuntaka's efforts to
reappraise the traditional categories of Indian poetics were
refreshing and genuine. He truly wanted to accept and present the
best ideas of poetics and he attempted to resolve contentious ideas
in order to bring in clarity in the scenario of Indian poetics. His was
an effort to unite amidst divers ities. His literary se nsibility andmunotes.in
Page 55
55aesthetic philosophy areindeed worthy of admiration. He explains
and explores the confusing aspects of poetics and displays a
unique ability for literary criticism. His poetic theory shuns
controversies and is based on fundamentals that were acceptable
to his predecessors and therefore it is widely read and appreciated
even today. De’s examination of Kuntaka’s Vakrokti Theory brings
Indian Aesthetics on par with western poetics. He also provides
English equivalents to many Sanskrit terms used in Indian Poetics.
6.5KEYTERMS
Varna, Padapurvardha, Padaparardha, Vakya, prakarama,
Prabandha, alamkara, Vakrokti, Bhaniti -prakara, Ukti -Vaicitrya, Kavi
kausala,Kavi Vyapara,riti,Dhvani , Vicitra marga, Sukumara marga,
Upacara -vakrata, laksana
6.6CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
Q1Say whether the following sentences are True or False
1. Suggestive expressions are as effective as expressed words
2.In episodal composition, the function of the plot, is to allow the
development of Dhvani .
3.Vicitra marga exhibi ts Abhijatya in the form of smoothness.
4.Vakrokti allows one to experience Rasa.
5.Rasa is invariably pradhana and can never take a subservient
position to anything else .
Q2 Define the following terms:
1. Ukti -Vaicitrya
2. Bhaniti -prakara
3. laksana
4.Upacara -vakrata
5. Vakrokti
Q3. Attempt the following :
1.Elucidate the concept of Vakrokti. Briefly describe its nature and
kinds.
2. Elaborate on Kuntaka's treatment of Rasa, Bhava and Dhvani.
3.How does Dr. Deexplain Kuntaka's ideas on Riti or Marga?
munotes.in
Page 56
56Unit -7
“THE LANGUAGE OF PARADOX ”–
Cleanth Brooks
Unit structure
7.0 Objectives
7.1 Introduction :New Criticism
7.2About the Author
7.3 Overview of the Essay
7.4 Conclusion
7.5 Key Terms
7.6 Check Your Progress
7.0 OBJECTIVES
Theprimary objective of this unit is to familiarize the learners
with the basic concepts of N ew Criticism. It also aims to make the
learners understand Cleanth Brooks’ views on the centrality of
paradox in poetry.
7.1 INTRODUCTION: NEW CRITICISM
New Criti cism was a movement in literary theory that
dominated American literary criticism in the middle decades of the
20th century. New Criticism developed in the 1920s and 30s and
peaked in the 1940s and50s. The movement is named after John
Crowe Ransom 's 1941 book, The New Criticism . Critical essays by
T. S. Eliot , including "Tradition and the Individual Talen t" and
"Hamlet and His Problems", influenced some of the ideas of the
New Critics, as did books like Practical Criticism andThe Meaning
of Meaning by the English scholar ,I. A. R ichards .
New Critics focused on the text of a work of literature and
tried to exclude the reader's response, the author's intention,
historical and cultural contexts, and moralistic bias from their
analysis. It emphasized close reading ,concentrating on the
relationships within the text that give it its own distinctive character
or form, to discover how a work of literature functioned as a self -
contained, self -referential aesthe tic object. New Critics emphasize
that the structure of a work should not be divorced from meaning,
viewing the two as constituting a quasi -organic unity. They definedmunotes.in
Page 57
57and formalized the qualities of poetic thought and language,
utilizing the technique of close reading with special emphasis on
the connotative and associative values of words and on the
multiple functions of figurative language —symbol, metaphor, and
image —in the work. Studying a passage of prose or poetry in New
Critical style required carefu l scrutiny of the passage itself. Formal
elements such as rhyme ,m e t e r , setting ,characterization ,a n d plot
were used to identify the theme of the text. In addition to the
theme, the New Critics also looked for paradox ,ambiguity and
irony to help establish the most unified interpretation of the text.
