You are on page 1of 28

2010-11 assignment

Q: What according to you does Aristotle mean by 'pleasure proper to tragedy"?


Answer 1.
Poetics by Aristotle: we must not demand of Tragedy any and every kind of pleasure, but only that which is
proper to it ....
In Aristotle's Ethics (VII.11-14 and X.1-5), he describes pleasure as (1) necessary to human life, (2) not solely
derived from the senses, and (3) the outgrowth or product of excellent activity, and (4) not something to be
sought deliberately as it is a product not an originating cause. Having said this, compare Aristotle's idea
of pleasure to our usual contemporary understanding of pleasure:
American Heritage Dictionary
pleasure:
1. The state or feeling of being pleased or gratified.
2. A source of enjoyment or delight
While there is nothing here to contradict Aristotle, our contemporary understanding of pleasure is devoid of the
philosophical element and renders it more akin to an emotion like joy or happiness.
When Aristotle uses pleasure in reference to tragedy, he is speaking in philosophical terms and not according
to our current concept. Remembering that pleasure comes as the product of excellent activity that is fulfilled
without hindrance or opposition, consider viewing a tragedy as an activity.
Viewing a Greek tragedy might well be considered an excellent activity as they were excellently crafted with
high, elevated diction and objectives. Therefore, by definition, a Greek tragedy may produce pleasure. Further,
a tragedy has qualities particular to it that are equally out of accord with comedy and monstrousness. The
sensation duly associated with tragedy is to be that of the terrible. The appropriate product of pleasure would,
as Aristotle states, then be pity and fear. In other words, if one feels pity for the characters, particularly the
tragic hero, if one feels fear for the heroes ultimate end, one has engaged in an excellent activity that
has produced pleasure proper to tragedy.
Those who employ spectacular means to create a sense not of the terrible but only of the monstrous, are
strangers to the purpose of Tragedy; for we must not demand of Tragedy any and every kind of pleasure, but
only that which is proper to it. And since the pleasure which the poet should afford is that which comes
from pity and fear through imitation, it is evident that this quality must be impressed upon the incidents.
(Poetics by Aristotle) (377 words)

Answer 2
In Aristotle's Poetics, he says:

Those who employ spectacular means to create a sense not of the terrible but only of the monstrous, are
strangers to the purpose of Tragedy; for we must not demand of Tragedy any and every kind of pleasure, but
only that which is proper to it. And since the pleasure which the poet should afford is that which comes from pity
and fear through imitation, it is evident that this quality must be impressed upon the incidents.
This is found in Aristotle's first and most important "principle" of tragedy: plot. A viewer of a tragic play will, by
the end, feel an aesthetic (artistic appreciation) pleasure in the intricate plot which elicits a catharsis, a
purgation of pity and fear.
For example, by the end of Oedipus Rex, we feel an appreciation for all the tragic ironies involving sight and
blindness, fate and free will, family love and incest, and truth and ignorance. All of these feelings are the result
of a complex plot, a series of oracles, ironies, and complications that, it seems, were destined for tragedy.
Ironically, we enjoy the facts that Clytemnestra kills herself but Oedipus doesn't: it seems just to us. We pity
both mother and son, and we fear that such corruption may befall our families as well. So, the pleasure comes
at intersection of pity, fear, and appreciation of a plot that is resolved tragically but deservedly.

Aristotles Conception of Tragic Catharsis in Poetics by Aristotle


Introduction: Catharsis is a Controversial Term
The term Catharsis is used only once in the course of Aristotles Poetics in the fourth
chapter. Yet there is hardly any other single term which has given rise to so many different
interpretations and controversies. The difficulty arises out of the fact that Aristotle does not
define or explain the term.. Perhaps, he did so in the second book of the Poetics, which is
lost. The term has been explained by critics in the light of its use in Aristotles other works,
such as his Politics and Ethics. It has also been noted that the term Catharsis has three
meanings: it could mean purgation or purification, or clarification. Critics have
interpreted Aristotles views in the light of each of these meaningsand it has not done
much to ease the difficulty. Only one thing has been agreed uponthat tragedy should
arouse pity and feat. But there is difference of opinion as to how the arousal of these
emotions lead to tragic pleasure.
The Place of Catharsis in the Definition of Tragedy
The term Catharsis occurs in Aristotles definition of tragedy:
Tragedy 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 a narrative; through
pity and fear effecting the proper catharsis, or purgation, of these emotions.
We see that the term is also linked with the concept of pity and fear. It is, therefore,
necessary to consider the meanings of pity and fear as connected with tragedy.
The Place of Pity and Fear in Catharsis
The terms, pity and fear are closely connected in Aristotelian theory. There are
different types of fear. Fear can be centered on an individual, in the form of some vague
feeling of insecurity and anxiety. It could possibly derive from a feeling for others, even for
society or the state. Fear could be the outcome of facing some inexplicable event, or some
disastrous and awful incident. Fear may also arise out of feelings of guilt, or rather
recognition of this guilt in ourselves, when we see it portrayed in someone else. It is

apparent that tragedy can easily encompass all these forms of fear, either singly or
collectively.
Pity, we are told by Aristotle, is occasioned by undeserved misfortune, and fear by that
of one like ourselves (i.e., by the misfortune of one like ourselves). In the Rhetoric, fear is
defined as a kind of pain or disturbance due to a mental picture of some destructive or
painful evil in the future. The impending evil in this case must be near at hand, not distant.
Anything that causes fear in us if it happens to us, causes pity in us if it happens to others.
Pity is a sort of pain at an evident evil of a destructive or painful kind in the case of
somebody who does not deserve it, the evil being one which we might expect to happen to
ourselves or to some of our friends, and this at a time when it is near at hand.
Pity and fear are related emotions. Pity turns to fear when the object is closely related to
us that the suffering seems to be our own, and we pity others in circumstances in which we
should fear for ourselves. Pity is derived from the feeling that similar suffering might befall
us. It is because of this that the tragic character should be like ourselves and at the same
time slightly idealized. In such a case, we feel pity for the suffering of the innately good
person, while having a sympathetic fear for one who is so like ourselves. Aristotle
everywhere says that pity and fear are the characteristic and necessary tragic emotions.
The essential tragic effect depends on maintaining the intimate alliance between pity
and fear. According to Aristotle, pity alone should be not be evoked by tragedy, as many
moderns have held; not pity or fear, for which Corneille argued; not pity and admiration,
which is the modification under which the Aristotelian phrase finds currency in
the Elizabethan writers. The requirement of Aristotle is a combination of pity and fear,
as Butcher says.
The tragic fear is impersonal in the artistic sense. It is not really the crushing
apprehension1 of personal disaster. In reading or seeing a tragedy, one does not really fear
that one would be placed in similar circumstances, or be overtaken by the
same calamities that overtake the tragic hero. But there is a feeling of horror or of vague
foreboding, as Butcher observes. The tension and excited expectation with which we wait for
the catastrophe derives from our sympathy with the hero, with whom we tend to identify
ourselves. Butcher says in this context: We are thrilled with awe at the greatness of the
issues thus unfolded, and with the moral inevitableness of the result. In this sense of awe
the emotions of fear and pity are blended.
Having dealt with the emotions of pity and fear, let us now go on to the concept of the
catharsis of such emotions. Various interpretations have been offered regarding the term.
Catharsis Taken as a Medical Term : Purgation Theories
The term Catharsis has been interpreted in medical terms, meaning purgation. In
medical terms (especially in the older sense), purgation meant the partial removal of excess
humours. The health of the body depended on a true balance of the humours. Thus
purgation of the emotions of pity and fear does not mean the removal of these emotions,
but that the passions or emotions are reduced to a healthy, balanced proportion. Catharsis
in this sense, denotes a pathological effect on the soul comparable to the effect of medicine
on the body.
1. Like Curing the Like : Some critics who favour the medical sense of the term
Catharsis, explain the process in the light of homeopathic treatment, in which a little
substance of something cures the body of a excess of the same thing. It is a case of thelike curing the like. A passage in the Politics of Aristotle bears this out, where the effects of
music on some morbid states of mind is talked about.1 The emotions should not be
repressed; they must be allowed an outlet, so that the mental equilibrium is maintained. In

