UNIT ONE: INTRODUCTION

Literary Theory, Literary Criticism and their Interface

Before we begin our discussion and study of the different literary theories and their practical
application, and before looking at the interface between literary theory and literary criticism,
it is important that we understand their meanings. What does literary theory and literary
criticism mean?

Literary Theory
Literary theories were developed as a means to understand the various ways in which people
read texts. The proponents of each theory believe that their theory is the theory, but most of
us interpret texts according to the “rules” of several different theories at one time. All literary
theories are lenses through which we can see texts. There is no reason to say that one is better
than another or that you should read according to any of them, but it is sometimes fun to
“decide” to read a text with one in mind because you often end up with a whole new
perspective on your reading.

Literary theory refers to a particular form of literary criticism in which particular academic,
scientific, or philosophical approaches are followed in a systematic fashion while analyzing
literary texts. For example, a psychoanalytic theorist might examine and interpret a literary
text strictly through the theoretical lens of psychoanalysis and psychology and, in turn, offer
an interpretation or reading of a text that focuses entirely on the psychological dimensions of
it. Traditional literary criticism tends not to focus on a particular aspect of (or approach to) a
literary text in quite the same manner that literary theory usually does. Literary theory
proposes particular, systematic approaches to literary texts that impose a particular line of
intellectual reasoning to it.

A very basic way of thinking about literary theory is that these ideas act as different lenses
critics and readers use to view and talk about art, literature, and even culture. These different
lenses allow critics and readers to consider works of art based on certain assumptions within
that school of theory. The different lenses also allow critics to focus on particular aspects of a
work they consider important. For example, if a critic is working with certain Marxist
theories, s/he might focus on how the characters in a story interact based on their economic

1
situation. If a critic is working with post-colonial theories, s/he might consider the same story
but look at how characters from colonial powers (Britain, France, and even America) treat
characters from, say, Africa or the Caribbean.

By literary theory, therefore, it refers not to the meaning of a work of literature but to the
theories that reveal what literature can mean. It is a description of the underlying principles
(tools), by which readers attempt to understand literature. It refers to the set of general
principles or perspectives that characterize a certain body of fact or art. In other words,
literary theory is the lens or framework through which a critic views a literary work in a
certain angle. More generally, literary theory which is also called critical theory, is the
criteria upon which our interpretation or analysis of literary works rests. Hence, literary
theories are mainly developed as a means to understand the various ways in which people
read texts, literary texts. Hence, New criticism, Formalism, Structuralism, Reader Response,
Psychoanalysis, Feminism, Post-Colonialism, New Historicism, and Deconstruction are some
of the literary theories.

Therefore, literary theorists often adapt systems of knowledge developed largely outside the
realm of literary studies and impose them upon literary texts for the purpose of discovering or
developing new and unique understandings of those texts that a traditional literary critic
might not be intellectually equipped to recognize.

Apart from serving as perspectives or lenses through which critics and readers analyze or
interpret, and reflect their understanding of, literary works (and non literary works), literary
theories also have other function in the study of literature. That is, all literary theories have
the task of: (1) defining what literature is and (2) how it should be studied. As part of this
work, therefore, literary theorists are concerned with answering a number of questions.
Among the basic questions that concern all literary theories are:

 What the respective roles of the author and the reader are in a literary work?
 To what degree an author’s life and milieu should be relevant variable in the analysis
of a text? and
 Which of the characteristics should be considered most salient in the interpretation of
its meaning?

2
As far as literary theories is concerned, there are three groups of people who are interested in
studying, interpreting, and discussing literary theories: literary theorists, scholars and critics.
Literary theorists are those groups of people who develop different perspectives or
assumptions on how works of literature should be approached. Scholars are those groups of
people who are interested in studying the different theories developed by literary theorists.
For example, a scholar can study the nature and development, the basic concepts and
principles of each of the approaches, and the differences and similarities of the theories.
Critics are those who study literary works and interpret them accordingly. They are those
groups of people who practically apply the different types of theories to the study of literary
works.

Literary Criticism

What comes into your mind when you think of criticism, or specifically criticizing
something? Most of the time people consider criticism as finding fault. However, criticism
(literary criticism), by and large, tries to explain the literary work to us (readers), for
example, its production, its meaning, its design or structure, and its beauty. Literary criticism
is, therefore, the study, interpretation, explanation, of literature. It is the practical application
of literary theories. Simply, criticism is the art of analyzing a certain literary work, be it a
poem, short story, novel or drama based on a specific literary theory.

Strictly defined, literary criticism refers to the act of interpreting and studying literature. A
literary critic is not someone who merely evaluates the worth or quality of a piece of
literature but, rather, is someone who argues on behalf of an interpretation or understanding
of the particular meaning(s) of literary texts. The task of a literary critic is to explain and
attempt to reach a critical understanding of what literary texts mean in terms of their
aesthetic, as well as social, political, and cultural statements and suggestions. A literary critic
does more than simply discuss or evaluate the importance of a literary text; rather, a literary
critic seeks to reach a logical and reasonable understanding of not only what a text’s author
intends for it to mean but, also, what different cultures and ideologies render it capable of
meaning.

