Superiority of Poetry

Sidney, in his essay “An Apology for Poetry” gives poetry a place of honour above both philosophy and history and he says that poetry is the noblest medium of knowledge because it teaches us virtue and because it moves our minds to pursue virtuous action. There is no other branch of learning which can perform these two functions more effectively than poetry. Sidney asserts that there is no other knowledge more fruitful in this world than that which poetry supplies to the readers .It is the profoundest or the most fertile cause of knowledge or source of knowledge or repository of knowledge .He has compared poetry with other branches of knowledge.He first claims the superiority of poetry as a medium of knowledge over moral philosophy .The philosopher is likely to say that it is he who really teaches human beings what virtue is, what the causes and effects of virtue are, and what vice or passion means. In other words, the philosopher claims to be a better teacher of virtue and virtuous conduct than anybody else. Here the historian is likely to step forward and challenge not only the claims of the poet but also of the philosopher .The historian will say that the philosopher teaches theoretical virtue while he teaches practical virtue. The philosopher teaches virtue by certain abstract considerations, while the historian teaches virtue by depicting in his history the experiences of mankind through the ages. But Sidney says, “The philosopher, therefore, and the historian are they which would win the goal, the one by precept, other by example”. But it is the poet who performs both the function of the philosopher and the function of the historian. The poet employs both precept and example .The abstract statements of the philosopher's are not easily understood by the reader, while the historian is tied to the particular truth of things and does not concern him with the general reasons of things. The example of the historians yields no general truth. The poet “coupleth the general notion with the particular example”.Then Sidney has compared the poets’ way to the philosophers’ way in learning knowledge. The philosopher with his learned definitions of virtue and vices is unable to throw much light on the meaning of these terms. But the poet offers what may be called "speaking pictures" which convey the nature of virtue and vice most clearly .When a philosopher speaks of a man’s love of his country, he does so in an abstract manner which leave us cold. But when Homer depicts "old Achilles speaking in the midst of Troy’s flames” or Homer depicts "Ulysses in the fullness of all calypso's delights bewail his absence from barren and beggarly Ithaca," then we really understand what love of ones country means. If a philosopher tries to describe anger we would not understand it as clearly as when Sophocles depicts the "Ajax on a stage, killing and whipping sheep and oxen, thinking them the army of Greeks". Similarly when a poet depicts the "wisdom and temperance in Ulysses and Diomedes, volour in Achilles, friendship in Nisus and Euryalus, we understand these qualities much better than if a philosopher were to define and describe them. In short, the poet’s way is more effective in learning than a philosopher’s way.Sidney says that poetry has the power to move the mind, which philosopher does not have. "And that moving is of a higher degree than teaching, it may by this appear, that it is well-nigh the cause and the effect of teaching”. It is poetry which can move the minds of the readers with a desire to learn Virtue. The philosopher shows the way to virtue but his way is tedious and even painful. People, following the path shown by the philosophers, are likely to get lost in the way. In this respect the poet is the monarch "for he doth not only show the way, but giveth so sweet a prospect into the way, as will entice any man to enter into it”. the poet "beginneth not with obscure definitions, which must blur the margent with interpretations, and load the memory with doubtfulness; but he cometh to you with words set in delightful proportion” and which are accompanied with music. A mere reading of poetry has often moved readers to become more courteous, more liberal, and more courageous. When we read the account of how Aeneas carried his old father Anchises on his back to safety we feel inspired to perform similar deeds of heroism.Then Sidney has compared the poet to the historian and established the superiority of poetry over history. The historian, says Sidney, certainly deals with actual examples. But poetry is more philosophical and more studiously serious than history.Poetry deals with the universal, while history deals with the particular. Such as poetry tells "what is fit to be said or done, either in likelihood or necessity” and history says “what Alcibiades did, or suffered”. History tells us what had actually happened while poetry tells us what should happen according to the law of probability or necessity.The poet can ,in the portrayal of characters, depict the good qualities of human beings in such a way that we are prompted to follow their example and he can keep out the faults and the defects of those characters from our sight so that we may not be tempted to copy them. The poet can, in his portrayal of Tantalus, Atreus Cyrus, Aeneas, keep out those Defects of these men which human beings should avoid. On the other hand historian can't hide their defects .The result of historian's portrayal is that the reader may be tempted to copy the defects of a man.The historian is subject to the poet ;whatsoever action ,or fiction ,whatsoever counsel ,policy ,or war stratagem the historian is bound to recite "on the other hand that “may the poet with his imitation make his own ,beautifying it both for further teaching ,and more delighting""The historian, bound to tell things as things were, can not be liberal". A historian must portray alexander of scipio "some to be liked "some to be misliked". Thus it become difficult for the reader to decide which of the traits of this man should be granted and which should be avoided. On the other hand the poet can deviate from the actual facts or can violate it without being accused of untruth.The historian must stick to the facts but the poet can beautify and alter the facts.The Historian can't distribute punishments and rewards because he must not deviate from the actual historical happenings. On the other hand, the poet can show evil characters as being punished and good people being rewarded.Sidney's grounds for ranking poetry as the greatest medium for knowledge above both philosophy and history are undoubtedly very sound. If we accept Sidney's premise that the final end of all learning is to bring about moral improvement in human beings, then we must also accept Sidney's view that poetry is the monarch of all forms of learning .We have to admit that poetry teaches virtue by delightful means. Poetry is thus better able to influence human conduct than philosophy or history and its influence is generally wholesome.
Superiority

