1 ARISTOTLE, POETICS (c. 335 - c. 322 BCE) OVERVIEW Aristotle had his finger in many pies, as they say; in other words, like many a philosopher, he seemed to be on a quest to acquire knowledge concerning the nature of any and all natural and social phenomena, ranging from biological creatures (e.g. starfish) to human artefacts (ranging from poems written by individuals to the societies which humans collectively create). He was at heart what we would today call a scientist: at one point in the Posterior Analytics he calls his teacher Plato a conceptual inquirer (or philosopher) to distinguish his own activities ( science ) from those of his teacher ( conceptual inquiry or philosophy). He distinguishes between three kinds of knowledge: practical understanding (episteme pratike) of human behaviour, that is, the actions which humans perform (studied by ethicists and social and political philosophers); technical understanding (episteme poeitike) of how to do something (he has in mind various skills and arts [he uses the term techne to denote both these] such as carpentry and poetry-writing); and, last but not least, theoretical or scientific understanding (episteme theoretike) of any and all things that exist, both natural and humanly-made). The first kind of knowledge involves, essentially, the passing of judgements, while the second is tantamount to knowing how and the third to knowing that. Poetry per se depicts human actions and, in so doing, offers practical knowledge and, thus, judgements of human conduct. Some treatises on poetry offer technical knowledge concerning how to write poetry (this is the kind of subject to which manuals and courses devoted to creative writing are devoted). Aristotle s Poetics is also a treatise on poetry but one designed not to provide technical knowledge concerning how to write but, rather, theoretical / scientific knowledge of the nature of poetry in general (what today we would call literature) and, in particular, not only a specific kind of poetry ( dramatic poetry, i.e. drama) but also a particular kind of dramatic poetry (tragic drama or tragedy ). In short, Aristotle offers a theory or (if you prefer) a science of literature designed to explain what literature is. Many believe that the Poetics is not only one of the first but also arguably the most important work of literary theory ever written. Many also believe that one of Aristotle s most important goals in the Poetics is to distance himself from the theory of literature articulated in Book X of Plato s The Republic where Plato condemns literature for A) ultimately not depicting the true reality (the world of ideal forms) and B) appealing to the audience s emotions, rather than reason, and thereby encouraging people to act in ways that are less than desirable. Aristotle s conclusions about literature, far less most other things, are, to say the least, most often very different from those of his teacher for the simple reason that their respective philosophical outlooks (their views on the nature of reality, knowledge and the mind, above all) diverged so considerably. In the final analysis, it is as much true of their views on literature as it is of their views on other subjects that where Plato tends to find faults and, thus, to seek to prescribe corresponding solutions, Aristotle tends by contrast to accept things as they are and, instead, to analyse and describe with a view to ultimately understanding and, where possible, make better use of the phenomenon in question. Aristotle s efforts to grasp the true nature of poetry are informed by and grounded in his views in the following areas: Metaphysics (Ontology): Aristotle is a materialist unsure that anything immaterial or ideal exists beyond the here and now as reported by his senses and who accordingly seeks to explain all worldly phenomena in terms of the primary substances inherent in them which differentiate one particular category of things (e.g. dogs) from other categories (e.g. cats) as well as the secondary substances which may in turn be predicated of them (e.g. while cats and dogs may belong to different species they do share the same genus in that they are both animals) (see Aristotle s Metaphysics and Categories);
2 Epistemology: Aristotle is a proto-empiricist who is of the view that all knowledge, true or not, originates in sense-perception, that is, the use of our senses (e.g. sight) to perceive particular objects (e.g. a specific cat) together with a concomitant disposition (or mental faculty) that permits us to group the particulars encountered via the senses into primitive universals (e.g. some things of a certain kind belong to the category cat, others to the category dog ); he believes, too, that we in turn use our reason to build on this sensory foundation by, first, applying the method of the four causes (i.e. understanding every thing as the end-result of an efficient, material, formal, and final cause) in order to arrive at a more precise understanding of the object in question and, second, employing logic (specifically, processes of deductive and inductive reasoning) to infer further truths (conclusions) from prior truths (premises) (see Aristotle s Prior Analytics, Posterior Analytics and Physics); Philosophy of Mind: Aristotle agrees with Plato that there is a sentient part of us, the mind, which performs functions of a cognitive (what Plato calls the reason ), emotional (the affections ) and volitional (the appetites ) nature); in short, like Plato, he believes that we are thinking, feeling and willing/desiring creatures; however, unlike Plato, he is a monist, that is, he views mind and body as inseparable for which reason all our mental functions (e.g. the experiencing of emotions) are grounded in physiological processes; he equates the body with the material cause of a human being, the soul with its formal cause, the efficient cause with the father, and the final cause with eudaimonia (Greek for living happily or well ) which, in the case of humans, means using one s intellectual and ethical excellences or virtues to their fullest (see Aristotle s De Anima as well as his Nicomachean Ethics and Politics). Although Aristotle says very little, if anything, about lyric poetry (poetry written in the first person) and a little more about epic poetry (poetry written in the third person, the ancestor of modern prose fiction), his main focus in the Poetics