Literary criticism should not be confusing with book review. One important difference is that
book reviews are written around the time the work was originally published; whereas literary
criticism appears, most of the time, in later years and are most often found in scholarly

3
publications. In addition, the main goal of book reviewers, after evaluating the work, is
simply telling readers whether or not to read the books they reviewed. A literary critic’s goal
is, however, more than telling readers whether the work is good or bad. A literary critic
spends much of her/his explaining or analyzing the work than evaluating.

The Interface between Literary Theory and Literary Criticism

Some literary critics and theorists deny that there is a distinct difference between literary
criticism and literary theory and argue that literary theory is simply a more advanced form of
literary criticism. Other critics argue that literary theory itself is far more systematic,
developed and scholarly than literary criticism, and hence of a far greater intellectual and
critical value.

Generally, although the terms literary theory and literary criticism cannot be used to
substitute one another or interchangeably, they are always closely related terms. When there
is criticism, there is literary theory because it is based on some tools (theories) that we do our
interpretation (criticism).There are people who consider that literary theory and literary
criticism, interpretation of literary works, are two different and almost unrelated things.
However, for those who involved in literary studies, and of course for many of us, literary
theory and literary criticism cannot be separated at all. It can be said that they are two sides of
the same coin. This is mainly because of that when we interpret a literary text we always do
so from some theoretical assumption or perspective, whether we are aware of it or not. In
other words, interpretation of literary texts (poems, short stories, novels, dramas, and etc)
cannot be performed without literary theories, and literary theories are meaningless if we do
not use them to explain, evaluate or interpret given literary works.

Archaic Criticism

The term archaic generally refers to the ancient period in history or to an old culture
preceding the classical period in Greek. There is a consensus that the archaic period in Greek
dates from 800 BC – 500 B.C. Archaic “criticism”, therefore, refers to the oldest form of
criticism (of all criticisms) which existed before the classical criticism. It is, hence, the root or
base for the development of the later criticisms- classical, traditional and modern criticisms.
This period, archaic period, is the era of the epic poets Homer and Hesiod, and of the lyric
poets Archilochus, Ibycus, Alcaeus and Sappho.

4
In discussing about archaic criticism, we are talking about the beginning (history) of the
practice of criticism. Criticism, according to scholars such as George Kennedy (Cambridge
History of Literary Criticism) and Kenneth Dover (Frogs), as an instinctive reaction to the
performance of poetry is as old as song. The scholars indicate that in the pre-literate cultures
(oral tradition) the composition of songs is a process in which discussion and criticism play
an important part because aesthetic reaction (criticism) implies preference and preference
implies criticism. As the Greeks were surely singing long before the first literary texts appear
in the eighth century B.C.E., this means we cannot hope to trace criticism to its beginnings.
But such broad perspectives should not lead us to neglect the fact that what Kennedy calls the
instinct for criticism is always exercised in a social context--that the aesthetic reaction of
which Dover speaks begins to acquire a history the moment it is uttered before a particular
group on a particular occasion. Therefore, “criticism” in the archaic period is not similar to
the classical, traditional or modern criticisms. Criticism in the archaic period is any public act
of praise or blame upon a performance of song because there were no rules upon which the
criticism depends upon.

Although it is difficult to trace literary criticism exactly to its beginning, it is believed that it
existed as long as the oral literature. The period preceding the eighth (8 th) century B.C, which
marked the introduction of Phoenician alphabets, is generally known as a period of oral
literature. However, the period between the mid fifth and the mid fourth century B.C
becomes a turning point in Greece from predominantly oral literature to predominantly
written basis of intellectual life. Until the eighth (8 th) century B.C, Greece literature was
chiefly known through performance- performance of epic poetry from rhapsode; performance
of lyric poetry from chorus (group of performers).

Therefore, archaic criticism by and large, refers to the criticism of oral literature in the form
of performance of, for example, poetry (epic and lyric), play and any other form of literature
on the stage.

In a modern culture our most frequent direct contact with the literature comes either through
private and reflexive reading or in the context of the classroom, and is supplemented in the
case of drama by visits to the theatre, to see actual performance. However, in the archaic and
classical cultures (pre and classical era), live performance was the norm. Songs and poetry
were traditionally performed in a context of competition or contests, for example, in the form
of dramatic festivals. In other words, in the ancient Greece, the archaic period, there was an

5
art of presenting literature where a rhapsode or professional singer or chorus performs a
certain literary work on a stage to the audience, orally. Then judges (archaic critics), would
be assigned to look at the literary appropriateness of the work. Therefore, in the archaic
criticism, unlike in the classical criticism, the aesthetic reaction (judgement) takes place
immediately the moment the work of literature was presented in front of a particular audience
at a particular occasion.