Superiority of Poetry

Sidney, in his essay “An Apology for Poetry” gives poetry a place of honour above both philosophy and history and he says that poetry is the noblest medium of knowledge because it teaches us virtue and because it moves our minds to pursue virtuous action. There is no other branch of learning which can perform these two functions more effectively than poetry. Sidney asserts that there is no other knowledge more fruitful in this world than that which poetry supplies to the readers .It is the profoundest or the most fertile cause of knowledge or source of knowledge or repository of knowledge .He has compared poetry with other branches of knowledge.He first claims the superiority of poetry as a medium of knowledge over moral philosophy .The philosopher is likely to say that it is he who really teaches human beings what virtue is, what the causes and effects of virtue are, and what vice or passion means. In other words, the philosopher claims to be a better teacher of virtue and virtuous conduct than anybody else. Here the historian is likely to step forward and challenge not only the claims of the poet but also of the philosopher .The historian will say that the philosopher teaches theoretical virtue while he teaches practical virtue. The philosopher teaches virtue by certain abstract considerations, while the historian teaches virtue by depicting in his history the experiences of mankind through the ages. But Sidney says, “The philosopher, therefore, and the historian are they which would win the goal, the one by precept, other by example”. But it is the poet who performs both the function of the philosopher and the function of the historian. The poet employs both precept and example .The abstract statements of the philosopher's are not easily understood by the reader, while the historian is tied to the particular truth of things and does not concern him with the general reasons of things. The example of the historians yields no general truth. The poet “coupleth the general notion with the particular example”.Then Sidney has compared the poets’ way to the philosophers’ way in learning knowledge. The philosopher with his learned definitions of virtue and vices is unable to throw much light on the meaning of these terms. But the poet offers what may be called "speaking pictures" which convey the nature of virtue and vice most clearly .When a philosopher speaks of a man’s love of his country, he does so in an abstract manner which leave us cold. But when Homer depicts "old Achilles speaking in the midst of Troy’s flames” or Homer depicts "Ulysses in the fullness of all calypso's delights bewail his absence from barren and beggarly Ithaca," then we really understand what love of ones country means. If a philosopher tries to describe anger we would not understand it as clearly as when Sophocles depicts the "Ajax on a stage, killing and whipping sheep and oxen, thinking them the army of Greeks". Similarly when a poet depicts the "wisdom and temperance in Ulysses and Diomedes, volour in Achilles, friendship in Nisus and Euryalus, we understand these qualities much better than if a philosopher were to define and describe them. In short, the poet’s way is more effective in learning than a philosopher’s way.Sidney says that poetry has the power to move the mind, which philosopher does not have. "And that moving is of a higher degree than teaching, it may by this appear, that it is well-nigh the cause and the effect of teaching”. It is poetry which can move the minds of the readers with a desire to learn Virtue. The philosopher shows the way to virtue but his way is tedious and even painful. People, following the path shown by the philosophers, are likely to get lost in the way. In this respect the poet is the monarch "for he doth not only show the way, but giveth so sweet a prospect into the way, as will entice any man to enter into it”. the poet "beginneth not with obscure definitions, which must blur the margent with interpretations, and load the memory with doubtfulness; but he cometh to you with words set in delightful proportion” and which are accompanied with music. A mere reading of poetry has often moved readers to become more courteous, more liberal, and more courageous. When we read the account of how Aeneas carried his old father Anchises on his back to safety we feel inspired to perform similar deeds of heroism.Then Sidney has compared the poet to the historian and established the superiority of poetry over history. The historian, says Sidney, certainly deals with actual examples. But poetry is more philosophical and more studiously serious than history.Poetry deals with the universal, while history deals with the particular. Such as poetry tells "what is fit to be said or done, either in likelihood or necessity” and history says “what Alcibiades did, or suffered”. History tells us what had actually happened while poetry tells us what should happen according to the law of probability or necessity.The poet can ,in the portrayal of characters, depict the good qualities of human beings in such a way that we are prompted to follow their example and he can keep out the faults and the defects of those characters from our sight so that we may not be tempted to copy them. The poet can, in his portrayal of Tantalus, Atreus Cyrus, Aeneas, keep out those Defects of these men which human beings should avoid. On the other hand historian can't hide their defects .The result of historian's portrayal is that the reader may be tempted to copy the defects of a man.The historian is subject to the poet ;whatsoever action ,or fiction ,whatsoever counsel ,policy ,or war stratagem the historian is bound to recite "on the other hand that “may the poet with his imitation make his own ,beautifying it both for further teaching ,and more delighting""The historian, bound to tell things as things were, can not be liberal". A historian must portray alexander of scipio "some to be liked "some to be misliked". Thus it become difficult for the reader to decide which of the traits of this man should be granted and which should be avoided. On the other hand the poet can deviate from the actual facts or can violate it without being accused of untruth.The historian must stick to the facts but the poet can beautify and alter the facts.The Historian can't distribute punishments and rewards because he must not deviate from the actual historical happenings. On the other hand, the poet can show evil characters as being punished and good people being rewarded.Sidney's grounds for ranking poetry as the greatest medium for knowledge above both philosophy and history are undoubtedly very sound. If we accept Sidney's premise that the final end of all learning is to bring about moral improvement in human beings, then we must also accept Sidney's view that poetry is the monarch of all forms of learning .We have to admit that poetry teaches virtue by delightful means. Poetry is thus better able to influence human conduct than philosophy or history and its influence is generally wholesome.
Superiority

