This text was written in 1990 and presents evidence for a possible transformation of the Platonic concept of mimesis into a theory of literature by Aristotle. In addition it presents the basic aspects of the Aristotelian method as evidenced in his work ‘Poetics’. It also examines the way in which the contemporary literary criticism conceptualises mimesis.
When dealing with the “Poetics” of Aristotle, we can select (as a tool through which we will better analyse the concept of literature which he has produced) between the analysis of some standard – basic concepts which are found in his treatise; for example the concept of hamartia, the concept of katharsis, the concept of simple and complex tragedy, the concept of mimesis or to analyze the tragic character as it is presented in Aristotle.
I chose to use the concept of mimesis since, it is a more technical concept (or at least semi-technical) and in this way it is more related to the technical analysis of the contemporary literary criticism.
I also chose this tool in order to check if the theory of mimesis in Aristotle and in Plato coincide or not (some authors take it as synonymous).
The text is divided into six parts.
- The first part will deal with a fictional presentation (view) of when the concept of imitation first appeared.
- The second part I will deal with the duplicity of the ‘mimeisthai’ in Plato’s works.
- In the third part I will present two basic differences in the way Aristotle and Plato conceive the concept of mimesis .
- In the fourth part I’ll deal with the basic concepts of Aris-totle’s method (formal analysis).
- In the fifth part I will examine the concept of pleasure in Aristotle’s Poetics.
- The sixth part will deal with theories which tried to bring something of the technicalities and the spirit of the Aristotelian analysis in our century. I will also present the modern schools of literary criticism which make much of what Plato disqualifies in mimesis: the mask, the disappearance of the author, the simulacrum, anonymity, apocryphal textuality and so on.
Table of Contents
Introduction
1. “The First Appearance” of the Concept of Imitation
2. The Evolution of the Concept of Mimesis in Plato’s Thought
3. The Two Basic Differences in the Way Plato and Aristotle Conceive the Concept of Mimesis
4. The Basic Concepts of Aristotle’s Method (Formal Analysis) of Literature
5. The Concept of Pleasure in Aristotle’s Poetics
6. The Mimesis in Our Century (A Brief Overview)
Chicago School, Myth Criticism
The New Criticism, Phenomenological and Existential Criticism, Hermeneutics, Reader-Response Criticism, Literary Structuralism, Semiotics…
De-Constructive Criticism
Epilogue
Objectives & Themes
This work aims to examine the historical evolution of the concept of "mimesis" from its Platonic origins to its transformation into a systematic theory of literature under Aristotle. The primary research question centers on how Aristotle adapted the concept of imitation to create a formal method for analyzing literature, and whether contemporary literary theories have truly moved beyond this foundational opposition between fiction and reality.
- Evolution of mimesis in Plato's philosophy versus Aristotle's Poetics
- Methodological shifts in Aristotle’s formal analysis of literary works
- The relationship between pleasure, knowledge, and moral considerations in tragic poetry
- Persistence of Aristotelian concepts in 20th-century literary criticism
Excerpt from the Book
4. The Basic Concepts of Aristotle’s Method (Formal Analysis) of Literature
“So then, just as in the other mimetic arts, a unitary mimesis is a representation of a unitary object, so the plot-structure, as the mimesis of action, should be a representation of a unitary and complete action; and its parts, consisting of the events, should be so constructed that the displacement or removal of any one of them will disturb and disjoint the work’s wholeness. For anything whose presence or absence has no clear effect cannot be counted an integral part of the whole” (end of chapter 8 of the “Poetics” translated by S. Halliwell)
“The poet’s task is to speak not of events which have occurred, but of the kind of events which could occur, and are possible by the standards of probability or necessity…A universal comprises the kind of speech or action which belongs by probability or necessity to a certain kind of character – something which poetry aims at, despite its addition of particular names. A particular, by contrast, is (for example) what Alcibiades did or experienced.” (Beginning of the chapter 9 of the “Poetics” translated by S. Halliwell)
We have already discussed the basic differences of Aristotle and Plato (on how they envisage literature), so I hope that the way with which Aristotle copes with mimesis was somehow shown. I will proceed now with the analysis of the method which Aristotle introduced and with which the question of poetry (which Plato determined as mimesis) produced the concept of literature and art that reigned until the nineteenth century.