Archaic Genres
Differentiating the genres or kinds of singing that were developed during the archaic or pre-
classical period is helpful for better understanding of the archaic criticism. In addition, the
most basic difference between the archaic musical culture and classical literary criticism is
centred on the notions of genres developed in each of the periods.

It is always a misguided idea to look for a specific literary criticism during the archaic period.
This is mainly because of that there was no unitary notion or governing rule of poetry or
literature during the period. The many forms of songs that were sung on various occasions
were not referred to as instances of a single art or activity called poetry or even song. Instead
there were many different names for songs, most of them derived from the social contexts in
which they were performed. What archaic criticism lacked, and what was not developed until
the fourth (4th) century B.C, was a literary system, a conceptual unification of songs as
distinctive forms of speech to be understood in their formal relation to each other. Of course,
long before Homer, Greek audiences had developed expectations about what kind of song
was appropriate at what kind of occasion, and Greek singers created new songs in the
knowledge that they would be praised or blamed accordingly. From this collaboration,
distinct genres of song can be said to have been defined, as Dover remarks that in the archaic
period, different genres amount to different occasions of performance. Archaic songs were,
therefore, made, received, and assessed in relation to its context rather than its conformity to
some formal paradigm.

Accordingly, the oldest Greek song names usually express an aspect of the occasion: some
are simply terms for social actions, such as the lament (threnos) for funerals or the iambos for
occasions of ritualized abuse. Others are derived metonymically from the context, such as the
paean (expression of joy or praise) and dithyramb (impassionate Greek Chorus), which
evolved from ritual refrains into names for kinds of song. The generic meaning of paean as a

6
song of praise or joy derives from earlier, more context-based senses—a song for Apollo in
his aspect as saving god, and behind this, it appears, a song invoking Paiawon, a pre-Greek
healing divinity. Similarly, the songs called dithyrambs were properly connected with the cult
of Dionysus (the God of wine in ancient Greek) an ancient epithet of the god that became as
opaque to the Greeks. This way of naming kinds of song persisted through the archaic period,
yielding at its end such new names as tragedy (tragoidia) goat-song, probably to be
associated with a processional song leading a goat to sacrifice, and comedy (komoidia) taking
its name from komos, a kind of village revel-song.

When we find statements in archaic Greek poetry about what is good or bad in singing, the
predominant concern is whether the song is appropriate to its context and occasion. There is
no literary criticism in the archaic period because the appropriate and its congeners always
involved social and religious values. This is not to say that formal and aesthetic qualities were
ignored: the gods were said to take pleasure in festival singing and dancing, and so the
ritually or socially right way to perform a song had to look and sound right, too.
Appropriateness to the occasion included qualities we could call aesthetic, but always as
elements within a larger conception of the function of song: one of our oldest preserved
choral songs, composed for a festival of Artemis in seventh-century Sparta, draws the
audience’s attention to the beauty of the dancers, their fine voices and nimble feet; but this
comes after they have recounted a myth showing that gods avenge acts of hubris (pride or
arrogance).

Classical Criticism

The term classical refers to the ancient period in Greek and Rome, and to the great works of
literature or art, classical literature, produced during that period. It can also be used to refer to
different literary works of a later period influenced by the classical time, or to any work of
literature which is based on the standard of the classical era. Therefore, classical should not
be confused with classics. The term classics refers to the works of literature or fiction, like
Shakespeare’s, Jane Austen’s, Thomas Hardy’s works, that are relevant to all age through all
times and for their universal appeal, regularity of form and a sense of beauty and balance.

Long before the term literary criticism came into practice, literary theory existed as far back
as the 4thc BC. Literary scholars who study the history of theory and criticism usually begin
with the classical theorists because of their influence on the development of literary theory

7
and criticism which has continued up to the present. The most influential classical theorists in
Western culture are Plato and Aristotle, from Greek, followed distantly by Horace from
Rome.

While literary theory as a school of thought or mode of literary criticism is very much a
product of the mid to the late 20th century academic world, the first recorded theories of
literature extend back to the ancient Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle. In fact, Aristotle
is widely considered to be the Western world’s first true literary theorist. While Plato (who
was Aristotle’s teacher) was among the first intellectuals to give careful consideration to the
role and function of literature in society, Aristotle presented the first fully developed theory
as to how literary art can and should function within society.

Plato's discussion of his disdain (contempt) for the poet and poetry in his work The Republic
and Aristotle's counterargument found in his work Poetics are the stepping stones of literary
criticism in this period. Both Plato and Aristotle noted the power of poetry, but they argued
over whether it was socially responsible or harmful. Aristotle's work is seen as some of the
first literary criticism because it also deals with cataloguing and identifying different types of
poetry, the elements within them, and their effects.