Eliot’s Depersonalization theory

In "Tradition and Individual Talent", Eliot opposes the Romantic conception by advancing his theory of impersonality in art and opines that the artistic process is a process of depersonalization and that the artist will surrender himself totally to the creative work. Eliot particularly objected to the great Romantics as well as Victorians who exaggerated the need to express human personality and subjective feeling and he says, "The progress of am artist is a continual self sacrifice, a continual extinction of personality."Eliot holds that the poet and the poem are two separate things and "that the feelings or the emotion, or vision, resulting from the poem is something different from the feeling or emotion or vision in the mind of the poet." Hence, he elucidates his theory of impersonality by examining, first, the relation of the poet to the part and secondly, the relation of the poem to its author. Eliot realizes that the past exists in the present. "No poet, no artist of any art, has his complete meaning alone. His signification, his appreciation, is the appreciation of his relation to the dead poets and artists. You can value him alone. You must set him for contrast and comparison among the deads."Eliot points out the relation of the poem to its author; and says that the poem has no relation to the poet. There is detached or alienation between the poet and his poem. The difference between the mind of a nature poet and that of am immature one is that the mind of a nature poet is "a more finely perfected medium in which special or varied feelings are at liberty to enter into new combinations". According to Eliot, the art emotion is different from personal emotion. A successful artist s he, who can generalize emotion in the reader's one while he himself seemed to be unaffected by any emotion. In the other hand he should be depersonalized in experience he describes in the poem.Eliot brings the analogy of chemical reaction to explain the process of depersonalization. In this respect he has drawn a scientific analogy. He tells that a poet should serve the sold of platinum which makes sulphurus acid. He says, "When the two gases, previously mentioned (oxygen and Sulpher dioxide) are mixed in the presence of a filament of Platinum. They form Sulphurous acid. The combination takes place only he the Platinum is present; nevertheless, the newly formed acid contains no trace of Platinum, and the Platinum itself is apparently unaffected has remained inert, neutral, and unchanged. The mind of the poet is the shred of Platinum. It may partly or exclusively operate upon the experience of the man himself; but, the more perfect the artist, the more completely separate in his will be the man who suffers and the mind which creates, the one perfectly will be the mind digest and transmute the passions which are its material."Eliot next compares the poet's mind to a receptacle in which are stored numberless feelings, emotion, images, phases etc. , which remain there in an unorganized and chaotic form till, "all the particles which can unite to form a new compound are present together." Thus poetry is organization rather than inspiration. And the greatness of a poem does not depend upon the greatness or the intensity of the emotions, but upon the intensity of the process of poetic composition. The more intense the poetic process, the greater the poem.He strongly believes that "the differences between art and the event are always absolute. Eliot illustrate his view by a few examples among which one is of Keats' One to a Nightingale, which contains a number of feelings which have nothing particular to do with the nightingale, but which the nightingale ,partly perhaps because it's attractive name, and partly because of it's reputation served to bring together. He illustrates his theory by a few examples. The artistic emotion evoked by Dante in his treatment of the episode of Paolo and Francesca is different from the actual emotion in the situation. The artistic emotion may approximate to the actual emotion as in Agamemnon the artistic emotion approximates to the emotion of am actual spectator; in Othello to the emotion of the protagonist himself. Eliot believes that the main concern of the poet is not the expression of personality. He says, “the poet has, not a personality to express but a particular medium which is only a medium and a personality, in which impressions and experiences combine in peculiar and unexpected ways, impressions and experiences which are important for the may take no place in the poetry, and those which become important in the poetry may play quite a negligible part in the man, the personality”. Again, there is no need for poet to try to express new human emotions in poetry. The business of the poet. Eliot says, is not to find new emotions, but use of the ordinary ones and, in working them up in poetry, to express feelings which are not in actual emotions at all". Eliot's final definition of poetry is:"poetry is not a turning loose of emotion, but an escape from emotion: it is not the expression of personality, but an escape from personality." It is not the expression of personality but an escape from personality. He emphasizes the same theory of impersonality in art. The emotion of art is impersonal. It has its life in the poem and not in the history of poets. So, honest criticism and sensitive appreciation is directed not upon the poet but upon the poetry. The poet's biography is not to be studied the structure of the poem and its evocative powers are important. Eliot's theory of depersonalization has been criticized by critics like Ransom and Yvor Winters. Ransom regards Eliot's theory as “very neatly a doctrine of poetic automation".To Fei Pai Lu, Eliot's theory of depersonalization is completely vague. He says, "in the name of impersonality", Eliot by turns commends and censures poets and artist.From what we have said, above it follows that there as no connection between the poet's personality and the poem. The feelings of the poetry need not necessarily his own.

