CRITICISM-POETICS AND REPUBLIC BY ARISTOTLE N PLATO

I: Literary criticism

Literary criticism is fundamentally the estimation of the value of a particular work or body of work on such grounds as: the personal and/or cultural significance of the themes and the uses of language of a text; the insights and impact of a text; and the aesthetic production (or, performance) of the text; particularly as these areas are seen to be mutually dependent, supportive or inflective. The word 'criticism' has ordinary-use negative connotations, and to an extent that is right: for literary criticism is part of the disciplining of discourse generally and of what is considered literature in particular. One patrols the boundaries of good writing, admitting or excluding, determining what should be thought about a text, and why, what personal and cultural value should be placed on it.

History:

Literary criticism has probably existed for as long as literature. In the 4th century BC Aristotle wrote the Poetics, a typology and description of literary forms with many specific criticisms of contemporary works of art. Poetics developed for the first time the concepts of mimesis and catharsis, which are still crucial in literary study. Plato's attacks on poetry as imitative, secondary, and false were formative as well. Around the same time, Bharata Muni, in his Natya Shastra, wrote literary criticism on ancient Indian literature and Sanskrit drama.

Later classical and medieval criticism often focused on religious texts, and the several long religious traditions ofhermeneutics and textual exegesis have had a profound influence on the study of secular texts. This was particularly the case for the literary traditions of the three Abrahamic religions: Jewish literature, Christian literature and Islamic literature.

Literary criticism was also employed in other forms of medieval Arabic literature and Arabic poetry from the 9th century, notably by Al-Jahiz in his al-Bayan wa-'l-tabyin and al-Hayawan, and by Abdullah ibn al-Mu'tazzb in his Kitab al-Badi.^[2

 it's a conversation so earth-shatteringly deep, serious, and life-altering that it takes up an entire 300-page book. But that's only the beginning. Plato's Republic is pretty much the ultimate classic in the entire discipline of philosophy—some people even think it invented the whole concept of philosophy, which means that the philosophical conversation Plato began with this book has continued ever since.

Plato wrote the Republic in around 380 BCE, so if you're counting, that means this is a 300-page conversation that's continued for like three thousand years.

But don't worry: you don't need to write some philosophical opus to join in, too. One of the most important things about Plato's description of philosophy is that it's a lifelong, ongoing process of questioningeverything. All you need to do is be open-minded. Well, and you also need to be ready to have some of the most fundamental truths you hold dear—justice, goodness, freedom—radically challenged.

Have you ever heard the phrase "the unexamined life is not worth living"? It's spoken by Plato's protagonist Socrates, and if you want to be convinced that it's true, Plato's Republic is the place to begin.

Now, if all this talk about fundamental truths sounds kind of intimidating, keep in mind that Plato's Republic is a book that grapples with the power of the imagination, too. On the one hand, in order to solve tough philosophical dilemmas, Socrates and his pals use their imaginations to construct a new kind of city. They imagine the city's laws, customs, government, leaders, family life, military practices... you name it.

But on the other hand, even though this imaginative exercise is clearly crucial to how Plato's philosophy works, poetry and imaginative activities are banned from this city for being immoral. Yikes. Why the contradiction? Because the bottom line in Plato's Republic is that if you're looking for neat and tidy answers, you're in the wrong place. This book is about asking questions—and sometimes it gets messy. You've been warned.