During this span of almost a thousand years, poets, philosophers, rhetoricians, grammarians,
and critics laid down many of the basic terms, concepts, and questions that were to shape the
future of literary criticism as it evolved all the way through to our own century. These
include:

 the concept of mimesis or imitation

 the concept of beauty and its connection with truth and goodness

 the idea of the organic unity of a literary work

 the social, political and moral functions of a work of literature

 the connection between literature, philosophy, and rhetoric

 the nature and status of language

 the impact of literary performance on an audience

 the definition of figures of speech such as metaphor, metonymy, and symbol

 the notion of a canon of the most important literary works, and

8
  the development of various genres such as epic, tragedy, comedy, lyric poetry, and
song.

Generally, the two philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, dominated the field of literary theory,
during the classical period, advocating strongly contradictory interpretative positions. Plato,
for example, judged literature and all other forms of artistic mimesis from the vantage point
of a moral philosopher who condemned a world view found in Homer, the greatest of all
Greek poets, and in much of Greek tragedy.

Plato (428-347 BC)

It is widely acknowledged that the Greek philosopher Plato laid the foundation of the western
philosophy. Scholars believe that the Western philosophy is a series of foot notes to Plato.
While this claim may be exaggerated, it rightly suggests that Plato gave initial formulation to
the most basic questions and problems of Western thought which include:

 How can we define goodness and virtue?

 How do we arrive at truth and knowledge?

 What is the connection between soul and body?

 What is the ideal political state?

 Of what use are literature and the arts?

Plato’s answers to these questions are still disputed; yet the questions themselves have
endured, often in the forms and contexts posed by Plato.

Stylistically, most of Plato’s philosophy is expound in dialogue form, with Socrates cast as
the main speaker. The canon attributed to Plato includes thirty- five (35) dialogues and
thirteen (13) letters. The authenticity of some of the dialogues and of all the letters has been
questioned. However, it has become conventional to divide Plato’s dialogues according to the
early, middle, and later periods of compositions.

Most scholars seem to agree that the early dialogues which include the Apology, Charmides,
Crito, Euthyphro, Gorgias, Ion, Laches, Protagorias, Lysis, and the first book of Republic are
devoted to exploring and defining concepts such as virtue, temperance, courage, pity, and

9
justice. Such early works exhibit a natural tendency to seek by rational analysis of a
definition of the essence of such concepts, challenging and often rejecting their meaning as
conferred by conventional authority and tradition.

The major dialogues of Plato’s middle period include Gorgias, Meno, Apology, Crito,
Phaedo, Symposium, and Republic. These dialogues, unlike the dialogues in the early period,
move beyond the largely moral concern of the historical Socrates into the realms of
epistemology (theory of knowledge), metaphysic, political theory, and art. The style of the
dialogues in the middle period of Plato’s composition changes, whereas the earlier dialogues
presented Socrates in the role of systematic questioner, he is now (in the middle period) made
to expound or describe Plato’s own doctrines in lengthy expositions that go largely
unchallenged. At this stage of Plato’s development, what unifies these various concerns is
his renowned Theory of Forms, underlain by his increasing reverence for mathematics as an
archetype or model of human inquiry. It should be said that Plato was reacting not only
against the disordered and mythical vision of the world offered by the poets but also against
the scepticism of thinkers such as Democritus and Protagoras, who had both effectively
rejected the notion of a truly objective world existing somehow outside the human mind and
independent of human interpretation.

The later periods of Plato’s composition include Philebus, Sophist and Parmenides. In this
later period, Plato questions his own theory of Forms. For example, in the Parmenides he
suggests that the theory, the theory of Forms, would require an infinite regression, whereby a
further Form would have to be posited as lying behind the initial Form. In the Sophist Plato
offers a different view of reality. He argues, as against the theory of Forms that such power
must operate in the world of becoming and change. This world, then, must be part of reality.
It is not clear from these later works, however, what Plato’s final position is regarding the
Forms.

Plato’s Theory of Forms

Plato’s thought was influenced by a number of pre-Socratic thinkers who rejected the
physical world known through our senses as mere appearance. They sought to describe a
reality underlying physical appearance. For example, Heraclitus’ theory was that all things in
the universe are in a state of flux; and Paramedies viewed reality as unchanging and unitary.

10
From Socrates, Plato learned the dialectical method of pursuing truth by a systematic
questioning of received ideas and opinions. In general, both Socrates and Plato reject the
morally incoherent vision of the universe- found in Homer, Sophocles, and other poets- as
disordered, irregular, unpredictable, and subject to the whims of the gods. It should be said
that Plato was reacting not only against the disordered and mythical vision of the world
offered by the poets, but also against the scepticism of thinkers such as Democritus and
Protagoras, who both had effectively rejected the notion of a truly objective world existing
somehow outside the human mind and independent of human interpretation.

The theory of Forms expounded in Plato’s Republic shows that the familiar world of objects
(Physical World) which surrounds us, and which we apprehend by our senses, is not
independent and self-sufficient. Indeed, it is not the Real World (even though the objects in it
exist) because it is dependent upon another world, the realm of pure Forms or ideas, which
can be apprehended only by reason and not by our bodily sense perceptions.

