Classical Criticism

Aims and Objectives

In this unit, we shall examine some of the salient features of classical criticism, their basic
assumptions and the critics associated with them. Whereas there is abundance of materials on
these topics, this unit will be unique in that it will try to explain the basic concepts with
maximum lucidity, particularly to help Indian students develop a strong interest in this area.
At the very outset, we should be clear about the difference between classic, classical, and
classicism – words often misused interchangeably. The word ‘classic’ refers to anything that is
of a high standard, for example a novel that has been read by people with considerable interest
for a long period of time is often called a classic. However, the word ‘classical’ has a more
specific meaning – classical refers to anything relating to the ancient Greek or Roman times.
Thus a classical literary text means a work necessarily belonging to the Greek or Roman era
whereas a ‘classic’ work could even be of our times.
Literary Criticism in the Western World started in Ancient Greece. In many ways, Plato can be
seen as initiating the debate on the nature and function of literature. The major literary critics
of the classical age are Plato, Aristotle, Longinus, and Horace. Most students of literary criticism
make their entry into the field via the Plato-Aristotle polemic.

Plato (427-348 BC)

Plato in his well-known book Republic made a scathing attack on art and artists. In fact, the
entire subsequent history of Western literary criticism can be viewed as a series of responses to
Plato’s observations. While so many critics try to ‘salvage’ art from Plato’s attacks, the
questions raised by Plato at the very beginning of Western literary criticism still remain valid.
It’s not too much to say that all students of literary criticism are still haunted by the ghost of
Plato.
In Book 10 of Republic, he argues that all dramatic poetry must be excluded from his ideal
society because Art is representation, that is to say, a mere imitation. He considered art as
‘third removed’ from the truth or reality. His main objections to the art of poetry is about the
willful misrepresentation of God. In Plato’s terms, art is a lie and all artists are, necessarily, liars.
Further, he believed that art instead of helping the viewer/reader to get closer to the Truth of
the world, further takes them away from it. But more interestingly, Plato’s critique of art is
based on the moral ground that art is necessarily immoral. Plato’s contribution to criticism can
be summarized in the following way:
1) He was the first critic to formulate a theory of imitation as the origin and purpose of
poetry.
 2) He was seriously concerned about the question of reality or realism in poetry.
3) He was also concerned about the social and ethical value of poetry.
In conclusion, we can say that Plato was concerned about the nature and function of art. As for
the nature of art, he found it absolutely unacceptable in that it did not help anyone understand
the question of truth. And as for its function, he concluded that art was socially not useful and
morally toxic.

Aristotle (383-322 BC)