• Reflecting on their construction of the republic, Socrates thinks that the most important thing they did in the city was to not allow any imitative poetry (you know, pretty much all poetry).
• Now that they've outlined the organization of the soul into three parts, Socrates thinks that it's even clearer than before that composing or listening to such poetry will degrade the soul.
• At first, Socrates is hesitant to say more about poetry because he loved the poetry of Homer since he was little kid.
• But, since the truth must shine through, Socrates agrees to go forward.
• First, Socrates wants to define the concept of "imitation" again, this time using the example of a couch and a table.
• Socrates explains how in the world, there are many different types of couches and tables, but there is still only one idea of a table. You might think of it as "tableness"—the thing that unites all tables as tables and doesn't let any couch pass as a table.
• A craftsman, building a couch or a table, clearly starts with the idea of it already in his mind; he doesn't come up with the very idea himself.
• Socrates imagines a kind of super-craftsmen who doesn't just make tables and couches but can make animals and plants, too.
• Glaucon thinks that's impossible, but Socrates says it's actually easy: all you need to do is go around the world with a big mirror, and you'll be "creating" all these things.
• Glaucon says that that isn't actually making these things; it's just representing them.
• Bingo, says Socrates: it's just representing them. He says a painter is just like this mirror-guy because, in some way, he "makes" tables and couches when he paints them.
• Socrates then goes a step further and says that even a craftsmen who makes couches is still making a representation because he isn't able to create the actual true idea or form of couchness; he just makes one particular couch.
• So, they can rank three kinds of couch-makers: 1) a god, or nature, who makes true "couchness," 2) the craftsmen, who makes a version of the true couch, and 3) a painter, who makes a representation of a version of the true couch.
• The couch made by nature is always only one, whereas the couches made by craftsmen are necessarily many.
• But the painter? Well, it's actually a bit of a stretch to even call him a maker of a couch, so Glaucon suggests that instead they call him an imitator of couches.
• It seems that this imitator is also the furthest away from nature, since he produces something two steps removed from the actualidea—and this is true of poets as well as painters.
• Furthermore, because painting is about appearances (says Socrates), it is primarily concerned with imitating simply what the couch looks like. It's concerned with just a small part of the couch; it doesn't care about what the couch's true, inner idea is like.
• Another problem with painting is that if a painter is too skilled at imitation, he might produce a picture that would fool silly people and children into thinking that they were seeing the real thing.
• In fact, it's probably a good idea to be suspicious of anyone who claims to know everything, because it probably means they've only encountered imitations of everything, not the real truth.

Imitation and Poetry

All right. So now Socrates decides to seriously consider the question of imitation in terms of tragedy and the poetry of Homer.