What is the connection between the two realms (the Physical world and the world of Forms)?
Plato says that the qualities of any object in the Physical World are derived from the Ideal
Forms of those qualities. For example, an object in the physical world is beautiful because it
partakes of the ideal Forms of beauty which exist in the higher realm. Plato even
characterizes entire objects as having their essence in the ideal Forms; hence a BED in the
physical world is an imperfect copy of the ideal BED in the world of Forms. The connection
between the two realms can best be illustrated using examples from geometry: any triangle or
square that we construct using physical instruments is bound to be imperfect. At most it can
merely approximate the ideal triangle or square which is perfect and which is perceived not
by the senses but by reason. The ideal triangle is not a physical object but a concept, an idea,
a Form.

According to Plato, the world of Forms, being changeless and eternal, alone constitutes
Reality. It is the world of essences, unity and universality, whereas the physical world is
characterized by perpetual (continuous) change and decay, mere existence (as oppose to
essence), multiciplity and particularity. These contrasts become clearer if we consider that
each Form is effectively a name or category under which many objects in the physical world
can be classified. Returning to the example of BED, we might say that there are numerous
objects constructed for the purpose of sleeping on; what they have in common is a given kind
of construction which facilitates this function, say, a flat surface with four legs; hence they

11
fall under the category of BED. Similarly, Goodness- which Plato regards as the primal
Form- can be used to classify a broad range of actions and attitudes, which would otherwise
remain mutually disparate (very different) and uncounted.

We can see, then, that a central function of Plato’s theory of Forms is to unify groups of
objects or concepts in the world, referring them back to a common essence. Moreover, the
theory attempts to give reality an objective foundation which transcends or goes beyond mere
subjective opinion.

Plato and Literary Criticism

As he is an important figure in the history of Western philosophy therefore, Plato also

appears nearly as large in the history of European literary theory. Indeed, for many literary
scholars, he marks the beginning of the tradition of literary theory although his choice of the
dialogue format, in which historical personages convey particular arguments, suggests that
the issues he raises had already been debated before he took them up. Although Plato did not
set out to write systematic literary theory- unlike his student Aristotle who produced a treatise
on poetics- his consideration of philosophical issues in the several of the dialogues leads him
to reflect on poetry, and those reflections have often set the terms of literary debate in the
West.

Plato makes many comments on poetry in many of his dialogues. In the Apology, Socrates
affirms that poetry derives from inspiration rather than wisdom, and he also remarks on the
pretentions poets to knowledge that they do not posses. In Protagoras, the role of poetry in
education and the inculcation of virtue is discussed. The Symposium talks of the motives
behind poetic composition, such as the desire to embody and preserve certain concepts of
wisdom and virtue. The Phaedrus distinguishes between productive and unproductive
inspiration as well as between the relative virtues of speech and writing.

However, Plato’s most systematic comments on poetry occur in two texts, separated by many
years. The first is Ion, where Socrates cross-examines a rhapsode or singer on the nature of
his art. The second, more sustained, commentary occurs in the Republic, some of which is
reiterated in a more practical context in the Law. In lon, Plato's Socrates engages Ion in a
debate about the nature of the rhapsode's knowledge of poetry, about the nature of poetry and
about the status of knowledge itself. Poetry, Socrates maintains, is not an art; it is a form of

12
divine madness: the poet is an airy thing, winged and holy, and he is not able to make poetry
until he becomes inspired and goes out of his mind. This debate between the claims of
inspiration and those of art would subsequently have a long history in European literary
criticism. Is poetry primarily a craft with a set of rules that can be taught and learned? Or is it
primarily the result of inspiration or genius?

Another important comment that Plato gives, through his spokesman Socrates, is about the
rhapsode (the professional singer) and criticism. He goes a step further and indicates that not
only is poetry a form of divinely inspired madness but also the rhapsode (professional
singer), like the poet himself, is in a state of divine possession and speaks not with his own
voice, which is merely a medium through a God speaks. The Muse inspires the poet, who in
turn passes on this inspiration to the rhapsode, who produces an inspired emotional effect on
the spectators. Plato, through Socrates, parallels this process to a magnet, which transmits its
attractive power to a series of iron rings, which in turn passes on the attraction to other rings,
suspended from the first set. The Muse is the magnet or loadstone; the poet is the first ring,
the rhapsode is the middle ring, and the audience the last one. In this way, the poet convoys
and interprets the utterances of gods, and the rhapsode interprets the poets. Hence the
rhapsodes are interpreters of interpreters. Criticism, according to Plato, is also irrational and
inspired.

What binds together Plato's various discussions or comments of poetry is a distrust of

mimesis (representation or imitation). According to Plato, all art-including poetry, is a
mimesis of nature, a copy of objects in the physical world. But those objects in the material
world, according to the idealist philosophy that Plato propounds, are themselves only mutable
copies of timeless universals, called Forms or Ideas. Poetry is merely a copy of a copy,
leading away from the truth rather than toward it. In other words, art, for Plato, was an
unfaithful representation of reality. According to him, the poet is not only imitating imperfect
copies of this world (the physical world), but also he/she is pretending to know things which
he/she actually had no understanding.

