Plato's and Aristotle's Views on

Mimesis
In Greek, mimesis means “imitation” not in the sense of
“copying” but in the sense of “representation”. According to
Plato and Aristotle, mimesis is the imitation of nature. Plato
states that all artistic creations are forms of imitations that exist
in the “world of ideas” and created by God. The material things
that are perceived are representations of the ideal type or
observable reality. Aristotle, in the means of tragedy, points out
that mimesis is the imitation of action, a man descending from
higher to lower position. Both philosophers believed that
mimesis is the imitation of nature; however, there are some
contradictions and differences in their beliefs.
In the theory of mimesis, Plato claims that art is imitated by
nature, an imitation of life. He says that the “idea” is the reality.
Thus, imitation of reality is the art of imitating the idea. His
famous example of a carpenter and a chair explains his beliefs
better. First, the idea of the chair comes to the carpenter’s mind,
then the carpenter gives the chair a physical shape, he ends up
creating his idea, the chair. Hence, the carpenter’s chair is being
removed from reality, twice. He thinks that philosophy is more
important than poetry because philosophy deals with ideas
whereas poetry deals with illusion. For Plato, the poet’s
imitation is removed from reality twice so their creations are
unreal and illusion of truth. Poetry is mimetic as philosophy is,
but Plato denies poetry because it is only mimetic in
philosophical and moral grounds, meaning that imitation of
poetry can make the best men feel sad, sorrowful, and
depressed. Some can say that it is normal, but in those times,
the stated feelings were feminine and were not appropriate for
men being sentimental. Also, Plato says that poets can depict
the gods in inappropriate ways.
On the other hand, according to Aristotle, the imitation of
poetry is an imitation of action, it is neither philosophical nor
moral. In his opinion, poetry is not a book of teaching or
preaching, it is a piece of art. Aristotle agrees with his teacher
Plato, in the means of calling a poet an imitator. A poet imitates
what is present or past, what is generally believed, and what is
ideal. In other words, a poet imitates things as they are/were,
things as they are thought/said to be, or things they ought to be.
However, Aristotle does not agree with Plato in a poet’s
imitation is an illusion of truth. He compares poetry with
history; poetry is more philosophical and a higher subject than
history because history expresses the specific while poetry
expresses the universal. To prove his point, he explains the
difference between poetry and history; a poet describes “what
may or ought to have happened”, a historian describes “what has
happened”. So, the picture of poetry is more relatable and
enjoyable at all times. Also, Aristo does not believe that poetry
makes people sentimental or weaker. For Aristotle, true poetry
is a form of tragedy. Tragedy arouses fear and pity to come to a
climax and ends with the purification of those emotions; in
other words, catharsis. So, poetry humanizing the reader and the
spectator. Lastly, Aristotle thinks that the number one intention
of poetry is to evoke feelings, but while doing so it also educates
the spectator. Poetry teaches moral lessons and shows growing
emotionally.
To conclude, fundamentally, Aristotle’s and Plato’s views
on mimesis go parallels with each other. Both believe that
mimesis is the imitation of nature. However, if we were to dig
deeper, Aristotle’s and Plato’s beliefs differ from one another;
Plato states that imitation of art is an illusion, not reality. Also,
he thinks art, meaning poetry, makes people unstable by
unleashing their weaker part and he tells that poetry depicts
gods inappropriately. On the contrary, Aristotle thinks that
poetry is healthy for the audience because it produces catharsis
and it teaches moral lessons, and supports emotional growth.
Barthes’ Description of the FROM WORK TO TEXT

When discussing ‘text’ and ‘work’ in From Work to Text, Barthes

does not try to define what he means by ‘text’ but explains the
differences in the two concepts based on seven propositions:
method, genre, signs, plurality, filiation, reading, and pleasure; how
he viewed the developing relationship between ‘text’ and ‘work.’

· Method: Barthes explains that ‘work’ can be handled. It is a

concrete object; something that is definite and complete, “a
fragment of a substance occupying a part of the space of books,”
whereas the text is the composition or the meaning the reader takes
from the ‘work’ and it is not a definite object.