New Criticism was never a formal collective, but it initially
developed from the teaching methods advocated by John Crowe
Ransom who taught at Vanderbilt. Some of his students like Allen
Tate,Cleanth Brooks ,a n d Robert Penn Warren developed the
aesthetics that came to be known as New Criticism. Nevertheless,
in his essay, " The New Criticism," Cleanth Brooks notes that "The
New Critic, like the Shark, is a very elusive beast," meaning that
there was no clearly defined "New Critical" sc hool.
The popularity of New Criticism persisted through the Cold
War years in both American high schools and colleges, in part,
because it offered a relatively straightforward approach to teaching
students how to read and understand poetry and fiction. To this
end, Brooks and Warren published Understanding Poetry and
Understanding Fiction which both became standard pedagogical
textbooks in American high schools and colleges during the 1950s,
60s, and 70s.
7.2 ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Cleanth Brooks (1906 –1994) was a renowned American
academic ,specializing in poetry and literary criticism. Much
commended for his pre -eminent work, The Well -Wrought Urn:
Studies in the Structure of Poetry (1947), he was a pioneer of New
Criticism, a method of literary criticism based on the analysis of the
language of the literary work itself, rather than the factual
circumstances surrounding its creation. Working with writers such
as Robert Penn Warren, Donald Davidson, Allen Tate and John
Crowe Ransom, Brooks developed his styl e of close reading. At
the same time, he became indirectly involved with the Southern
Renaissance, or the resurgence of prominent Southern writers
(e.g., William Faulkner, Margaret Mitchell and Tennessee
Williams), who created groundbreaking works and intr oduced
innovative literary tools. While at the University of Oxford, Brooks
collaborated with Warren, creating manuals that examined the
pedagogy of poetry and literature ,he published the influential
Understanding Poetry (1938) ,integrating the basic tene ts of Newmunotes.in
Page 58
58Criticism. In it, he guides the reader in the understanding of poetry,
not by its parts, but through its form and its impact as a whole. The
textbook, which had four reprinting, covers narrative poetry,
descriptive poetry and literary topics, inc luding metrics, tone,
imagery and theme. It also acknowledges the importance of
cultural context in determining intention and meaning.
7.3OVERVIEW OF THE ESSAY
Cleanth Brooks , an active member of the New Critical
Movement, outlines the use of reading poems through paradox as
a method of critical interpretation. Paradox in poetry means that
tension at the surface of a verse that can lead to apparent
contradictions andhypocrisies . His seminal essay, "The Lan guage
of Paradox", brings out Brooks' argument for the centrality of
paradox by demonstrating that paradox is "the language
appropriate and inevitable to poetry". Brooks bases his position on
the contradictions that are inherent in poetry and his view that if
those contradictions didn’t exist ,then neither would some of the
best poetry we have today. The argument is based on the
contention that referential language is too vague for the specific
message a poet expresses; he must "make up his language as he
goes". This, Brooks argues, is because words are mutable and
meaning shifts when words are placed in relation to one another.
In the writing of poems, paradox is used as a method by which
unlikely comparisons can be drawn and meaning can be extracted
from p oems ,both straightforward and enigmatic.
Brooks points to William Wordsworth 's poem, "It is a
beauteous evening, calm and free". He begins by outlining the
initial an d surface level conflict, which is that the speaker is filled
with worship, while his female companion does not seem to be.
The paradox, discovered by the poem’s end, is that the girl is more
full of worship than the speaker precisely because she is always
consumed with continuous everlasting sympathy/empathy for
nature and not as is in the speaker who is in tune with nature
sporadically and temporarily, only while being immersed in it.
In his close reading of Wordsworth's poem, "Composed
upon Westminster Bridge" , Brooks maintains that the poem offers
paradox not in its details, but in the situation which the speaker
creates. Though London is a man -made marvel, and in many
respects in opposition to nature, the speaker does not view
London as a mechanical and artificial landscape but as a
landscap e made up entirely of nature. Since London was created
by man, and man is a part of nature, London too is part of nature.
It is this reason that gives the speaker the opportunity to comment
upon the beauty of London as he would a natural phenomenon,munotes.in
Page 59
59and, a sBrooks points out, can call the houses "sleeping" rather
than "dead", because they too are endowed with the natural spark
of life, granted to them by the men who had built them .