the Poetics, Aristotle refers to the curing of religious frenzy. According to Plato, a crying child
is rocked to sleep by. singing a song. The outward restlessness (induced by. the rocking)
allays or cures the inward restlessness, and brings about calm.
In his Preface to Samson Agonistes, Milton expresses a similar view, that the effect of
tragedy is to temper and reduce . .. (Pity and fear and such emotions) to just measure with
a kind of delight, stirred up by reading or seeing those passions well imitated. Pity and fear
are artificially produced in tragedy, and it expels the excess
1. The passage in the Politics which gives strong justification to the view, that catharsis
is a relief to overcharged feeling: Those who are subject to the emotions of pity and fear
and the feelings generally will necessarily be affected in the same way; and so will other
men in exact proportion to their susceptibility to such emotions. All experience a certain
catharsis and pleasant relief. In the same manner cathartic melodies give innocent joy to
men of these emotions lying latent in us. Bernays, and before him Twining, put forward the
pathological theory of the effect of tragedy. The stage, according to them, provided a
harmless and pleasurable outlet for instincts which demand satisfaction, and which can be
indulged here more fearlessly than in real life. In the pleasurable calm .which follows when
the passion is spent, an emotional cure has been wrought. Freuds theory of psychological
cure of neurosis is similar to this, when he says that a neurotic can be cured by being made
to recall painful childhood experiences.
2. Unlike Curing the Unlike. In the neoclassical period, the medical interpretation of
the term took on an allopathic light. Catharsis was seen to be in the nature of the unlike
curing the unlike. The arousing of pity and fear, the more tender emotions, brought about a
purgation or evacuation of other emotions like anger and pride. The sight of the incidents
aroused pity and fear and the spectator is purged of those emotions which caused the
incidents of suffering in the tragedy.. If the suffering in the play was caused by anger or
pride, the spectator was cured of these emotions.
Dryden in his preface to Troilus and Cressida, says that it is not the abasement of pity
and fear, but of such aggressive and evil emotions as pride and anger through the feeding
and watering of the soft-hearted emotions.
Psychological Interpretation of Catharsis
Some critics have tried to give a psychological explanation to the term Catharsis.
Herbert Read considers it in the light of a safety valve. Tragedy gives a free outlet to the
emotions of pity and fear. The result is a feeling of emotional relief. This, one notes, is quite
closely related to the purgation theory.
A. A. Richard puts forward as ingenious theory. He says that the emotion of pity is an
impulse to advance, while fear is an impulse to withdraw. In tragedy both these impulses are
blended, harmonized into balance. Emotional excess is thus brought to a balance. However,
the theory holds good only for the emotion of pity and fear, and it restricts the range of
tragic emotions to these.
Ethical Interpretation of Catharsis
The ethical interpretation of Catharsis regards the tragic process as an illustration of
the soul, a lighting up which results in a more philosophical attitude to life and suffering. The
spectator sees the largeness of the disasters presented onstage and realizes that his
personal emotions are insignificant beside such a catastrophe. It brings him to a balanced
view of things. Man sees himself in proportion to the large design of the universe. In the
words of John Gassner, only enlightenment, a clear comprehension of what was involved in
the struggle, an understanding of cause and effect, a judgment on what we have

witnessed, can bring about a state of mental peace and balance, and result in complete
aesthetic gratification1.
Another set of critics said that the effect of tragedy was to harden or temper the
emotions. Just as soldiers become hardened against death after seeing it so many times on
the battlefield, so too, constant contact with tragedy on stage hardens men against pity and
fear in real life. This is, undoubtedly, a bit far-fetched, if not totally absurd.
The Purification Theory of Catharsis
One meaning of Catharsis is purification. Some critics have interpreted the term in the
light of this meaning. These critics reject the interpretation of Catharsis in the lights of
medical terminology. Humphrey House, for instance, says that Aristotles concept of
Catharsis was not as a medical term. He interprets the word to mean a kind of moral
conditioning, which the spectator undergoes. He comments that purgation means
cleansing*. This cleansing may be a quantitative evacuation or qualitative change in the
body, in the restoration of the proper equilibrium. In this context he says : A tragedy
arouses pity and fear from potentiality to activity through worthy and adequate stimuli; to
control them ,by directing them to the right objects in the right way; and exercises them,
within the limits of the play, as the emotions of the good man would be exercised. When
they subside to potentiality again after the play is over, it is a more trained potentiality
than before .... Our responses are brought nearer to those of the good and wise man.
Catharsis results in emotional health. Catharsis is thus a moral conditioning. It is a
purification of the excess and defect in our emotions, so that emotional equilibrium can be
restored. According to House, Aristotles whole doctrine only makes sense if we realize that
the proper development and balance of the emotions depend upon the habitual direction of
them towards worthy objects.
Butcher, too, agrees with the purification theory. He observes that Catharsis involves
not only the idea of emotional relief, but the further idea of purifying the emotions to be
relieved. He says, further, that, the poets found out how the transport of human pity and
human fear might, under the excitation of art, be dissolved in joy, and the pain escape in the
purified tide of human sympathy. Tragic experience, onstage, purifies the feeling of pity and
fear of its morbid content.
The Clarification Theory of Catharsis
There are some critics who show that the implications of Catharsis are to be found in the
Poetics itself without any need to refer to the Politics or the Ethics. Writing of the imitative
arts, Aristotle points out that the pleasure in the imitative arts is connected with learning
Pleasure does not come from joy alone; even the pictures of dead bodies can give pleasure if
well executed. This shows that pleasure is linked with learning; that pleasure is there in
anything fitted to instruct. It is paradox that even the ugly and the repellent1
can and do give pleasure. A similar paradox lies there in tragedy. The tragic incidents
are painful. They might present horrible situations of man blinding himself, or a woman
killing her husband, or a mother killing her child. Such events would horrify us and repel us
in real .life; yet, in tragedy, they afford us a special pleasure. It is a pleasure peculiar to
tragedy.
Aristotle himself tells us that tragedy has its own kind of pleasure, and that we must
seek from it this pleasurethe pleasure proper to it. And Catharsis involves such a
pleasure. The function of tragedy is to provide the pleasure peculiar to it. This pleasure
involves the presentation of events which arouse pity and fear. According to this
theory, Catharsis becomes an indication of the function of tragedy, and not of its emotional