Renaissance elements in Doctor Faustus Renaissance ideals vs. Medieval morals

Renaissance elements in Doctor FaustusRenaissance ideals vs. Medieval moralsFaustus's inner turmoil gives way to the dominant meaning within the play: Medieval morals versus Renaissance ideals. Marlowe's characterization of Faustus leads one to the predominant idea of duality in society of his era in which Medieval values conflict with those of the Renaissance. His refusal to see what is fact and what is fiction is a result of his pompous persona. In his quest to become omnipotent, Faustus fails to see that there is life after death and that his material possessions are of no consequence. Faustus is a combatant in his own internal war of knowledge or salvation.In the opening of the play Marlowe uses the chorus to announce the time, place, and most importantly, to introduce Faustus. The chorus refers to the Greek myth of Icarus while characterizing Faustus - " Till swoll'n with cunning, of self conceit,/ His waxen wings did mount above his reach/ And melting, heavens conspired his overthrow!"(Prologue. 19-21.). " His waxen wings did mount above his reach" is an ironic comparison between Icarus and Faustus. It is ironic because Icarus directly disobeys his father, which ties into the idea of moral sin. However, in Faustus' case it is disobedient to become too learned. Also, the line " heavens conspired his overthrow" could be a reference to Lucifer's attempt to overpower God. Thus, the Chorus would ultimately be making reference to Faustus attempting to outwit God. This is the contrast between Medieval and Renaissance values; the medieval world shunned all that was not Christian while the Renaissance was a re-birth of learning in which people openly questioned divinity as with much more. The chorus makes it seem that Faustus is a 'bad' man because he seeks knowledge. In essence, it portrays Faustus as a "Renaissance man who pays the medieval price for being one." Faustus's constant struggle to explore Renaissance principles is heightened by the Good Angel and Bad Angel. The Good Angel pulls Faustus towards Medieval values. He represents Faustus's Medieval instincts: "O Faustus, lay that damned book aside/ And gaze not on it lest it tempt thy soul/ And heap God's heavy wrath upon thy head!/ Read, read the Scriptures - that is blasphemy!" ( 1.1.67-69 ). The Angel is eluding to Medieval ideals by saying that books are 'damned' and will bring 'God's heavy wrath'. 'That is blasphemy' is yet another reference to books not being of God. The Good Angel is Faustus key to salvation. Again, Faustus's inner conflict gives way to the ultimate theme of redemption and sin. While the Good Angel represents the medieval era, the Bad Angel signifies the Renaissance : "Go forward Faustus, in that famous art/ Wherein all nature's treasure is contained./... / Lord and commander of these elements!"( 1.1.71-74 ). The Bad Angel feeds Faustus's thirst for knowledge by telling him that 'all nature's treasure is contained' in his books. Going even further, the Angel tells Faustus to be 'Lord' and 'commander' of these elements ultimately telling Faustus that he could be God if he so chose. Both angels are ultimately signify duality within society. Where half are pulled towards the righteous Medieval morals and the others toward liberated Renaissance ideals. Faustus embraces his Renaissance persona by acknowledging his life choices. In his never ending quest to obtain knowledge, Faustus conjures Helen of Troy so that he may marvel at her beauty: "Was this the face that launched a thousand ships/ And burnt the topless towers of Illium? / Sweet Helen, make me immortal with a kiss./ Her kiss suck forth my soul. See where it flies!" ( 5.1.95-99 ). Helen is an apt person for Faustus to gawk at. She was considered to be the most beautiful women in all the world. However, Faustus lives in a time and place of sexual repression. Thus, Helen represents sin and sexual freedom - an end to Medieval morals. The word 'immortal' implies that Helen's kiss allows men to live forever and that Helen herself is 'immortal'. This ironical comparison demonstrates that Faustus is still in denial about death. However, with 'Her kiss suck forth my soul', Faustus suggests that Helen has taken his life. This is ironic on many levels, most noticeably being that many men died to rescue Helen from the Trojans. In addition, Faustus is the only one responsible for his lost soul. The conjuring of Helen of Troy represents Faustus's decision to accept what he has done with his life and follow his Renaissance persona. In calling on Helen, Faustus has yielded himself to immortal sins. First and foremost, Faustus has sinned by using black magic to call on Helen. Lastly, Faustus is openly sexual with Helen of Troy. His kissing of Helen is ultimately a symbol of accepting that which has already been done and preparing to face eternal damnation. Faustus's epic battle between Medieval morals and Renaissance ideals results in his eternal damnation. Faustus has many chances to repent, yet not once does he decided to put an end to seeking knowledge and practicing magic. His decision is ultimately a signal for the end of Medieval beliefs in 'religion being the key' and the emergence of free thinking. Faustus has been said to be "a Renaissance man who paid the Medieval price for being one" ( R.M. Dawkins). He was an intellectual in a society of ignorance imposed upon by the clergy of the Catholic Church. Though Faustus is the tragic hero of the play one must really consider if in fact Faustus's demise is tragic. Faustus makes his own decisions and knows where they will take him to in the end. He refuses to see that heaven and hell do exist and despite the many warnings given to him about the heinousness of hell, he still follows the path of damnation Faustus's harrowing demise results in eternal damnation is tragic. Though he is a man with the charisma and courage to follow his passions in life despite the duality within society and the constant pulling of morals and ideals. Faustus is told time after time that he can still repent and save himself from the wrath of God. Several times he does in fact repent, yet because of his inner conflict he 'takes it back'. Not till Faustus utters his last words is one completely sure that Faustus's story is tragic, at best. Ultimately, he dies unhappy and still a combatant in his own internal war.At the end we can say that in spite of being a man of medieval period, Faustus was a Renaissance man. And by his activities we find the elements of Renaissance where medieval values are buried because of the emergence of Renaissance ideals.