• Socrates points out that Homer and his poetry are often read as a repository of all wisdom, so they need to figure out if this is actually true. Can poetry lead to wisdom? Or is this, in fact, the consequence of mistaking imitation for reality?
• Socrates says that everyone would agree that the more important thing is to actually accomplish something, not just to talk about accomplishing something.
• So, has Homer ever accomplished anything? Even though everyone praises his poetry for its portrayal of warfare and leadership, there isn't a city anywhere in the world that can claim that it has benefited from Homer's leadership, nor has any war been won under Homer's rule.
• Furthermore, if Homer were so wise and smart, why didn't he found some kind of school or academy? Why doesn't he have any devoted followers? (This seems like a problematic line of reasoning to us, but we're just the messengers.)
• So, it seems they've decided that Homer doesn't actually know about virtue; he just imitates virtue.
• Poets just imitate things like color and harmony to give their creations charm, but what they really lack is substance. If you saw a poem stripped of all its charm, it would look like a boy who's no longer youthful.
• Socrates says that a painter imitates, say, the reins of saddle, but doesn't know how to use them. However, he imagines that even the smith who actually makes reins doesn't necessarily know how the reins work, either. The only person who actually understands how to use the reins would be a horseman.
• So Socrates claims there are three kinds of people: 1) people who use things, 2) people who make things, and 3) people who imitate things.
• Socrates goes on to claim that what something is meant to be used for is the most important quality it has.
• So, obviously, the person who uses things is the most knowledgeable and the person most about to tell the maker which things are good and bad, just as a flutist would best be able explain to a flute-maker the most important things that can make a flute play well.
• The flute-maker will know how to make something well because he's being advised by the flutist, but the imitator of a flute won't know anything about how to make one better or worse; all he cares about is how a flute looks.
• To sum it up: 1) imitators don't know anything about what they imitate, 2) imitation is play and not something serious, and 3) tragic and epic poetry are both forms of imitation.
• They've also agreed that imitation is concerned with something the furthest away from truth, since it relies on the unreliability of appearances. How are appearances unreliable? One example: a straight object looks bent in water, but it's just because the water makes it appear bent.
• The only way to truly understand things is to measure and calculate them, and that's an activity associated with the highest part of the soul—the rational part.
• The part of the soul that contradicts the conclusions of the calculating part is obviously lower.
• Imitation, as a result, has nothing to do with what is true, just, or virtuous. It's mostly concerned with what is ordinary, and it produces ordinary things.
• Now, to make sure that what they've been saying about imitation's place in the soul applies just as much to the visual (painting) as it does to the aural (poetry, since in Socrates's time people listened to poetry), Socrates defines imitation (again) as an imitation of an action that produces a feeling of having done either good or bad.
• Socrates then reminds everyone that they agreed that the soul doesn't have one single desire, but many, sometimes conflicting desires.
• Socrates imagines that a sensible man, if his son died, would feel torn in two directions: he'd want to remain composed in public, but he would want to give way to his grief and pain in private.
• So, Socrates says this shows that there are two distinct impulses in such a man: 1) his rational part, which draws him to understand that grief doesn't accomplish anything and prevents us from analyzing a situation, and 2) his desiring part, which draws him to indulge in his grief.
• Imitation, therefore, is drawn to imitate the desiring, angry, sad, irrational, passionate part of the soul, because it's way easier—and more entertaining—to see that part imitated than to see an imitation of the quiet, reserved, sensible, and contemplative qualities of the rational part.
• Therefore, it looks like poets are in the same sitch as painters (hint: not a good one). They won't be allowed in the city, either, since they appeal to what's lowest in humans and create ghosts of the truth instead of going after truth itself.
• But the biggest problem with poetry is how effective it is at appealing to even super duper sensible, rational people. Everyone, Socrates included, admits to having been totally wowed, won over, and left in tears after hearing about something sad in Homer.
• Why does this happen? Well, it's because poetry appeals to the base part of the soul that most rational men don't often appeal to. When this part hears something appealing, it goes crazy.
• Even though people might be too embarrassed to do what they are hearing described (like a great hero crying) themselves, they think it's okay to be moved by it because it's happening to someone else.
• Jokes work the same way: plenty of people laugh at jokes they would never tell.
• But, says Socrates, letting yourself be affected by others still affects you and the virtuousness of your soul. The same goes for sex and ambition, too.
• What you need to keep in mind, then, is that even though you might agree with someone when he or she says that Homer is lovely, and even if this person goes on and on about how wise Homer is, Homer still wouldn't be admitted into the city.
• Besides, Socrates reminds everyone that there's an "old quarrel" between poetry and philosophy, suggesting that the two have always been somehow incompatible.
• But if poetry wants to construct a really good argument to show that it does deserve to be part of a good city, and if its argument is convincing, they'll totally let it back in the city. These guys do like poetry, really; they just can't ignore the truth
• Frankly, even if they did listen to these arguments, they'd have to be very careful not to be charmed by it again, remembering how much they loved it as children.
• Socrates warns everyone that they need to take this stuff very seriously, because it's a question of good and evil.
• In fact, speaking of good and evil, something else important about the soul is that it is immortal—unlike a single person's life, which, in the grand scheme of things, is quite short.
• Glaucon is flabbergasted. The soul is immortal? He must hear more.

Aristotle's Poetics

 Summary

The Poetics is in part Aristotle's response to his teacher, Plato, who argues in The Republic that poetry is representation of mere appearances and is thus misleading and morally suspect. Aristotle's approach to the phenomenon of poetry is quite different from Plato's. Fascinated by the intellectual challenge of forming categories and organizing them into coherent systems, Aristotle approaches literary texts as a natural scientist, carefully accounting for the features of each "species" of text. Rather than concluding that poets should be banished from the perfect society, as does Plato, Aristotle attempts to describe the social function, and the ethical utility, of art.

