Aristotle's Poetics: Plot, Drama, and Rejecting Plato

Introduction

Aristotle's Poetics, while not regarded as the most philosophically important or even logically sound of Aristotle's works by many modern scholars, has nonetheless been hugely instrumental in the development of Western literature, and particularly Western drama. It is in this text that the basic concepts of plot, character, and even the relationship of performers to the audience were all established and codified, and truly little has changed in regard to these concepts in the two millennia or so that have passed since Poetics was first produced. Most drama, and indeed most literature, has continued to define itself and its standards through the lens provided by Aristotle's discussion of Attic poetry and drama.

It is curious to note, then, that Aristotle's Poetics is not itself the pinnacle of philosophical progress toward an understanding of the nature of drama and poetics, but rather came as a refutation of previous thought in these areas. Specifically, Poetics is in many ways a rejection of Plato's moralistic condemnation of dramatic performance and even of literature itself. Poetics, then, is not a work dedicated solely to understanding and proclaiming the higher purposes of drama and literature — though this is in part what is accomplished in the text — but is rather concerned with establishing the broad field of poetics as Aristotle understood it: the pursuit of creative endeavors that do not serve a directly or obviously practical value. An understanding of the context in which Aristotle wrote the Poetics is essential to a proper understanding of the text itself and of the impact it has had on the development of Western drama.

The distinction between poetics and philosophy as separate and irreconcilable areas of human thought and effort was not new to Plato, but his work is often seen as the most definitive and influential force of divisiveness between the practical — and therefore moral — pursuits of philosophical inquiry, and the impractical — and therefore immoral, according to most interpretations of his work — pursuits of poetic thought, mimesis, and imitation. In the Symposium particularly, many scholars have noted the juxtaposition of poetic and philosophical alternatives, which Plato presents in a way that prevents the two from coming together before systematically showing philosophy to provide the superior worldview (Nichols 186–7). Love, the object of discussion at the titular gathering, is ultimately seen in its highest form in philosophy — a love of knowledge. Other forms of love and desire, such as those presented and sometimes gratified in literature and drama, are seen as a distraction from this higher goal, making them at the very least less moral, if not directly immoral.

Plato's Condemnation of Poetry and Drama

Elsewhere in his canon, Plato more directly addresses the issue of poetry's immorality. Plato's Republic contains his most explicit denunciation of poetry as an immoral act — at the very least for its diversionary nature from the pursuit of moral correctness, and at worst as a blasphemous and corruptive area of human endeavor. Varying interpretations, as well as a certain equivocation on Plato's own part, contribute to the varying degrees of hostility towards literature, poetry, and drama attributed to the philosopher, but it is entirely certain that he did not approve of them.

One of the most detestable things about poetry — of which drama was a part — to Plato is that it necessarily consists of imitation. In the Platonic worldview, the physical world inhabited by humans is already an imitation of the world of the gods. His famous allegory of the cave, in which chained cave dwellers see only shadows cast on the back wall of their cave and take these shadows to be reality, sums up this concept rather neatly. In poetry and other forms of artistic expression, Plato saw an imitation of an imitation — an imperfect copy of this world, which is already an imperfect copy of the world of the gods — and this found its extreme in dramatic texts and performances (Republic 387–8). Knowing this makes the act of pursuing imitation through dramatic texts or other artistic expressions all the more immoral in the Platonic view, as it is a purposeful attempt to create something less perfect rather than an attempt to strive toward greater perfection. The focus of philosophy has this latter, practical goal in mind, and is thus held by Plato to be far superior to the ideas and endeavors of purely creative pursuits.

An understanding of poetics' relationship to philosophy in the Platonic framework is essential to understanding Aristotle's own conclusions in the same area. His Poetics does not come simply as a refutation of Plato's ideas, but also as a reorganization of some of Plato's most basic concepts. Plato places things on a continuum of morality, and in the Republic poetics takes its place as a far less perfect form of philosophy — just as in the Symposium other forms of love are seen as less perfect versions of the love of wisdom that philosophy represents. Aristotle fundamentally shook up this arrangement.

Just as there is a great deal of debate and uncertainty concerning the extent and degree of Plato's rejection of poetics, art, and imitation, there is no scholarly consensus when it comes to Aristotle's defense of these areas in his Poetics, or indeed in his larger body of philosophical treatises. Yet just as it is clear that Plato does not view these things in a favorable light, it is equally clear that Aristotle attempts to find greater purpose and morality in them than his teacher and mentor did. Many have interpreted Aristotle's Poetics as a polemic defense of dramatic works and their purpose — even their necessity — in a well-formed society, while others have found his support of such endeavors to be somewhat less emphatic, and thus his renunciation of his teacher's conclusions less complete. Either way, Aristotle certainly departed from Plato's teachings enough to warrant a full examination of the nature of poetics, dramatic text, and dramatic performance, and his conclusions in these areas have become fundamental to the creation of Western drama over the two millennia since.

Though for the purposes of this study we must eventually see Aristotle's views in Poetics as oppositional to Plato's ideas in the Republic and the Symposium, some similarities in the two philosophers' approach also warrant examination. Both Plato and Aristotle were concerned with poetics, literary text, dramatic performance, and imitation as they relate to civic education and the creation and perpetuation of a successful and morally solid society (Haskins). This has already been largely demonstrated in Plato's work: his view of the immorality of imitation, drama, and poetry stems from its ability to mislead members of society — particularly the youth — by providing less-than-perfect examples of reality. Though Plato acknowledged that the epic poems of Homer and Hesiod were meant to illustrate generally good principles, the fact that these works did so through the presentation of false or imitative scenarios made the lessons far less morally acceptable and useful in his view (Bartky). Aristotle did not necessarily disagree with Plato on this point; he saw the same sort of emotional falsehood stemming from tragedy — and both even appear to agree that such emotional falsehoods are more easily and more strongly produced by the dramatic performance of a tragedy than in the recitation of an epic (Bartky 592–3).