Brooks picks up Wordsworth’s own statement from “The
Preface to Lyrical Ballads” to drive home Wordsworth’s pre -
occupation with paradox to reveal the familiar world in a new light.
Wordsworth has stated in his “Preface” that his general purpose
was “t o choose incidents and situations from common life” but
ordinary things should be presented with ,to the mind ,in an
unusual aspect.” Brooks, further, argues that Coleridge clarified
this and went a step forward to explain the paradoxical nature of
poetry and life as a means of objectifying “the charm of novelty of
things of everyday” and “directing it to the loveliness and wonder
of the world before us”.
Further, Brooks brings out the differential treatment of
paradox by the Romantic and the Neo -classic al poets ,by
illustrating Pope’s lines from “The Essay of Man”. In Pope, the
paradoxes insist on irony rather than wonder, as is the case with
Gray’s “Elegy”. Brooks also argues that both wonder and irony
could merge in poetry as in Blake and Coleridge. Br ooks insists
that paradoxes spring from the very nature of the poet’s language
in which connotations play a major part. To amplify this point, he
makes a reference to T. S. Eliot’s view on poet’s language –“that
perpetual slight alteration of language”, w here words are always
juxtaposed in new and sudden combinations. Brooks explains that
unlike the language of the scientist, which must be free of
ambiguity, the language of the poet is steeped in the
contradictions of reality. In contrast to the scientific language, the
poetic language can be modified to the extent of fluidity that it
violates the literal dictionary meaning.
Brooks, further, points out I.A. Richards’ view on the use of
analogies or metaphors for expressing subtler states of emotions
inpoetry. According to I.A. Richards, metaphors lie not in the
same plane but continually tilt, overlap and contradict, creating
alterations in language and meaning. Brooks states that a simple
and straight -forward poet too is forced into using paradoxes. Bu t,
he affirms that the use of paradox should not be for ornamentation
or sophistry, but should be an extension of the normal language of
poetry.
Brooks analyses John Donne’s “The Canonization” to prove
his argument. He ends his essay with a close readin go ft h ep o e m
which uses a paradox as its underlying metaphor. Using a charged
religious term to describe the speaker’s physical love as saintly,
Donne, effectively, argues that in rejecting the material world and
withdrawing to a world of each other, the two lovers aremunotes.in
Page 60
60appropriate contenders for canonization. Though it seems to
parody both love and religion, it, in fact, combines them, pairing
unlikely incongruous circumstances and demonstrating their
resulting complex meaning. Brooks points also to second ary
paradoxes in the poem: the simultaneous duality and singleness of
love, and the double and contradictory meanings of "die" in
Metaphysical poetry (as both sexual union and literal death). He
contends that these several meanings are impossible to convey at
the right depth and emotion in any language but that of paradox. A
similar paradox ,B r o o k sr e m i n d s , is used in Shakespeare ’sRomeo
and Juliet , when Juliet says "For saints have hands that pilgrims'
hands do touch and palm to palm is holy palmer's kiss."
Further, by drawing in from Coleridge’s description of
imagination, Brooks shows how the only way some ideas can be
expressed is through paradox. According to Coleridge, it “reveals
itself in the balance or reconcilement of opposite or discordant
qualities: of saneness, with difference; of the general, with the
concrete; the idea, with the image; the individual, with the
representative; the sense of novelty and freshness, with old and
familiar objects; a more than usual state of emotion with more than
usual order .... ". Brooks points out that Coleridge’s description of
imagination is a series of para doxes. He argues that since poetry
tries to explain ideas and emotions as tangible as the idea of
imagination, it too has to use paradox to best convey those
thoughts.
7.4 CONCLUSION
Brooks seemed to regard paradox as a quality in language
very much l ike Victor Shklovsky's defamiliarisation: that is, a
deviation from conventional language designed to wrench our
perceptions and our thoughts into unaccustomed and enlightening
pathways. Paradox, in this view, is a device which compensates
for the limitati ons of conventional language, and is thus the only
way in which poets can express the unconventional and deeper
insights. Parodox, for Brooks, is not just useful and entertaining,
but necessary. "Paradox", he writes, "is the language appropriate
and inevit able to poetry".
