You are on page 1of 13

Mimesis and Understanding: An Interpretation of Aristotle's Poetics 4. 1448B4-19 Author(s): Stavros Tsitsiridis Source: The Classical Quarterly, Vol.

55, No. 2 (Dec., 2005), pp. 435-446 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4493348 . Accessed: 04/03/2014 12:22
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Classical Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Tue, 4 Mar 2014 12:22:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

doi: 10. 1093/cq/bmi041

ClassicalQuarterly 55.2 435-446(2005)Printed in Great Britain

435

MIMESIS AND UNDERSTANDING: AN INTERPRETATION OF ARISTOTLE'S POETICS 4. 1448B4-19*


Thestructure ofthefirst ofthe before Aristotle embarks onthedisPoetics, chapters cussion oftragedy is clear 1-3 setforth a triple classification proper, enough: chapters of thekindsof mimesis, based on thePlatonic method of (in thiscase 3LalpEot to the the and the modes of mimesis while means, object, according respectively), 4 and 5 discusstheorigins and thedevelopment of themajorpoetical chapters Morespecifically, thefirst ofchapter 4 (a chapter 'derinteressantesten, part genres.1 aberauch schwierigsten derPoetik', as Gudeman has observed) gehaltsreichsten, thetwounderlying causesof poetry: towards expounds (i) man'snatural tendency mimesis and (ii) his innate affection forrhythm and harmony.2 of the Speaking natural instinct of mimesis, Aristotle stresses from theoutset that thisconstitutes man'sdistinctive which setshimapart from all other manis since feature, species: childhood the mimetic andhedevelops hisearliest underearly being par excellence, Aristotle then tounderline a second feature that standing through mimesis.3 proceeds humans from other animals:'all humans find in mimetic distinguishes pleasure Atthis he continues as follows objects'. point (1448b12):
TaS-

VEKpwV.

&AAoLg AI'7T fpaxv 6oiwsog,AA' aavTO. KowWvogUw

Te apW ov t' bgOuEv, ElKova rAdT' onv Uov 'avlgauvov T(vaivepyowv. '7Tt MqThE yperal'trmAvpuam TWv aTL rovtV ~ciaAtra77KpL/w/IpvaS xagPOE otov t&ol7pwv TE oppasd Kat OEwpoOv7Er, rOTtLXorrWV SE
a'ttov Kat TOTOVU,

7TL

avOavEtv

oV~ tovov

apta y

rotf

Kal ?ptAoao`potg 7St7TOV UAAaL "rois Tp ToVTO xatpOvaL dTaS EIKOvas OPCOvTES,

an 'empirical verification' Trov ofthefact that the felt presents in (/& pleasure ,pywv) imitated is universal: mimetic works with anunpleasant content still offer things pleaandthis intheir own not onaccount oftheir sure, he right, only Second, workmanship. underscores the natural causewhich both the drawn from imitations explains pleasure tothe whose careful comments this referee, anonymous improved paper. See F. Solmsen, andmethods ofAristotle's 'Origins Poetics', CQ 29 (1935),196-200. 2 For the second seeJ. zuAristoteles' Poetik and 'cause', Vahlen, Beitrdge Berlin, (Leipzig and ad48b8; 10-11;A. Gudeman, 1914), (Berlin HEpt 1934), Leipzig, Aristoteles. 7ToLIrq/TKS D. de Montmollin, La Poetique d'Aristote Aristotle's (Neuchatel, 32-34;G. F. Else, 1951), Poetics: The Aristotle: Poetics MA,1957), Argument 127-30;D. W. Lucas, (Cambridge, ad 48b22. Fora different natural as (Oxford, 1968), inmimesis interpretation (the pleasure thesecond see A. Rostagni, Aristotele: Poetica 19452 ad loc.; 'cause'), (Turin, [19271]),
J. Sykutris, THEpt A4pwtroT"AovS 7To0q1TLKS, AKa8r&lIa A40q7vwv,'EAA-qv. BtLA.2 (Athens,1937),

* I wishtoexpress toA. Schmitt, V. Liapis, andTh.K. Stephanopoulos, who mygratitude read anearlier draft ofthis andoffered a number ofuseful comments. Thanks arealsodue paper

ad loc.; S. Halliwell, Aristotle's Poetics (London, 1986),70-71. 3 Forlearning see alsoH. Koller, Die Mimesis inderAntike mimesis, through (Bern, 1954), 57-63. Concerning the mimesis ofchildren, S. Halliwell, The Aesthetics ofMimesis (Princeton andOxford, Aristotle tobe thinking ofchildren's 2002),153n. 4, and178,takes 'mainly play cf.Pol. 7.17.1336a33-34). (on this acting' point ClassicalQuarterly 55.2 ( TheClassical Association reserved 2005;all rights

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Tue, 4 Mar 2014 12:22:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

436

STAVROS TSITSIRIDIS

andthe hehadmentioned that the first fact manlearns (onethat earlier) during stages In to ofhislife addition the observed inthe byimitating.4 (Else) sharp 'disproportion' section onthe twocausesofpoetry--a from thelong disproportion resulting parenthesis devoted to theexplanation ofthefirst cause(48b12-19:at''rov... a-lmav), but, on learning Aristotle's comment mimesis also, from prior (48b6-8: Kal through initssecond above-mentioned atleast raises, passage Tovnw ... rTS rapd;c-as)5--the of on matters of and In a series further questions understanding interpretation. part, doesvtavO when an What what someone observes consist, exactly image? prevEtw is itperceived does uvAAoy5EacOaL meaninthis case?Why as a necessary cisely pretohaveseenthedepicted for someone object requisite before Finally, (7rpoEwpaK g)? iftheconcrete hasto do with 'most accurate painting-the images'ofthe example it almost in thiscase as well,we certain animals and corpses'render 'vilest that, withimagesof thesamekind-is thechoiceof painting rather are dealing than other art accidental? any entirely toanswer. If Letusbegin from ourlast the onethat seems tobe the easiest question, term intheabovepassage itis indeed that Aristotle hasinmind-the E1KWV painting is thesimplest and most is becausepainting does notmakethisa certainty-this arts:becauseof its use of figures characteristic form therepresentational among form more than ofrepresentation, andcolours, reality anyother painting approaches time this from on(atleast since Simonides's anditis for reason that, [PMG very early toemphasize inorder, with other things, 552]6), ithadbeencompared poetry, among and In thePoeticstheparallelism between thelatter's imitative character. poetry that times.7 It is very therepetitive charno lessthan occurs probable eight painting I believe that thisis evenmore Platonic acter ofthis parallelism betrays influence.8 4 from where mimesis's in the under discussion, cognitive chapter probable passage valueis discussed.9 to ofdepicted do theexamples on theother hand, according objects change Why, in derived from theimitated thediscussion focuses on thepleasure whether objects in we have the former as of do from the cause or learning pleasure? Why general, is a or VEKpOVs, theobjectof depiction case Oqpta LT9tO1TraTa whilein thelatter humanbeing?One would have to admit,of course,that'vilestanimals'or of recognition. be appropriate Still,in the examples 'corpses'wouldbyno means from refrained latter case Aristotle couldhavesimply anyspecific example giving with a neutral Voiro KEEVO,as he does in himself whatsoever, contenting haveexpected Thisis, in anycase,whatone might Rhetoric's parallel passage.10
4