effects on the, audience. Catharsis is related to incidents of the tragedy, not to the emotions
of pity and fear evoked in the audience. Catharsis involves a Process of Learning
Tragic pleasure rises from the fact that imitation produces that sort of pleasure which
comes from learning. This learning comes from our discovery of a certain relationship
between the particular events presented in the imitation and. certain universal elements
embodied in it. As has already been remarked, the poet selects and orders his material
according to the laws of probability and necessity. He presents what might be,-more than
what is. This is what makes a poet more philosophical than a historian, for he makes the
particular into the general; he deals with the universal. The events are presented as free of
all accidentals, transients, and chances, which might obscure their true significance. Tragedy
brings a better understanding; it brings the spectator face to face with the universal law.
The tragic poet selects incidents embodying pity and fear and then presents them in
such a way as to bring out the probable or necessary principles that unite them in a single
action and determine their relation to this action as it proceeds from its beginning to its end.
When the spectator has witnessed a tragedy of this type, he will have learned something;
the incidents will be clarified in the sense that their relation, in terms of universal, will have
become manifest and the act of learning, says Aristotle, will be enjoyable.
In the light of this theory, Catharsis refers to the incidents of the tragedy rather than to
the psychology of the audience. Catharsis is not purgation of emotions, nor is it a
purification of emotions. It refers to the way in which the poet has a presented his incidents
of pity and fear, to rise from the particular to the universal. Catharsis is not the catharsis of
the audience but of pity and fear themselves.. Indeed, Aristotle does not refer to the
audience in the definition of tragedy. It becomes inevitable that he is talking of the work of
tragedy itself. He is talking of the suitable embodiment of pity and fear. In this sense
Catharsis means simply the ideal state, but with reference to the tragedy, and not with
reference to the emotional state of the audience. Pity and fear take on the ideal form in
course of the composition of tragedy. Of tragedy Aristotle says : We must not demand of
tragedy any and every kind of pleasure, but only that which is proper to it. And since the
pleasure which the poet should afford is that which comes from pity and fear through
imitation, it is evident that this quality must be impressed upon the incidents. Thus the
pleasure peculiar to tragedy comes from pity and fear. Imitated in. a work of art these two
emotions, which may not be pleasant in real life, afford pleasure. And the problem of any
writer is to suitably formulate the pleasure peculiar to each genre of poetry.
There is in this theory, a clarification involved. There is a clarification of the essential
and universal significance of the incidents presented in the tragedy. It leads to an
understanding of the universal law governing the universe, and produces the pleasure
peculiar to tragedy. Catharsis takes on an intellectual tone, rather than a medical or religious
tone.
The Relative Merits and Demerits of the Theories
The purgation theory and the purification theory of Catharsis have obvious limitations.
They cannot explain the whole process involved in Catharsis. A fundamental, drawback of
these theories is that these theories are concerned with the effect of tragedy on the
audience, i.e., with the psychology of the audience. Both views concentrate not on what
tragedy says or what tragedy is, but what tragedy may do to us; they lie rather in the field of
experimental psychology than in that of literary criticism. They treat pity and fear as
references to something in the audience rather than to something (scenes and elements) in
the play. In actuality, Aristotle was writing a treatise on the art of poetry, and was concerned
more with technique of writing poetry than with audience psychology. As theories of

psychology, the two theories are not bad in themselves, but it is doubtful if it explains the
term as Aristotle intended it to mean.
Modern critics advocate the clarification theory. This theory refers to the incidents of
tragedy rather than to the reaction of the audience. It is more concerned with what tragedy
is i.e., with the nature of tragedy. According to this theory, purgation or purification is only
incidental to the pleasure of tragedy. But comprehension of the relation of the particular to
the universal as embodied in tragedy brings about a peculiar pleasure. It is an intellectual
pleasure which lies in realizing the relationship between the hamartia of the hero and the
suffering which results, the relationship between character and destiny. There is design
incorporated into the tragedy. The alleviation1 of pity and fear is a by-product of the
learning process, not the chief object of tragedy.
Conclusion
Aristotle is a. great critic, and what he said centuries ago will continue to influence
thinking as it has done all this time. It is unfortunate that he has not explained some of the
terms which seem so very significant to his central thesis. The term Catharsis, for instance,
has been interpreted so variously that it is difficult to come to an agreement as to what
Aristotle really meant. Of the theories advanced to explain Catharsis, the clarification theory
appears to be the most acceptable, perhaps, for it tends to relate Catharsis to the work
rather than to the psychology of the audience. And, after all Aristotle was writing on the art
of poetry, not about the effect of poetry. All the same, the last word on Catharsis has hot yet
been said.

Shelley's primary defense of poetry is that it is an impulse native to the "infancy of society." In other words,
poetry, as the expression of beauty and truth apprehended, or perceived, by the human is within the very
foundation of original language, which, according to Shelley (and borne out by linguists), has grammar and
other structures added as subsequent layers:
In the infancy of society every author is necessarily a poet, because language itself is poetry; and to be a poet
is to apprehend the true and the beautiful, in a word, the good which exists in the relation.
Shelley defines poetry as a result of inspiration from nature (Aristotle defined the inspiration as coming from
God to fill a longing in the human heart) and as a product of imagination. He defines imagination as the
antithesis of reason in that imagination--the font of poetry--analyses the "similitude" between objects that
reason observes and knows, then creates relationships between these seemingly disparate things. Conversely,
reason, the focus of which is the "forms which are common to universal nature and existence itself,"
"enumerates" and orders that which is "known" and "respects the differences."
Shelley says "Plato was essentially a poet":
the truth and splendour of his imagery, and the melody of his language, are the most intense that it is possible
to conceive.
Shelley also says that Plato "rejected the measure of poetry" and "forbore to invent any ... rhythm" of his own
because "he sought to kindle a harmony in thoughts divested of shape ...." This accords with what Plato himself
said. Plato advocated the superior nature of the ideal and criticized imitative poetic art, whereas Shelley
acknowledges the superior imitative, or mimetic, nature of poetry--a mimetic nature defined by Aristotle,
Spenser, and Sidney. Plato challenged the rightness of considering mimesis the highest inspired truth and
expression of beauty as Aristotle, Spenser, Sidney, and Shelley did (318 words)

Notes on Percy Bysshe Shelley's A Defense of Poetry

1) According to one mode of regarding those two classes of mental action,


which are called reason and imagination, the former may be considered as
mind contemplating the relations borne by one thought to another,
however produced; and the latter, as mind acting upon those thoughts so
as to colour them with its own light, and composing from them, as from
elements, other thoughts, each containing within itself the principle of its
own integrity.
Shelley divides the mental faculty into two parts: reason and imagination.
Reason implies a kind of logical process that enables one to connect ideas
together and/or determine their relationships to one another. It is a passive
thing. Imagination, meanwhile, acts upon those thoughts. It enables
creation; it is the source of our artistic desires.
2) Reason is the enumeration of quantities already known; Imagination is
the perception of the value of those quantities, both separately and as a
whole. Reason respects the differences, and Imagination the similitude of
things. Reason is to Imagination as the instrument to the agent, as the
body to the spirit, as the shadow to the substance.
The distinction between reason and imagination is akin to the distinction
between quality and quantity. We acknowledge the significance of each, all
the while holding one in higher regard compared to the other. Reason is a
lesser faculty, but it is necessary and instrumental to imagination. Reason
implies a mechanical knowledge of things. However, until the imagination
allows us to recognize the importance of such facts, they hold no value. It
is the soul to the mere vessel of the body. One is inextricably linked with
the other.
3) Poetry, in a general sense, may be defined to be "the expression of the
Imagination:" and Poetry is connate with the origin of man. Man is an
instrument over which a series of external and internal impressions are
driven, like the alternations of an ever-changing wind over an olian lyre;
which move it, by their motion, to ever-changing melody.
Poetry is man's real and outward expression of his imagination, and Poetry
is an innate characteristic of man. A human being is that body with the
imaginative soul. Like Nature creating music on Coleridge's Eolian harp,

