aristotle mimesis and understanding

8/12/2019 Aristotle Mimesis and Understanding

1/13

Mimesis and Understanding: An Interpretation of Aristotle's Poetics 4. 1448B4-19Author(s): Stavros TsitsiridisSource: The Classical Quarterly, Vol. 55, No. 2 (Dec., 2005), pp. 435-446Published by: Cambridge University Presson behalf of The Classical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4493348.

Accessed: 04/03/2014 12:22

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Cambridge University Pressand The Classical Associationare collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access to The Classical Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Tue, 4 Mar 2014 12:22:23 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4493348?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4493348?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup


2/13

ClassicalQuarterly5.2 435-446 2005)Printedn Great ritain 435doi: 0. 093/cq/bmi041

MIMESIS AND UNDERSTANDING: ANINTERPRETATION OF ARISTOTLE'S POETICS4. 1448B4-19*

The tructuref he irsthaptersf he oetics, efore ristotlembarksn the is-cussion f ragedyroper,sclear nough:hapters-3 set orthtriplelassificationof thekinds fmimesis,ased on thePlatonicmethod f3LalpEotinthis aseaccordingo themeans,heobject,ndthemodes fmimesisespectively),hilechapters and 5 discuss heoriginsnd thedevelopmentf themajorpoeticalgenres.1 ore pecifically,he irstart fchapter(a chapterder nteressantesten,gehaltsreichsten,ber uchschwierigstenerPoetik', s Gudeman as observed)expoundshe wounderlyingausesofpoetry:i) man'snaturalendencyowardsmimesisnd ii) his innateffectionor hythmndharmony.2peaking f thenaturalnstinctfmimesis, ristotletresses rom heoutsethat his onstitutesman'sdistinctiveeature,hichetshim part romllotherpecies:man s sinceearlyhildhoodhemimeticeing arexcellence,ndhedevelops is arliestnder-standinghroughimesis.3ristotlehen roceedsounderlinesecond eaturehatdistinguishesumans rom thernimals: all humans ind leasuren mimeticobjects'.Atthis oint econtinuess follows1448b12):MqThEv t'onv Uove'avlgauvov '7Tt(vaivepyowv. apWyperal'trmAvpuambgOuEv,rovtV rAdT'lKovaTaS- ~ciaAtra 7KpL/w/IpvaSxagPOE OEwpoOv7Er, tov&ol7pwv TE oppasdWv aTLrOTtLXorrWVKatVEKpwV. a'ttov SE Kat TOTOVU, 7TL avOavEtv oV~ tovov rotf ?ptAoao`potgSt7TOV UAAaLal "rois&AAoLgoiwsog,AA'I'7T fpaxvKowWvogUwavTO. aptay TpoVTO xatpOvaLTaS IKOvasPCOvTES,

presentsn empiricalerification'/& Trov,pywv)f he act hathe leasureeltnthingsmitatedsuniversal: imetic orks ithnunpleasantontenttill fferlea-sure,nd his n heirwn ight,ot nly n ccountf heir orkmanship.econd, eunderscoreshe aturalausewhichxplainsothhe leasurerawnrommitations* I wish oexpressmy ratitudeo A. Schmitt,. Liapis, ndTh.K. Stephanopoulos,horead nearlier raftf his apernd fferednumberfusefulomments.hanksre lsodueto henonymouseferee,hosearefulommentsmprovedhis aper.See F. Solmsen,OriginsndmethodsfAristotle'soetics', Q 29 (1935),196-200.2 For heecondcause',eeJ.Vahlen,eitrdgeuAristoteles'oetikLeipzignd erlin,1914), 0-11;A.Gudeman,ristoteles.EptToLIrq/TKSBerlinnd eipzig,934),d48b8;D. deMontmollin,a Poetique'AristoteNeuchatel,951), 2-34;G.F.Else,Aristotle'sPoetics: heArgumentCambridge,A,1957), 27-30;D. W.Lucas, ristotle:oetics(Oxford,968),d 48b22. or differentnterpretationthe aturalleasurenmimesissthe econdcause'), ee A. Rostagni,ristotele:oeticaTurin,945219271]),d loc.;J.Sykutris, 4pwtroT"AovSHEpt To0q1TLKS,AKa8r&lIa A40q7vwv,'EAA-qv.tLA. (Athens,1937),adloc.;S. Halliwell, ristotle'soeticsLondon, 986), 0-71.3 For earninghroughimesis,ee alsoH.Koller, ieMimesisnderAntikeBern, 954),57-63.Concerninghemimesisf hildren,.Halliwell,heAestheticsfMimesisPrincetonandOxford,002),153n.4,and178, akesAristotleobethinkingmainlyfchildren'slayacting'onthis oint f.Pol. 7.17.1336a33-34).ClassicalQuarterly5.2 ( TheClassicalAssociation005;allrightseserved