Aristotle's Poetics(330 BCE) seeks to address the different kinds of poetry, the structure of a good poem, and the division of a poem into its component parts.

He defines poetry as a 'medium of imitation' that seeks to represent or duplicate life through character, emotion, or action. Aristotle defines poetry very broadly, including epic poetry, tragedy, comedy, dithyrambic poetry, and even some kinds of music.

According to Aristotle, tragedy came from the efforts of poets to present men as 'nobler,' or 'better' than they are in real life. Comedy, on the other hand, shows a 'lower type' of person, and reveals humans to be worse than they are in average. Epic poetry, on the other hand, imitates 'noble' men like tragedy, but only has one type of meter - unlike tragedy, which can have several - and is narrative in form.

Aristotle lays out six elements of tragedy: plot, character, diction, thought, spectacle, and song. Plot is 'the soul' of tragedy, because action is paramount to the significance of a drama, and all other elements are subsidiary. A plot must have a beginning, middle, and end; it must also be universal in significance, have a determinate structure, and maintain a unity of theme and purpose.

Plot also must contain elements of astonishment, reversal (peripeteia), recognition, and suffering. Reversal is an ironic twist or change by which the main action of the story comes full-circle. Recognition, meanwhile, is the change from ignorance to knowledge, usually involving people coming to understand one another's true identities. Suffering is a destructive or painful action, which is often the result of a reversal or recognition. All three elements coalesce to create "catharsis," which is the engenderment of fear and pity in the audience: pity for the tragic hero's plight, and fear that his fate might befall us.

When it comes to character, a poet should aim for four things. First, the hero must be 'good,' and thus manifest moral purpose in his speech. Second, the hero must have propriety, or 'manly valor.' Thirdly, the hero must be 'true to life.' And finally, the hero must be consistent.

Tragedy and Epic poetry fall into the same categories: simple, complex (driven by reversal and recognition), ethical (moral) or pathetic (passion). There are a few differences between tragedy and epic, however. First, an epic poem does not use song or spectacle to achieve its cathartic effect. Second, epics often cannot be presented at a single sitting, whereas tragedies are usually able to be seen in a single viewing. Finally, the 'heroic measure' of epic poetry is hexameter, where tragedy often uses other forms of meter to achieve the rhythms of different characters' speech.

IMITATION AND POETRY : ARISTOTLE’S VIEWS:

Aristotle also lays out the elements of successful imitation. The poet must imitate either things as they are, things as they are thought to be, or things as they ought to be. The poet must also imitate in action and language (preferably metaphors or contemporary words). Errors come when the poet imitates incorrectly - and thus destroys the essence of the poem - or when the poet accidentally makes an error (a factual error, for instance). Aristotle does not believe that factual errors sabotage the entire work; errors that limit or compromise the unity of a given work, however, are much more consequential.

EPIC POETRY VERSUS TRAGEDY

Aristotle concludes by tackling the question of whether the epic or tragic form is 'higher.' Most critics of his time argued that tragedy was for an inferior audience that required the gesture of performers, while epic poetry was for a 'cultivated audience' which could filter a narrative form through their own imaginations. In reply, Aristotle notes that epic recitation can be marred by overdone gesticulation in the same way as a tragedy; moreover, tragedy, like poetry, can produce its effect without action - its power is in the mere reading. Aristotle argues that tragedy is, in fact, superior to epic, because it has all the epic elements as well as spectacle and music to provide an indulgent pleasure for the audience. Tragedy, then, despite the arguments of other critics, is the higher art for Aristotle.

Summaries of Sections from Aristotle's The Poetics

Section I

A poem should be judged on how it is written rather than what it is written about. While there are several different types of poems, all are forms of imitation. What determines one type of a poem from another is how the subject of the poem is presented to the audience. In fact, music is a form of imitation as well, but uses harmony and rhythm as opposed to language and voice. The problem that arises among the various arts is that the title of "poet" is given to those authors who write in only specific styles. That is to say that an author who writes a scientific publication with a similar meter as used by Homer could also be called a "poet." In addition, an author who would write a poem using all the different styles of meter in one poem should also be labeled a "poet," thereby diluting the very label.