Generally, Plato can be considered as an enemy of art because he viewed art products of any
kind, whether poetry, theatre or painting as inferior copies of the ultimate reality. On the issue
of poetry’s mimesis or imitation of reality, for example, he presents the best· known views.
Plato agreed that mimesis (imitation or representation) is a key feature of poetry, but he
conceives of and evaluates it quite differently from his student Aristotle, as we will see it

13
later. Plato has his spokesperson Socrates disapprove of poetry's imitation of reality on the
grounds that poetry cannot depict truth and teach morality and that it is irrational- based on
inspiration, not knowledge. As an idealist philosopher, he locates reality in a transcendent
world of eternal Forms or Ideas that only reason can properly apprehend; this world is
distinct from the illusory phenomenal world of our senses, which poetry represents. For Plato,
the material world is at best an imperfect copy of the original transcendent world of Ideas,
and poetry is but a degraded copy of a copy. He concludes that poetic representation threatens
social stability by offering false images and unsuitable role models. In Republic, therefore, he
has Socrates recommend that it be banished from the ideal society, except perhaps that poetry
which praises the gods and avoids representing them in an unseemly fashion

Aristotle (384-322)

Aristotle who was born in 384 BC was a famous student and ardent supporter of his teacher,
Plato. However, gradually he modified his teacher's views and turned away from the world of
Ideas or Forms back to the Real world.

Fascinated by how things worked, Aristotle attempted to understand, classify and examine
the natural world. He divided things into classes and sub-classes by finding out what
important qualities they shared, and ignoring insignificant differences. For example, human
beings have many shared qualities (such as intelligence, language, a body with four limbs,
and so on) that allow them to be defined as human, while differing in numerous insignificant
qualities (hair colour, height, weight, etc.).

As well as natural history, botany and biology, Aristotle became a master of logic and
devised a hierarchy of living things which ranked creatures from the lowest form of life
(plants) to the highest (man). Unlike his teacher Plato, Aristotle did not believe the soul
survived death in individual form, but thought it became part of a greater collective whole. In
political and everyday life he rejected Plato's ideas.

Alongside his teacher Plato, Aristotle is the great finding figure of Western philosophy and
literary theory. Aristotle invented the scientific method of analysis and, in a wide ranging
series of treatises, codified the divisions of knowledge into disciplines and sub disciplines
that carry on to the present day, such as physics, chemistry, zoology, biology, botany,
psychology, politics, logic and epistemology.

14
Unlike Plato who uses the dialogue to dramatize paths of thinking in a conversational literary
form, though his early works were in dialogue form, Aristotle relies in his extant (existing)
works on categorization and logical differentiation in a straightforward propositional manner.
He focuses on the distinctive qualities of any given object of study, whether of plants or of
poems systematically describing their specific features and construction.

Aristotle’s early writings, now known only by the reports of ancient writers, were written in
the form of dialogues, obviously showing the influence of his teacher, Plato. However, his
more mature works depart from his teacher’s model in a number of significant ways.
Stylistically, Aristotle replaces the literary approach with systematic exposition of particular
subjects, more in the form of technical manuals than dramatic accounts. Methodologically, he
operates through analysis, which in its root sense involves examining objects by studying
their component parts, and through differentiation and classification. For example, in Biology
he starts with the most general category- living organisms; he then examines them according
to what differentiates them, as plants, animals and so on. Philosophically, Aristotle grounds
his research on a more pragmatic basis than Plato, looking at nature and the objects of the real
work. In so doing, he tacitly rejects Plato's fundamental concept of transcendent Ideas or
Forms that govern and generate reality. In his own terms, Aristotle often works from
induction, drawing his general conclusions from the particular objects he observes, whereas
Plato usually works from deduction, drawing particular conclusions from his general abstract
concept of being.

Aristotle’s Metaphysics
At the heart of Aristotle’s metaphysics and logic is the concept of substance. In his
Metaphysics Aristotle states that the subject matter of metaphysics is being qua being. In
other words, Metaphysics studies existence in general and what it means for things to exist.
Aristotle tells us in Posterior Analytics that before we can know what a thing is, before we
can know its true nature or essence, we must be aware that it exists. However, such
awareness of existence is not distinct from, but part of, our knowledge of the thing’s essence.
To have true knowledge, we must know the thing’s essence and the causes of it. For instance,
we could be aware of the existence of something, such as a noise in the clouds, but until we
are essentially aware of it, until we know what the thing is (thunder/the causes of thunder),
we do not even know that it exists. Hence, the phrase being qua being does not refer to

15
existence as an isolated, abstracted condition, but to existence as understood in its
connections with essence. Given these considerations, Aristotle reformulates the question
confronted by metaphysics what is being? As what is substance?