Paradox, however, is essential to the structure and being of
the poem. In The Well Wrought Urn, Brooks shows that paradox is
so essential to poetic meaning that paradox is almost identical to
poetry. According to literary theorist, Lero y Searle, Brooks’ use of
paradox emphasized the indeterminate lines between form and
content. “The form of the poem uniquely embodies its meaning”
and the language of the poem “affects the reconciliation of
opposites or contraries.” While irony functions w ithin the poem,munotes.in
Page 61
61paradox often refers to the meaning and structure of the poem and
is thus inclusive of irony. This existence of opposites or contraries
and the reconciliation thereof is poetry and the meaning of the
poem.
7.5 KEY TERMS
Paradox, Irony, me taphor, opposites, imagination, form, content.
7.6 CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
Q.1 Say if the following statements are True or 1False
1. Paradox, according to Brooks, is a feature of poetic language
2, paradox does not refer simultaneously to the structure and
meaning of a poem.
3.New Criticism employs close reading as a mode of literary
analysis.
4.Cleanth Brooks agrees with T. S. Eliot’s view that the language
of poetry is full of alterations
5.Brooks observes that unlike Neoclassical poets, Romantics do
not use para doxes.
Q.2 Define the following terms
Paradox
Irony
Close reading
Metaphor
Q.3Answer the following:
1. How is Brooks “Language of Paradox an example of the major
concerns of New Criticism?
2. “The language of poetry is the language of paradox". Discuss .
3.Ispoetic language the central, defining quali ty of poetry? Discuss
with reference to the essay, “The language of Paradox”.
munotes.in
Page 62
62Unit -8
“ART AS TECHNIQUE” –
Victor Shklovsky
Unit structure
8.0 Objectives
8.1.0Introduction :T y p e so fF o r m a l i s m
8.1.1Cultural Background of Russian Formalism
8.1.2Cultural Background of American Formalism
8.2. About the Author
8.3AnOverview of “Art as Technique”
8.4Conclusion
8.5Key Terms
8.6Check Your Progress
8.0OBJECTIVES
The b asic objective of this unit is to familiarize the students
with the essence ofFormalism and the key concepts in Shklovsky’s
“Art as Technique” .T h e chapter also aims to trace the development
ofFormalism as a critical thought.
8.1.0INTRODUCTION: TYPES OF FORMALISM
Formalism or Russian Formalism is a type of literary theory
and analysis which originated in Moscow and St. Petersburg in the
1920s. In the beginning, the term ‘Formalism’ was used in a
derogatory sense because the Russian formalists had excluded the
subject matter and social values in their attempt to focus on the
formal patterns and technical devices of literature. Later, the term
gained a neutral designation.
Boris Eichenbaum, Victor Shklovsky and Roman Jakobson
were the leading representatives of Formalism. This critical
movement was suppressed under Stalinist regime in the Soviet in
the early 1930s and consequently, the centre of the formalist study
shifted to Czechoslovakia.
Russian Formalism developed as two distinct movements:
the OPOJAZ –(Society for the Study of Poetic Language) in St.
Petersburg and the Linguistic Circle in Moscow.munotes.in
Page 63
63Russian formalists proposed a scientific meth od for studying
poetic language, to the exclusion of traditional psychological and
historical approaches.
Formalism opposed symbolism and impressionistic studies.
Formalists insisted on keeping the relationship between art and life
apart. Further, it sug gests a study focusing on the literary facts and
literature over metaphysical commitments of literary criticism.
One central argument in Formalism is that aesthetic effects
are produced by literary devices. Formalists also maintain that what
makes litera ture is its difference from other facts. They also
attacked the mystical posturing of poets. Further, they defined
‘literary’ as a special use of language. Formalists consider literature
as special use of language and they argue that the literariness of
poetic language becomes distinct when poets deviate from and
distort ‘practical’ language.
Formalism as a critical practice has evolved in many phases.
Formalists have aligned themselves in different schools of thoughts
and practices. One can consider the m ain types of formalism in an
attempt to understand the different pronouncements of the
movement.
I. Mechanistic Formalism:
In this branch of Formalism, a literary work is considered as
a machine. It implies that art is a sum of the literary and artistic
devices that the artist manipulates to craft his work. This approach
disconnects a literary artifact from its author, reader and historical
background. A clear illustration of Mechanistic Formalism is Victor
Shklovsky’s “Art as Technique” in which he argu es that literary and
linguistic devices make up the “artfulness” of literature.