of mimesis (Cra. 423D,Resp.597E,598C,601A,603B,Plt. 306D). Theparallelism poetry

6 For and The seeA. Ford, a different Oxford, view, 2002), (Princeton ofCriticism Origins 96-8. inHalliwell ad47a18 and inGudeman (n.2),53n. 11,124n.27. passages 7 Seethe 8 SeeHalliwell (n.2), 123-4. 9 Itis well from inhisworks criticized Plato hadsharply known that (particularly painting 118Plato andGreek seeE. C.Keuls, the 33-47, (Leiden 1978), Painting onwards); Republic to art andas such is often mimetic the most characteristic is for Plato 25.Painting compared

For the phrase aittov ? KaLroTrov, seeElse(n.2), 128-9. s Cf.Montmollin (n.2),34-5;Else(n.2), 127.

also indifferent directions around which canbeheld and turned toa mirror 10.596D) (Resp. refers topainting.

dieoben 'Manerwartet adPoet. 1448b17: 70T70 wasauch Cf.Gudeman zitierte, ganz EKEivo, involviert eine Masculinum denn Rhetorik das aus der Stelle iiberlieferte bestitigt, ihnliche is AlsoLucasad loc.: 'themasc. des Gedankens.' nicht zu motivierende Einschriinkung Ti after strange E.'Karov'.

10 Rhet. i artv OTv70r70O 1.11. 1371b9: TLUUPOaLVEL. EKEWVO, /tavOaVELV UISTE iAAad ovAAoytatuds

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Tue, 4 Mar 2014 12:22:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MIMESIS

AND UNDERSTANDING

437

as wellas hisdifferentiation vidualas an example oftheinference the from process, if combined with parallelRhetoric passage,cannotbe insignificant, especially reference toportrait-painters Theportrait, Aristotle's pic(EZKovoyp(po0L) in 1454b9. in classical thewhole torial which human is or sculptural, depicted antiquity being, theartform excellence where of the individual the characteristics of par depiction It can, therefore, be offered a certain as an exampleof personis attempted."1 in whichdistinct characteristics are represented. mimesis This,as we shall see, be ofsomesignificance. might in thePoetics There is also,however, discussion that is something passageunder theparallel Rhetoric merits absent from serious consideration. passageand which to common Thisis thereference folk whoaresetapart from thephilosophers and are inferior to them as faras their intellectual are concerned capacities (JAA' E'rt
CtavOvELv]).12 aTroi, folk in hisdiscussion oftherecognition can be neither without somepoint process nor some on without Ourcommon observation. grounding empirical everyday experithat encesuggests atphotographs willreact ina special average people looking wayif well-known in them. Their reaction is even more marked when persons they recognize tomake outfaces havefaded whose features the more they manage away: demanding therecognition thegreater thepleasure derived from its successful conprocess, clusion. Aristotle's formulation this:namely aimsat stressing that we are dealing here with an elementary we canobserve onethat eveninordinary cognitive process, are not of who intellectual possessed particular people capacities. nowproceed Wemay toexamine, ingreater the samecognitive detail, very process

takesa humanindiafter thephraseuvAAoy?EaoOal 7 iEKacTOV. The factthatAristotle

fpaXbKoLvwvojtlv

[sc. T70o

Aristotle's singlingout of common

4: describedin chapter
otov 'OTLoVrogEKELvo. 7Too70
KEVO0,

denotesthe result.Leaving aside logicallyprecedeswhile tlavcaveLv ovAAoyiEoUa6 the meaning of for the moment,there can be little doubt that ovAAoy,[EaOat here denotes than 'leaming'.13 At any rate,the rather 'understanding' /CavwOcvEV

TE

tatVdVELV

OEcWpovbva /av8OcvELvKaal avAAoytEaOa rTE"KaUTov, avjpalvEL From the inRhetoric E"UTVO"T parallel passage (avAAoytLot it becomesclear thatin this 7
GVTULPCtVEt)

process

grecque [Paris, 1926], 194ff.).On 'informalsketches',see G. Richter,The Portraitsof the Greeks 1 (London, 1965), 18. In relation to Poet. 1454b9 (T70o k see yalobs EtKovoypa<povs), Voutiras, 34. Of course, El'K V is not applied to portraits only, as is made clear from 1448b11; see also Halliwell (n. 3), 183. 12 Thephrase /tpaXv ingeneral means 'a little a little' C.I.2c,cf.Thuc. way, (LSJs.v. rtn Eri refer hereto a phase ofa man's lifetime, as W. Kullmann, Aristoteles unddie 1.118.2). It cannot

" See E. Voutiras, Studien zurInterpretation und Stil Portrdts des5. undfriihen griechischer 4. Jahrhunderts Sometimes wereon display: we (Diss. Bonn,1980),19ff. pictorial portraits for that was depicted in theStoaPoikile the know, example, Sophocles (yEyp~ipOat) playing in L. Sechan, Etudessur la tragedie lyre(Soph. Vita5=T 1, 25 Radt;see thediscussion

moderne What Aristotle to refers Wissenschaft 1998),341-2, suggests. (Stuttgart, principally hereis learning, notto mimesis, hispoint that menparticipate (to mymind) being ordinary initonly toa limited that is easily that andeffortlessly extent, is,tothe learning degree acquired
(cf. Rhet.3.10. 1410b10). inhisarticle 'Aristotelian mimesis andhuman in 0. Andersen 13 Halliwell understanding', and J.Haarberg and (edd.), MakingSense ofAristotle: Essays in Poetics (London,2001), 92 ff., (n. 3), 201, pointsout thattavO~ivev might implybothmeaningsat the same time.But, since

evolution den Begriff oftavO66vEv,see B. Snell,Die Ausdriickefiir ings as well as thesemantic des Wissensin der vorplatonischen Philosophie(Berlin, 1924), 72-81.