our interactions with the world are themselves forms of poetry. We are
constantly processing things, evaluating, and revising who we are.
4) For language is arbitrarily produced by the Imagination and has relation
to thoughts alone; but all other materials, instruments and conditions of
art, have relations among each other, which limit and interpose between
conception and expression... We have thus circumscribed the meaning of
the word Poetry within the limits of that art which is the most familiar and
the most perfect expression of the faculty itself.
Poetic language expresses the Imagination best because speech is directly
related to our thoughts. It is the problem of mediation; words are our best
mode of conveying our thoughts. The Imagination creates thoughts, and
language is "a more direct representation of our actions and passions of
our internal being." Shelley holds poetry as the highest form of art,
superior to music, painting, and sculpture.
5) A man, to be greatly good, must imagine intensely and
comprehensively; he must put himself in the place of another and of many
others; the pains and pleasures of his species must become his own. The
great instrument of moral good is the imagination; and poetry administers
to the effect by acting upon the cause. Poetry enlarges the circumference
of the imagination by replenishing it with thoughts of ever new delight,
which have the power of attracting and assimilating to their own nature all
other thoughts, and which form new intervals and interstices whose void
for ever craves fresh food.
This is the social aspect of Shelley's poetry. Poetry is not just to induce
delight and pleasure, which granted, it does well. It can and must inspire
goodness in man, but at the same time, it must not be didactic. It should
allow for a wealth of interpretation.
6) We want the creative faculty to imagine that which we know; we want
the generous impulse to act that which we imagine; we want the poetry of
life: our calculations have outrun conception; we have eaten more than we
can digest.
Shelley also says, "a poem is the very image of life expressed in its eternal
truth." This divine attribute of poetry is not unlike Coleridge's conception of
the primary Imagination. He cautions us, however, that although we want

always to be able to imagine and to create, there is also a danger in


allowing our innovations to enslave us. He ascribes a dualistic nature of
the divine to poetry; it is both as "God and the Mammon of the world."
7) A man cannot say, "I will compose poetry." The greatest poet even
cannot say it: for the mind in creation is as a fading coal which some
invisible influence, like an inconstant wind, awakens to transitory
brightness...when composition begins, inspiration is already on the decline.
The composition of poetry is uncontrollable. Because Poetry is innately
human, there is no translation from observation that occurs. The source of
creation is internal, and we have no control over when or how inspiration
strikes. Furthermore, the composition cannot hold up against what was
imagined; it will always be inferior because there is no adequate way of
capturing that always-elusive Truth. Though Poetry expresses an eternal
truth of life, it is truth captured in imperfection.
8) Poetry thus makes immortal all that is best and most beautiful in the
world; it arrests the vanishing apparitions which haunt the interluminations
of life, and veiling them or in language or in form sends them forth among
mankind, bearing sweet news of kindred joy to those with whom their
sisters abide-- abide, because there is no portal of expression from the
caverns of the spirit which they inhabit into the universe of things. Poetry
redeems from decay the visitations of the divinity in man.
As an "expression of the Imagination," Poetry does capture these things.
The "vanishing apparitions" are the thoughts residing in the Imagination,
and Poetry allows us to express them with language. However imperfect
they are, Poetry ensures that they are never wholly lost.

The unfinished critical work A Defence of Poetry (written 1821; published


1840) by P. B. Shelley is minutely skillful. The justly celebrated A Defence of
Poetry by P. B. Shelley was originally written, as its title suggests, in a
polemic vein, as an answer to Peacock's The Four Ages of Poetry. In this
essay, written a year before his death, as earlier said, Shelley addresses The
Four Ages of Poetry, a witty magazine piece by his friend, Thomas Love
Peacock. Peacocks work teases and jokes through its definitions and
conclusions, specifically that the poetry has become valueless and redundant
in an age of science and technology, and that intelligent people should give
up their literary pursuits and put their intelligence to good use. Shelley takes
this treatise and extends it, turning his essay into more of a rebuttal than a
reply. In its published form, much of the controversial matter was cast out,
and only one or two indications remain of its controversial nature. The essay
as it stands is among the most eloquent expositions that exist of the ideal
nature and essential value of poetry. Its chief distinction lies in the sincerity
and enthusiasm of the author.
Like several other essays on poetry, it is based on one of those fundamental
distinctions here that between reason and imagination which Coleridge so
frequently expounded, and which here serves as a point of departure. There
are two main parts: the nature of poetry, as something connate with man,
and poetical expression; and the effect of poetry upon mankind. This latter
part, though even more eloquent than the former, is more rambling. The
critical question at issue in both is a very fundamental one, and is practically
the same as that which has been debated for many years between two
opposed schools of ethics and philosophy, the intuitional and the utilitarian,
and is to-day rife betwixt rationalists and pragmatists. Of the truth of
Shelley's main thesis there is occasion for much discussion, but of his own
vigour and sincerity there can be no question.
Key Notes of Shelleys A Defence of Poetry:
1.

Shelleys A Defence of Poetry is unusual compared with similarly titled


defenses of poetry.

2.

Shelleys essay contains no rules for poetry, or aesthetic judgments of his


contemporaries. Instead, Shelleys philosophical assumptions about poets
and poetry can be read as a sort of primer for the Romantic Movement in
general.

3.

Shelley turns to reason and imagination, defining reason as logical thought


and imagination as perception, adding, reason respects the differences, and
imagination the similitudes of things.

4.

From reason and imagination, man may recognize beauty, and it is through
beauty that civilization comes.

5.

Language, Shelley contends, shows humanitys impulse toward order and


harmony, which leads to an appreciation of unity and beauty. Those in
excess of language are the poets, whose task it is to impart the pleasures
of their experience and observations into poems.

6.

Shelley argues, that civilization advances and thrives with the help of
poetry. This assumption then, through Shelleys own understanding, marks
the poet as a prophet, not a man dispensing forecasts but a person who
participates in the eternal, the infinite, and the one.

7.

He goes on to place poetry in the column of divine and organic process: A


poem is the very image of life expressed in its eternal truth . . . the creation
of actions according to the unchangeable forms of human nature, as existing
in the mind of the Creator. The task of poets then is to interpret and present
the poem; Shelleys metaphor here explicates: Poetry is a mirror which
makes beautiful that which is distorted.

8.

Shelley poetry is one of the modes through which the supreme power is
revealed. When Shelley says, in the moment of inspiration the poet reaches
the eternal regions and has his materials, and that the poem is a melody
emerging from the interaction of the external and internal, and the divine
inspiration is poetic.

