INTRODUCTION
Mimesis
is one of the key terms used in literary theory and criticism. It is a Greek
word which means ‘to imitate’. Although it acquired different meanings through
the passage of time, we generally associate it with depiction of life through
art and literature.
The
origin of mimesis as a concept is difficult to trace. Right from the early
times it signified a physical imitation of living beings by bodily gesture or
through voice. It was rarely applied to paintings or statues. Later it attained
different forms of meaning from mere visual similarity to behavioural imitation
and metaphysical correspondence between real and ideal worlds.
The
concept of Mimesis or imitation did not originate during the Homeric or
pre-classical period. Writers such as Hesiod and Thucydides did not ponder over
the meaning of mimesis because the use of myths in art was an unquestioned
traditional practise. However later people began to discuss and examine the
scope of myths and its proximity to truth. The debate was very relevant by the
time of Plato.
The
debate around the myth soon began to focus on the concept of mimesis itself.
The main question was whether mimesis took people away from reality or towards
reality. Truth and Adequacy of its representation to the matter that it
represents, or should represent was the major topic of discussion then.
The
discussion on Mimesis or Imitation started off with Plato’s Republic. The discussion attained new
meaning with Aristotle’s influential treatise Poetics. The discussion was later resumed by the two Roman literary
figures, Horace and Longinus, who narrowed down the notion of mimesis to its literary
aspect. Horace recognized the importance of imitating nature in a unified and
harmonious way. Longinus extends the concept of mimesis to an elevated level
and lays the foundation of the Romantic criticism.
Both
Plato and Aristotle agreed that mimesis was a key feature of poetry, but they
evaluated and conceived it differently. Plato believed that mimesis was a misleading
copy of the real world and condemned art and poetry. Through his spokesperson
Socrates, he criticised imitation, on the ground that it cannot represent truth
or teach morality. He was against artistic inspiration because according to him
in such a frenzy mood one cannot think rationally. As an idealist philosopher,
he finds reality in a transcendent world of eternal Forms or Ideas that only
reason can properly apprehend. This world was distinct from the illusionary
phenomenal world of our senses, which poetry represented. For Plato, the
material world was an imperfect copy of the original transcendent world of
Ideas, and poetry is but merely a copy of a copy. He concluded that poetic
representation threatens social stability by offering false images and
unsuitable role models.
Aristotle
however considered mimesis was a natural way to create a better world than the
one we have. He was more concerned with representation of truth and thought
that poet’s imitations of life were not unreal but that they revealed truth of
a permanent kind. Instead of being a copy of a copy, it could be seen as a
creative act.
Horace
emphasised that poets must imitate nature, and it was also important for young
poets to imitate great writers. He stressed the importance of morality and
decorum. According to him, for poetry to be great, it had to be both
pleasure-giving and morally improving. Longinus moves the definition to an
elevated and sublime level where he talks about the need for a spiritual
interaction with the ancient past masters.
PLATO
A discussion on mimesis
is incomplete without Plato. Plato was the most celebrated disciple of
Socrates. His concept of mimesis was a decisive factor as far as the history of
Greek notions of art is concerned. This was because the Greeks thought the
images represented though art was as real as the actual picture of what they
represent.
His
most famous work is Dialogues, of
which Ion and Republic are the most important.
The discussion on Mimesis comes in Book Two, Three and Ten of Republic. Dialogues is written in the
form of question and answer, and Socrates is the major speaker. The major problem here is that it is
impossible to attribute any statement directly to Plato because he speaks
through the mouthpiece of Socrates. Here again another question arises, whether
the Socrates here is his own teacher or if he had just used his name.
The
Greek word mimesis actually meant ‘to imitate’. Plato gave a new metaphysical
and epistemological perspective to it by widening its meaning from mere
imitation or making by human beings to that of universal force. Rather than
relating the concept of mimesis to arts and aesthetics, he related it to much
broader concepts like philosophy, education, the ideal nation and as a threat
to ideals of justice and reason. Plato separated mimesis from the real, the
rational and the essential, and equated it with pleasure and emotion rather
than truth, reason and the necessities of life.