is dramatic poetry (in plays, the activities on stage are presented without the aid of a narrator and constitute the closest thing to watching and listening to real life see Plato s distinction between mimesis and diegesis in The Republic). Aristotle believes that there are two basic kinds of plays: comedy (plays which end happily) and tragedy (where things turn out badly), his main interest being in the latter. He mentions several specific examples of tragedy written by a variety of playwrights with which he was familiar, including Sophocles Oedipus Rex which, for him, seemed to epitomise the genre. Aristotle is alleged to have written a treatise on comedy which is believed to have been lost but we can infer his views on that genre from his comments on tragedy in the Poetics: in short, whatever he says is true of tragedy, the opposite is arguably true of comedy. It should be noted in this regard that, in fifth-century Athenian drama, whether comedy or tragedy, little action actually took place on stage, all the actions, past and present, being merely reported in the character s speeches. It is for this reason that drama would have had much in common with oratory (plays being tantamount, in effect, to dialogues, that is, a series of speeches) for which reason Aristotle s Rhetoric and Poetics are arguably inextricably intertwined. Aristotle begins the Poetics by presenting us with broad claims about the nature of art in general and then literature as a whole, before gradually working his way down to piece-meal observations concerning various aspects (e.g. plot-structure or diction) of dramatic form in general and tragedy in particular. The argument presented in the Poetics is, thus, deductive in nature, arguably taking the form of a syllogism (or perhaps even a series of syllogisms), that is, he proceeds from premises of a broad nature which he believes to be certain (e.g. claims about art and then literature as a whole) to form necessary conclusions of a progressively narrower nature (e.g. definitions of dramatic devices such as plot ). However, the argument set out by Aristotle in the Poetics arguably occurs in reverse
3 order to the precise process by which he would have arrived at these conclusions in real life. In other words, he almost certainly would have had to engage in inductive reasoning in order to ultimately gather scientific knowledge of poetry in general and tragic dramatic poetry in particular. That is, he would almost certainly have started with observations of particulars from which he would have progressively inferred, step by step, conclusions of an ever more universal nature, the truth of which would be highly likely or probable, but not necessary (i.e. not irrefutable). His starting point would likely have been a seat in the audience at particular plays where he would have watched the characters on stage (with his eyes, evidently) and, above all, listened to them (with his ears, of course). Each play observed in this way would have constituted a concrete primary substance encountered by means of his senses. It should be noted that his attention would arguably have been split, that is, directed both externally (i.e. towards the goings-on taking place on stage) and internally (towards his own bodily reactions, especially of an emotional nature, experienced in response to what he observed happening on stage). The differing emotions provoked in this way by various plays would have led him to attribute to them other, more abstract properties (these would constitute the plays secondary substance ): he would have sorted the plays which he witnessed into two basic categories ( primitive universals ) on the basis of his sense impressions and their concomitant emotional reactions, one type of play (tragedy) producing one kind of emotional reaction ( pity and fear, he argues), another type (comedy), producing another kind of emotional reaction (the inverse of pity and fear). It is on this basis that he would have decided, for example, that Sophocles Oedipus Rex belongs to the species of tragedy, and Aristophanes Lysistrata to comedy. Next, using his reason to build upon this foundation provided by the senses, Aristotle would then have applied his notion of the four causes : he identifies the final cause of tragic drama with the arousal of a specific emotional reaction ( pity and fear ) in the audience; he equates its material cause with human thoughts and actions that ultimately end unhappily; he defines its efficient cause as the playwright, about which he says little though he does name several; and focuses the majority of his attention on its formal cause (those particular aspects of its form, above all, a plot-structure with very specific features together with the predominant use of certain kinds of words) responsible for producing the emotional reaction in question (pity and fear) in the audience. Next, Aristotle would then have proceeded to make further successive inferences of an ever broader nature concerning the putative existence of ever more abstract categories: both comic plays and tragic plays belong to the species of dramatic poetry, all examples of which must share certain properties (he identifies six elements common to all plays plot, characterisation, thought, diction, spectacle, and music the first two being the most important). Dramatic poetry is but one species of poetry (he identifies two others lyric and epic poetry), each of which are differentiated by their manner of representation (first person vs third person vs no narration). These three species are in turn part of the genus poetry, all examples of which, whether we are dealing with a play or an ode, must have certain properties in common (e.g. they represent humans, their thoughts and their behaviour). The genus poetry functions, in turn, as but one species of the greater genus art : he differentiates between different forms of art on the basis of their medium (e.g words are the medium of poetry, shapes and colours the medium of the visual arts, etc.). In turn, whether we are dealing with a poem or a painting, all art must have certain properties in common (e.g. the fact that art is fiction, something made up, something which is probable rather than factual) which in turn differentiates it from other forms of human discourse (e.g. history which purports to factually report what actually happened in the past). What is Art?