Imagination and Fancy in Coleridge's Biographia Literaria

Coleridge,in his essay "Biographia Literaria",rejecting the empiricist assumption that the mind was tabula rasa on which external experience and sense impressions were imprinted, stored,recalled, combined both come from respectively the Latin word 'imaginato' and Greek word 'phantasia'. Coleridge defines imagination by saying that "The imagination then I consider either as primary, or secondary. The primary imagination I hold to be the living power and prime agent of all human perception,and as a repetition in the finite mind of the eternal act of creation in the infinite I am . The secondary I consider as am echo of the former, co-existing with the concious will, yet still as identical with the primary in the kind of its agency, and differing only in degrees, and in the mode of operation. It dissolves, diffuses, dissipates, in order to recreate, or where this process is rendered impossible, yet still, at all events, it struggles to dealize and to unify. It is essentially vital, even as all objects are essentially fixed and dead."Coleridge either the imagination into Primary and Secondary and draws a distinction between creative acts those are unconscious and intentional and deliberate acts. Primary imagination was for Coleridge, the "necessary imagination" as it "automatically balances and fuses the innate capacities and powers of the mind with the external presence of the objective world that the one receives through the senses."Secondary imagination, on the other hand, represents a superior occulty which could only be associated with artistic genius. It is more active and concious in its working. It is at the root of all poetic activity. The secondary imagination selects and orders the raw material and reshapes and remodels it into objects of beauty. Thus it is "a shaping and modifying power." It "dissolves, diffuses, dissipates, in order to recreate." primary imagination is the conciousness shared by all men, while the secondary imagination is limited to poets."Fancy, on the contrary, has no other counters to play with but fixitier and definities. Fancy is indeed no other than a mode of memory emancipated from the order of time and space. But equally with the ordinary memory it must receive but its materials readymade from the law of association."So, Coleridge seems to be saying that one can use fancy as a kind of power to create memory mosaics or colleges, rearranging what we've experienced into a new contribution or share to suit our fancy.Coleridge has distinguished between Fancy and Imagination in the following ways:
# Fancy in Coleridge's eyes was employed for Tasks those were 'passive' , 'mechanical', the accumulation s of fact and documentation of what is seen. Fancy, Coleridge argued, was "too often adulterator and counterfeiter of memory." (59)The imagination, on the other hand, was 'vital' and transformative, "a repetition in the finite mind of the eternal act of creation". For Coleridge it was the imagination that was responsible for acts that were truly creative and inventive and, in turn, that identified true instances of find or noble art. (60)# Fancy is "the faculty of mere images or impressions, as imagination is the faculty of intuitions."# Fancy is light and playful, while Imagination is grave and solemn.# Fancy was concerned with the mechanical operations of the mind, those which are responsible for the passive accumulation of data and shortage of such data in the memory.Imagination on the other hand, described the "mysterious power," which extracted from such data, "hidden ideas and meaning"# Fancy sports with the definite and static images and doesn't modify them; while imagination dissolves and reshapes them into new wholes.# For Coleridge, fancy is the attribute of poetic genius, but imaginaton is its soul, which transforms all hoto one graceful and intelligent whole.# Fancy is equated with a mechanical mixture and Imagination is equated with a chemical compound. In a mechanical mixture a number of ingredients are brought together. They are mixed up, but they do not tore their individual properties, they will exist as separate identities.
In a chemical compound, on the other hand, the different ingredients combine to form something new. The different ingredients no longer exist as separate identities. They kore their respective properties and fuse together to safate something new and entirely different. A compound is am act of creation; while a mixture is merely a bringing together of a number of separate elements. Thus imagination creates new shapes and forms of beauty by during and unifying the different impressions it receives from the external world. Fancy is not creative, it is a kind of memory; it arbitrarily brings together images and even when brought together, they continue to retain their separate and individual properties. They receive no colouring or modification from the mind. It is merely mechanical juxtaposition, and not a chemical fusion.Coleridge explains the point by quoting two passages from Shakespeare's Venus and Adonis. The following lines from this poem serve to illustrate fancy :"Full gently now she takes him by the handA lily prisoned in a hold of snowOr ivory in an albaster bandSo white a friend engirds so white a foe.In these lines images drawn from memory, but they do not interpenetrate into one another. The following kind from the same poem, illustrate the power and function of imagination:"Look! How a bright star shooteth from the skySo glides he in the night from Nenus' eye.
"How many images and feelings", says Coleridge, "are here brought together without effort and without discord-the beauty of Adones - the rapidity of the flight - the yearning yet helplessness of the unamoured gazes- and a shadowy, ideal character thrown over the whole."Coleridge's brief discussion of imagination and fancy in Biographia Literaria has been called,"perhaps the most famous single prose passage in all of English literature,yet . . .Also one of the most baffling ". He was also one first critic to distinguish between them and define their respective roles.