Plato
believed that Ideas were the supreme form. Before an object takes its shape or
exists, we visualise them in our minds. According to Plato, this ‘idea’ was the
most important and thus the original pattern. The object itself was a copy of
this idea. Art, that is, poetry, painting etc tried to reproduce or imitate
this ‘object’ which in itself is a copy. Thus it becomes a copy of the copy. It
is understood that the object is an imperfect copy of the idea, so the object
reproduced through art must be more imperfect. So instead of taking men towards
reality, they take men away from reality.
Thus,
Plato postulated that there was a Primary form, which was the essential nature
of every object or even thought. This Form was unchangeable and complete in it
and could not be embodied in anything of this world. The objects are imitative
images of these Ideal Forms, and pictures or poetic descriptions, are, in turn,
images of the objects of the world. Mimesis, then always falls short of the
original. If the image were perfect, that is, it expresses in every point the
entire reality of its object, and then it would no longer be an image, but an
example of the same thing. Because it leaves out important qualities, it is a
lower order of reality than the archetype. Platonic mimesis, and thus, all art
according to Plato, remains a turning away from the Truth.
As
a result of Plato’s concept of Mimesis, art helped neither to mould one’s
character or help promote the well-being of state. He further condemned poetry
because it was concerned with only a semblance of things and could not get to
the root of things.
Plato
has many kinds of mimesis in minds which are created after worldly images of
the Forms. Plato suggests that sometimes mimesis is an accurate imitation of
the original. They may have the properties to produce genuine likeness (eikon),
at other times mimesis may be a semblance (phantasma). Plato thought that poets
and artists are experts at depicting false images of nature.
Plato gives two meanings to the concept of
mimesis in his work The Republic. That
is, according to his philosophical system, the world can be divided into two –
the phenomenon and the noumenon. The former deals with his own philosophy on
knowledge and the nature of being. This world of sense perceptions is only an
imitation of a higher world where there are plenty of Ideals. The other is a
purely imitative form where the character speaks instead of the poet himself. The world of sense perceptions is a fast
moving world where every moment witnesses a change whereas the world of Ideals
is eternal, truth being its soul.
For
Plato, there was no category such as “artistic truth” which is different from
the Truth. There could be only one reality. So the artist being a propagator of
ignorance cannot have a place in the Utopian state that Plato envisaged in the Republic.
For Plato, education of the young was very important
and he considered stories an important part of education. Even then he
continued to think of mimesis as unnatural and false. It had the power to turn
our rational thoughts to unthinking imitation. He further proposes that it is
useful when administered correctly, but dangerous when given indiscriminately.
Plato divides narration into three types: simple,
mimetic and mixed. In simple narration, the poet speaks in his or her own
voice. He narrates a story without taking on the role of any of the characters.
This style of narration is employed in historical narrative. In mimetic
narration, the narrator assumes the role of a character in voice or gesture
just like in a theatrical performance. Here, the narrator speaks as if he is
somebody else. In a way, it is impersonation.
Mixed narration is a combination of both the methods. The narrator may
speak in his own voice and at times imitates a character. Plato did not want
the guardians of the ideal state to be mimetic narrators. He gives four views
to justify his stand on this.
The first reason is that the mimetic narrator is
basically a liar. He hides behind a mask hiding his actual personality.
Secondly mimetic narration will prevent them from doing their duty. The
guardians are supposed to protect the city. By imitating others, they are doing
their jobs as well and causing a threat to their duty. Thirdly, he says, by
constantly impersonating evil characters, some of these qualities will enter
into their own nature. They should be careful to mime only appropriate
behaviour. However in such a case one’s individuality is supressed and leads to
enfeeblement of character. This is the fourth reason why he thinks imitation is
bad. Thus he concludes that poets are liars and hence should be banned from the
Ideal Republic.
In Book Ten he talks again of mimesis but this time
in philosophical terms. He believes he was correct in banishing the mimetic
poets. The best republic should be governed by reason where as mimesis was
indifferent to reason in every possible way. He discusses in detail the
relationship between mimesis and reason. He employs the “allegory of the cave”
to explain the reality of mimesis.