4 Aristotle begins by discussing the nature of art in general (Aristotle is discussing the genus here) and literature in particular (a species of art). What is art? Aristotle s answer: it is a reflection of the world, of nature, of society, of life in general. Literature and drama in particular, he will argue later, depicts the actions of men. Aristotle, like Plato, clearly offers at least in part a mimetic theory of art and literature. Unlike Plato, Aristotle does not speculate whether art is ultimately an imitation of something beyond this life (what Plato would term the Ideal Forms) and from which art is at a third remove. This definition of art leads Aristotle to consider at least two related issues. First, Aristotle contends that there is a difference between poetic and historical truth. It is the poet's function to describe not what has actually happened, but the kinds of things that could happen because they are, in the circumstances, either probable or necessary" (43). Where History deals with "particular facts" (44) that have already occurred, Poetry is concerned with "universal truths" i.e. "the kinds of things a certain type of person will probably or necessarily say or do in a given situation" (44). Second, Aristotle tries to explain the origin of art in the fact that, he argues, humans possess a natural propensity for imitation. Imitation comes naturally to humans: in childhood, the child first learns by imitating. Man gets great pleasure from imitations. The artistically-produced likenesses of things that would repel in real life [e.g. corpses] afford great pleasure. The greatest enjoyment is gained by looking at things and recognising them for what they are. If one cannot recognise the original, the very colours or shapes per se may give the pleasure. What is Literature? Having discussed the nature of art in general (art is an imitation of reality), Aristotle turns his attention to what distinguishes poetry (i.e. literature) from other forms of imitation such as dance or the visual arts and what distinguishes different kinds of poetry. The various art forms are distinguished from each other, Aristotle argues, by the medium of representation: poetry uses words, the visual arts colours and shapes, and dance movement. Aristotle is interested here in the so-called material cause of poetry, that is, words which are the very stuff or matter of which poetry is made. Kinds of Literature Aristotle then considers what distinguishes different kinds of poetry. If literature is a species of the genus art, then different kinds of poetry would each be species of the genus literature. He posits that there are three basic kinds of poetry each differentiated by its manner of representation: lyric poetry (poetry uttered in the first person and focussing on the person speaking), epic or narrative poetry (poetry uttered in the third person, for example, a tale narrated by someone often unidentified about the actions of other persons), and dramatic poetry or drama (poetry in which there is no narrator and the characters do all their own talking and acting without recourse, seemingly, to authorial intervention). The Two Main Genres of Drama: Tragedy and Comedy Aristotle then turns the bulk of his attention to dramatic poetry in particular and the further division of drama into the genres of tragedy and comedy. He touches here and there in the course of the Poetics on epic poetry but says little, if anything, about lyric poetry perhaps because both dramatic and epic poetry offer impersonal depictions of the vicissitudes of human behaviour (this seems to really pique his interest), whereas lyric poetry, by virtue of the use of the first person, is a form of self-expression and, thus, arguably the most personal kind of literature (the psychology of the poet does not seem to be, at least here,
5 his main focus). Like Plato, Aristotle is of the view that the difference between tragedy and comedy centres at least in part on a difference in the object of representation. The object of both epic and dramatic representation is "men in action" (33), in other words, both epic and drama depict the actions performed by humans. Tragic plays represent actions that lead to unhappiness and suffering while comedy represents actions that produce the opposite. Men being necessarily "either of good or bad character" (33), they must therefore be represented "either as better than we are, or worse, or as the same kind of people as we are" (33). Comedy "represents the worse types of men" (37). It deals, however, not with the worse types of badness (out and out evil) but with protagonists guilty of "ridiculous" (37) or trivial faults, i.e. "some form of error or ugliness that is not painful or injurious" (37). By contrast, tragedy represents the "noble actions and the doings of noble persons" (35), that is, they portray better-off men who meet an unhappy ending by making a mistake of some kind, as we shall see. Aristotle seems to imply here that in drama, and perhaps epic as well, the actions performed by the characters are more important than their respective characters or personalities. As we shall see, Aristotle is of the view that though the latter is the driving force of the former, in that it is our character which impels us to act in certain ways, the actual actions performed are of more importance in literature than the morality (or character ) of the actors. This is another difference between Aristotle s and Plato s respective philosophies