A Defense of Poetry - An Overview of Shelley's Essay


Shelley deals with two forms of mental action; Reason and Imagination. Reason is
composed by the action of one or more thoughts upon each other whereas;
imagination acts upon these thoughts and transforms them into something new
through poetic inspiration. Reason deals with things or qualities that we already
know but it is the imagination that gives them values both as separate entities and
as a whole. While reason is based more on the differences that exist, imagination
looks more into the similarities within all things. Thus, reason is like the body, it
works on a set of principles. It is the spirit however, that animates man, and this is
what imagination works as.
The action of Reason and Imagination
For Shelley, poetry generally tends to point to an expression of what is imagined. Man
is dynamic and due to this, the internal and external forces of the environment are
bound to affect him much like a lyre exposed to wind. Due to this interaction of forces
we have a melody. However, reason exercises principles and so unlike the lyre we
dont merely have melody but also harmony. This means, man adjusts the vastness of
his imagination to a rational and logical outcome. The wind striking a lyre and causing
melody is a metaphor for the imagination of a poet while the harmony realized
through accommodation of poetic inspiration within the limits of reason can be
metaphorically realized by the illustration of a musician accommodating his voice to
the sound of the instrument.
Like the motions of a child at play, that takes delight in movement and continues
repeating it, Poetry in itself is an expression of delight and pleasure. The catharsis
experienced through expression is what poetry gives to the poet.
Nature of Imitation and Imagination
At the beginning, it is imitation of surroundings and the natural world with its balance
and rhythm that men focus on. This is Mimetic representation differs as it may be a
song, dance or a blend of language; but the ability to estimate the sense of pleasure
derived from these arts falls to the taste of the spectator or listener. People can
roughly compare what is beautiful with the amount of pleasure it causes them to feel.
People who possess this sensibility in excess are poets. They are able to convey what
they sense, experience and feel in nature or the society in such a way that others too
can share their experience.
The Language of a Poet
A poet uses metaphors extensively. These metaphors seek relationships between
things that have never before been established. Over time, these metaphors may
come to represent something other than merely a poetic mental worldview. Language
would be dead if poets did not stir the brew of metaphors and create anew
as language itself is poetry; and to be a poet is to apprehend the true and the
beautiful. He rather ambitiously assumes that language at its genesis is like a chaotic
cyclic poem which is sophisticated lexicographically and grammatically by the
creations of Poetry.

Why are Poets indestructible


Poets arent merely the creators of arts like language, music, dance or architecture
and the like. For Shelley, a poet is a creator of societys laws and teaches the art of
living while civilizing and moralizing. A poet through fables, parables and the use of
skillful metaphors can bring religion closer to interpretation which is why at the base
level, religions are susceptible to allegory.
A poet has the dual role of legislator and prophet as he can see what needs to be
rectified in the present as well as being able to see the future scenario in the face of
the society of his day. Poetry has a bit of the prophetic for he sees the bigger picture
and isnt pulled down by mundane aspects of time and place. Art has a certain
enduring eternity as can be seen in sculpture, music and painting.
Language and poetry
Shelley has a divine view of poetic inspiration created by that imperial faculty
whose throne is curtained within the invisible nature of man. Language, colour,
religion, society cannot be called poetry as they are mere tools. Poetry consists of a
skillful arrangement of language; metrical language essentially that stems from a
poets fancy. Language can be molded better and fashioned closer to our diverse
needs of expression than colour, form or motion. Language relates directly to the
thoughts and ideas stemming from ones imagination. Other materials of art on the
other hand, limit their expression as they have multiple relations. Thus, language is
a mirror than reflects the society.
Poetry springs from language and so is the highest form of expression. When we
look at language we are presented with sound-images. When a poet sets to work we
not only have the language but the harmony of the sounds as well. The language
would be insufficient if the thought pattern and harmony of the whole were absent.
Due to this, to translate poetry from one language to another is impossible as one
would have to start at the grassroots.
Set poetic patterns
Due to the recurrence of this harmonious flow in poetry, metre and poetic forms like
the sonnet have been handed down. This doesnt mean a poet must be limited to
traditions for innovations upon previously handed models are a part of life.
Poets and Philosophers
According to Shelley, Plato who banned poetry was a poet at heart due to his
splendid imagery and melodious language. For a poet to really hold a place, the
poetry written should reflect the truth of things at its heart. Shakespeare, Dante and
Milton are verily philosophers on this count.
Poetry and Eternal truth
When we look at a story, we find it to be contained of relations of time, place, action
and cause-effect. Poetry is based more on the creation of actions based on the
unchangeable aspects of human nature with a certain shared experience within it. A

story is based more on a certain time period or events that may not be repeated
again. Poetry is universal and deals with whatever complexities are within the scope
of human nature. Poetry has an eternal theme not restricted to a particular period
and so, Poetry is a mirror which makes beautiful that which is distorted.
Effects of Poetry upon Society
Poetry causes delight while at the same time, bestowing nuggets of wisdom on
receptive listeners. Cause and effect are brought to such a perfection of union that
no one can truly fathom poetrys excellence while the feelings aroused are done in a
subtle and divine manner. Like a prophet, a poet never gets his due while he lives
for it takes the wisest to appreciate him. Using the metaphor of a nightingale,
Shelley pictures a poet singing softly in the night to cheer his solitude while the
enraptured listeners are moved though they know not where the music issues from.
He continues with praise of Homer who with his fellow poets formed a column on
which succeeding civilizations rested thanks to their elevating heroic poetry.
Immorality of Poetry
Achilles, Hector and Ulysses provided food for though and were the source of the
admiration of the masses. Shelley defends them from being characters removed
from moral perfection due to their barbarianisms. Vices for a poet are a temporary
dress for his characters which in no way mars their nobler attributes. Though they
may have flaws, these flaws do not show themselves before their finer traits.
Shelley develops his argument further by stating that immorality of poetry is a
misconception based on a mistaken notion of how poetry is supposed to induce
mans moral improvement. Poetry broadens the mind to stumble upon newer and
unthought-of series of thoughts. Poetry lifts the veil from the hidden beauty of the
world; and makes familiar objects be as if they were not familiar.
To have love or move beyond our baser natures and identify ourselves with what is
beautiful beyond our own self is the first step to morality. To be truly sensitive to
right and wrong one should posses compassion and a sensitivity to others
happiness and despair. The great instrument of moral good is the imagination: and
poetry administers to the effect by acting upon the cause. It enlarges the
imagination and due to the constant flow of new thoughts there is no
stagnation. Poetry strengthens the faculty which is the organ of the moral nature
of man in the same manner as exercise strengthens a limb.
There is no need for a poet to interpret right or wrong or colour his works with his
views for this will set a shelf life to it. The more moralistically aimed and didactic a
poem the more its effect is diminished.
Drama
Drama can corrupt as well as educate. Athenian dramas hold up a mirror to the
society. Imagination is evoked by the need to sympathise with the wronged. Pity,
indignation and sorrow strengthen the good affections while crime is shown to be

less grotesque or gruesome due to the Fatalism which was predominant. Drama of
the most exalted order caters to self knowledge and respect and while it expresses
poetry it is a prism to human nature reflecting its varied shades.
When society decays so does drama and tragedy follows the masters of old with a
few moral truths wedged in. Thus, Shelley denounces classical and domestic drama.
He further mentions the degradation of poetry during the period of Charles ll where
liberty and virtue were sidelined by hymns in praise of the king.
A great Poem is a fountain for ever overflowing with the waters of wisdom and
delight; and after one person and one age has exhausted all its divine effluence
which their peculiar relations enable them to share; another and yet another
succeeds, and new relations are ever developed, the source of an unforeseen and
unconceived delight.
Functions of Poetry
From Shelleys viewpoint, poetry has two functions: (1) it creates new materials of
knowledge, power and pleasure; (2) it makes the mind want to reproduce the same
and arrange them according to a certain rhythm and order that is both beautiful and
good. Poetry rests not on will power like reasoning as the mind when inspired, is as
a fading coal which some invisible influence, like an inconstant wind, awakens to
transitory brightness; this power arises from within, like the colour of a flower which
fades and changes as it is developed, and the conscious portions of our natures are
unprophetic either of its approach or its departure.Poetry glorifies to the beauty of
what is already beautiful while finding beauty in what is deformed. It like the
Philosophers stone transmutes all that it touches.
Poets are the hierophants of an unapprehended inspiration, the mirrors of the
gigantic shadows which furturity casts upon the present, the words which express
what they understand not, the trumpets which sing to battle and feel not what they
inspire: the influence which is moved not, but moves. Poets are the
unacknowledged legislators of the World.
Summation
Imagination and language through the medium of poetry can be used to elevate the
minds of the readers and to present an image of beauty by making familiar objects
unfamiliar.
Poetry delights the mind while it teaches an indirect moral lesson. A poet shouldnt
concerned with being overtly didactic for poetry is meant to be eternal and not
confined to one set world view.
Poetic writings possess both a rhythm and harmony without which poetry wouldnt
exist. Through poetry one tries to reproduce the divinely felt beauty of the world.
Poetry does not require logic for poets themselves do not know how far reaching an
impact their own works may have in the future. Poetry stems from a divine source
that fades even as the poets struggle to capture and retain fragments of the
revelation.