The ‘allegory of the cave’ imagines humans as
prisoners watching shadows cast on the wall of a cave. The prisoners are
chained to the ground. What these prisoners take to be reality is the mere
illusion of the shadows. They got no idea about the reality. If one prisoner is
being released from the chains and sees the actual objects casting the shadows,
he would be surprised. His fellow chained prisoners would not believe him if he
says that what they see is mere illusion and not the real. This prisoner’s new
perspective is akin to philosophical education. What common people take to be
reality is for the philosopher less real than truths grasped by means of reason
alone.
In Plato’s view, Mimesis produces mere ‘phantoms’,
not real things. It is both dependent and deceiving. It is like a mirror which
is empty when it has nothing to reflect on. He uses the analogy of bed to
justify his view. There are three kinds of bed. The first is the idea of a bed.
A craftsman gives physical shape to this idea and creates a bed which is the
second one. The third bed is the one imitated by an artist through his art. So
the idea itself is the original pattern or the reality. The others are just a
copy of a copy. The imitator or the artist may know the object but it is
impossible to imitate it as it is because the thing itself is an imperfect copy
of the original idea. So the knowledge of the artist is illusionary.
Plato cites example of the great epic poet Homer to
support his argument. Homer’s Iliad and the Odyssey is still considered a classic piece. In that
epic, Homer narrates battles and war. However Homer had no firsthand knowledge
of war or battles. So he concludes that imitation is false and also corrupting.
It challenges our reason and rational thinking.
ARISTOTLE
Aristotle was Plato’s
disciple. His treatise Poetics is one
of the fundamental texts as far as the concept of mimesis is concerned. It is
often considered as a critical reply to Plato’s Republic. Though Aristotle agreed with Plato in defining poetry as
‘mimesis’, he did not condemn it. Instead he regarded it as a “natural healthy
impulse”. He saw mimesis as a craft with its own laws and principles. He
believed it to be a natural phenomenon, and associated delight with it while
Plato considered mimesis as simply a mirror of something else and therefore
false and far away from reality. Through the common metaphors of mirrors,
shadows and optical illusions he highlighted the artificiality of art and
literature.
Following
Plato, Aristotle calls poet an imitator. Like Plato, he too believed that there
is a natural pleasure in imitation which is an inborn instinct in man. It is
this pleasure which makes a young child learn his early lessons of speech from
those around him. They are imitated by him because there is natural pleasure in
doing so. Plato sees the child’s imitation as a danger and condemns mimesis.
Aristotle sees it as a positive thing and confirms the naturalness of mimesis.
With
Aristotle the concept of mimesis underwent a major transformation. It remained
the condition of being a copy of a model, but the Platonic condemnation was
reversed. This reversion was based on a metaphysical revision. The Permanent
reality was not transcendental in Aristotle’s opinion. When an artist makes an
object, he incorporates certain universal elements in it. Because of the
universality contained in art, it leads to knowledge. The pleasure that mimesis
provides is on account of knowledge that is acquired through mimesis.
From
this we understand that an artist is no liar, but on the contrary, leads us to
Truth. In Plato, all creation was an imitation of Forms, which were
transcendental. For Aristotle, though the form of every object existed, it was
not a transcendental reality but something within Nature which Nature itself
tends to attain. Further, it is said that for Aristotle, Art helps Nature in
this endeavour of attaining the perfection of Form. This interpretation of
Aristotle’s metaphysics has been based upon his two oft-quoted sayings, “Art
imitates Nature” and “the artist may imitate things as they ought to be”.
Like
Plato, Aristotle divides narration into three. In the first instance, the poet
speaks in his voice. Secondly, the narrator can imitate the voice of the
character. Thirdly, he can perform an action live on the stage.
Aristotle
was clear that the purpose of imitation in drama was to provide proper pleasure
by imitating action. Mimesis of men in action was mimesis of all human life.
HORACE
Horace
was a Roman critic and one of the members of the Classical Triumvirate of
Criticism besides Aristotle and Longinus. His major work of literary criticism
is ‘Epistle to the Pisos’ which came to be known as Ars Poetica or Art of
Poetry.
Horace
is of the view that poets can and must imitate nature. It was also important for
young poets to imitate great writers. He stressed the importance of morality
and decorum. For poetry to be great, it had to be both pleasure-giving and
morally improving. He believed that the primary function of poetry is to combine
"pleasure with usefulness”.