Aristotle's Plot

Aristotle devotes great attention to the nature, structure and basic elements of the ideal tragic plot. Tragedy is the depiction of action consisting of incidents and events. Plot is the arrangement of these incident and events. It contains the kernel of the action. Aristotle says that plot is the first principle, the soul of tragedy. He lists six formative elements of a tragedy – Plot, character, thought, melody, diction, spectacle and gives the first place to plot.

The Greek word for 'poet' means a 'maker', and the poet is a 'maker', not because he makes verses but he makes plots. Aristotle differentiates between 'story' and 'plot'. The poet need not make his story. Stories from history, mythology, or legend are to be preferred, for they are familiar and understandable. Having chosen or invented the story, it must be put to artistic selection and order. The incidents chosen must be 'serious', and not 'trivial', as tragedy is an imitation of a serious action that arouse pity and fear.
Aristotle says that the tragic plot must be a complete whole. It must have a beginning, a middle and an end. It must have a beginning, i.e. it must not flow out of some prior situation. The beginning must be clear and intelligible. It must not provoke to ask 'why' and 'how'. A middle is consequent upon a situation gone before. The middle is followed logically by the end. And end is consequent upon a given situation, but is not followed by any further incident. Thus artistic wholeness implies logical link-up of the various incidents, events and situations that form the plot.

The plot must have a certain magnitude or 'length'. 'Magnitude' here means 'size'. It should be neither too small nor too large. It should be long enough to allow the process of change from happiness to misery but not too long to be forgotten before the end. If it is too small, its different parts will not be clearly distinguishable from each other. Magnitude also implies order and proportion and they depend upon the magnitude. The different parts must be properly related to each other and to the whole. Thus magnitude implies that the plot must have order, logic symmetry and perspicuity.

Aristotle considers the tragic plot to be an organic whole, and also having organic unity in its action. An action is a change from happiness to misery or vice versa and tragedy must depict one such action. The incidents impart variety and unity results by arranging the incidents so that they all tend to the same catastrophe. There might be episodes for they impart variety and lengthen the plot but they must be properly combined with the main action following each other inevitably. It must not be possible to remove or to invert them without injuring the plot. Otherwise, episodic plots are the worst of all.

Organic unity' cannot be provided only by the presence of the tragic hero, for many incidents in hero's life cannot be brought into relation with the rest. So there should be proper shifting and ordering of material.
Aristotle joins organic unity of plot with probability and necessity. The plot is not tied to what has actually happened but it deals with what may probably or necessarily happen. Probability and necessity imply that there should be no unrelated events and incidents. Words and actions must be in character. Thus probability and necessity imply unity and order and are vital for artistic unity and wholeness.
Probability' implies that the tragic action must be convincing. If the poet deals with something improbable, he must make it convincing and credible. He dramatist must procure, "willing suspension of disbelief". Thus a convincing impossibility is to be preferred to an unconvincing possibility.

Aristotle rules out plurality of action. He emphasizes the Unity of Action but has little to say about the Unity of Time and the Unity of Place. About the Unity of Time he merely says that tragedy should confine itself to a single revolution of the sun. As regards the Unity of Place, Aristotle said that epic can narrate a number of actions going on all together in different parts, while in a drama simultaneous actions cannot be represented, for the stage is one part and not several parts or places.

Tragedy is an imitation of a 'serious action' which arouses pity and fear. 'Serious' means important, weighty. The plot of a tragedy essentially deals with great moral issues. Tragedy is a tale of suffering with an unhappy ending. This means that the plot of a tragedy must be a fatal one. Aristotle rules out fortunate plots for tragedy, for such plot does not arouse tragic emotions. A tragic plot must show the hero passing from happiness to misery and not from misery to happiness. The suffering of the hero may be caused by an enemy or a stranger but it would be most piteous when it is by chance caused by friends and relatives who are his well-wishers.

According to Aristotle, Tragic plots may be of three kinds, (a) Simple, (b) Complex and (c) Plots based on or depicting incidents of suffering. A Simple plot is without any Peripety and Anagnorisis but the action moves forward uniformly without any violent or sudden change. Aristotle prefers Complex plots. It must have Peripeteia, i.e. "reversal of intention" and Anagnorisis, i.e. "recognition of truth". While Peripeteia is ignorance of truth, Anagnorisis is the insight of truth forced upon the hero by some signs or chance or by the logic events. In ideal plot Anagnorisis follows or coincides with Peripeteia.

Recognition' in the sense is closely akin to reversal. Recognition and reversal can be caused by separate incidents. Often it is difficult to separate the two. Complex plots are the best, for recognition and reversal add the element of surprise and "the pitiable and fearful incidents are made more so by the shock of surprise".