Lastly, poetry is eternal for it can set down human nature in all its manifold
manifestations.

The full statement reads: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point,
however, is to change it." It comes from Marx's 1845 paper "Theses on Feuerbach." The meaning of the
statement in literary terms is that most writing in Marx's time tended to repeat the philosophical ideas that came
before it; because people tend to agree with their favorite authors, the philosophies used in writing almost
always agreed with the original interpretations of philosophers. Because of this, the world rarely changed in any
substantial way. Marx believed that writing, both in philosophy and other areas, should present new ideas and
new ideals that can be studied and adopted. This would result in substantive changes to the world, and
increase the likelihood of Marx's own philosophies being adopted at a wider level

Marxist Criticism
The following entry discusses Marxist criticism, which is based on the socialist theories of Karl Marx and
examines literature as a reflection of the social institutions from which it arises.
Based on the socialist and dialectical theories of Karl Marx, Marxist criticism views literary works as reflections
of the social institutions out of which they are born. According to Marxists, even literature itself is a social
institution and has a specific ideological function, based on the background and ideology of the author. In
essence, Marxists believe that a work of literature is not a result of divine inspiration or pure artistic endeavor,
but that it arises out of the economic and ideological circumstances surrounding its creation. For Marxist critics,
works of literature often mirror the creator's own place in society, and they interpret most texts in relation to
their relevance regarding issues of class struggle as depicted in a work of fiction. Although Marx did not write
extensively on literature and its place in society, he did detail the relationship between economic determinism
and the social superstructure in various texts, including Zur Kritik der Politischen konomie (1859), where he
stated: The mode of production of material life determines altogether the social, political, and intellectual life
process. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but on the contrary their social being,
that determines their consciousness. Thus, although he did not expound in detail on the connections between
literature and society, it is agreed among most scholars that Marx did view the relationship between literary
activity and the economic center of society as an interactive process.
Although Marx and Friedrich Engels detailed theories of Socialism early in the twentieth century, it was not until
the 1920s that Marxist literary theory was systematized. The greatest impetus for this standardization came
after the October Revolution of 1917 in Russia. The resulting socialist form of government and society,
although uncertain about the length of time it would take for the new economic standards to create a new
culture, believed that such a change was imminent. In the meantime, Socialist Realism was accepted as the
highest form of literature, guiding both literary creation and official literary criticism in Russia. In the years since
then, Russian literary theory has modified its extreme socialist stance to acknowledge that literary creation is a
result of both subjective inspiration and the objective influence of the writer's surroundings. Outside of the
Soviet Union, one of the most influential Marxist critics was Georg Lukcs. Born in Hungary, Lukcs joined the
Communist Party in 1918 and later migrated to Russia. He has defined his Marxist theories of literature and
criticism in such works as Die Eigenart des Asthetischen (1963), and remains central to the study of Marxist
criticism today.

In addition to being the guiding principle behind most literary works in communist and socialist Russia, Marxism
also greatly influenced Western writers. Many writers, including Richard Wright, Claude McKay, Jean Paul
Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, and James Joyce, were deeply influenced with Marxist and socialist theories of
the day, and much of this reflection is evident in their writings of the time. In stories such as Long Black Song
and Down by the Riverside, Wright explores fundamental Marxist ideas. In the case of Claude McKay, Marxist
theory provided a framework for issues of racial inequality and justice that were often addressed in his works.
Following the failure of the Communist revolution, Marxist critics and writers were faced with the realization that
Socialism had failed as a practical ideology. This sense of failure is reflected in such works as Mavis
Gallant's What Is to Be Done? (1983) and Earle Birney's Down the Long Table (1955). Both texts explore the
failure of Marxist philosophy in the modern world, and in his essay discussing these writers, Christian Bk
notes that while both stories are about people yearning for a socially responsible society, the writing is
permeated with a sense of failure regarding the effectiveness of this vision.
In recent years, literary criticism has expanded in scope to address issues of social and political significance.
Marxist critics such as Raymond Williams and Fredric Jameson have expanded their realm of study to include
cultural and political studies in their interpretations of literature. In this regard, Marxist critics, along with
feminists, have begun studying literary criticism as an aspect of cultural sciences, notes Michael Ryan in his
essay on the state of contemporary cultural and literary studies.

Marx said 'philosophers have interpreted the world, the point however is to
change it.' What implications does this have for literature?

Marx believed that history determines consciousness. In other words, the things we think and do
are determined by our social and economic institutions. This includes all of culture. Therefore,
all of our cultural artifacts, textual and otherwise, are products of history. There are ideological
forces working through political and economic structures that condition the roles of classes. This
includes the actual conditioning of personalities. People will continue to allow themselves to be
oppressed if they think this is their role. This is called false consciousness. In order to make a
change, the worker (or reader in this context) must become aware to the social forces that
influence him/her. He/she must think outside the box of his/her own historical moment. This is
very difficult to do, but not impossible.
These social forces also influence writing since writing is a part of culture which is influenced by
historical conditions. To spark change, writers can awaken readers to the social forces that
influence how they live and how they read. Marx was expressing his theory of historical
materialism. All the things we do and all the things we create are produced by our understanding
of our role in society and our place in history. If people are influenced to act in certain ways, then
writers are influenced to write in certain ways.
If you apply this quote by Marx to the theory of New Historicism, which is indebted to Marxs
theory of historical materialism, then literature plays a big role in the development and/or
revolutions of history. New Historicism is the theory that history influences literature but
literature can also influence history. A New Historical approach to literature or criticism is as

objective as it can be. The goal of this approach is to understand the historical forces that guide
society. Another goal of the New Historicist is to understand his/her own biases resulting from
historical determination. So, in order to spark change, writers and critics have to be aware of the
social forces that determine what they are studying/reading. This means that interpretation does
not go far enough. Philosophers must deconstruct the world and be aware of their own
influences.
In this context, Marx interprets interpretation as this is how the world works. Here,
interpretation sounds like a justification of the ways of the world. This is hardly revolutionary. To
change the world, philosophers have to look for what conditions the world and point out
oppression or brainwashing when they see it. Some writers do this. But some writers also just
reflect (interpret) the world; these literary texts must also be deconstructed to reveal how they
were influenced.
2.
A philosopher looks at the world to describe it. Understanding the world is useful to changing it,
but if you make no efforts to create change, then all you are doing in describing. Throughout
history, there have been many writers who have used literature to both describe and society. For
example, Charles Dickens wrote about poverty and class inequities in Victorian England using
sentimental characters and melodramatic plots. His goal was to describe the world as it really
was, and lay bare the ugliness of his society for his readers.
Dickens did not just write to describe or understand, although those were some of his goals. He
wrote these books to convince people that change was needed. The characters and plots reached
their hearts in ways that cold facts and figures never could. They remembered the people and
stories from the pages of Dickenss books, and Charles Dickens was actually instrumental in
bringing about significant social change, such as the repeal of the Poor Law.