Aristotle's Protest: Separating Poetics from Philosophy

Where Aristotle departs from Plato, then, is not in his diagnosis of the effects of dramatic literature and mimesis on those witnessing a tragic performance, but rather in the moral quality and long-term impact of those effects. For Plato, the greater the distance between any object or action and the "true" object or action of the divine world, the greater the immorality of that object or action and the less practical usefulness it entailed. The false lessons of the epics were therefore already a poor method of instruction for the youth of Athens, and the increased mimesis and immediacy of the tragic performance made it — and the texts behind it — that much worse. Plato, in short, placed everything under the umbrella of philosophy and judged all thought and endeavor by the same standards of logic and truth.

This is where the true disagreement between Aristotle and Plato arises. The two did not differ on the effects of mimesis and dramatic performance, but while Plato judges poetics by the same criteria incumbent upon philosophy, "Aristotle establishes poetry's independence from philosophy as a corrective to Plato's resort to poetry, thereby establishing that philosophy is completely autonomous from poetry" (Bartky 589). As an entirely separate entity from philosophy, poetics can utilize mimesis in a way that is not necessarily immoral or even amoral, and therefore both epic poetry and dramatic tragedy can be seen as useful methods of instruction in a poetic vein, if not in philosophical or larger civic tracks. Aristotle did not reject the notion of falsehood that Plato sees in mimesis and therefore in all poetry — epic and tragic — but instead accepts this falsehood and asserts that it is not necessarily detrimental in and of itself.

This move is accomplished precisely by Aristotle's removal of poetics from the realm of philosophy. The removal is not necessarily noticed in an explicit manner by modern scholars, many of whom still perceive his Poetics as an outright rejection of Plato's condemnation of mimesis (Nichols; Bartky). The emphasis on the revolutionary nature of Aristotle's interpretation of mimesis is more commonly put forth in the literature, and does in some ways appear more apparent in a surface reading of Aristotle's Poetics than the deeper schism with his teacher and mentor that a careful reading reveals. A more careful interpretation of Aristotle's Poetics, however, suggests that his work is at once more in agreement with and at the same time a more profound departure from Plato's basic philosophical construction.

For Plato — and largely for Aristotle — philosophy embodied all search for knowledge and improvement in human life. In Plato's view, engaging in philosophical inquiry for the purposes of better understanding and better action was the most perfect moral path one could take in the mortal world. Aristotle does not necessarily disagree with this view, but he does effectively remove poetics from the realm of philosophy, seeing it as an avenue of pursuing truth that is completely separate. Though this complicates the commonly observed interpretation of Aristotle's Poetics as a direct refutation of Plato on the subject of mimesis and morality, closer examination reveals a deeper revolution in the text.

Aristotle does, of course, end up challenging Plato in regard to mimesis and morality, but this challenge is secondary to his reorganization of human thought. By removing poetics utterly from the realm of philosophy, it is no longer bound or judged by philosophy's moral standards. The morality of poetic pursuits — including the mimesis of dramatic performances and texts — cannot be judged in terms of its approach to pure and absolute truth, because this is not their purpose. The purpose of drama, and of all poetic pursuits in Aristotle's construct, is emotional release, or catharsis, rather than intellectual and logical truth. Plato recognized this goal as well and found it distracting and not worthwhile. Aristotle, however, not only approves of it but also establishes a list of best practices for achieving catharsis — and this is the true focus of his Poetics.

Aristotle identifies six specific elements of drama in his Poetics, ranking them in terms of importance and defining how these elements can succeed — and often how they fail — in bringing about a cathartic release in those witnessing the dramatic performance. In this, it becomes apparent that Aristotle did not fully escape the overall worldview of his teacher and mentor. Though he has removed poetics from philosophy, he has created a highly similar system of judgment within his own theory of poetics, and he attaches this system of judgment to moral qualifications as well. In order for a tragic text to fulfill its potential and thus become a truly moral pursuit, it must bring the audience to an emotional catharsis through the successful engagement of that audience in the various aspects of the dramatic presentation.

Aristotle is no less codifying in his approach to poetics than Plato was in his analysis of civic society in the Republic or of love in the Symposium. As he moves through the six identified elements of drama — understandings of which have remained largely unchanged throughout the development of Western drama, though they have adapted to contemporary tastes and times — he is unequivocal in his assessment of how things should be. Though he has removed poetics from the moral auspices of philosophy, dramatic representation and performance is far from the expression or exploration of "personal truth," as it is often seen today, but rather is a highly structured and purposeful undertaking.

Conclusion

Despite the degree to which he was forced to cast off the more moralistic leanings of his time, including those of his own teacher and mentor, Aristotle's defense and definition of poetics generally and dramatic tragedy specifically can largely be seen as a codification of already current practices. Still, it is because of Aristotle that the Western world has a record of these early fundamentals of theatre, and it is through the study and reinterpretation of his work that Western theatrical traditions and modes have been established. Though modern theatre has certainly shown some deviance from the Aristotelian model, it remains the unquestionable touchstone of all Western drama.