of literature. Aristotle makes a brief foray into literary history in this regard. He argues that poetry gradually left its primitive roots behind and grew more sophisticated through improvisation, that is, in response to contingent circumstances, rather than some preordained plan or destiny. Comedy originated, he suggests, in the use by trivial poets of iambic verse to write phallic songs about the ridiculous actions of the meaner sorts of people. By contrast, tragedy evolved out of the dithyramb, discarding little by little "slight plots and comic diction" (37) until it acquired its "characteristic stateliness" (37). Aristotle argues that tragedy and comedy are distinguished not only by their content but also by virtue of the fact that each is possessed of a particular purpose or "characteristic function" (31) or "power" (31) (dynamis), that is, a kind of emotional effect or impact upon the audience that is peculiar to and typical of the genre in question: pity and fear in the case of tragedy, as we shall see, and, arguably, scorn and laughter in the case of comedy. Aristotle s focus in this regard is on the so-called final cause of dramatic poetry, that is, the end to which drama exists. In Aristotle s view, this purpose is synonymous with the effect which drama has on the audience. Clearly, Aristotle s theory of literature is at least in part pragmatic. Plato, more of a moralist, had suggested in The Republic that because poetry caters to the emotions rather than the reason, it ought to be banished from his ideal state. Aristotle agrees that art has an emotional impact but does not address its moral value. He merely describes without passing judgement, in the manner of the ideal scientist, that pity and fear are emotions inevitably inspired by the particular form taken by tragedy just as comedy, by implication, inspires the opposite emotions. However, he does not conclude whether this emotional impact has good or bad consequences for the human being. Rather than moralising about this effect, he merely seeks to understand its cause. The Elements of Dramatic Form Importantly, the precise manner in which this characteristic effect or function is achieved is derived from the form peculiar to the genre in question which thus cannot be overlooked. To put all this another way, the function of a particular genre, its characteristic effect on the audience, is a product of a particular set of formal features. Aristotle is concerned in this regard, evidently, with the formal cause of poetry, the pre-existent forms (not to be confused with Plato s ideal forms ) or models or patterns available to and utilised by the
6 poet according to the demands of his subject-matter and as a result of which the form peculiar to comedy, for example, would be quite inappropriate to depict the subject-matter of tragedy and to achieve its necessary emotional effect (indeed, it simply would not be comedy). The depiction on stage of suffering and unhappiness, to put this another way, necessitates a particular form which differentiates it from other kinds of plays (e.g. comedies). For Aristotle, the formal cause of all material phenomena, including art, is extremely important. His theory of literature is, therefore, partly mimetic, partly pragmatic and partly objective in that his emphasis is also on the indispensability of the form or structure of the work in depicting a particular subject-matter and achieving a specific effect. By contrast, Plato dismisses the form of a literary work as something of a necessary evil, something largely superfluous to the content (the most important part of a work) and responsible for affecting the audience emotionally rather than cultivating its rational faculty. Although Aristotle mentions contemporary writers like Sophocles, he is not too concerned with the efficient cause (the author) of poetry. The writer of a work matters less than the form of a work because the artist, regardless of personal inclination, psychology, etc., has no choice but to utilise the pre-existing form appropriate to the treatment of particular subjects and in order to achieve the requisite emotional affect. Aristotle notes that any play consists of six constituent elements: plot (action), character, thought (these two being the "natural causes" (39) of action), diction, spectacle and song / music. Arguing that any play imitates the things that men do, Aristotle defines plot (mythos) as "the representation of the action... the ordered arrangement of incidents" (39) which comprise a play. He stresses that plot is the most important feature of a play (he calls it the "life-blood" [40] of any play). Aristotle defines character (ethos) as "that which enables us to define the nature of the participants" (39). Character is that "which reveals personal choice... there is no revelation of character in speeches in which the speaker shows no preferences or aversions whatsoever" (41). He maintains that characters should be good (spoudaios) (that is, they should always reveal a preference for good), appropriate (e.g. men should be manly), lifelike, and consistent. Differentiating his own model of literature from Plato s, Aristotle stresses that plot is more important than character because art is a "representation, not of men, but of action and life, of happiness and unhappiness" (39) which are necessarily "bound up with action" (39). It is "chiefly on account of the action" (40) that tragedy is "also a representation of persons" (41). In