Aristotle ofthedifference thetwomeanings between oftheverb (i) is wellaware (Soph.El. and(ii) usestheverb atthesametime here andin a passageoftheRhetoric with 4.165b33), reference to a basicandvery itis more to believe that he general cognitive process, possible usestheverb here inthesense'understanding' Fortheprimary mean(cf.Met.A 1.980blff.).

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Tue, 4 Mar 2014 12:22:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

438

STAVROS

TSITSIRIDIS

of sense is bynomeans a technical Itis assumes.14 one,as Montmollin ovAAoyLEaOaL usedhere ina general sense todenote after But even 'comprehend thinking', 'infer'.15 remains ofwhat wearetomake ofthis Itis still unclear what so,the question passage. itis that thecommon man'comprehends andinfers' herecognizes whenever exactly that thefigure in a portrait is a specific, familiar one he 'has represented person, seen'. already Theproblem was first stated in 1789byTwining in his annotated edition ofthe Poetics. to Twining, Aristotle's words 'rude'and 'unskilful' According imply specbut'evenwith theprinciple to them, butto seems tators, respect scarcely applicable andindividual as may such not be instantly But resemblances, portraits, recognized'. evenso Aristotle's words failtoyieldsatisfactory sense:'where is notevena there or doubt, I do notsee howanyinformation can be said to momentary ignorance, be acquired SinceAristotle's words do notseemto refer to by thespectator'.16 inartistic is precisely thereference to ELK6vas 'dpALcrrTa portraits-it 'KpLgCO)E'VaS 7s that favours theexactly seemto be opposite interpretation-,Twining's objections highly pertinent. Theproblem hasbeen the ofextensive ever andmany discussion other since, object been that have in this Aristotle is added, interpretations namely particular passage to pleasure as thenatural outcome of a cognitive which rests on referring process the'discovery orrecognition ofthemeaning on ourpart ofthepicture';17 or,even thepleasure of mimesis consists in theunderstanding that of a playin its further, initspsychological broadest sense(intherealistic reconstruction ofitsdetails, penin of the its moral or etration, discovery deeper, underlying metaphysical meaning);18 thepleasure or that ofrecognition we aredealing with heredoesnotcoincide with elevatedaesthetic since the reference to the gratification, 'appearsto be rather of likeness thanto trueaesthetic or thatthe popular appreciation enjoyment';19 is a kindof concept, whichpresents us not witha wholeobject(e.g. picture somebasicor underlying features of it (e.g. 'features-of-cow');20 'cow'), butwith itis nota question ofrecognizing a certain orthat butrather therecognizing person not but as in16.1455a4, 13and But oufaux)' as in25.1461b2, 24.1460a20). (vrai (viz. gisme
14Montmollin unsyllothat theverb is usedhere 'avecle sensde faire (n.2), 35,presumes

be more oneproposition, or implied, from which a this would that there than present require thesyllogistic never leads(as here) tothe conclusion would ensue. particuAdditionally, quest butonly to individual andso on). tree, lar,individual (man, being, species apple, with Aristotelicus s.v.I do notagree 15 Cf.LSJs.v.I; Bonitz, Index E. Belfiore's interpreta4 contrasts ofimages as imitations with tionof theoria OEwpoivrES (1448b11):'Poetics seeing butby as objects certain We see uglyshapes and colors, having shapesandcolors. images the oftheoria welearn andreason about a representational between imitation means relationship imitated. Theoria is non Pleasures andthe [Princeton, 67).As a 1992], object practical' (Tragic
withe.g. ruletheverbOEWopE~v
ypaps, this in noreason the verb should not have nomore than 'view','lookat',andI see meaning why this case as well. 16 Th.Twining, onPoetry 284 (I wasunfortunately Aristotle's Treatise 1 (London, 18122), areTwining's). Similar areexpressed unable to see thefirst theitalics edition; objections by we havelearnt is inadequate. When Lucas in his commentary (ad 48b13):'The explanation a picture we havenotlearnt what familiar much.' thing represents already Forthis onthe Art ad 48b16. Aristotle 17 I. Bywater, (Oxford, 1909), interpretation ofPoetry toProbl.19.5.918a3. refers Bywater (n. 2), *80-*81. 18 J.Sykutris 19S. H. Butcher, 201-2. andFineArt(London, Aristotle's Theory ofPoetry 19074), 20 J.M. Redfield, and Culture in theIliad: TheTragedy Nature ofHector (Chicagoand Aristote: and J.Lallot, La London1975),52-55. For a similar view,see R. Dupont-Roc (Paris, 1980),ch.4 n. 3. Poetique
lKo vas,

rvp8ctvras(cf.Poet. 1452a9) as itsobjectmeans

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Tue, 4 Mar 2014 12:22:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MIMESIS

AND UNDERSTANDING

439

thegenusto whichtheparticular kindof creature", or person belongs('thathe is "that are either unsa... "Thatis a So-and-So" ).21 But theaforementioned interpretations or theydo notremoveall the difficulties. tisfactory, must,however,be made to two more exhaustiveapproaches. Special reference Sifakisassumesin thispassage that we are dealingwitha 'kind of "soft"reasoning' whichis closelyakinto EvOtBV~Lta: 'Because theartist has rendered his subjectin universal terms, we recognizein the representation an instanceof the katholou, or a variantof a generaltype,and such a recognition providesa clue to understanding thecharacter of therepresented as it were,againstthebacksubject, beingregarded, ' ofthekatholou.'22 to him,theinference ground According o[o70 KEZVOS does notconstitute a judgementon the identity the of to the deeper depictedperson,but refers charactertraitsof the represented person. For example, in the case of Zeus's marblestatueby Pheidias,we could infer thatthe statue'shows whatZeus is really like,the statue beinghis ideal image'. refers Halliwell, on the otherhand, argues thatthe pleasureto which Aristotle derives fromthe recognition and the understanding of the likenesses (in other realizes fromthe beginning thathere we have mimesis),but words,the spectator thatone mustnot therefore assume thatwhatAristotle has in mindare themimetic works as mere representations of already familiar, particular objects: 'When we mimetic theways in whichpossible works,we recognizeand understand appreciate features of reality are intentionally in them.'23 to Halliwell,the signified According thatis derivedfrom mimesismust, at least in thecase of drapleasureof knowledge maticpoetry, be associatedwiththeknowledgeof universals whichis mentioned in 9. be one must the 'mustinstantiate, chapter Tragedy'solKEca 8ov75 majorspecies of, in Chapter 4'.24 genericpleasuredefined Both Sifakisand Halliwellaretrying to connect 4 withchapter 9, considerchapter sincethat is mimesis, either be contained must ingthat, tragedy tragedy's olKEla 1ovr5 that in or coincidewiththepleasurederivedfrom theknowledge mimesisoffers. At first But could we presume sight,such an assumption appearsto be unproblematic. thatAristotle 4 havingin mindtragedy writes in particular and presupposing chapter he says about KaO6Aov in chapter9? Even more importantly, could everything we assume that, according to Aristotle,any mimema (also an EIKOJV u'OdV ara
21

alterthetext of ov'ros Forthisconjecture instead EKEZVO (whichM. C. Nussbaum, E'KEL. (o,roS The Fragility 2001 ], 388, apparently also adopts)see R. G. of Goodness[Cambridge,