Section II

When imitating human subjects in art there is an association of the individual's integrity ranging from "goodness" to "badness". This is reflected by the artist's desire to display a specific quality prominently. For example, Aristotle cites artists' depiction of an object's nobility as greater in some, minor in others, and realistically mixed, accordingly. He concludes by pointing out that the imitationÊthen possessesÊunique traitsÊbecauseÊof this classification.

Section III

The third difference in artistic imitation is defined by Aristotle as 'manner', meaning the narrative form a work takes while the other two elements remain constant. Using the three differences: the medium, the objects, and the manner which he has defined up to this point, he then uses them to compare and contrast different artists based on how they have utilized these imitative qualities in their works. Due to this classification, certain areas lay claim to the creation of Tragedy, Comedy, or both because of the way in which their native poets have demonstrated various forms of the three differences.

Section IV

According to Aristotle, poetry emerged from two human instincts: imitation and harmony. The early poetry was of an improvisational nature and after a time, a split occurred, resulting in the solemn contributors celebrating the noble actions of heroic individuals while others preferred chronicling the misdeeds of baser characters in forms such as satire. The latter of these gave rise to the Iambic measure which the authors then applied to Comedy. The "graver spirits" as Aristotle put it, who became the epic poets, paved the way for the emergence of Tragedy.
Thomas Ferguson -- tfferguson@ucdavis.edu

Section V

Book V serves to distinguish the boundaries between Tragic, Comedic, and Epic poetry. Comedy is considered to be a "lower form" of tragedy, and is not accompanied by the same degree of history due to its previous lack of seriousness. Although there are differences between Epic and Tragic poetry, Tragic poetry contains all the same elements as Epic, but Tragic holds elements that Epic poetry does not.

Section VI

Section VI defines Tragedy as "an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude," written in "language embellished," presented as action rather than as narrative, and which "through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation of these emotions." Because Tragedy is an imitation of action, and because the emotionally-powerful Reversal and Recognition scenes are part of the plot, Aristotle assigns this the "first principle" of tragedy. After plot, in order of importance, Aristotle prioritizes the remaining elements of tragedy as follows: Character, Thought (the motivation and/or likelihood of an action), Diction, Song and Spectacle.

Section VII

Tragedy imitates action and has a certain magnitude and a beginning, middle, and end. A beginning canÕt depend on previous action, an end must follow something, but can have nothing follow it, and a middle follows something and is followed by something. A good plot must obey these principles. A tragedyÕs beauty increases as its length (magnitude) increases, provided that the whole is understandable and within the bounds of a readerÕs limited memory. The action is dependent on change, and therefore the plot must, through chance or necessity, change bad fortune to good, or good to bad.

Book/Section VIII

Poetry has no logical structure when the plot contains a hero. According to Aristotle, there is no possibility that a hero would have one destiny, especially since there are various incidents which make the hero's life and journey complete. Aristotle believes that poetry written by Heracleid, Theseid and Homer are full of errors because the "structural union" of the poem is omitted and focused on a unified moral decision.

Section IX

The poet is superior to the historian because the poet talks about universal truths while the historian simply regurgiatates events of the past.

Section X

Book X distinguishes between Simple and Complex plots. A Complex plot involves knowledge newly recognized or the reversal of a situation; A Simple plot does not.

Section XI

Book XI seeks to define the parts that constitute a complex plot. Reversal of Situation is the point at which the action changes to its opposite. Recognition occurs when previously unknown information is revealed to one or more of the characters. The greatest effect, creating in the audience feelings of fear or pity, is when the Recognition coincides with the Reversal of Situation. For either of these parts to occur, the plot must provide some element of surprise. A final part of the plot is that of the Scene of Suffering, in which a painful or destructive act occurs.