As regards the third kind of plot, Aristotle rates it very low. It derives its effect from the depiction of torture, murder, maiming, death etc. and tragic effect must be created naturally and not with artificial and theatrical aids. Such plots indicate a deficiency in the art of the poet.
In making plots, the poets should make their denouements, effective and successful. Unraveling of the plot should be done naturally and logically, and not by arbitrary devices, like chance or supernatural devices. Aristotle does not consider Poetic Justice necessary for Tragedy. He rules out plots with a double end i.e. plots in which there is happiness for one, and misery for others. Such plots weaken the tragic effect. It is more proper to Comedy. Thus Aristotle is against Tragi-comedy.

Aristotle's concept of ideal tragic hero: Hamartia

No passage in "The Poetics" with the exception of the Catharsis phrase has attracted so much critical attention as his ideal of the tragic hero.

The function of a tragedy is to arouse the emotions of pity and fear and Aristotle deduces the qualities of his hero from this function. He should be good, but not perfect, for the fall of a perfect man from happiness into misery, would be unfair and repellent and will not arouse pity. Similarly, an utterly wicked person passing from happiness to misery may satisfy our moral sense, but will lack proper tragic qualities. His fall will be well-deserved and according to 'justice'. It excites neither pity nor fear. Thus entirely good and utterly wicked persons are not suitable to be tragic heroes.

Similarly, according to Aristotelian law, a saint would be unsuitable as a tragic hero. He is on the side of the moral order and hence his fall shocks and repels. Besides, his martyrdom is a spiritual victory which drowns the feeling of pity. Drama, on the other hand, requires for its effectiveness a militant and combative hero. It would be important to remember that Aristotle's conclusions are based on the Greek drama and he is lying down the qualifications of an ideal tragic hero. He is here discussing what is the very best and not what is good. Overall, his views are justified, for it requires the genius of a Shakespeare to arouse sympathy for an utter villain, and saints as successful tragic heroes have been extremely rare.

Having rejected perfection as well as utter depravity and villainy, Aristotle points out that:
"The ideal tragic hero … must be an intermediate kind of person, a man not pre-eminently virtuous and just, whose misfortune, however, is brought upon him not by vice or depravity but by some error of judgment."
The ideal tragic hero is a man who stands midway between the two extremes. He is not eminently good or just, though he inclines to the side of goodness. He is like us, but raised above the ordinary level by a deeper vein of feeling or heightened powers of intellect or will. He is idealized, but still he has so much of common humanity as to enlist our interest and sympathy.

The tragic hero is not evil or vicious, but he is also not perfect and his disaster is brought upon him by his own fault. The Greek word used here is "Hamartia" meaning "missing the mark". He falls not because of the act of outside agency or evil but because of Hamartia or "miscalculation" on his part. Hamartia is not a moral failing and it is unfortunate that it was translated as "tragic flaw" by Bradley. Aristotle himself distinguishes Hamartia from moral failing. He means by it some error or judgment. He writes that the cause of the hero's fall must lie "not in depravity, but in some error or Hamartia on his part". He does not assert or deny anything about the connection of Hamartia with hero's moral failings.
"It may be accompanied by moral imperfection, but it is not itself a moral imperfection, and in the purest tragic situation the suffering hero is not morally to blame."
Thus Hamartia is an error or miscalculation, but the error may arise from any of the three ways: It may arise from "ignorance of some fact or circumstance", or secondly, it may arise from hasty or careless view of the special case, or thirdly, it may be an error voluntary, but not deliberate, as acts committed in anger. Else and Martian Ostwald interpret Hamartia and say that the hero has a tendency to err created by lack of knowledge and he may commit a series of errors. This tendency to err characterizes the hero from the beginning and at the crisis of the play it is complemented by the recognition scene, which is a sudden change "from ignorance to knowledge".

In fact, Hamartia is a word with various shades of meaning and has been interpreted by different critics. Still, all serious modern Aristotelian scholarship agreed that Hamartia is not moral imperfection. It is an error of judgment, whether arising from ignorance of some material circumstance or from rashness of temper or from some passion. It may even be a character, for the hero may have a tendency to commit errors of judgment and may commit series of errors. This last conclusion is borne out by the play Oedipus Tyrannus to which Aristotle refers time and again and which may be taken to be his ideal. In this play, hero's life is a chain or errors, the most fatal of all being his marriage with his mother. If King Oedipus is Aristotle's ideal hero, we can say with Butcher that:
"His conception of Hamartia includes all the three meanings mentioned above, which in English cannot be covered by a single term."
Hamartia is an error, or a series of errors, "whether morally culpable or not," committed by an otherwise noble person, and these errors derive him to his doom. The tragic irony lies in the fact that hero may err mistakenly without any evil intention, yet he is doomed no less than immorals who sin consciously. He has Hamartia and as a result his very virtues hurry him to his ruin. Says Butcher:
"Othello in the modern drama, Oedipus in the ancient, are the two most conspicuous examples of ruin wrought by character, noble indeed, but not without defects, acting in the dark and, as it seemed, for the best."
Aristotle lays down another qualification for the tragic hero. He must be, "of the number of those in the enjoyment of great reputation and prosperity". He must be a well-reputed individual occupying a position of lofty eminence in society. This is so because Greed tragedy, with which alone Aristotle was familiar, was written about a few distinguished royal families. Aristotle considers eminence as essential for the tragic hero. But Modern drama demonstrates that the meanest individual can also serve as a tragic hero, and that tragedies of Sophoclean grandeur can be enacted even in remote country solitudes.