Mechanistic Formalism also discriminates between art and
non art. Yet another contribution of mechanistic formalists is the
distinction between story and plot, or ‘ fabula ’a nd‘sjuzhet ’. They
argue that story ( fabula ), is a chronological sequence of events,
whereas plot ( sjuzhet ), can unfold in non -chronological manner .
II Organic Formalism:
This branch of Formalism considers an artifact as a
biological organism. It proposes the theory that like in a biological
organism, the parts are hierarchically integrated in an art form.
Vladimir Propp’s “Morphology of the Folktale” is a classic study in
Organic Formalism. Peter Steiner explains the methodology of
organic formalists: “Th ey utilized the similarity between organicmunotes.in
Page 64
64bodies and literary phenomena in two different ways: as it applied
to individual works and to literary genres” ( Steiner: 19)
The analogy between biology and literary theory proposed in
Organic Formalism provided t he frame of reference for genre
studies. Steiner explains the model: “Just as each individual
organism shares certain features with other organisms of its type,
and species that resemble each other belong to the same genus,
the individual work is similar t o other works of its form and
homologous literary forms belong to the same genre” ( Steiner: 19).
Organic formalists shifted their focus from an isolated
technique to a hierarchically structured whole. By doing so, they
could overcome the main shortfalls of the mechanists.
III Systemic Formalism:
This branch of Formalism accounted for the diachronic
dimension of forms. It was also known as “ Systemo -functional”
Formalism. The major proponent of Systemic Formalism was Yuri
Tynyanov. Steiner explains the basi c tenet of Tynyanov’s Systemic
Formalism: “In light of his concept of literary evolution as a struggle
among competing elements, the method of parody, “the dialectic
play of devices”, becomes an important vehicle of change .”(Steiner:
21)
Systemic Formalis m implies that since literature constitutes
part of the overall cultural system, the literary dialectic participates
in cultural evolution. It also upholds the view that the
communicative domain enriches literature with new constructive
principles.
IV Lin guistic Formalism:
Linguistic Formalism places poetic language at the centre of
its inquiry and it downplays the figures of author and reader. Leo
Jakubiniski and Roman Jakobson were the major exponents of this
branch of Formalism. Nicholas Warner explica tes the interests of
Linguistic Formalism: “Jakobson makes it clear that he rejects
completely any notion of emotion as the touchstone of literature.
For J akobson, the emotional qualities of a literary work are
secondary to and dependent on purely, verbal, linguistic facts”
(Warner: 71)
Linguistic formalists distinguish between practical and poetic
language. They maintain that practical language is used in day -to-
day communication to convey information. Steiner explains Leo
Jakubinisky’s notion o f poetic language: “the practical goal retreatsmunotes.in
Page 65
65into background and linguistic combinations acquire a value in
themselves ”(Steiner: 22)
8.1.1CULTURAL BACKGROUND OF RUSSIAN
FORMALISM
Russian Formalism was represented by two groups of
theorists –the Mos cow Linguistic Circle and the OPOJAZ group.
Though the connotation ofthe title is neutral today, Russian
formalists had come under the attack of the Marxist thinkers. The
most important Russian formalists were Victor Shklovsky, Boris
Eichenbaum, Boris Tom ashevsky, Yuri Tynyanov and Roman
Jakobson. Once the Russian formalists came in for attack under
Stalin’s rule in the Soviet, they migrated to Czechoslovakia to
establish the Prague Circle of theorists. Later, when
Czechoslovakia became a target of the Naz i attack, they relocated
themselves in the United States.
Russian Formalism developed during the years of the First
World War and was, as Victor Erlich has put it, a “child of the
revolutionary period….part and parcel of its peculiar intellectual
atmosph ere” (quoted by Bowlt:1972,1). However, Russian
Formalism came under increasing pressure in the Soviet Union as
a repressive attitude to literary theory developed there; and by 1930
it had been forced into exile.
Russian formalists claimed, contrary to sy mbolist assertions,
that words and their connotations are not the most important
ingredient sof poetry. They replaced loose talk about inspiration
and verbal magic with the study of the laws of literary production.