Section XII

Aristotle introduces the quantitative parts of Tragedy, which dictate the traditional form to which Tragic plays must conform: Prologue, Episode, Exode, Choric song. First comes the Prologue, which Aristotle explains: "precedes the Parode of the Chorus," the Parode being: "the first undivided utterance of the Chorus." The Episode is next, and is defined as: "that entire part of a tragedy which is between choric songs." The Exode is: "the entire part of a tragedy which has no choric song after it." Aristotle goes on to define a Stasimon, which is "a choric ode without anaepests (two short sounds, then a long one), or trochaic tetrameters, (one strong beat followed by a short one, in verse of four feet), and the Commos, "a joint lamentation of Chorus and actors." Some Tragic plays, Aristotle adds, include songs sung by the actors, or sung by both the actors and the Chorus. 

Section XIII

Section XIII is a veritable list of the do's and don'ts of plot construction, particularly in Tragedy. First and foremost, one should develop a complex plot. Complexity is obtained by evoking two emotions: pity and fear. Such emotional responses result when one develops a character with whom the intended audience can identify. According to Aristotle, this character is one "who is not eminently good and just," and whose "misfortune is brought about by some error or frailty." That is to say that the character should not be above suffering the misfortune that befalls him, nor should the character exhibit a nature deserving of such misfortune. Finally, the character's circumstances must worsen throughout the course of the tragedy, as reconciliation at the close is a characteristic of Comedy. 

Section XIV

Section XV

Aristotle articulates a series of rules he believes the poet should observe as he develops Character in a poem. First, in the development of character, the poet should aim for goodness, followed by propriety, and then "be(ing) true to life."The poet should also strive to develop character that remains consistent. The poet must "aim either at the necessary or the probable," and must ensure that the speech and actions of his character are not irrational. Finally, the poet must follow the painter, who "preserves the type" of his subject, "yet ennoble(s) it." However, in all these rules, the poet must not forget to appeal to the senses.

Section XVI

Aristotle elaborates on the types of recognition used in a textbook tragedy. The most widely used form of recognition involves the use of "tokens" and "signs" as they function to unveil the truth. Aristotle gives examples of birthmarks, scars, and necklaces, being tokens included in a Tragedy. Another type of recognition relies on the discretion or invention of the author. A great example of this would be when Luke finds out that Darth VaderÊis his father. The third type of recognition relies on the character's memory when sparked through an identifier. The fourth is made through the process of reasoning, e.g. Odysseus is recognized once he is able to use the "crossbow. According to Aristotle, the best recognition comes naturally from the character.

Section XVII

In Aristotle's opinion, a brilliant piece of work depends upon its plot formation. Inconsistencies in plot spell disaster; however, the writer can avoid such mishaps by taking a step back from the scene, and becoming a spectator. A poet must take into consideration the spectrum of emotions, so the readers (audience) can connect with the poem. When writing a story or drama, Aristotle strongly feels the author's first priority is to create a general outline. After completing the outline, the author merely needs to fill in the details. The general outline forms the plot, thus tiny details are not a requirement for greatness.

Section XVIII

Tragedy divides into two parts: "the Complication," where the story's climax begins to take shape, and "the Unravelling or Denouement," which extends from the turning point until the end. Aristotle names four types of tragedy: "the Complex," or the "reversal of...Situation and Recognition;" "the pathetic," in which passion motivates; the ethical dilemma; and finally, "the simple," which excludes "the spectacular." The best tragedy consistently ties "the Complication" to "the Unravelling." Finally, Aristotle reminds the poet not to make a tragedy into an epic, and that choral interludes are an "integral part" of a tragic plot. 