For
Horace, poetry was not merely inspired madness or genius as Plato thought to
be. It was an art and had its own rules and conventions which required both
instruction and practice. Horace was more concerned with the delight and
technical perfection of art than its ethical qualities: “..Poets aim either to
do good or to give pleasure-or, thirdly, to say things which are both pleasing
and serviceable for life” (Arts Poetica 132).
Although
Horace doesn’t directly identify poetry with imitation of life, he seems to
imply the same. He believed that poetry should not be mere imitation but a
creative adaptation. A poet must recreate and revive what is already there. He
considered the ultimate goal of poetry is to instruct and afford pleasure. An
ideal poet is one who combined these twin functions. His conception of
imitation meant a recreation, and not just copying as he came to be
misinterpreted later in time. In contrast to Plato and Aristotle who talked
about imitation of the Ideal and that of Nature, Horace emphasised the need to
imitate the ancient Greeks such as Homer and the other great tragedians. He
always cites their example and advocates them as the true poetic models to be followed.
LONGINUS
Longinus
was another important Roman critic. He also belonged to the group of Classical
writers. His most famous work is ‘On the Sublime’.
The
concept of Imitation attains a whole new meaning with Longinus. His concept of
imitation is closely related to his concept of sublimity. That is to say from
imitation of the Ideal, Nature and the Great Ancients to a spiritual
interaction with the ancient great minds. This phase can be divided into three
phases.
In
the first phase, one exposes ones soul to the spiritual influence of the old
masters. Although this can be closely associated with Plato’s concept of
“Divine madness”, Longinus doesn’t advocate the poet losing one’s identity and
thereby becoming a puppet of the divine. This is a passive stage. In the second
stage the poet can actually communicate with the past masters through his
imagination. This stage is a quiet and internal interaction between the poet
and the divine. The third stage is the fiercest of the three. Here conversation
takes place between the imitative poet, the past masters and the future
posterity.
Longinus
is of the view that one must keep in mind the “high standard of sublimity” of
the ancient masters while composing a work of art. He believes that literary
imitation is never of a particular age, but the voice of the poet echoing
through all ages. This notion is similar to that of TS Eliot, who in his essay
Tradition and Individual Talent, says that the
position of a poet is based on his interaction with the past great masters. The
Romantic concept of inspiration of artist can be considered an echo of
Longinian sublimity.
CONCLUSION
The importance of the
concept of mimesis cannot be under-emphasized in western art. Right from the
ages of the Greeks and through the European revival of the Renaissance till
present times, the concept of ‘mimesis’ has been discussed and practiced by
poets, dramatists, novelists and philosophers. However the main issues were
different from our modern concerns because of the major cultural and
technological developments in and around the medium of communication. As in the
ancient world literary compositions were not entirely secular, but often part
of religious or semi-religious activities, the spoken word was constantly
associated with the physical movements of the orator, minstrel or the actor,
the dancing chorus, the religious procession or a political assembly.
Mimesis initially meant only physical imitation. Plato
condemned it because it took people away from reality. The discussion was
further continued by his disciple Aristotle who defended the concept of mimesis
and associated delight with it. Horace and Longinus gave new meaning to the
word. While Horace talked about the technical aspect of it, Longinus elevated
its status to spiritual interaction with the past masters. It, thus, becomes
very clear that mimesis was the basic and the most fundamental concept of
literary theory and criticism, and its influence can be felt in the 20th
century writers like Eliot, Freud etc.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
·
Potolsky Matthew. Mimesis. New Delhi:
Routledge, 2006.
·
Aristotle. “Poetics.” The Norton
Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed. Leitch B Vincent. New York: W.W Norton
and Company Ltd, 2001. Print
·
Plato. “Republic.” The Norton Anthology
of Theory and Criticism. Ed.Leitch B Vincent. New York: W.W Norton and Company
Ltd, 2001. Print
·
Horace. “Ars Poetica.” The Norton
Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed.Leitch B Vincent. New York: W.W Norton and
Company Ltd, 2001. Print
·
Longinus. “On the Sublime.” The Norton
Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed.Leitch B Vincent. New York: W.W Norton and
Company Ltd, 2001. Print
·
Prasad, B. An Introduction to English
Criticism. New Delhi: Macmillan, 2013. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment