MIMESIS            

                                       Mimesis means imitation, representation or the act of resembling something. The word ‘mimesis’ takes different forms like mimicry, identification, emulation. In other words it is an excellent mime that changes its scope to suit each new environment. Many thinkers like Plato, Aristotle, Horace, Longinus, Lacan, Erich Auerbach etc. have their own theories on mimesis. One cannot understand the Western theories of artistic representation without  a knowledge of mimesis. It was Plato who first introduced the term in literary theory through his dialogue Republic. .Plato’s Republic and Aristotle’s Poetics can be taken as foundational texts for understanding the theory of mimesis. Both philosophers distinguish mimesis from reality, but take different approaches to its nature and effects. Plato presents mimesis as a dangerous and potentially corrupting imitation of reality whereas Aristotle takes it as a rational and fully valid practice. To Plato, art is an illusion which imitates the real.   

‘Mimesis’ in Plato’s “Republic”

                                      Plato gave the first most influential theory of mimesis. He has provided an elaborate discussion of it in his dialogue the Republic. In this dialogue, Plato speaks through his demised teacher Socrates.  It is he who utters the profound truths that form the philosophical system of Plato.The word mimesis dates back to fifth century BCE and derived from the root mimos. Plato makes discussions on mimesis in two contexts, one is in book II and III, and the second is in book X. His main assertion is that all art is essentially imitative. This can be understood from his Theory of Ideas. Ideas, he says in The Republic, are the ultimate reality. Things are conceived as ideas before they take practical shape as things. So, the idea of everything is original, and the thing itself is its copy. As it falls short of its original, it is once removed from reality. When it takes the form of an art- painting, sculpture, literature- which merely reproduces the things, then it is copying a copy; and hence twice removed from reality. Things themselves being imperfect copies of the ideas, their reproductions in art is more imperfect still. It takes men away from reality rather than towards it. Plato was more concerned with the reason. According to hand to him, mimesis could not stand the test of reason. At the beginning of the dialogue, Plato’s speaker Socrates creates a city in order to argue for the ideal of reason. He talks of a feverish city wherein mimesis comes. This city, he suggests as having lot of luxuries, major among them being mimesis. Mimesis is seen as unhealthy. Plato segregates mimesis from the real and associates it with luxury and pleasure. It is rather linked with emotion and not with reason.

Socrates looks on the effects of literary style on the performer. He divides narration into three:- simple, mimetic and mixed. Simple narration is the kind in which the narrator speaks in his or her own voice instead of imitating characters. This is usually the style of rendering a historical account. Mimetic narration is a kind of narration wherein the narrator imitates the character in voice or in gestures, which is usually seen in a theatrical performance. Mixed narration is a combination of both simple and mimetic, i.e.in this type of narration, the narrator speaks on his own, but at times, he or she imitates the voice and gestures of the characters also. Socrates warns against mimetic narration. He opines that guardians should not be mimetic narrators. He provides four reasons for this, in which he connects mimesis with human behavior. First, he believes that mimetic narrators are liars. When they imitate a character, their personality is getting concealed behind the character. Second, he warns the guardians of doing both, i.e. the guardian is expected to protect the city and miming others is like doing their task also. Socrates finds imitation an extra task for the guardians. Third, the mimetic narrators should be careful and imitate only good men, as the imitation of bad men will lead them to the contamination of the self. Fourth, Socrates  warns that the character imitated will always have a reflection on the imitator. So, he feels that mimetic narrators, who are seen as liars by him should be banished from the republic.

Books II and III described the effects of mimesis on children as well as adults. In book X, the same is re-defined in a more philosophical way. Socrates gives much importance to reason, but according to him, mimesis is contradictory to reason in almost all aspects. Socrates’ theory is mainly based on three grounds :- reality of mimesis, relationship between mimesis and knowledge, and the mimetic effects on emotions.

Plato begins his discussions giving a range of examples. He uses Socrates’ ‘Allegory of the cave’ where the prisoners see mere shadows and not beyond that. What is seen as ‘reality’ for the common people, is not so real for a philosopher, who is more concerned with the truths grasped with reason. Socrates suggests that artistic images are mere shadows of the imitated. Also, he compares mimesis to a mirror. Mimesis creates mere ‘illusions’ and not real things. It is dependent like that of a mirror. A mirror is futile and empty if it doesn’t have anything to reflect. Also, he gives an example of three couches, one each possessed by God, craftsman and the painter respectively. The first one is the idea, second is the copy and third is copy of the copy. He says, thus, the painter’s couch i.e. the imitated couch is twice removed from reality.