other words, the main function of a play is not to reveal character and thus to enter the realm of moral debate. A play is first and foremost a representation of the actions performed by men and the consequences which these entail: good or bad fortune. The study of character (that is, of what the choices made by men reveal about their nature) emerges out of the representation of action but it is not the primary purpose of the representation of action. Aristotle argues that the reason for this is that the purpose of living is an end which is a kind of activity, not a quality; it is their characters... that make men what they are, but it is by reason of their actions that they are happy or the reverse. Tragedies are not performed, therefore, in order to represent character, although character is involved for the sake of the action. Thus the incidents and the plot are the end aimed at in tragedy. (40) There "could not be a tragedy without action, but there could be without character" (40), he speculates, without explaining how this might be achieved. Aristotle defines thought (dianoia) as that which "comes out in what they [characters] say when they are proving a point or expressing an opinion" (39). Thought is the "ability to say what is possible or appropriate in any given circumstances" (40) and is related to the "arts of politics and rhetoric"(40). He defines diction as the "expressive use of words" (41) spoken by a character. He stresses that both a character's words and actions
7 should arise probably or necessarily from his character. The two other constituent elements are less important. He defines spectacle as "stage-effect" (41)and inclusive of things such as scenery, performance, in short, all those aspect of the production of the play which are beyond the control of the playwright and to be distinguished from the art of poetry per se and its function: the "power [dynamis] of tragedy is independent both of performances and of actors" (41), he writes. The meaning of music / song ought to be self-evident. Tragedy Aristotle is particularly interested in how tragedy, through its form, achieves its characteristic effect: the inspiring of pity and fear in the audience. He offers this famous definition of tragedy: it is the "representation of an action that is worth serious attention, complete in itself, and of some amplitude; in language enriched by a variety of artistic devices" (39) and "presented in the form of action not narration; by means of pity and fear bringing about the catharsis [purgation/purification/clarification] of such emotions" (my emphases; 39). Fear (which is inspired by the spectacle of someone's undeserved suffering) and pity (we feel this because we too could find ourselves in that position of suffering) arise, Aristotle maintains, "from the very structure of the action" (49). The plot "should so be ordered that even without seeing it performed anyone merely hearing what is afoot will shudder with pity and fear as a result of what is happening" (49). Effects of pity and fear may also be produced by diction, as opposed to plot, i.e. "by means of language coming from the lips of a speaker" (58), but a particular structuring of the plot remains the most effective means. Aristotle argues that the following plot-elements are the most conducive to the emotional effect proper to tragedy. First, pity and fear are especially heightened when events develop almost logically, that is, one event leading inexorably to the next, rather than merely unexpectedly, for "then they will be more remarkable than if they seem merely mechanical or accidental.... Even chance occurrences seem most remarkable when they have the appearance of having been brought about by design" (45). Hence, the events of the plot must be connected by probability or necessity. Plots must not be constructed in a haphazard way but must be "properly ordered" (42). Tragedy, he writes, is the "representation of an action that is complete and whole and of a certain amplitude" (41). A whole is "that which has a beginning, a middle, and an end" (41), that is, the incidents portrayed must be seen to have a causal connection and not to follow a merely chronological order. When the plot is arranged in such a way that any incident is "differently placed or taken away" (42), then the "effect of wholeness will be seriously disrupted" (42). As a result, he argues, episodic plots, in which the "sequence of the episodes is neither probable or necessary" (45), are the worst kind of plot. Aristotle gives us some useful terms for conceptualising the various stages of the development of the plot. The complication is that "part of the story from the beginning to the point immediately preceding the change to good or bad fortune" (56). This is that part of the play where events become increasingly more confused and entangled. The denouement (literally, the unravelling of a knot) is that part "from the onset of this change to the end" (56). It is here, some have argued, that the catharsis takes place, that is, where the pity and fear built up by the preceding events are dispelled before the audience leaves but this claim is open to dispute. The plot, Aristotle stresses in this regard, must be of a certain length: plots must also be of "an appropriate size, for beauty is bound up with size and order" (42). Plots that are too long cannot be properly held in memory by the audience. The proper length is that which "as a matter either of probability or necessity, allows of a change from misery to happiness or from happiness to misery" (42). Moreover, if a plot should develop in a probable or necessary way, it should also be