They were also materialists and anti -traditionalists, who tried to
reach some rapproch ement with social and political concerns. At
first their approach was somewhat mechanical, treating literature
simply as an assembly of literary devices. Subsequently ,they
investigated the interrelatedness of p arts, an “organic” approach.
Finally, in 1928, Tynyanov and Jakobson recast literature as a
system where every component had a constructive function, just as
the social fabric was a ‘system of systems’. But the short period of
comparative tolerance of the early twenties changed as Stalinism
tightened its grip, and the formalists were obliged to recant, turn to
novel writing, or flee abroad. They realized that an aesthetic theory
divorced from Socialism was a heresy in the Soviet Union.
From Russia, Formali sm spread to Prague. However, Prague
already ha dastructuralist objectivism derived from the 19thcentury
writer, J. H. Herbart. When Jakobson arrived in Prague in 1919, he
advocated a classification of artistic styles by formal qualities by
employing a t erminology drawn from figures of speech, especiallymunotes.in
Page 66
66metaphor and metonymy. ‘For egrounding’ the manner in certain
elements or features came to be emphasized or brought to the fore
from the background of more normal usage, became the chief
concern of Prague School of Formalism. Notably ,the interests of
Prague formalists included tone, metaphor, ambiguity, patterning
and parallelism in poetry, and diction, character, plot and theme in
prose works.
8.1.2 CULTURAL BACKGROUND OF AMERICAN
FORMALISM
Formalism w as an important mode of academic literary study
in the United States from the end of the Second World War up to
the 1970s. The principles of American Formalism are embodied in
the works of Rene Wellek and Austin Warren.
Rene Wellek was known as a Czech -American comparative
literary critic and he was born in Vienna, speaking Czech and
German. He studied literature in Prague and was an active member
of the Prague Linguistic Circle. Later, he moved to the University
College, London to teach in the School of Slavonic and East
European Studies. After World War II, he lived in America and he
taught at the University of Iowa, and later at Yale University. He
took with him to the United States the principles and practices of
Russian Formalism ,though he was better known as one of the
founders of the study of comparative literature. He collaborated with
Austin Warren to produce a landmark text, AT h e o r yo fL i t e r a t u r e .
Edward Austin Warren was born in Massachusetts and he
graduated from Harvard University. He re ceived a Ph.D .in 1926
from Princeton University. He taught at the University of Minnesota,
Boston University and the University of Iowa. He befriended T.S.
Eliot, Evelyn Underhill, Rene Wellek and Allen Tate during his stay
at these universities. With Ren e Wellek, he authored AT h e o r yo f
Literature .Wellek contributed to this work the insights he acquired
from his familiarities with Russian Formalism, Prague Linguistic
Circle and Stylistics. Warren’s contribution to this work originated
from his knowledge of New Criticism and aesthetics. The work
discusses an intrinsic approach to studying literature, discussing
the use of devices such as euphoms, rhythm, meter, style, imagery,
metaphor, symbols and myth. The study also has a section on
literary genres and the study of literature in the graduate school.
8.2ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Victor Shklovsky was born in St. Petersburg, Russia, on 12th
January, 1893. After finishing his graduation at the University of St.
Petersburg, he established the Society for the Study of Poeticmunotes.in
Page 67
67Language (OPOJAZ). He was a member of the literary group,
Serapion Brothers, along with Nickolai Tikhonov, Mikhail Slonimski
and Konstantin Fedin. These writers insisted on the right to create
literature that was independent of political ideology .
In 1925 Shklovsky, published On the Theory of Prose and in
1928, The Technique of the Writer’s Craft . In these works,
Shklovsky argued that literature is a collection of stylistic and formal
devices that force the reader to view the world afresh by pres enting
the old ideas or mundane experiences in new, unusual ways.
Shkvlovsky is remembered for his concept of Ostranenie or
defamiliarization in literature. He explains the idea as follows:
The purpose of art is to impart the sensation of things as
they are perceived and not as they are known. The technique of art
is to make objects ‘unfamiliar’, to make forms difficult, to increase
the difficulty and length of perception because the process of
perception is an aesthetic end in itself and must be prolong ed. Art
is a way of experiencing the artfulness of an object; the object is not
important. (Shklovsky, “Art as Technique”)
In addition to literary criticism and biographies about such
authors as Lawrence Sterne, Maxim Gorky, Leo Tolstoy and
Vladimir Mayak ovsky, Shklovsky wrote some semi -autobiographical
works disguised as fiction.