G. F. Else (n.2), 131-2. However, inorder tosupport this Else is forced to interpretation

his proposal. D. KEVO in thePoetics',OSAP 8 (1990), 168,suggests an even Gallop,'Animals tothetext, that 'what Aristotle hasinmind is not theidentification greater change considering ofthesubject of a human likeness is so-and-so'), buttherecognition of eachelement ('that within a complex or replica as representing a corresponding diagram partof a living thing is thekidney'), andthelearning inference of general truths about ('that through living things oftherelevant itisforandhowitworks). is', that is,what type ('whatthekidney wasfirst inJ.Betts etal. [edd.], inHonour Studies interpretation published ofT B. L. Webster [Bristol, 1986],1,211-22). 23 S. Halliwell, andEmotion inAristotle's inA. O. Rorty 'Pleasure, Poetics', Understanding, Poetics (ed.),EssaysonAristotle's (Princeton, 1992),247; also id. (n. 3), 189;cf.id. (n. 13), 102: 'It is, then, after that Aristotle's ofunderstanding a mimetic all,unproblematic example 4 should be a case ofidentifying a particular: in imageinPoetics understanding particulars, alltheir . .. must animportant inthe ofpoetry, as inthe complexity play part appreciation approsensitive ofethical issues.' priately 24 Halliwell judgement (n. 13),253.
22

the text) 70o70o

C. Levens, JHS 81 (1961), 190. Gudeman had conjectured he did notadoptit in (although
(cf. above n. 10), using the Rhetoric'sparallel passage in supportof

G. M. Sifakis, Aristotle on theFunctionofTragicPoetry(Herakleion, 2001), 50 (Sifakis's

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Tue, 4 Mar 2014 12:22:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

440 W,7V 17KpLOtf3 versal

STAVROS

TSITSIRIDIS

Metaphysics.

from the of there is anadditional this, problem: Apart proper pleasure qualities? is not identical withthe pleasure as Heathproved verypersuasively, tragedy, that characterizes in chapter described 4, sincethelatter only (i) is notsomething and(iii) fails to solvethe'paradox oftragedy'.25 (ii) is purely cognitive, tragedy, in order themeaning to be able to grasp ofthefirst of Therefore, accurately part to to this and we must confine ourselves 4, particular passage try initially chapter with the of his rest Aristotle's words, by drawing comparisons possibly clarify constitutes the neither the Poetics nor the Rhetoric most ceuvre. Certainly, appropriate in issuethat hasbeenraised with tothecardinal source ofAristotelian thought regard from In order that results mimesis. theissueoftheknowledge this namely passage, into considerations that onemust delve Aristotle's tounderstand matter, general fully in are two wellknown of as about the different very stages knowledge, they expressed and the of the the last of the Posterior Analytics beginning chapter passages: tries toanswer 2.19ofPosterior Aristotle Inthe much-discussed Analytics, passage about the'first What he ofhowmanis ina position toknow thequestion principles'. attains his natural how man of the in other is to words, explain knowledge attempts, him wepossess inborn that concerns is whether Thebasicquestion world. knowledge If the is the latter istrue, then or whether that ofthose principles, knowledge acquired. Aristotle neither alternative. endorses hastobe explained. ofthis acquisition process that we for 'senseperception' he says, an inborn All living creatures, ability possess intheir retain a trace ofthat creatures callaisthesis perception (99b35).Someofthese inturn, tothe first that others do not. Thosecreatures while fall, soul, category belong that a recurrent there arethose on theonehand, twosubcategories: into experience traceof thatperception of the remaining (in otherwordsmemory, presence there are on theother lead to rational and arethus hand, while, thought, mneme), of many in which no suchprocess takesplace.The accumulation thosecreatures in 'experience', inthememory, results ofthesameobject (100a5: empeiria images
'riv). dptOtp4L derives theprinciple oftechnical to rest in thesoul', which has come theuniversal to the Aristotelian thesefourstages, and science.Through according dexterity ofthe first tothe via induction, manarrives, prinknowledge epistemology', 'genetic LV-L at yap 7roAAcd tLa
E7TLrELpla

uniof a person)presents such as, forexample,an ordinary photograph

tua

From empeiria,namely 'all

ciples: s-Aov

from the as Aristotle to know'.Thisbecomes desire menbynature says, apparent, ustodifferentiate which that ofsight, oursenses, lovewehavefor permits particularly butfew withthesame senses, All living creatures are endowed things.27 among mancan attain whileonly theability of 'memory', command 'experience' through notions ofexperience there from ofthesameobject'.When memories many 'many and technical thenmen attain comes a singleuniversal knowledge judgement,
25 M. Heath, inAndersen andHaarberg ofTragedy', 'Aristotle andthe Pleasures (n. 13), 9-10. 26 For and allrelevant Aristotelian which the ofinterpretation the problems passage presents

(100b3).26 ov KaOO6 L-oLE-t utterance that 'all with thecelebrated as is wellknown, TheMetaphysics begins,

r-t E5TaywyY yvwpL'Etv

avayKca'OV.