Section XIX

Two other components of Tragedy are Diction and Thought. Each result of Thought must be produced by speech and elements conveyed through speech:Êsubdivisions such as "proof and refutation", importance or lack thereof, and the expression of feeling. When the speaker aims to evoke feeling, Aristotle states that dramatic incidents and dramatic speeches must be judged from the same standpoint. In doing so, however, the "dramatic incidents must speak for themselves".ÊThe speakerÊshould have the power to control the result of his/her speech not only due to oratory skills, but should express the feeling in the actual oration as well. Diction shows how the Thoughts will be represented. Aristotle emphasizes the point that what the speaker may intend to say may be interpreted or digested differently thanÊit was intended. This is the veryÊaction that may belong "to another art, not to poetry."

Section XX

Aristotle defines several basic grammatical ideas here. L e t t e r s are divided into three subcategories: vowels (which work without the tounge or lip), semi-vowels (which require them), and mutes (which have no sound unless joined by a vowel. S y l l a b l e s are seen as "non-significant" sounds made of mutes and vowels only. N o u n s and v e r b s are significant sounds that can not be divided into meaningful, significant parts; verbs indicate time, while nouns do not. I n f l e x i o n expresses relation, plurality, or tone. Finally, s e n t a n c e s are said to be sets of composite, significant sounds that can be divided and yet retain signficant parts. 

Section XXI

Here, Aristotle defines some of the stylistic tools that poets use when composing their "imitations." Simple and compound words, of course, are as natural a part of the poet's repetoire as with any other kind of writer. Aristotle also notes the poet's ability to restructure, lengthen, and contract the vowels and syllables in words when it is to his/her aesthetic interest. However, although this use of new and exotic words often gives a more original flavor to what the poet is trying to say, it also tends to leave out the common (uneducated) reader. Thus Aristotle sites the use of metaphor or analogy to "transfer" or "compare" the meanings of these new words into a vocabulary which the audience can understand.

Section XXII

The perfect poetic style is one that is lucid, yet far from mundane. In order to achieve such a balance between clarity and extremity, a poet must carefully equilibrate conventional word choice (the clarity component) with extraordinary diction (the extremity component). Diction becomes extraordinary when a poet engages the use of stylistic elements such as metaphor, jargon, and word alteration. Certain literary elements lend better to specific types of poetry. For example, metaphors work best in iambic poetry. However, jargon is more suitable in heroic poetry. Indeed, misuse of these stylistic elements can interfere with the clarity of the poem. 

Section XXIII

In terms of structure, an epic poem should focus on a single action and be comprised of a beginning, middle, and end. Developing his idea of plot and time unity, Aristotle distinguishes narrative poems from historical compositions by their treatment of time. An historical composition covers a large expanse of time comprised of unrelated events that do not always resolve to a single end, and this structure should not be emulated for the epic. The successful epic draws on episodes that resolve to a single end.

Section XXIV

In section XXIV, Aristotle discusses how epic poetry is similar to and distinct from tragedy. Both forms can be "simple, or complex, or ethical or pathetic." Epic poetry differs from tragedy in that it can present many different events or story lines owing to its narrative form. The great advantage to the epic form rests in this quality. The poet is able to use the epic to provide the audience with a variety of events thereby preventing boredom. In epic form, the poet can present fabulous scenes that would appear ludicrous if they were enacted on stage. Additionally, the narrative quality of the epic allows the absurdity of certain events or situations to be accepted by the audience. Aristotle credits this acceptance of the absurd to a poet's ability to present the absurd in a charming manner.

Section XXVl

Closing his defense of poetry, Aristotle considers which art is higher: Epic poetry or Tragedy. Specifically, he claims that tragedy is the higher form. Aristotle's contemporaries believe tragic performances overshadow tragic content, and thus tragedy is unrefined. But Aristotle argues that since both epic poetry and tragedy can be performed poorly, neither should be cited for performance faults. Aristotle declares that tragedy is superior to epic poetry because it contains all epic elements along with visual elements, vividness in reading and representation, and a high concentration of plot. Wheras epic poetry is lengthy in time and contains diverse subjects, tragedy is brief and singular in subject. Thus, Aristotle concludes that since tragedy is superior to epic poetry in these respects and fulfills its specific function better, tragedy is the higher art.