However, Aristotle's dictum is quite justified on the principle that, "higher the state, the greater the fall that follows," or because heavens themselves blaze forth the death of princes, while the death of a beggar passes unnoticed. But it should be remembered that Aristotle nowhere says that the hero should be a king or at least royally descended. They were the Renaissance critics who distorted Aristotle and made the qualification more rigid and narrow.

Arnold as the poet of Victorian unrest

Arnold belonged and hence he is referred to as the poet of Victorian unrest. Victorian age was the period of material prosperity, the expansion of democracy and the growth of science which had hardly any appeal to him. He is certainly more violent than anybody else to the spiritual distress of his age and this is why he is called a poet Victorian unrest and spiritual distress which is clearly shown in his poetry.
In his famous poem 'Doves beach', he reacted more violently to the spiritual distress and meaningless of his age. He says religion and traditional values are east dying out. Materialism, scepticism and agnosticism are the order of the day. Men do not find comfort and happiness in Arid world .he says,
"Hath really neither joy nor love nor light
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;"
To him, contemporary life had on meaning or direction .life to him appears to be full of darkness and gloom and he feels like a benighted traveler in a foreign land without any light of hope.
"And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies slash by night."
It is the world of Science and people are sceptical. Their minds are disturbed by the new scientific thoughts. It is now leaving the world barren and dry with the declining of faith, men are getting more and more materialistic. He, therefore, could not help being a poet of skeptical reaction. Once the sea of religion was full but now Arnold has complained about the religious belief of Victorian age-
"The Sea of faith
War once, too at the full and round earth's shore
Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furl'd
But now I only hear
Its long, melancholy, withdrawing roar"
In the Victorian age, religious belief has disappeared; doubt and disbelief have combined to force back the wave of faith from the share of the world. And the world is now like a coast on which bole pebbles lie about in complete desolation.
In his another poem "The Scholar Gypsy" we also find the atmosphere of the Victorian unrest as well as spiritual distress. He says Victorian people only come and gone, and are completely lost in oblivion. They are materialistic and they have no fixed ideal to pursue.They are engaged in various experiments and have not the patience to stick to anything. They fail in their experiments and feel weak and miserable as a result of a series of shocks. They lose their vitality and elasticity of spirit
"'Tis that from change to change their beings roles;
'Tis that repeated shocks, again, again,
Exhaust the energy of strongest souls
And numb the elastic powers"(141-144)
The Victorians suffered from all lines of distraction, despair and frustration, and that is why they were always feeling different about the success of their quest.
The acute spiritual distress is found among the Victorians. The religious faith of the Victorians is casual. They have never thought about religion. He says about them
"and we,
Light half believers of our casual Creeds.
Who never deeply felt, oms clearly will'd"
The Victorian people's spiritual loss is evident in these lines
"... this stange disease of modern life,
With its pick hurry, its divided aims."
Victorians have no singleness purpose. They run after many hares and catch none. They caunch an experiment today, and abandon it tomorrow and they therefore, suffer from a series of shocks of disappointment. They advance one step to day and go two steps backward tomorrow:
... Each year we see
Breeds new beginnings, disappointments new;
Who hesitate and falter life away,
And kore to-morrow the ground won today.
Victorians do not know the meaning and purpose of life. They even can't face the baffling problems of life with stoical forbearance. They can never hope to attain the serenity and bliss.
The Victorian age suffered from a strange disease called modern life, which has brought in its wake sordid materialism and scepticism. They are madly pursuing wealth like the willo the wisp
...the strange disease of modern life,
With its pick hurry, its divided aims,
its heads overtax'd, its palsied hearts, was rife,
This disease of modern man is due to his preoccupation with his hectic world of business away from spiritual and moral pursuit, and so the poet advises the scholar Gipsy to keep away from such a restless and noisy world.
Like other poems, in "Thyrsis" he also weighs his age in the balance, and finds it wanting. Here Arnold laments for his friend who was the Victim of Victorian age. Under the bad effects of this age he was drawn into the vortex of a religious controversy. His simple faith was darkened by doubts and despair. He was sick of materialism and scepticism and left Oxford, and eventually left the world,
"Yet hadst thou always visions of our light,
And long with men of care thou couldst not stay,
And soon thy foot resumed 'tis wandering way
Left human haunt and on alone till night."
In this poem, the materialism of the Victorians is very well disparaged when the poet with subdued sarcasm says that materialism can never lead to truth and spiritualism.
"This doesn't come with houses or with gold,
With place, with honour. And a flattering crow;
'Tis not in the world's market bought and sold"
Arnold the poet, therefore, is a poet of "the hopeless tangle of the age." in his poetry as a whole, and sometimes in every line of his poems, Arnold proclaims himself a man who was dissatisfied with the Victorian age. R.H.Hutton, summing up Arnold's poetry says, "No one has expressed more powerfully and poetically its spiritual weakness, its craving for a passion that it can't feel, its admiration for a self mastery that it can't achieve, its desire for a creed that it fails to accept, its sympathy with a faith that it well not share, its aspiration for a peace it doesn't know."