What are the main ideas in Roland Barthes' essay "The Death of the
Author"?
French philosopher Barthes' essay "The Death of the Author" is a post-structuralist text that propagates the
idea that there can be no essential structure and therefore, reflecting the ideas of Derrida, words written by
authors are part of the interminably intermixing words of cultures. While this sounds very complex, in essence it
means that authors can have no supremacy over readers and that words can convey no meaning or intent
other than what the reader experiences. In this post-postmodern milieu, these ideas may not carry as much
sway as they did during Barthes' era when New Criticism and close reading were at their peaks.
Briefly, the ideas the Barthes brings out relate (1) to the impotence of the author to control writing or the
authorial experience and (2) to the power of the reader to be the determinate factor in defining the meaning of
the textual discourse. His first tenet is that the act of writing (such as I am doing) creates a neutrality in which
there is no voice, no identity, no personality--there is only a negative space: "Writing is that neutral, ... space ...,
the negative where all identity is lost." This constitutes the entering into self-assimilation into a negative by the
author: "the author enters into his own death, writing begins." Barthes elaborates on this with a brief history of
the author as the object of prestige, of humanity and personhood. This is significant to recall toward the end of
the essay when Barthes invests the reader with prestige after having buried the author.
A highly significant point Barthes makes is derived from post-structuralist linguistics. He asserts that language
(discourse) is separate from original intent; it is drawn from vast cultural memory and experience and the only
function an author can have is (1) to select from a vast internal dictionary, so to speak, of words that play off of
each other and (2) to mix and combine elements in ways that don't sound too much like other previous
combinations. It is by this same means (the vast internal dictionary) that Barthes is able to invest the reader
with the prestige and supremacy that once belonged to the author: the reader has the same access and the
same ability to unite words that play (a concept attributed to Derrida) to derive an original meaning on his own
account. The author dies but the reader becomes supreme and invests meaning and intent.
Barthes also importantly repositions the concept of writing imitating something. For Aristotle and Sidney and
such, writing imitated God's truths; for Romantics, writing imitated nature's truths. For Barthes, life imitates the
book that is drawn from the "dictionary ... that can know no halt," yet the book is a collection of letters and
words that imitate signs, the reality behind which is "lost, infinitely deferred": thus meaning and intent can never
be fixed, must always be variable and up to the reader to determine. The author becomes a "scriptor" and the
myth of the prestige of the author is overthrown:
we know that to give writing its future, it is necessary to overthrow the myth: the birth of the reader must be at
the cost of the death of the Author.

SHORT NOTES
I.

Rasa & Dhavani

In Indian Theories of Meaning, Kunjunni Raja outlines most of the issues under discussion in
Anandavardhanas Dhvanyaloka. A lot of attention is given to poets like Ananda who aim to look at poetry
beyond its literal limits. Unlike the mimamsas that are concerned with structural, grammatical and stylistic
arrangements of poetry, Ananda and reaches beyond this into a secondary meaning or purpose (dhvani).
This weeks reading was concerned with the understanding of dhvani and the rasa theory. Most discussion
went into the complications of this theory. Raja outlines that, the formal or intellectual, imaginative and
emotional elements of a poem blend into a predominant sentiment, and making a simultaneous appeal
awakens the reader (289) In this explanation Raja explains the coming together of rasa and dhvani
illustrated in the works of Abhinavagupta. He shows that dhvani which is when the power of the imagination
realizes the suggested meaning is felt through the blending of moods or emotions, then rasa is manifested.
This is of course just a brief summary of the themes outlined in the dense readings done this week. (Taking
into mind that we all did the readings I will not get into the technicality of what these terms mean)
Within these readings there are just a couple of ideas that captured my attention. The first issue that was
brought up in the first chapter of the dhvanyaloka readings is this complication of defining dhvani. Ananda
illustrates that, there is no such thing as dhvani distinct from the figures and qualities. Through this
expression dhvani becomes non-existent because to say figures and qualities is to say dhvani and vice versa.
However, within this part of the book, Ananda expresses that all figures and qualities are present with their
associated meanings and if a meaning or quality does not exist it becomes irrelevant to the poet. In this
regards in order for dhvani to exist, there is a secondary meaning. I think that even though words whether
they are in Sanskrit or not, imply different meanings dependent on the context they are put into. However,
with the complexity of translations or figuring out the meanings of words, one could see how the dhvani
theory can be problematic. This is because grouping words together to suggest an implied meaning, is not
only required for the poetic master, but also can become inaccessible to audiences who are not poetic
specialists.
More precisely, because the dhvani theory is used by experts and as Raja puts it, only men of equal
scholarship and literary taste can fully appreciate their poems. This leads one to believe that these poems
then are created only for the enjoyment of poets and men alike. In this regard, audiences cannot enjoy the
poem or artwork on the same level as the poet or characters of the play. For example, specialists whether
they are magicians, mathematicians, or architects will have a different understanding of their specialties
than those who share no common ground with them. In this light, the meanings that they would associate
with different things would parallel the meanings that others would extract from similar situations.
Keeping this in mind, once different meanings are given, it only makes sense to say that different emotions
and feelings/moods arise in audiences who are not poets or poetic masters. Having said this, the rasa theory
then is undermined since the audiences would not be able to experience the same moods as the poet or
characters intends. However, if I was to just undermine the structuring of these tropes, then understanding
or appreciating poetry would not even be something of importance to discuss. On the contrary, this is not the
case since poetry has not only marked Indian culture, but also has been important in understanding key
concepts.
II.

GYNOCRITICISM

Gynocriticism, frequently cited in the work of Elaine Showalter, is the study of writing and criticism that
reinterprets womens literary history. It is the study of womens literary history by women.
Showalter called this hystory in attempts to also reinterpret the misguided concept of hysteria of women in
literary history. Historically, (prior to the 20th century) women were largely excluded from the public sphere.
Thus their writing was symbolic of that seclusion and tended to be about matters of the home. Writers like

Virginia Woolf attempted to break free of these limitations literarily, but also in attempts to formulate a feminine
identity free of male control.
Gynocriticism is the study of womens literature as a distinct branch: as a minority literature. The goal is to
interpret womens literature free of the patriarchal or misogynist tendencies of classical criticism which tended
to praise mens writing over womens.
Showalter traces the development of feminine identity through literature in three phases. Prior to the 20th
century, women were the idealized female, as the object of male desire. Objectification and subjugation were
the primary methods of patriarchal suppression. The next phase was feminism and this was a reaction to that
patriarchy. This occurred in the 20th century and was highlighted by the theoretical writing and Civil Rights
Movements of the 1960s. The most recent phase is female. This phase defines the female identity free from
those past identities under male-dominated criticism. Gynocriticism is the reinterpreting of women in literature
and history and this is a type of feminism. This type of criticism supplemented the historical liberation of women
and was significant in that it was carried out and interpreted by women.
As a side note, part of this field of criticism was a reaction to recent literary theories which were also perceived
as a masculine practice. It certainly was a reaction to the phallocentric theory from Freudian psychoanalysis
that suggested women felt, or were, inferior to men and that, to be creative (to produce seed), women had to
act masculine. So, gynocriticism (and other relevant theories) dispelled this idea as a socially constructed
gender bias.
______________________________________________________________________________________

Gynocriticism is a woman-centered way of approaching a literary work, and most, if


not all, the theorists who would consider themselves a part of this school of literary
criticism are women themselves. One way to summarize gynocriticism might be to
describe it as women writing about women writing. However, gynocriticism as a
term may also refer more broadly to the study of womens writing. As such,
gynocriticism aims to examine what makes a particular literary work a part of the
distinct literary tradition of womens writing. A major concept in gynocriticism is the
French notion ofcriture fminine. The literal translation of this term means
feminine writing or womens writing, but theoretically speaking it refers to
various forms of narrative that diverge from the linear, univocal narrative
characteristic of its counterpart (namely, masculine writing). One example of this
kind of writing is Mary Shelleys Frankenstein, considered by many critics to
be criture fminine because of its layers of narrative and circular structure told
from a series of different voices. Note that gynocriticism is a form of feminist theory,
but that it is not synonymous with feminist theory. Gynocriticism extends feminist
theory by arguing that women have distinct experiences that require separate
analytical tools for examining literature written by and about women. Therefore,
gynocriticism is preoccupied with understanding how womens literature both
expresses and shapes womens experiences.