Shklovsky’s works pushed Russian Formalism toward
analyzing literary activity as integral part of social practice, an idea
that became important in the works of Mikhail Bakhtin and the
scholars of Prague School.
8.3AN OVERVIEW OF “ART AS TECHNIQUE”
Formalism was a mode of critical enquiry which became
fashionable in the early decades of 20thcentury in Russia and East
European nations. As a literary movement, it attacked hist orical,
sociological, philosophical and other intrinsic approaches to
literature. The basic premise of Formalism is the belief that poetic
language is different from the ordinary use of language. Formalists
believe in a scientific study of textual dynamics such as the use of
words, syntax, sounds and figures of speech. They also opposed
vehemently symbolism and other subjective interpretation of
literature. They also maintained the difference between art and life.
Another belief central to Formalism is the concept of literary facts.
Formalists believed that literary facts are given in the text and the
readers have to understand them through literary techniques. This
implies that it is possible to arrive at an objective scientificmunotes.in
Page 68
68understanding of the meaning through the literary techniques of a
text.
Russian formalists advocated strongly for the exclusion of
psychological and historical approaches to literature and instead
they were interested in the artistic devices of imaginative writing.
The focus of Form alism was on the form of the text rather than the
metaphysical concerns of literary criticism. One of the chief
arguments of Formalism is that aesthetic effect is a product of
literary devices. They understand ‘literary’ as a special use of
language. In ef fect, Formalism attacked the mystical posturing of
poets and it considered literature as a special use of language.
Formalists claim that literary language becomes distinct by
distorting practical language. In the final phase of Formalism, critics
like Bak htin and Thomashevsky started exploring into other formal
aspects of fiction like the narrative and motif. Bakhtin’s concept of
narratology was an extension of Formalism.
Victor Shklovsky’s “Art as Technique” is a seminal work in
Russian Formalism. It is largely about the function of art and poetic
language. Structurally, the essay is divided into two parts –the first
part explains the theory of defamiliarization and the second part
deals with poetic language.
The essay begins with Shklovsky’s attack on Russian
Symbolism. He analyses the statement of Russian symbolist,
Alexander Potebnya that art is thinking in images. Shklovsky
exposes the fallacy in this statement and explains that there are
many art forms like music and architecture which do not have
images. He says that art is essentially a technique, which helps one
to recover the sensation of life. He argues that perception becomes
habitual in life: they are largely automatic. He says that when
perception becomes automatic, life becomes unconscious o r
mechanical. Human beings do not feel things and objects that they
see because they develop an attitude called algebrization.
Algebrization is explained as ‘automatization’ of perception. That is
reducing the details to convenient letters or words. For in stance the
sentence:“the Swiss mountains are beautiful” is algebrized to
‘tsmab’ with each letter reminding one word of the sentence. This
tendency, Shklovsky argues, creates the economy of perceptive
effort.
Shklovsky indicates that the technique of art is to make
objects unfamiliar, to make the forms difficult to increase the
difficulty and length of perception. He says:“art is a way of
experiencing the artfulness of an object: the object is not
important.”munotes.in
Page 69
69Shklovsky says that familiar objects are not significant and
art removes objects from the automatism of perception so that one
has to spend more time to understand them. He also gives a series
of examples of this defamiliarization in literature. Shklovsky argues
that many novels and poems have employ ed defamiliarization to
stretch the time of perception. He gives an example of
defamiliarization from Leo Tolstoy’s novel Shame . He says that
Tolstoy describe familiar objects as if he were seeing them for the
first time, by not naming them deliberately. S hklovsky says that in
Shame Tolstoy has defamiliarized the idea of flogging. He quotes
from the novel.
“To strip people who have broken the law, to hurl them to the floor,
and to wrap on their bottoms with switches.”