The notion of substance as formulated by Aristotle pervades the subsequent history of

Western logic and metaphysics. It is indeed the underlying principle of Aristotle’s work in
these areas, central as it is to his Categories as well as his Metaphysics. In the former,
Aristotle basically holds that there are ten categories through which we can view the world:
whatness (substance), quantity, quality, relation, place, time, position, state, action, and
affection. A mere glance at these categories tells us that they still permeate (spread through)
our own thought about the world at the profoundest levels. When we think of any entity with
a view to understanding it, we approach it in terms of its qualities, its relations to other
entities, its position in space and time, and so on. But, according to Aristotle, there must be an
underlying substrate or substance to which these qualities and relations belong.

Aristotle maintains that the categories indicate the various modes of being, and that all of
these modes of being refer to substance. He calls substance the primary sense of being. Only
substance, then, and none of the other categories, can exist separately since they are
dependent upon substance. Aristotle puts this in another way in the Categories, where he
makes a distinction between primary substance and secondary substance: primary substance
is that which is neither asserted of nor can be found in a subject. Examples of primary
substance would include a particular man or a horse. The other categories, such as quantity
and quality, would act as predicates or qualifications of these particular entities. Secondary
substance, for Aristotle, designates the species or genera under which these individual entities
are classified. So a particular man would belong to the species man and this species itself
would fall under the genus of animal. We can see, then, that all primary substance is
individual, each denoting an indivisible unit. Secondary substance refers to many things, not
one entity, as the genus animal would refer to all animals, and not to any particular animal.
Aristotle tells us that the most outstanding characteristic of substance is that it can receive
contrary qualifications or predicates while remaining numerically one and the same. For
example, it could be predicated of the same man that he is both good and bad in various
aspects. Substance seems to have the function, then, of an indivisible substrate to which
various elements in the other categories can be attached, as predicates.

16
From a historical perspective, it is worth remarking that Aristotle’s view of substance as the
subject of predication represents a sharp break from the Platonic Forms, and was indeed to
some extent worked out as part of Aristotle’s critique of those Forms. Aristotle sometimes
expresses great impatience with the Forms, referring to them as empty phrases and poetical
metaphors and even dismissing them at one point as mere prattle. However, he undertakes a
serious critique of those Forms on several accounts. Plato had made a distinction between
particular objects, such as a man or a bed, and universals or qualities such as goodness or
tallness. Plato thought that these universals possessed an independent existence in the world
of Forms which somehow transcends the world of physical, sensible, objects. Plato sees
goodness in a particular man as deriving from, or participating in, the ideal Form of
goodness. Aristotle, however, sees that this view of the connection between particulars and
universals, between separate existing things and qualities, would make it impossible to
explain the subject–predicate structure of language. For example, if we want to say that a
particular object has a certain quality, for instance, This horse is tall (where “This horse” is
the subject and “is tall” is the predicate), it does not help us to think of “tallness” as a separate
entity to which the first entity (horse) is somehow related. If tallness is truly a universal
applying to many objects, we must view it as a quality which is possessed by a class of
objects rather than as a thing which exists in its own right. Aristotle urges, the Forms
introduce a great deal of confusion into our explanations of the sensible world and are simply
not necessary.

Aristotle and Literary Criticism (Poetry)

As he differs in his philosophical approach, Aristotle also differs from Plato in treating poetry
and poets. Aristotle rejected Plato’s view of poetry as a degraded imitation of nature and as
an inspiration. Instead, he sees poetry as a craft (based on knowledge) and as a source of
universal knowledge of human behaviour. In addition, Aristotle, unlike Plato, perceives
mimesis (imitation) as a valuable method for artistic representation.

Plato and other ancient writers often commented on literary works, but Aristotle inaugurated
the systematic and distinctive discipline of literary criticism and theory with the Poetics. It is
perhaps the most influential work in the history of criticism and theory shaping future
considerations of genre, prosody, style, structure, and form. Its modern impact began in the
Renaissance, when it was rediscovered from fragmentary manuscript sources and taken as a

17
rulebook for literary composition. Its descriptions of formal unity influenced seventeenth, and
eighteenth-century writers reviving its precepts as neoclassicism. In twentieth-century literary
theory the Poetics was foundational for formalist methods, which apply objective modes of
analysis to linguistic artifacts and discern the structural attributes of literary works; it
influenced a wide array of critics, ranging from the Russian formalists and the American New
Critics like William K. Wimsatt JR, and Monroe C. Beardsley to the archetypal critics
notably Northrop Frye and the French structuralists like Tzvetan Todorov.

Aristotle’s Poetics is a typology and description of literary forms with many specific
criticisms of contemporary works of art. Poetics developed for the first time the concepts of
mimesis and diegesis which are still crucial in literary study. As indicated earlier, Plato’s
student Aristotle also agrees mimesis (imitation or representation) as a key feature of poetry.
Unlike Plato, however, Aristotle asserts that poetic imitation can reveal truth precisely
because it does not passively copy appearances: it is a more creative act. Poetry in this view
is an organized whole, whose parts are organically related and subordinated to a single
objective.