III.

POST MODERNISM

Post modernism emerged after the 2 nd world war as a reaction against the
Modernist and the Anti-Modernist tendencies. Historically, it can be traced
back as far as the Deda Movement which began in Zurich in 1916, but as a
significant force in modern writing.
Postmodernism is fairly recent phenomenon, and is more evident in America and
France than in England, except in the field of Drama. Beckett, being settled in
Paris (France) and being French as well as English writer, showed
Postmodernist tendencies more than any other English writer. His plays as
well as novella are works of John Fowels, Alain Robbe Grillet, Thomas Pnychon
etc. Post modernist writers break away from all the rules and principles of
composition conforming to their content of existentialist thought. They seek to
capture human situation in its most concentrated form and rend to employ a
form which can fully assimilate human existence, which is capable of
accommodating the meaninglessness, purposelessness and absurdity of human
existence.
They have employed various devices such as Contradiction,
Permutation, Discontinuity, Randomness, Excess, Short circuit etc.
which
manifest chaotic condition of the world in equally chaotic technique and form.
It is different from Modernism is several ways
Whereas Modernism places faith in the ideas, values, beliefs, culture, and norms
of the West, Postmodernism rejects Western values and beliefs as only a small
part of the human experience and often rejects such ideas, beliefs, culture, and
norms

Whereas Modernism attempts to reveal profound truths of experience and


life, Postmodernism is suspicious of being "profound" because such ideas are
based on one particular Western value systems.

Whereas Modernism attempts to find depth and interior meaning beneath


the surface of objects and events, Postmodernism prefers to dwell on the
exterior image and avoids drawing conclusions or suggesting underlying
meanings associated with the interior of objects and events.

Whereas Modernism focused on central themes and a united vision in a


particular piece of literature, Postmodernism sees human experience as
unstable, internally contradictory, ambiguous, inconclusive, indeterminate,
unfinished, fragmented, discontinuous, "jagged," with no one specific reality
possible. Therefore, it focuses on a vision of a contradictory, fragmented,
ambiguous, indeterminate, unfinished, "jagged" world.


Whereas Modern authors guide and control the readers response to their
work, the Postmodern writer creates an "open" work in which the reader must
supply his own connections, work out alternative meanings, and provide his own
(unguided) interpretation. It is important to keep in mind that the Postmodern
author rarely provides closure; it is up to the reader to put all the pieces
together based on his/her interpretation. Let me know how you feel at the end
of The Catcher in the Rye. Is there closure to Holdens story or do you feel even
more lost than you did when you began the novel? Is there closure to Fight
Club or more chaos? What about The Great Gatsby? Did Gatsbys death and its
aftermath bring closure to you as a reader?

Whereas the Modernist novel mourns the loss of a coherent world, the
Postmodern novel celebrates and revels in the chaos. This is where you can
make an argument that The Catcher in the Rye is more Modern than
Postmodern. There is most certainly a feeling of loss associated with Holdens
departure from childhood. I dont think Holden celebrates the chaos his
psychological break has brought to his life. However, when we read Fight Club,
you will see that the characters go out of their way to create chaos and
certainly revel in it.

IV.

New Historicism

New Historicism is a literary theory based on the idea that literature should be
studied and intrepreted within the context of both the history of the author and the
history of the critic. Based on the literary criticism of Stephen Greenblatt and
influenced by the philosophy of Michel Foucault, New Historicism acknowledges not
only that a work of literature is influenced by its author's times and circumstances,
but that the critic's response to that work is also influenced by his environment,
beliefs, and prejudices.
A New Historicist looks at literature in a wider historical context, examining both
how the writer's times affected the work and how the work reflects the writer's
times, in turn recognizing that current cultural contexts color that critic's
conclusions.
For example, when studying Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, one always comes
to the question of whether the play shows Shakespeare to be anti-Semitic. The New
Historicist recognizes that this isn't a simple yes-or-no answer that can be teased
out by studying the text. This work must be judged in the context in which it was
written; in turn, cultural history can be revealed by studying the work especially,
say New Historicists, by studying the use and dispersion of power and the
marginalization of social classes within the work. Studying the history reveals more
about the text; studying the text reveals more about the history.

The New Historicist also acknowledges that his examination of literature is "tainted"
by his own culture and environment. The very fact that we ask whether
Shakespeare was anti-Semitic a question that wouldn't have been considered
important a century ago reveals how our study of Shakespeare is affected by our
civilization.
New Historicism, then, underscores the impermanence of literary criticism. Current
literary criticism is affected by and reveals the beliefs of our times in the same way
that literature reflects and is reflected by its own historical contexts. New
Historicism acknowledges and embraces the idea that, as times change, so will our
understanding of great literature.
________________________________________________________________________________________________

New Historicism was codified and named by Stephen Greenblatt, writer, editor, and former president of the
Modern Language Association. It has ties to Marxist criticism of literature but considers itself separate in key
details.
New Historicism is simply the desire to explore and research history through the eyes of literature with the
understanding that one's own subjective experiences and biases make objectivity an unreachable goal.
Instead, scholars of New Historicism attempt to relive a work through the time of the person who created it,
taking into account norms, ideals, prejudices, and any other subjective experiences that a person of the time
would hold. This goal is itself impossible, because a modern scholar is of his own time just as a Renaissance
man is of his, and so cannot hope to truly understand the time and culture that produced a work of literature.
Therefore, to study a work, one must use it and all other available information about the era to reproduce the
artist's ideology, and thus gain a small understanding of the massive, unknowable past culture that produced
the work

2011 -2012
1.

What according to you are Aristotle's views on 'mimesis?

Aristotle believed that mimesis could be defined as the replication of nature. In Greek thought, the concept of
mimesis was very important because they believed that art was a search for imitating the beauty of reality, and
this concept of imitation is very important in the search for true art that reflects reality accurately. For Aristotle,
mimesis did not just simply involve imitation but also equally appealed to mathematical principles in search of
perfection.
Aristotle, linked to the concept of mimesis, wrote about the "four causes" in nature. The first was a "formal
cause" which is like a blueprint, and the second is the material, which focuses on what an object is made out
of. The third is the agent which is the artist that made the object. The fourth and final cause is the good, or the
purpose of the object. It is a natural human inclination, Aristotle argued, to try and reflect the beauty and
perfection of reality that we see around us in poetic form.
Aristotle also believed that mimesis is the key to the cathartic response that he thought was so important in
tragedy. Through watching tragic events occur on stage, we experience "simulated repersentation" which
enables us to engage in a kind of mimetic roleplay, allowing us to experience the same emotions that are
reflected on the stage and thus be purged of them.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

You might also like