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: Outlines the scope of the work, focusing on the selection of "mimesis" as a key tool to compare Platonic and Aristotelian theories of literature.
1. “The First Appearance” of the Concept of Imitation: Discusses the emergence of mimesis in Greek thought alongside the birth of philosophy and art as distinct from reality.
2. The Evolution of the Concept of Mimesis in Plato’s Thought: Examines Plato's negative stance on imitation, specifically focusing on his metaphysical and psychological arguments in The Republic.
3. The Two Basic Differences in the Way Plato and Aristotle Conceive the Concept of Mimesis: Analyzes how Aristotle moves away from Plato’s moral concerns toward a technical, structural understanding of poetry.
4. The Basic Concepts of Aristotle’s Method (Formal Analysis) of Literature: Details Aristotle’s core analytical components: unity, probability, necessity, and the role of the universal.
5. The Concept of Pleasure in Aristotle’s Poetics: Explores the connection between tragedy, emotional purgation (katharsis), and the intellectual pleasure derived from imitation.
6. The Mimesis in Our Century (A Brief Overview): Investigates how modern schools of criticism, despite claiming to abandon imitation, remain anchored in the binary of fiction and reality.
Epilogue: Concludes that Aristotle’s shift from moralizing to formal analysis defined literary criticism for centuries and remains relevant in modern theoretical discourse.
Keywords
Mimesis, Aristotle, Plato, Poetics, Literary Theory, Imitation, Formal Analysis, Tragedy, Unity, Probability, Katharsis, Literary Criticism, Representation, Philosophy of Art, Universals
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this publication?
The work investigates the transformation of the concept of "mimesis" from its Platonic context of moral suspicion to Aristotle’s formal method for analyzing literature.
What are the central themes discussed in the book?
Key themes include the distinction between imitation and reality, the evolution of tragic theory, the relationship between poetry and moral truth, and the persistence of mimetic principles in modern literary theory.
What is the primary goal of the author?
The author intends to demonstrate how Aristotle’s formal analysis established a framework for literature that dominated Western thought until the 19th century and continues to influence modern critical discourse.
Which scientific methodology is employed in this research?
The research uses a comparative philosophical analysis, juxtaposing classical texts from Plato and Aristotle with secondary commentary by scholars like Halliwell, Danto, and Collingwood.
What topics are covered in the main body of the work?
The body covers the historical development of mimesis, the technical concepts of unity and probability in Aristotle's Poetics, the role of pleasure in art, and a critical overview of 20th-century literary schools.
Which keywords define this work?
Essential keywords include Mimesis, Aristotle, Plato, Poetics, Literary Theory, Imitation, and Formal Analysis.
How does Aristotle’s concept of 'mimesis' differ from Plato's?
While Plato views imitation as a dangerous, "photographic" distortion of reality that appeals to the lower passions, Aristotle redefines it as a formal, structural representation that focuses on the universal rather than the particular.
What role does the concept of 'pleasure' play in Aristotle’s Poetics?
Aristotle argues that tragedy provides a specific type of pleasure—linked to learning, recognition, and the purgation of fear and pity—which is essential to the artistic function of the work.
Does the author believe modern literary theory has moved beyond mimesis?
No, the author concludes that even contemporary theories, such as deconstruction, remain fundamentally tied to the opposition between fiction and reality first explored by Plato and Aristotle.
- Arbeit zitieren
- George Dimos (Autor:in), 1990, From The Aristotelian “Mimesis” to the Contemporary One, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/368504