· Genre: Unlike the rigid classifications applied to the ‘work,’ the

text cannot be pigeon-holed into a genre or placed in a hierarchical
system.

· Signs: The ‘work’ is ‘complete’ and comprehensive; it is signified,

there is no arbitrariness involved in its literal understanding or
interpretation. Therefore, it can be categorized and function as a
symbolic sign to whatever subject it signifies. The text is ‘incomplete’
in that it is metonymic; its words or phrases may be exchanged for
others with similar meanings or associations. Its meaning becomes
interrupted since it encourages the reader to produce overlapping
ideas and make associations.Its ambiguity causes it to become
extremely symbolic and makes its signifiers arbitrary and
undetermined.Unlike the ‘work’ which has closure and can be
interpreted literally and is explanatory and is a sign in itself, the text
is opened-ended, has a multitude of associations and is deeply
symbolic, accordingly, it has plurality of meaning. Barthes says the
text is like a ‘woven fabric’ that comes with known codes that are
assembled differently and maybe be woven with ‘citations,’
‘references,’ and ‘echoes;’ it is intertextual in that it is “the text
between of another text.”

· Plurality: The fact or condition of denoting, comprising, or

consisting of more than one; plural meaning.

· Filiation: If writing is seen as a ‘work’ it is defined by a process of

association or authorship. It becomes affiliated and identified with
its author and the reader’s knowledge of the author and previous
works may become the key to its understanding. If writing is viewed
as a text, then it is not limited and confined to a genre and the
reader does not expect it to fit into a category of type since it is part
of a grid and free to be interpreted beyond the author’s signification.

· Reading: The ‘work’ is a commodity — an object of consumption

in that the reader tends to be passive and is expected to be fed and
entertained when reading. If the reader approaches a text as writing
and not as a ‘work,’ then the reading experience becomes interactive.
The text narrows the distance between reading and writing by
replacing consumption with the free play of collaborative reading.
When interacting with a text rather than a ‘work,’ the reader
questions and thinks about the writing instead of taking it for
granted. If readers passively consumes words, they will tire from
reading; as Barthes puts it: “to be bored means that one cannot
produce the text, open it out, set it going.”

· Pleasure: The pleasure of reading classic literary works may feel

like consumption since the reader cannot rewrite those texts and
thus a distance is created between the reader and the ‘work.’ If
viewed as an accessible text, however, a piece of work arouses
feelings of pleasure because there is no feeling separation between
the reader and the writer and the text transcends any language or
social barriers.

Compare and contrast wordsworth and coleridge view of poe5c

dic5on
Poetic diction refers to the style of writing used in poetry (the linguistic style,
vocabulary, and use of figurative language--normally metaphors). Up until
Wordsworth's writing of the 1802 preface to Lyrical Ballads, the adherence to
the poetic diction had yet to be seriously challenged.
Wordsworth and Coleridge came together early in life and mutually arose
various theories which Wordsworth embodied in his “Preface to the Lyrical
Ballads” and tried to put into practice in his poems. Coleridge claimed credit
for these theories and said they were “half the child of his brain”. But later on,
his views underwent the change; he no longer agreed with Wordsworth’s
theories and so criticized them.
In his Preface, Wordsworth made three important statements all of which have
been objects of Coleridge’s censure.

First of all Wordsworth writes that he chose low and rustic life, where the
essential passions of the heart find a better soil to attain their maturity. They
are less under restraint and speak a plainer and more emphatic language. In
rustic life our basic feelings coexist in greater simplicity and more accurately
contemplated and more forcibly communicated. The manners of rural life,
sprang from those elementary feelings and from the necessary character of
rural occupations, are more easily realized and are more durable. Lastly the
passions of men are incorporated with the beautiful and permanent forms of
nature.
Secondly, that the language of these men is adopted because they hourly
communicate with the best objects from which the best part of language is
originally derived. Being less under social vanity, they convey their feelings and
ideas in simple and outright expressions because of their rank in society and
the equality and narrow circle of their intercourse.

