A HISTORY OF LITERARY CRITICISM—HARRY BLAMIERS--Plato

A HISTORY OF LITERARY CRITICISM—HARRY BLAMIERS

UNIT I (Bharathiar University M.Phil course)

S. Sreekumar

This is a part of the summary of the first chapter of the book by Harry Blamiers. The rest of the summary will be published later.  

1. THE CLASSICAL AGE

2. THE MIDDLE AGES

3. THE RENAISSANCE

1. THE CLASSICAL AGE——PLATO, ARISTOTLE, HORACE, LONGINUS,

RHETORIC: CICERO, QUINTILIAN, SENECA, PETRONIUS, MARTIANUS CAPELLA

THE CLASSICAL AGE

Theories propounded in the classical age have maintained their hold on the people for many centuries.

·        In 17^th and 18^th centuries writers and critics were discussing the role of the Ancients in literary practices.

·        In 1789 Thomas Twining published a standard translation of Aristotle’s Poetics,  and terms like ‘imitation’ became once more popular in the literary circles.

·        In 1955, the Hungarian critic Georg Lukacz¹ expounded his arguments in ‘the Ideology of Modernism’ on the basis of ‘the traditional Aristotelian dictum’ that man is a social animal. “the dictum is applicable to all great literature, to Achilles and Werther, Oedipus and Tom Jones, Antigone and Anna Karenina”. ***

A period of just over a hundred years covered the lives of both Plato (c. 427-348) and Aristotle (c.384-322). They could look back on the golden age of Pericles. They inherited Homer & Hesiod². Xenophanes³ and Herodotus⁴ lived not many years before them. Greek drama was flourishing during their Age. Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides together had made the fifth century the richest age for tragic masterpieces. During the same period Aristophanes established “a form of comedy which was to influence English writers such as Ben Jonson and Henry Fielding”.

*** Blamiers did not mention anything about the Neo-Aristotelian  school of criticism in this piece. Actually   Neo-Aristotelian  school has popularized Aristotelian concepts in the universities. Neo-Aristotelianism is a view of literature and rhetorical criticism propagated by the Chicago School — Ronald S. Crane, Elder Olson, Richard McKeon, Wayne Booth, and others   

1. Georg Lukacz-- Georg (György) Lukács (1885–1971) was a literary theorist and philosopher who is widely viewed as one of the founders of “Western Marxism”. Lukács is best known for his pre-World War II writings in literary theory, aesthetic theory and Marxist philosophy. Today, his most widely read works are the Theory of the Novel of 1916 and History and Class Consciousness of 1923.

2. Hesiod—(c. 700 bc) one of the earliest Greek poets, often called the “father of Greek didactic poetry.” Two of his complete epics have survived, the Theogony, relating the myths of the gods, and the Works and Days, describing peasant life.

3. Xenophanes—it has been claimed that literary criticism began when Xenophanes questioned the disrespectful representation of gods in Homer and Hesiod.

4. Herodotus is known as the father of history. He wrote his ‘Histories’ in nine books covering the struggle of Greece with Asia from mythical times to his own age. 

PLATO (C. 427-348)

[Among the classicists, Blamiers begin with Plato. Questions on Plato, Aristotle, Horace & Longinus to be expected in the examinations]

Plato was twenty years younger than Aristophanes. He was twenty one when Sophocles and Euripides died.

Plato was a disciple of Socrates. He adopted the ‘Socratic’ method of question and answer. Plato presented his teaching in dialogues, using Socrates as the central spokesman. “Socrates lures his listeners into expressions of opinion, then dissects them, and brings to light contradiction, absurdity, or shallowness inherent in what they have said”. The use of this method makes for entertaining reading, but it can mislead the inexpert reader:

1. There is heavy irony in what Socrates says. [Inexpert readers may not see through the irony]

2. We cannot assume that the conclusion of Socrates is the conclusion of Plato also.

3. The main aim of this dialectical method is to stimulate lively thinking than indoctrination.

Plato never assumed the role of a literary critic. In fact, he never considered imaginative literature as something important. Because of his low estimate of the role of imaginative literature in a healthy society, Plato ventured into literary criticism.

In his early dialogue Ion, Plato introduces Ion who is a rhapsodist (one who lives by recitation of poetry). Ion recites Homer’s poetry. He is brought into the company of Socrates who “plays with him verbally like a cat with a mouse”. Ion claims to have special knowledge of Homer which Socrates questions.

·        If Homer dilates on chariot driving, will not the charioteer be the best judge of his work?

·        If Homer dilates on medical matters, on architecture, or on fishing, will not the physician, the architect, or the fisherman be the best judge of his work?

·        And is not Homer’s concern with battle something a general would best understand?

·        By such questions Socrates leads Ion to the logical conclusion that neither he nor Homer has mastery over medicine, architecture, fishing, and the like. Poetry is not the vehicle of learning but of inspiration.  

Plato considers inspiration as inferior to learning. Learning is an intellectual activity. Inspiration has only an aesthetic interest. That is why Plato dismisses literature, which is based on inspiration, in his Republic. The way in which Plato compares the charioteers’ first hand information about chariot-driving and the poet’s second hand information about the same define his attitude to literature. Plato considered literature as a representation or imitation of the real thing.

However, chariot or medicine or fishing is not the real thing for Plato. He formulated a doctrine of Ideas, or Forms. [For example: - ‘We draw a circle. The circle may be perfect or imperfect. But the idea of circularity which is there in our mind before we draw the ‘circle’ is perfect. The idea is perfect. The representation may be perfect or imperfect]

Realism and Nominalism--

The perfect form has priority over the imperfect appearance of it. The imperfect form will pass away with time. For the ‘realist’ the perfect form is more important—any concept of ‘beauty’ is more important than any example of the beautiful—a beautiful flower/child etc.

For the ‘nominalist’, the concept of beauty is abstract. It is a mere name which is given to all examples of the beautiful. The examples are real, the concept is abstract.

    “Plato’s doctrine of forms reduces the status of what is around us”. What is around us is an inadequate representation of what is perfect/eternal. The poet imitates what he sees around him (which is already imperfect)

·        Idea is the perfect thing—circularity, beauty etc.

·        What we see around us—a circle, a beautiful flower etc. is imperfect—once removed from reality.

·        The poet imitates the thing he sees—circle/ beautiful flower etc.  Therefore poetry is twice removed from reality.

Plato and Literature

Plato is not totally insensitive to literature. He knew about the powerful appeal of Homer. He knew about the ability of literature to move and charm. Therefore he was suspicious about literature. Plato believed that writers present models which will damage rather than discipline the young. They must have courageous and noble models presented to them in literature.

Plato and Imitation

The concept of imitation is very important. Through it Plato gives a questionable status to literature—

1. Literature is a second-hand version of life

2. Writers are impersonators.

3. The writer’s presentation of life is unreliable.

Thus, Plato ‘sheds around the world of literature an aura of falsity’.

Please refer to another post on Plato in the blog. It contains additional materials useful for the students of literature.

Dr. S. Sreekumar