Plato bans the poets from
the ideal state in his Republic because he believes that dramatic poetry
will corrupt the morals of the people. He thinks that the poets have “a
terrible power to corrupt even the best characters, with very few exceptions”
(Plato 203). He provides an example to prove his point. He tells how we enjoy
the free exercise of emotions in attending a dramatic performance, but we would
restrain from doing this in our personal life. For example, we would admire a
man acting “womanish” in a play, but in real life we would react with disgust
to a man acting this way. Plato thinks that allowing our emotions a free reign
in attending a dramatic performance will make it “difficult to restrain our
feelings in our own” life (204).
In some sense, Aristotle agrees that the poets could have
a negative influence on morals. He thinks this applies more to comedy than
tragedy and epic poetry. For example he states, comedy “is an imitation of
people of a lower sort, though not in respect to every vice; rather, what is
ridiculous is part of what is ugly” (Aristotle 25). In addition, he thinks the
spectacle “is the component most foreign to the art and least inherent in
poetry” (29). It is the least important of the different means “to draw the
soul” (29). In contrast, he thinks tragedy and epic poetry can have a positive
impact on the soul. He gives the following definition of tragedy: “Tragedy,
then is an imitation of an action of serious stature and complete, having
magnitude, in language made pleasing in distinct forms in its separate parts,
imitating people acting and not using narration, accomplishing by means of pity
and fear the cleansing of these states of feeling” (26). This definition
provides positive characterization of tragedy. First, it dramatizes a serious
action that has magnitude, beauty, and is pleasing because of its skill.
Second, by means of pity and fear, it cleanses the feelings of the soul.
It seems that both Aristotle and Plato admire the skill
of Homer. Socrates tells Glaucon: “you may agree with them that Homer is the
best of the poets and the first of tragedians” (204). At the least, Plato is
saying that Homer is a poet of great skill. Second, he acknowledges the
influence Homer has on people, even himself. Socrates asserts, “let us freely
admit that if drama and poetry written for pleasure can prove to us that they
have a place in a well-run society, we will gladly admit them for we know their
fascination only too well ourselves” (204). Plato is saying that he would love
to have the poets in the city, but because of the possibility of the corruption
of morals, the poets must be banned. He does, however, leave the option of the
poets defending poetry in prose “and proving that she doesn’t only give
pleasure but brings lasting benefit to human life and human society” (205).
This seems similar to the common argument that literature should delight and
inform.
Plato’s argument that the poets must defend themselves in
prose is ironical. It reminds me of some of the comments made by Scott Cairns
in his interview with Ken Myers. He acknowledges that poetry is both content
and form. Cairns said that people look at words in two different ways. One way
sees words as transparencies because you look through them to the ideas they
present. In other words, you can describe the ideas in prose. Leland Ryken
argues against this idea in his article on the classics. These ideas will look
like a “collection of lifeless platitudes” (Ryken 8). He states that many of
the ideas in Shakespeare's plays could have been written by a mediocre writer.
C. S. Lewis thought reducing literature to its ideas “is an outrage to the
thing the poet has made for us” (Ryken 9). The second perspective is that words
are opaque, things in and of themselves. So, according to this second way of
looking at words, the poets cannot look through their words to get to the ideas
behind the words.
Both Aristotle and Plato saw certain vices in the poets.
They both admired the skill of Homer. Plato even remarked that Homer had a
certain power over them. Aristotle, however, saw the usefulness in tragedy and
epic poetry. Aristotle even thought that the poets could produce wonder and
that this was “the mark that is end at which the art itself aims” (62). One
might even say that through pity and fear, poetry humanizes us. Plato seems to
emphasize the harm that the poets could cause; while, Aristotle emphasizes how
poetry benefits us. It seems Plato, like the modern sensor, says if there is
anything bad in the book, get rid of it. In contrast, Aristotle says keep the
book if there is any good in it.
No comments:
Post a Comment