Socrates next discusses of the relation of mimesis to knowledge. He says that mimesis poses a threat to knowledge. The knowledge that the imitators possess is illusory. Socrates opines it is just a play and not serious like true knowledge. Imitators don’t have adequate knowledge or opinion about what they are imitating. As art is twice removed from reality, imitation is twice removed from the real knowledge. To Socrates, mimesis is potentially corrupting and appeals to the worst part of the psyche. It creates confusion in the soul. Also, mimesis has no room for reason and calculation. The knowledge that stands to the test of reason is the genuine knowledge.

After the reality and rationality, Socrates takes up the effect of mimesis on our emotions. To explain this, his attention turns to tragedy. Book III focused on the methods of narration. Socrates is of the opinion that all poetry should be excluded. He treats poetry as another form of illusion. On reducing poetry to perception, Socrates claims that mimesis needs no skill and it doesn’t have reality to tragedies. As tragedy appeals more to emotions than to reason, it has much  consequences on the viewers. Tragedy makes the viewers imitate thus weakening the hold of  reason to the soul. As a result, the viewer is now ruled by emotion rather than by reason.

Mimesis in Aristotle’s Poetics

Along with Plato’s Republic, his disciple Aristotle’s Poetics is also a text for the knowledge of mimesis. Many of the formulations on mimesis are taken from Plato. Aristotle challenges Plato’s theories and claims on the nature and effects of mimesis. Aristotle, like his teacher places all arts under mimesis. Aristotle’s chief subject was Greek tragedy. He argues that a tragedy provides philosophical insights into human actions. Unlike Plato, for whom mimesis is a reflection of something else, for Aristotle , mimesis is a craft with its own values and aims. He treats poetry in itself. Aristotle’s initial analysis of mimesis supports the argument that art has a specific nature of its own.

The first three chapters of Poetics, distinguishes the media, the objects and the manner of mimesis for the different representational arts. The medium of imitation is dependent on the ‘materials’ art used to represent people and objects. According to Aristotle, though all arts are mimetic, they imitate with various tools or with the same tools in various combinations. He opines that it is imitation that creates a poet and not the reason. Aristotle’s next critique is objects of imitation. By the objects, he means ‘men in action’. Plato treats such types according to the nature of their effects on the audience. Aristotle finds in them artistic styles. Each artist has one human type and the actions suitable to it. Aristotle emphasizes that the moral standing of the artist does not immediately affect the moral standing of the audience. The third difference which marks the mimetic arts is the manner of imitation. Aristotle considers the manner of imitation as an artistic one. Here, he has modified Plato’s three types of narration. Poets can speak on their own i.e. in their own voice as in historical narratives, the voice of the character as in epic or present the characters moving before the audience as in drama. Socrates treats the manner of imitation as a moral choice, where the performer ‘conceals’ himself from the audience whereas Aristotle considers the manner of imitation as an artistic choice. He suggests that the manner of imitation should not be judged by whether it hides the imitator or not but by whether it is suitable to the material or not. Aristotle in his Poetics speaks of the essential and accidental errors in art. If the imitator lacks skill, then it is an essential error. On the other side, if  the imitator makes any  ‘technical inaccuracy’ in the rendering, then it is an accidental error. Aristotle, unlike Plato sees children’s imitation as a sort of naturalness. According to him, mimesis is a natural tendency of all human beings. It is something which is in man since childhood. He says adults, like children derive pleasure and knowledge from mimesis. Learning is indeed pleasurable for all human beings but mimesis gives a particular kind of learning and pleasure. The material form of mimesis is what makes it more enjoyable and knowledgeable.

Aristotle’s critique of mimesis is, in one way a response to Plato’s critique. Unlike Plato, Aristotle doesn’t take mimesis as an alien. Rather  he sees it as a natural aspect of human life. He claims that mimesis does not pose any threat  to the city. Plato argues that tragedy stirs our emotions at the expense of the rational. Aristotle gives it a rational sense. He argues even tragic emotions can be predictable. In Aristotle’s 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 narrative; through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation of these emotions.

This definition categorizes tragedy as a form of mimesis. It shows that the mimetic work can have a unity of its own governed by reason. Aristotle provides a more rational sense to mimesis. The effect of the work is due to the rational ordering of events. Aristotle argues that tragic action should adhere to reason. Aristotle claims that tragedy can lead to the purgation or purification of the emotions, which is called catharsis. Catharsis describes the result of a tragic plot, arousing pity and fear in the audience. This idea suggests that tragedy improves us by purifying our problematic emotions.

Although like Plato, Aristotle opines that all art is mimetic, he gives a more rational and scientific sense to it.

Mimesis is a concept of the Western origin. It is the relationship between the image and the original. Like Plato and Aristotle, many other philosophers also have put forward their theories on mimesis. Longinus was more concerned with the effects of sublimity on the audience.

                                                 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Potolsky, Matthew. Mimesis. New York. Routledge.2006. Print

Abrams,M H, Geoffrey Halt Harpham. A Glossary of Literary Terms. New York.2012. Print