Aristotle was not only a student of Plato, but also his strongest critic. Aristotle took over from
Plato a few basic principles of art in his famous Poetics and attempts to raise a very systematic
and serious critique of Plato without ever mentioning him directly. Aristotle’s theory of art can
be called the theory of imitation or mimesis. In his effort to present poetry as imitation,
Aristotle is in a way trying to defend art against Plato. As a counterpoint to the Platonic view to
art as a lie, Aristotle seems to be suggesting that art cannot be a lie because it presents itself as
an imitation of the object. In such a representation, the artist never claims that it is real. In
other words, Aristotle’s call is to place art on a different pedestal. By way of reconsidering the
Platonic question as to what is the nature and function of art, he seems to suggest that we
should start our examination of art by taking a particular form of art as an object of
investigation. This marks the major difference between Aristotle and Plato in terms of their
critical method.
Whereas Plato would make sweeping generalizations as to the nature and function of art,
Aristotle begins his observation by taking up Tragedy as a form of art for close examination. He,
obviously, does not begin by saying whether the existing theories are right or not but calls upon
the reader to move along with him in his examination of a specific form of art to verify the
earlier critical claims in the light of their own experience of art. In fact, he summarizes the very
nature and function of art in his definition of tragedy as a “representation of an action that is
worth serious attention, complete in itself, and of some amplitude... presented in the form of
an action, not a narration, by means of pity and fear, bringing about the purgation of such
emotions.” The major elements in Aristotle’s definition can be presented in the following order:
1) A tragedy is an imitation or representation of an action with the requisite seriousness.
2) A tragedy should have a definite form i.e. a series of incidents, each logically connected
to the other and presented in an artistic way.
3) It should be presented in a manner that is proper to its intended function.
4) The intended function of a tragedy is to arouse pity and fear in order to yield pleasure
through ennobling of the spectators or the readers.
Aristotle redefines the nature of poetic truth. In his view, a poet does not merely impersonate
or copy, nor does he misrepresent reality, but the reality that he presents is of a different type
– it is a kind of universal truth. He sees a basic difference between truth in history and truth in
poetry. Whereas a historian records actual facts in a chronological way, the poet is concerned
about the general truth of what may be. Poetry relates what may happen – what is possible
according to the law of probability or necessity, or in fact both. The function of poetry is not
limited to narrating a story or representing an action, but to point to the universal and
permanent possibilities of human nature.
Aristotle seems to claim that poetic truth is superior to historical truth in that whereas the
latter is concerned only about describing how things were, the poetic truth is based on a moral
view as to how things should be. In a way this answers Plato’s critique of truth in art – that art is
not a lie, but rather it is a superior form of truth.
As for the function of art, Aristotle has a very serious claim to make, he sees ‘catharsis’ as the
emotional function of tragedy. Catharsis could refer to a moral effect which a tragedy produces
through the purification of the passions.
Of course, there are multiple interpretations about the meaning of the word catharsis, but in
the general sense, we can say that catharsis means the aesthetic feeling created by the
purification of the feelings of fear and pity. The suggestion here is that all human beings have
the emotions of fear and pity which are not in themselves pleasant emotions. Fear in a tragedy
is aroused when we fear the occurrence of similar events in our own lives. When we see a
character undergoing a fearful experience, we feel a certain kind of sympathy or pity for the
one who suffers.
We can state the Aristotelean idea in this rather simple way – all human beings ‘suffer’ from the
emotions of pity and fear. This seems to be a basic human condition which causes a certain kind
of ‘anxiety or anguish.’ The one who goes to watch a drama necessarily has these feelings,
which causes them a kind of existential anxiety. A tragedy further evokes these emotions by
imitating certain actions. The Aristotelean claim is that this leads to an overflow of the pent-up
feelings in the human mind which provides a certain kind of relief. It is this sense of relief that
Aristotle calls ‘catharsis’. Reading Aristotle in the context of modern psychology, one can say
that catharsis is a way of giving an outlet to repressed emotions which is very important for
sustaining a psychic balance.
This finally answers Plato’s second charge against art. After all, one is tempted to ask, what is
more important for a human being than reaching a balanced state of mind?

Roman Critics
Longinus
Longinus who loved in the 1st Century was influenced by the works of Plato and yet he
developed a theory about the effect of art on the reader. His well-known treatise On the
Sublime is about how art effects human emotions. He gives a definition of the sublime, the
characteristics of a sublime work and the five sources of sublimity. He states that “sublimity is a
certain consummateness and preeminence of phrase.” The merit of a sublime work is that it
causes a certain ‘transporting’ of the readers. The effect of the sublime work on the reader is
similar to the effect of lightning in the sky – a sudden illumination or enlightenment. In other
words, a sublime work transports a reader outside himself to a different world of ecstasy.
In his view a sublime work pieces all readers of all times irrespective of all barriers. A sublime
work is one that compels a reader to read it repeatedly and it will transcend the limitations of
time and place. Such a work will have a trans-cultural power to excite the readers.
He talks about five sources of sublimity, which are: Weighty and solid thought, intense passion,
figures of thought and speech, noble diction, and elevated composition. Although Longinus
belonged to the classical age, in many ways he prefigures the Romantic Age. He was the first
critic to talk about the poet’s ability to ‘transport’ readers into a transcendental experience. He
also emphasizes the importance of passion and imagination as features of good literature. In
this sense, it is not untrue to say that Longinus combined the insights of Classicism and the
spirit of Romanticism in his views about the nature and function of art.

Horace
Horace was a Roman poet who lived in the glorious period of Roman history – the Augustan
Age. His fame as a critic rests mostly on his Ars Poetica or The Art of Poetry. This famous book
deals with several important qualities of poetry and the various forms of poetry. It also suggests
certain prescriptions to young poets about the dos and don’ts of writing poetry. As for the
nature of poetry, he says that poetry should combine both fancy or fiction, and truth.
Imagination and truth must be mutually balanced to provide pleasure to the readers. He had
great respect for the Greek masters and he calls upon his contemporaries to follow them. He
also insisted on consistency, proportion, and order as important components of good art.