Ka'L yap

77 a't'aOrlat

7TO rco

Aristoteles Werke 3 I-II, Bd. II Aristoteles: see W. Detel, Posteriora, Analytica doxography, 1993),831-54. (Berlin, 27 As W. Jaeger, hadalready develAristotle Aristoteles 19232),68-9 has shown, (Berlin, ofMetaphysics. chapters

inthe first two views heputs forth inhisProtrepticus the fashion detailed ina more oped

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Tue, 4 Mar 2014 12:22:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MIMESIS

AND UNDERSTANDING

441

In theMetaphysics, we encounter thesametheory science. ofknowledge therefore, in thePosterior we hadalready found We underline two must, however, Analytics. in thissecond Aristotelian thespecialroleof sight is highfirst, points exposition: in regard to thedifferentiation of objects; it becomes second, lighted, particularly clearthat to humans andto noneoftheother entirely empeiria pertains exclusively species. Oneobserves, that inboth ofmemory references thefunction is very then, importto Aristotle, ant.This, constitutes theinterim between sense according stage percepofthecapacity tionandtheacquisition for abstraction. What is worth is that noting discussion as well-a memory playsa veryimportant partin thepassageunder fact until out.Notonlydoes 'KETVo~ in thephrase that, now,has notbeenpointed the it is refer to but also mentioned that nounderstandKECVOQ past,28 explicitly OVT70o can be and no can be reached conclusion arrived at no pleaing (and,consequently, canbe derived from sure unless onehasnotseenbefore that mimesis), (rrpoEwpaK0s) inthe is represented ofart.29 which visual work Thisis the crucial onedoesnot point: see thedepicted andtherealfacesimultaneously, butthevery fact that there is an to take a certain identification that oftime amount has elapsed placemeans (iXE-vos toa more orlessdistant refers a fact that most enforces theactivation past), certainly To fully ofmemory. the nature of the in this then, grasp, cognitive process implied into wemust take consideration Aristotle's ideasonmemory andparticularly passage, on recollection. Aristotle his ideason these in hisbrief butinteresting expounds topics essayDe memoria et reminiscentia.30 Let us summarize hisessential propositions: memory, as anyother mental is basedon thefunction ofphantasia, which from activity,31 creates mental in the human soul. sense-images images (aloalqxara) (cpavrdaolara) is paralleled The mnemonic with therecognition ofan object in a painting process or of an impression made by a signet-ring.32 The distinctive of those feature is that arecopiesormodels oftheobjects that man hasalready images they perceived his sensesin thepast.33 an object'srepresentation in one's through Maintaining the at same conscious that this is the while, time,being psyche representation
28 Forthe onthis o70ro seeHalliwell phrase (n.3), 178n. 3 and189.I disagree point AKELVO;, with theinterpretation ofSifakis n. 29) whodoesnotdistinguish between ([n.22],47-8 with thisand thecolloquial use of thephrase; forthisimportant distinction see P. T. Stevens, see also M. Schanz,Novae commentationes Platonicae(Wiirzburg, 1871), 16; further W. Havers, 'Das Pronomen der imGriechischen', IF 19 (1906),esp.4-5. jener-Deixis 29 Theprevailing is what inthecase ofmythical Aristotle would question happens persons. haveaccepted, I assume, that in thosecases theidentification of thedepicted could person derive from other similar or bydifferent means that also happens in the pictures (something case ofChristian saints). 30 Belfiore few scholars whotook this work 49-50, is oneofthe (n. 15),especially particular into inherinterpretation consideration ofPoetics. seriously 31 SeeMem. De An.3.431a17 449b31(Kat VOE aU v oVK E"rtvIavEv Oav7r Trogs), (8t6obiTorTE VOEL 431b2-8. avTaordkEaros 4 Ovx(), 32aVEr Picture-like: Mem. 450b30 ('anTEp Ev 77 ypaqpj cs ElKva OEWpEL,(cf. also 450b21, 23, 27, 451a2, 12, 16); impressionproduced by a signet-ring: 450a30 4- yap ywvotirl Xivrl~os Plato'sinfluence, see R. Sorabji, Aristotle on Memory vocabulary betray (London, 20032),5 n. 1; cf.R. McKeon, Criticism andtheConcept ofImitation in Antiquity', in R. S. 'Literary
Crane (ed.), Criticsand Criticism.: Ancient and Modern(Chicago, 1952), 121-7. 38 (Wiesbaden, 1976), 31-2; Colloquial Expressionsin Euripides,Hermes Einzelschriften

Tov KaOdrWrLp ol L(ppayLSO(EvotL roig SaKTvAlotL~, also EvarlalvETratL otov TV7ov rtval aLaOt7Lcar ,s the notionof mentalimage and the metaphorical Both 450b16 carOrEp r5roS~ ypagq iv -'t1av.

33 Ifthese were not wewould not be ina position torecollect which is likenesses, something notpresent; see Sorabji (n. 32), 7.

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Tue, 4 Mar 2014 12:22:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

442

STAVROS

TSITSIRIDIS

is what constitutes OS (s EdKKOVO image object's memory (451b16:OTL pavd-oiiarog, Animportant conclusion follows: Aristotle inthe perceives E"~s). memory ~cvTraaa, same terms as he perceives mimesis invisualarts. of an object'simageand its automatic The preservation recallafter a certain oftime-that amount to Aristotle, a psychic is, memory-forms, according faculty from that distinct ofrecollection. Anamnesis inthecapacity consists torecover conthe mental of the When the whole comes to a sucsciously depictions past. process end and theincomplete cessful is madecomplete, one attains memory memory. Thisrecovery ispossible because anamnesis is a kind ofmovement: from occursome evena slight for orreconstructs theaffinities andis led rence, one,thesoulsearches therecovery oftheknowledge, towards ormemory that exists in a latent sensation, Itis true, within thesoul.34 ofcourse, that is basedonthe state recollection associative interconnection ofideas;nevertheless itpresupposes theconsciousness oftime past, thetemporal localization oftheperson orobject andtherecognition of remembered, As a conscious andintentional therecreated is an recollection process image. quest, ofman.35 exclusive characteristic Aristotle not stresses feature this only emphatically, healsodraws a parallel-ina passage ofgreat and recollection importance-between a kind ofsyllogism (Mem. 453a12):
a 6t ov
6 7Ta'PKEL,qPuEL atIvotg /0VAEEUVTK6o

Kal G, avAAoyIErato rotoTroV naOEI 'valipvi)aK6/LEvor,


KaL CJUrV//lE'KEV-

EUTV Tt TO ava1vCL/tl7aKEuOaL OL tOV

UVAAOyUJOrya69 rt" rt

7ITp'TEpOV TO trT. TOo 6S' ri7Tair 'cav oOv rr rEtTTv. TO30ov0AE6EUrOL uVAAoyLuFL'r yatp r01 Kar.