Like Plato, Aristotle holds that poetry is essentially a mode of imitation. But he propounds an
entirely different view of imitation, one which leads him to regard poetry as having a positive
function. For Plato, imitation itself embodied a step away from truth, since it produced an
imperfect copy of the Form or essence of a given entity. In this sense, the entire world of
physical phenomena for Plato was an imperfect imitation of the world of Forms. Poetry, for
Plato, ranked even lower than the sensible world of appearances since it was obliged to
imitate those appearances, which were already imitations of Forms. Aristotle, however,
invests imitation with positive significance. Rather than viewing it as a necessarily imitating
activity, he sees it as a basic human instinct and allows it as an avenue toward truth and
knowledge. In the Poetics he states that from childhood men have an instinct for imitation,
and that what distinguishes man from other animals is that he is far more imitative.

Aristotle boldly adds that not just philosophers but all men in varying degrees find pleasure in
learning. And human beings rely on imitation to learn; through this process they infer the
nature of each object. Hence, for Aristotle, imitation is both a mode of learning and
associated with pleasure. This view is reinforced in Aristotle’s Rhetoric where he infers that,
since learning and admiration are pleasant, the imitative arts such as drawing, sculpture, and
poetry must also be pleasant. He holds that the pleasure lies not in the object which is

18
imitated but in the process of imitation itself, which yields learning through a process of
inference.7 In his Politics, Aristotle also suggests that we delight in imitation inasmuch as it
yields a likeness of reality (Pol., VIII.v). The very distance between artistic representation
and reality which Plato derided is offered up by Aristotle as a source of pleasure, based upon
contrast. This delight in realism is something he will address again in the Poetics. It is clear,
then, that for Aristotle, the notion of imitation is heavily charged with moral and
epistemological functions.

Generally, the Poetics is in part Aristotle's response to his teacher, Plato, who argues in the
Republic that poetry is representation of mere appearances and is thus misleading and
morally suspect. Aristotle's approach to the phenomenon of poetry is quite different from
Plato's. Fascinated by the intellectual challenge of forming categories and organizing them
into coherent systems, Aristotle approaches literary texts as a natural scientist, carefully
accounting for the features of each species of text. Rather than concluding that poets should
be banished from the perfect society, as does Plato, Aristotle attempts to describe the social
function, and the ethical utility, of art.

The Concept of Imitation in the Poetics

Near the beginning of his text, Aristotle asserts that all the various modes of poetry and music
are imitations. These imitations can differ in three ways: in the means used, in the kinds of
objects represented, or in the manner of presentation. The means can include colour, shape,
sound, rhythm, speech, and harmony. The art that imitates by words, says Aristotle, is poetry.
As against popular notions which equate poetry with the use of meter, Aristotle insists that
the essential characteristic of the poet is imitation (Poetics, I). Given that Aristotle later
suggests that the origins of the poetic art lie in natural causes, namely, our imitative nature
and the pleasure we derive from learning through imitation, it would seem that the art of the
poet is a formalization of impulses possessed in common by human beings. Again, this stands
in sharp contrast with Plato’s view of the poet as divinely possessed, composing in an
irrational frenzy, and standing aloof from his fellow human creatures. For Aristotle, the poet
is an integral part of human society, rationally developing and refining basic traits which he
shares with other human beings.

19
The second way in which artistic imitations differ from one another is in the kinds of objects
they address. What is common to all arts, however, is that they imitate men involved in action
(Poetics, II). As suggested earlier, the actions Aristotle has in mind are those which have a
significant moral valency. The actions imitated, says Aristotle, must either be noble or base
since human character conforms to these distinctions. What lies at the basis of both human
action and human character, then, is morality: it is this moral component of action and
character which the artist must imitate or represent. It is within this general imperative of all
art that distinctions can be made concerning the kinds of objects imitated: the latter can be
better, worse, or like the norm (Poetics, II). In this one stroke Aristotle lays the foundations
of two broad issues: distinctions of genre, on the one hand, and the nature of an artwork’s
connection to reality, on the other. Moreover, the two kinds of discussions remain
indissolubly tied to the moral basis from which they proceed. Tragedy, says Aristotle,
represents men as better than the norm, comedy as worse than the norm. While this respective
deviation from moral realism yields the genres of tragedy and comedy, there is no poetic
genre generated by moral realism or “likeness” to the norm. As will emerge shortly, it seems
that Aristotle relegates such mechanical moral realism to the discipline of history.

The final way in which imitations can be distinguished is in the manner of presentation.
Aristotle allows only two basic types: narration, in which the poet speaks in his own person
or through a character, and dramatic presentation, in which the story is performed and acted
out (Poetics, III). Aristotle traces tragedy back to heroic and epic poetry, hymns, and
encomia, while comedy, he suggests, has its roots in invective and iambic poetry.

20