Thirdly, he made a number of statements regarding the language

and diction of poetry. Of these, Coleridge refutes the following parts: “a
selection or the real language of men”; “the language of the men in low and
rustic life”: and, “Between the language of prose and that of metrical
composition there neither is, nor can be, any essential difference”.
As regards the first statement, i.e. the choice of rustic characters and life,
Coleridge points out, first, that not all Wordsworth characters are rustic.
Characters in poems like Ruth, Michael, The Brothers, are not low and rustic.
Secondly, their language and sentiments do not necessarily arise from their
abode or occupation. They are attributable to causes of their similar
sentiments and language, even if they have different abode or occupation.
These causes are mainly two:

Independence which raises a man above bondage, and a frugal and industrious
domestic life.
A solid, religious education which makes a man well-versed in the Bible and
other holy books excluding other books.

The admirable qualities in the language and sentiments of Wordsworth’s

characters result from these two causes. Even if they lived in the city away
from Nature they would have similar sentiments and language. In the opinion
of Coleridge, a man will not be benefited from a life in rural solitudes unless he
has natural sensibility and suitable education. In the absence of these
advantages, the mind hardens and a man grows, ‘selfish, sensual, gross and
hard hearted’.

As regards the second statement of Wordsworth, Coleridge objects to the view

that the best part of language is derived from the objects with which the rustic
hourly communicates. First, communication with an object implies reflection
on it and the richness of vocabulary arises from such reflection. Now the rural
conditions of life do not require any reflection, hence the vocabulary of the
rustics is poor. They can express only the barest facts of nature and not the
ideas and thoughts which results from their reflection. Secondly, the best part
of a man’s language does not result merely from communication with nature,
but from education, from the mind of noble thoughts and ideals. Whatever
rustics use, are derived not from nature, but from The Bible and from the
sermons of noble and inspired preachers.

Coleridge takes up his statements, one by one, and demonstrates that his
views are not justified.

Wordsworth asserts that the language of poetry is: A selection of the real
language of men or the very language of men; and that there was no essential
difference between the language of prose and that of poetry.

Coleridge retorts that:

‘Every man’s language’ varies according to the extent of his knowledge, the
activity of his faculties, and the depth or quickness of his feelings.

Every man’s language has, first, its individual peculiarities; secondly, the
properties common to his class; and thirdly, words and phrases of universal
use.

No two men of the same class or of different classes speak alike, although both
use words and phrases common to them all, because in the one case their
natures are different and on the other their classes are different.

The language varies from person to person, class to class, place to place.

Coleridge objects to Wordsworth’s use of the words, ‘very’ or ‘real’ and

suggests that ‘ordinary’ or ‘generally’ should have been used. Wordsworth’s
addition of the words, “in a state of excitement”, is meaningless, for emotional
excitement may result in a more intense expression, but it cannot create a
noble and richer vocabulary.

To Wordsworth’s argument about having no essential difference between the

language of poetry and prose, Coleridge replies that there is and there ought
to be, an essential difference between both the languages and gives numerous
reasons to support his view. First, language is both a matter and the
arrangement of words. Words both in prose and poetry may be the same but
their arrangement is different. This difference arises from the fact that the
poetry uses metre and metre requires a different arrangement of words.
Metre is not a mere superficial decoration, but an essential organic part of
a poem. Even the metaphors and similes used by a poet are different in quality
and frequency from prose. Hence there is bound to be an ‘essential’ difference
between the arrangement of words of poetry and prose. There is this
difference even in those poems of Wordsworth’s which are considered most
Wordsworthian.
Further, it cannot be confirmed that the language of prose and poetry are
identical and so convertible. There may be certain lines or even passages
which can be used both in prose and poetry, but not all. There are passages
which will suit the one and not the other.

Conclusion
In the Wordsworth and Coleridge comparison, we find two literary giants who
left an indelible mark on English literature. Wordsworth’s contemplative verse
and emphasis on nature, combined with Coleridge’s complex imagination and
exploration of the supernatural, created a rich tapestry of poetic expression.
Together, their collaborative efforts and individual contributions shaped the
Romantic Movement and continue to inspire generations of writers. Exploring
their works and understanding their unique perspectives allow us to
appreciate the depth and beauty of their literary legacies.