yO

EJSEV ) 7KOVUEV7) TL

andthegeneral Boththephrasing tenor ofthis (oJov passage(parovAAoytcr6C rtrc) the to it clear is not reference the make that ticularly fPovAEvUtK6v), ovAAoytcprs, usedherein thenarrow senseof theterm.36 in a search, which consists Syllogism theinference of an initial ex effectu has as its point of departure conclusion ad From causam. this ofviewthefrequent use of pr/Ikw and 5T7qus, in this point part Thisnotion ofrecollection as search andunderstanding ofthe arenoteworthy.37 work, of reminiscent ofthe Platonic Aristotle doesnot is strongly concept though avctvrlvatJ, the is histeacher initsentirety.38 fact ofcourse, Inanycase, important theory accept,
EetV

inthe and 'The deductive factor isthe with the word the term 'inference', process explains: only or of that such must have a cause an"experience") becapable (viz. being major, every qpavraajLa

o'6Sv 'AAo Uvarat 7rirv vOpworog. 36 J. adloc.)renders The ParvaNaturalia 3 [Oxford, 1908]), (TheWorks ofAristotle I. Beare,

Mem. 06 7V a7 O 451b3:AA' ")v 0Tpirepov ELXEI oTavy avaAatLg3avE7TLAT7rLv ,7 IorT 7V ?tCyNoV EUTLKalTOTET Oat TV Tt. TAYo/1EV tkV7lUkV, oava/.LIV?7)KE(Ta ror'T EPqpE`VC0WV ToAKOLtvavWd, Hist. An. LEV Kat 35 Cf. 1.1.1488b25: Kal 'LV77/Lr 6&S6ax7-) avaft/Lv41aKEala6'
34

for. Thisstarts theprocess of While the ends outthe accounted byfinding goAEvaLs 7qT7aLsr. in itsrelation W. D. to pastexperience'. endsbyplacing the wayto act, qpivraata avlv-~Ves theterm ad 453a9-14,attempts to interpret ParvaNaturalia Ross,Aristotle: (Oxford, 1935), in one's mind that a cpcivaafka must havea 'One has a general morenarrowly: impression One is awareof a present cause in previous (minor (majorpremiss). experience paivraupLa that must havea causeinprevious Onetherefore concludes this experience. premiss). qpxvraTaua But Ross's On thisfollows the,~q7)UtL forthecause,which 7T7)oULleadsto recollection.'

s.v.711b48). 37 451b22(r/7TroL), del.edd.), b30 (Ir/~7TrE), b23(pC9 452a8 ('qrovrTIE), b28(rrpo7IqT/ouaS, a25 (Tob a22 a23 (&rrqTEZ'), a16 (n'rm7TrCv), 453a12.15 ~7Tro7V'evov). (~rq7Tv), (5TrI7qS), gAov (~r5EL), 38 Cf.especially Meno81D4-5: Toyapq7reTLV apa KalT7 oavOaVELV avapVat EovUT . See A Commentary on Anamnesis beiPlato(Munich, also C. E. Huber, ?206-13; J.Klein, 1964), imMenon, Plato'sMeno(ChapelHill,1965),108-72; Sang-In Lee,Anamnesis Europiische Die Dichtung als R. XV, Bd. 83 (Frankfurt, Hochsculschriften 2001), 147-59, B. Kyrkos,

I agree with ParvaNaturalia to me pedantic. P. Siwek seems (Aristotelis interpretation initsliteral that the term is not used here 167n. 107)who believes sense, 1963], [Romae Index Aristotelicus as is very often thecaseinAristotle but'in sensu latiore', (cf.Bonitz,

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Tue, 4 Mar 2014 12:22:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MIMESIS AND UNDERSTANDING

443

in the above-mentioned more, Aristotle, passage fromthe Poetics, does not use verbsthatindicateutterances and so on), or memory (thatis, (that KplVELV, A,yEW, verbs intellectual is, /vWfLYovEV"ELV, denoting activity LEvIaOL, andso on),butonly To summarize:in my opinion,Aristotleinterprets (Gtav06vELv Kac avUvAAooyEUat). the knowledgeand the subsequentpleasure derived frommimesis by proposing thatthemimetic art is based on a cognitive process whichis relatedto the function and especially to thatof recollection.39 Withthe features of the image of memory is led, through a cognitiveprocess,to depictedas his starting point,the spectator the said image with the actual object thatit represents. The spectator is identify of the figure, as theyare represented in the image, and guided fromthe features a cognitive withtheactualobject.In orderto illusthrough process,to identification trate whathe means,Aristotle uses themosttypicalexampleof recognition: therecof an individual his face).40 ognition (whichmeans,primarily, The objectionone mightraise is thatin the Aristotelian example of portraiture, thereis no indication thatany amountof time has elapsed, and thatconsequently therecollection This is true in spiteoftheindirprocessneedsto be activated. enough, ect indications at least,some temporal distance is presupposed. I think, that, however, thatAristotle is not interested herein offering distinctions of thatkind--besides, he does not even mentionthe relevantnotions.41 Nor does anything indicatethathe had thoroughly elaborated on thetheory of mimesisin relation to thatof recollection. beiAristoteles inreminding us ofPlato's docWissensproblem (Athens, 1972),106-7,is right trine ofanamnesis, but hedoesnot inmy the relevant ofthe interpret correctly, opinion, chapter when he presumes that: wie bei Platon der"verwunderte deraus 'Ahnlich Poetics, Anblick", des Denkens zum "bewundernden Schauen" derIdee des Sch6nen Verlegenheit anf'inglicher wirdbei Aristoteles das Anblicken eines Nachgeahmten fiihrt (Phaidrosu. Symposion), die intuitive derWahrheit, als pl6tzliche als einAufblitzen des Vision, Erfassung (1448b13), denote a 'pl6tzliche Vision'. only 39 In theparallel theRhetoric mentioned the passagefrom (1.11.1371b4-10) previously samethought is lurking, albeit obfuscated for a simple reason. In thewholerelevant chapter, forensic andconsidering thequest for as aninducement Aristotle, discussing speeches pleasure to commit that One ofthethings that acts,is simply unjust enumerating things givepleasure. obvious that what we havehere is simply a passing within a context ofnoparticular reference, relevance to our subject; Of greater interest is hence,it can be interpreted independently. Aristotle's reference to metaphor in thethird bookof theRhetoric but (3.10.1410bl10-20), this would requirespecial discussion. it to mention Suffice here A. Laks's article: 'Substitution etconnaissance: uneinterpretation unitaire de la theorie aristotelici(ou presque) ennede la metaphore', inD. J.Furley andA. Nehamas Aristotle's Rhetoric (edd.), (Princeton, 283-305.P. Swiggers, ofAristotle's ofMetaphor', Glotta 62 1994), 'Cognitive Aspects Theory atthe conclusion that the ofthe (1984),40-5 arrives interesting cognitive background metaphor is 'constituted ofmimesis' byAristotle's theory (43). 40 Aristotle's reference totherecognition ofa person is perhaps notaccidental. Semir Zeki, an authority incognitive mentions Vision. AnExploration (inhisbookInner neurology, ofArt andBrain[Oxford, ch. 17) that thebrain doesnotonly havea special areafor therec1999], offaces, but is characterized there exist sections ognition byeven greater specialization: special ofthebrain which ifthefaceis a familiar one.He alsorefers tothe well-known conrecognize dition of 'prosopagnosia'. 41 1amnot that the Aristotelian distinction between andrecollection sure, however, memory canbe applied as easily inreality as intheory. Forexample, howcanoneexclude the possibility inthe course ofa mnemonic recollection is alsoactivated with toa particuthat, process, regard lardetail, orto a very limited degree?
cause pleasure,because of its connection withlearningand Oavy~LiEtv, is mimesis.But it is Wissens in der Art des Verstehens bzw. Wiedererkennens (o'ro9 EKEvoS) verstanden'(104, cf. 105 n. 4). It does not seem at all probablethatAristotle is using avAAoy?Eoat here to