This description doesn’t use the te rm flogging but the
readers will have to spend more time to understand the description
is about flogging. Shklovsky also talks about another novel of
Tolstoy, Kholstomer which defamiliarizes the familiar world with a
different perspective. The narrator in this novel thinks about private
property and hears various names being called out. The narrator
also sees a restricted world, that too just in front of him. The
readers take time to realize that the narrator is a horse and hence
the world seen in the novel becomes unfamiliar and difficult.
The second part of the essay is about poetic language.
Shklovsky implies that poetic language is defamiliarized language.
He says that poetic speech has artistic trademark which is
defamiliarization of the language itse lf. He indicates that poetic
language is difficult and roughened and it removes the automatism
of perception. He says that in poetry, language deviates in its
phonetic structure and syntax. Shklovsky says that poetic language
produces a slowness of percept ion as for instance, the word
‘sunne’ is to be understood as ‘sun’ or the word ‘Frye’ is to be
understood as ‘fry’. He indicates that archaism, obscure style and
conceits are used with the same objective. However, he reminds
that if there are too many expe riments in poetic language, the
occasional use of simple language can also do the trick.
Shklovsky gives ample examples of defamiliarization in
poetic language. He says that sexuality and love are defamiliarized
in poetry from the days of Boccacio to the modern poets. He says
that in Boccacio’s Decameron one finds “catching nightingales”
which has significant figurative implication for the sexual act.
Shklovsky also maintains that erotic subjects are presented
figuratively in metaphysical poetry. He says t hat Donne and the
other metaphysical poets refer to sexual organs in terms of ‘lock
and key,’ ‘quilting tools’ or “bow and arrow”. According to
Shklovsky, such devices make poetic language strange andmunotes.in
Page 70
70wonderful. They also lead the readers away from the rec ognition of
objects.
Shklovsky refers to a fellow poet and critic Leo Jakubiniski
who had brought in the idea of phonetic roughening, that is, using
unfamiliar sounds in poetry. Shklovsky believes that language of
poetry is a difficult roughened one. He calls that as impeded
language which can be regularly seen in poems of Pushkin. He
says that both rhythm and disordering of rhythm can create
defamiliarization in poetic language.
Shklovsky extends the notion of defamiliarization to the
study of fiction. He says that in fiction, story and plot are different.
He says that some novelists defamiliarize the art of story -telling
with the help of different narrative devices. He gives the example of
Sterne’s Tristram Shandy, a novel in which the narrative doesn’ t
give any story about Tristram. Shklovsky reminds the readers that
there are different story lines in the plot that emphasize the
structure of the novel rather than the story. He says that Sterne, by
violating the form, forces the readers to attend to it minutely. He
also says that the readers become aware of the form of fiction once
it is violated.
Shklovsky concludes the essay with a typical anti -romantic
statement. He argues that sentiments cannot be the mainstay of
art. He says that art is transe motional and it is unsympathetic. He
also reminds that emotions in a work of art are the products of
different points of view and that a point of view is also a technique.
Thus, Shklovsky in “Art as Technique” spells out the basic
theoretical formulation of Formalism –that art is a technique. He
also attacks historical and romantic traditions in literary criticism by
suggesting intense formal analysis of literature, instead.
8.6CONCLUSION
Formalism holds the view that aesthetic effects are produced
by literary devices and hence it focus essharply on these devices. It
brought to the fore the study of items like narrative, poetic
language, plot, motif and style.
8.7KeyTerms
Formalism, Poetic Language, Defamiliarizationmunotes.in
Page 71
718.8Check Your Progress
Q.ISay if the following statements are True or False
1.Victor ’sShklovsky’s essay is concerned with biography and
intention of the writers.
2.Defamiliarization is a poetic blemish, according to Shklovsky.
3.Formalism insists that poetic language is differen tf r o m
ordinary speech.
4.Poetry brings back the sensation of life in man by making the
familiar look different.
5.The basic function of art is to stretch the time of human
perception.
Define the following:
1.Defamilarization
2.Automatizaton of Perception
3.Formali sm
4.Algebrization
5.Symbolism
Answer the following:
1.Consider Shklovsky’s “ Art as Technique” as a foundational
essay in Russian Formalism.
2.Discuss ,with examples ,Shklovsky’s theory of
defamiliarization.
3.How does Shklovsky prove that poetic language removes
automatization of perception by producing slowness?
munotes.in