8 unified. A plot does not possess unity, Aristotle argues, because all the events portrayed centre on one man. Unity is, rather, a function of the fact that all the incidents must form part of the main action depicted (in the case of tragedy, the movement from happiness to misery). An "epic structure" (57) (i.e. one where a "multiplicity of stories" [57] or plot-lines coexist with each other) is not appropriate for a play where compression, directness and a single focus are essential. Second, the most fearful and pitiable incidents are those inflicted by those who are near and dear to each other, either with or without knowledge of what they have done. (Less acceptable, he says, is when someone in possession of the facts is "on the point of acting but fails to do so, for this merely shocks us, and, since no suffering is involved, it is not tragic" (50). Even less acceptable is when the deed is actually done by someone in possession of the facts.) Third, three of the most important plot devices by means of which tragedy inspires feelings of pity and fear are sudden "reversals" (40) of fortune (peripeteia), "recognitions" (40) or discoveries (anagnorisis), and calamity or suffering. A reversal of fortune is a sudden and unexpected "change from one state of affairs to its opposite" (46), for example from happiness to misery. Recognition or discovery is a "change from ignorance to knowledge" (46), a realization (as, for example, in the case of Oedipus) on the part of the protagonist of what exactly he did in his ignorance. Discovery may take several forms: "by means of visible signs and tokens" (53), "those which are manufactured by the poet" (53), those "due to memory, when the sight of something leads to the required understanding" (53), and those that are the "result of reasoning" (53). The best form of discovery is that which is "brought about by the incidents themselves, when the startling disclosure results from events that are probable" (54). The representation of calamity or suffering on stage (or, preferably, its description in the speech of a character) also inspires pity and fear. Aristotle draws a distinction in this regard between simple and complex plots. In simple plots, the "change of fortune comes about without a reversal or discovery" (45). Complex plots, on the other hand, are accompanied by either or both of these. Aristotle stresses that the most effective form of discovery occurs in conjunction with a reversal. Together, they produce the tragic emotions of pity and fear. He warns that utterly good men should not be shown passing from good fortune to misery (this does not provoke pity and fear, he claims, as it merely disgusts us), nor should evil men be portrayed moving from misery to happiness. Rather, the "sort of man who is not conspicuous for virtue and justice, and whose fall into misery is not due to vice and depravity, but rather to some error (hamartia), a man who enjoys prosperity and a high reputation" (48) ought to be shown moving from prosperity to misery, rather than the other way around. This is the most effective way, he argues, to ensure the creation of the "pleasure that is proper to tragedy" (49) (i.e pity and fear) for "not every kind of pleasure should be demanded of tragedy, but only that which is proper to it" (49). The Legacy of Aristotle s Poetics It is a historical fact that Aristotle s views (both philosophical and critical) were lost to Europeans for many centuries. When he was rediscovered in the late Middle Ages / early Renaissance (his theories had been fortunately preserved by Arabic scholars who then were responsible for reintroducing him to Europeans), his ideas on plot were quickly and enthusiastically embraced by theorists during the Renaissance. However, the elements of plot-structure in general as well as those elements most conducive to producing the tragic emotions of pity and fear also quickly became prescriptive in the hands of rigid theorists of literature. Hence, the interminable discussions of such restrictive concepts as the three unities (e.g. the view that a play of about an hour and a half should represent a similar
9 amount of time on stage, otherwise it would be unrealistic) and the tendency to dismiss the work of writers such as Shakespeare for not following the traditional, timeless, and universally binding rules. Aristotle s importance is felt today in another way. Aristotle s detailled conception of the basic principles of the plot-structure of the plays produced in fifth-century Athens influenced centuries of critical approaches to the study of drama. However, in the twentieth century (to be precise during the 1950's), a school of critics located at the University of Chicago, who called themselves Neo-Aristotelians and included such notable names as R. S. Crane and Wayne Booth, undertook to apply Aristotle s concept of dramatic plot to the study of prose narrative (e.g. novels like Tom Jones by Henry Fielding). Narratology is the term that has come to be applied since then to the study of the plot-structure (sometimes called just plot) of poetic and prose narratives. Contemporary narratologists, not least in France, building on the foundation set by Aristotle, have taken narratology in directions not envisaged by him but which would have been impossible without his pioneering work.