that recollection is characterized as a kindof syllogism, andthat thissyllogism is identical withtheone we haveencountered in chapter 4 of thePoetics.Whatis

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Tue, 4 Mar 2014 12:22:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

444

STAVROS TSITSIRIDIS

He is merely in a very to show, manner andwith utmost the trying simple brevity, ofa cognitive inmimesis. element presence One should remember here a familiar scenefrom thePlatonic Phaedo.Socrates is toprove to Simmias that is recollection. As an example trying knowledge illustrating the recollection heusesthe ofhisinterlocutor hypothetical portrait (73e9): cp'6pootwv if 'Is itpossible, someone have could seen Simmias asksSocrates, 'to then, depicted', recollect the same Simmias?' 'This is certain', absolutely (&vakvorlcq)vat) very Simmias answers. Aristotle doesnot ofcourse subscribe toPlato's conclusion general thenature ofknowledge, butitis noteworthy that Platocharacterizes the concerning ofhisinterlocutor basedon hispictorial recognition bya third person representation as 'recollection' andnotas 'memory'.42 mention inthe should be madeofthefact Poetics under disthat, Special passage Aristotle the of mimesis less from creator's the cussion, approaches phenomenon perand morefrom thatof the spectator. He indirectly formulates a very spective, in the that thespectator's intellect also participates observation, important namely This is extremely hardevento becomeawareof,let alone processof mimesis. butmodem willbe better readers to understand thisAristotelian explain, equipped if in to two Art and Illusion,43 Gombrich's book concept they chapters Ernst turn in 'The the Clouds' and 'Conditions of Gombrich refers to Illusion'. namely Image thepsychological function ofthe'guided anddraws thefollowing conprojection' clusion:'The likeness in ourimagination which artcreates exists only'(191). At another hestresses: 'Themind intheimitation' ofthe beholder alsohasitsshare point from the heusesfrom Gombrich alsoquotes anextre(182).Apart examples painting, from Philostratus' melyinteresting passage Lifeof Apollonius of Tyana.In that Philostratus that 'the art of mimesis is also those who says passage presupposed for observe thepaintings', horse or because couldreally thepainted nobody appreciate bulloradmire thepainted to mind' their Aias,ifhe couldnot'recall image.44 One might, of course, wonder does notproceed to elaboratewhyAristotle tothe views hesets outinhisother more andall-embraaccording complex works--a in 4. He could of the of described chapter cing interpretation phenomenonrecognition have for inthis imitated isperceived as that mentioned, since, case,the thing example, a copy ofanother italsoconstitutes a starting anda useful tool(see being thing, point in order to Mem.450b27, for thespectator to begin his search 451a2: tiv7tyrvEv?a) the the recollect the does not Furthermore, original object. spectator compare depicted inmost derived with onemnemonic with an abstraction but, cases, figure only image, from from ormore than mnemonic that animage that results one, one, is,with images, makes a pronounceHe couldalsohavepointed outhere that thebeholder E(?urEpla. the in other he interlaces ment related to theidentity oftworepresentations, words, Aristotle had after 'dislocated' them. This combination (as representations having a and as we undoubtedly alreadyestablished, today)constitutes acknowledge in inPhlb. notion ofrecollection makes this distinction 34A-B. For the Aristotelian Plato with itsPlatonic seeSorabji (n.32),35-46. comparison counterpart
42 43

T-it

York, (New 19612). Z VA 2.22(p. 66,5 Kayser): EITOLV' KaL ~a - ypaotK'q Epya 0GEv 44 Philostr. Trob 6pvrag 7 ) 7To4Cpov L fi1ravpov U7T7Trov ptL/qTrLK7/ SEWOO 0o yapav EIaLVEUEE 71r rvyEypa(LoLEvv aL. &v -rv AtavTr4rTL 3 5 'alivayiypamrrat r7v TttoLudXOv EvOvtFL'ELrtO,' ELKaaTraL, oi' a.aaO[q5`, TVc v vovv A'aVTO Os ,EK0s aavrovTaEKTOVCLa Et" a M/o cAov Kat' prlqv74, ELtv7 ivahdlao-rt
11v Tpo' fov3K6ALa KaOTOcLL
ct 7TELp-qKOTa, TvaL. fOgVoAi1ITOtOvEVOV Kat Eav7-l KVTE

A Study inthe Art andIllusion: E. H. Gombrich, ofPictorial Representation Psychology

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Tue, 4 Mar 2014 12:22:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MIMESIS

AND UNDERSTANDING

445

theinference 'thisperson is that one' is buta judgement in themost judgement: term.45 sense of the a more elaborate not, therefore, Why typical interpretation? The answer to thisquestion a simple one.Aristotle's mainconcern is, I believe, a biological-anthropological hereis to establish ofthephenomenon of explanation mimesis.This has an exact parallel in two otherAristotelian works.The

Metaphysicsbegin, as has already been mentioned,with the remark: !TIVTEs this andwith follows afterwhat r phrase, E2SivaL civOpwlTor opEyoVrat paL e. With

oToo man is ranked, after hehasbeencompared inthe with the other wards, living species, scala naturae. Itis furthermore that hasa biological-anthroemphasized philosophy basis.The samealso holdsfor thebeginning ofthePolitics: inthesecond pological the argument thatovOpwos 6 book, Aristotle chapterof the first puts forth ro(1pbaE

animal to hissocialbehaviour.46 Thisis notvery from far what kingdom according we suggest is Aristotle's in thePoetics.Man is distinct from theother argument animals of them becausehe is themostmimetic from all, andbecausehe learns
the earlieststagesof his lifethrough thatis innate(a;6vlPVrov). mimesis,a feature

7TOALTLK6V

man is placed on the scale of the W4 ov (1253a2). In an identicalmanner,

If theaboveinterpretation of theknowledge connected with and ofthe mimesis relation ofthiscognitive to recollection is correct, it is worthwhile then to process examinefurther the moregeneral of the Aristotelian consequences conception. it follows that Aristotle notonlyregards thephenomenon of mimesis as Firstly, to thehuman buthe also ascribes characteristics even kind, beinginnate cognitive of mimesis. to thesimplest forms in other He rejects, Plato'sviewson art, words, notonlyas faras itsmostrefined suchas tragedy, are concerned, achievements, to all itsdifferent butalso with andat all itslevels.As a result, the regard genres in idea ofdivine has no the Aristotelian of art. from inspiration place theory Apart theAristotelian offer a general thequestion for that, however, concepts explanation oftheobject ofmimesis. The explanation doesnotapply, as is commonly thought, between therepresented onlyto thedistinction objectandtherealone. It applies tothevery inessence, far from ofrecmainly elementary (although, simple) process of means intellectual of the content of mimesis. This search, ognition, by elementary cognitiveprocess is, in otherwords,the one thatoffers pleasure:i70t tvOivEtLv ob
?6vov 70ro <(ptoa(o'pots qaurov LAAal KaL TO,c?LAAOs (1448b13, cf. Rh. 6olwso

worksof artare attractive and givepleasureto all (7TcvraS),irrespective whymimetic

Thenext is theimportance ofthis In for be,what question might concept tragedy? 4 is quite obvious that theemphasis is given tothesimilarity ofthemimema chapter with theobject ofmimesis. Thisis thebasisofall mimetic arts. ofcourse, Tragedy, cannot be an exception to this, anditis for this reason that later on,in chapter 14, Aristotle an unequivocal formulates whenthe poet deals withwellprinciple: known he is obligednotto deviate from traditional stories myths, (for radically was assassinated or Orestes, example,that Clytemnestra by Eriphyleby If someone bearsin mind what has beensaid in chapter Alcmeon).47 4, theexplanation forthisruleis simple: thespectator willnototherwise structural recognize elements of themyth thestory notbe recognizable or and,consequently, might
45 Cf.De An.3.432a11. See W. Kullmann, 'Aristoteles' Staatslehre aus heutiger 90 (1983), Sicht',Gymnasium 459-63. 6 47 1453b23:706S oI v v 7rapEt %rpELAvov ~tb0Oov obK EUrTL, /~wo O~ov 77v N AELv l arl O 0 KaL ITOLOEKUTOV 'EptO.Aeqv TOr Khv-ratlt-arpav 70o a2Tov0 0TroOavoav ta 'AApI'hO,,o(, SE Kt t rogi 7TapaWSE~O See also Vahlen (n. 2), 50. KaA. EbpiCrKELv IEVOtLS
46
S.E

3.10.1410b10).

"

KptaOatL

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Tue, 4 Mar 2014 12:22:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

446

STAVROS

TSITSIRIDIS

to Aristotle, thepoethasathisdisposal themeans to persuasive enough. According orskilfully handle the'sufferings' inthemyth that hasbeenhanded modify depicted in order to makeit moreeffective. How can that be achieved? down, Euripides' Electra andOrestes arevery ofwhat Aristotle hasinmind, goodexamples especially which inthePoetics in thecase ofClytemnestra's is mentioned as well.48 murder, oftherelationship ofthe onequestion remains: that under discusFinally, passage first of where Aristotle refers to the sionwith the 9, important part chapter universality ofpoetry andto itssuperiority over because oftheformer more history being philoofcourse, atthis into One cannot, venture a more detailed sophical. point interpretninth It is clear, is at stake ation ofthemuch-discussed that what however, chapter. inboth casesis therelationship between mimesis andknowledge, since bydefinition refer is mimesis andthedescription canonly to a certain kind poetry pLAoaocpn-0pov after to two ofknowledge. has led several connect the This, all, interpreters chapters. after theabove thedifferences aresignificant discernible and,I trust, Nonetheless, of chapter 4. Near thebeginning of thePoetics, theinnate character of analysis In the arediscussed. mimesis andtheaccompanying process elementary cognitive of an that morecomplex is presupposed, case of poetry is, a 'mimesis something means of is and modes, action', which, 'speaks universals'--as particular byusing a manner of this most more successful than The history. meaning clearly stated--in actual but be thefollowing: sincepoetry doesnotdescribe lastpoint events, might it is capableof relating theevents thekindsof things that rather might happen, itsaudiences thequasi'in order to openup for within theplotin a causalmanner it is of and that of discernment capable providscope comprehension philosophical to reflect it is within thespectator's In other words, uponandto ing'.49 possibility in to data. On the lead himself contrary, beyond inductively something empirical inchapter which is described mimesis ofpainting thesimple andexact 4, theunivernoris inductive sals arenotpresented, thought presupposed. I wouldliketo endmydiscussion Aristotelian ofthis important passagebymenin to the a text relevant view has that Umberto Eco an expressed tioning interesting Poetics: about our the most convinced that Kant hassaid AsI amabsolutely cognitive things interesting inthe but hespeaks about inthe Reason not (where knowledge), Critique ofPure processes, inthesame doesone totalk about he seems why, way, art), (where Critique ofJudgement inthe Poetics inthe but not(only) ofknowledge, not lookfor a modem Analytics, theory and the Rhetoric as well?50 to we havebeentrying theproblem itis certain that Eco didnothaveinmind While truth. a fair amount of his examine words contain here, may University ofPatras
48

STAVROS TSITSIRIDIS
tsitsiridis@upatras.gr

durch des Mythos See Th. K. Stephanopoulos, 1980), (Athens, Euripides Umgestaltung esp.37-8 and 131-60 (on Orestes). 49 Halliwell (n. 3), 199. 50 U. Eco,'La Poetica e noi' inSullaletteratura (Milan, 2002),273 (mytranslation).

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Tue, 4 Mar 2014 12:22:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

You might also like