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/13

436 STAVROS TSITSIRIDISand he actone hat ehadmentionedarlier)hatman earns uringhe irsttagesofhis ife y mitating.4nadditiono he harpdisproportion'Else)observedn hesection nthe wo auses fpoetry--aisproportionesultingromheong arenth-esis devoted o the xplanationfthe irstause 48b12-19: t''rov .. a-lmav),ut,also,from ristotle'srior ommentn learninghrough imesis48b6-8: KalTovnw ... rTSapd;c-as)5--thebove-mentionedassageaises,t eastn ts econdpart, series ffurtheruestionsn mattersfunderstandingnd nterpretation.nwhat xactlyoesvtavO Etwonsist, hen omeone bservesn image?What re-cisely oes uvAAoy5EacOaLeannthis ase?Whys itperceiveds a necessaryre-requisiteor omeoneohave een he epictedbject efore7rpoEwpaK )?Finally,ifthe oncretexample as to dowith ainting-themost ccuratemages' fthe'vilest nimals ndcorpses' endertalmost ertainhat,nthis ase as well,wearedealingwithmages f thesame kind-is thechoiceofpaintingatherhanany ther rt ntirelyccidental?

Letusbegin romur ast uestion,he ne hateems obe the asiesto nswer.finthe bove assaget s indeed aintinghat ristotleas nmind-the erm1KWVdoes notmake his certainty-thiss becausepaintings the implestndmostcharacteristicormmong herepresentationalrts:becauseof its use offiguresandcolours,aintingpproacheseality ore hanny therormfrepresentation,and t s forhis easonhat,romery arlyn at east ince imonides'simePMG552]6), thadbeen omparedith oetry,norder,mongtherhings,oemphasizethe atter'smitativeharacter.n thePoetics heparallelismetweenoetryndpaintingccurs o ess han ightimes.7t svery robablehathe epetitivehar-acter fthis arallelismetrayslatonicnfluence.8believe hat his s evenmoreprobablen the assage romhapterunder iscussion,heremimesis'sognitivevalue s discussed.9Why,nthe ther and, o the xamplesfdepictedbjects hangeccordingowhetherhediscussionocuses nthepleasure erived romhe mitatedbjectsngeneral,rfromearnings the auseofpleasure?Why owe have ntheformercase Oqpta LT9tO1TraTarVEKpOVs,while n the atterheobject fdepictions ahumanbeing?One wouldhave to admit, f course, hat vilest animals'or'corpses'wouldbynomeans e appropriatexamplesfrecognition.till,n thelatteraseAristotleouldhave implyefrainedrom ivingny pecific xamplewhatsoever,ontentingimselfwith a neutral VoiroKEEVO, s he does inRhetoric'sarallel assage.10his s, inanycase,what nemight aveexpected

4 For he hraseittov?KaL oTrov, seeElse n.2),128-9.s Cf.Montmollinn.2),34-5;Else n.2),127.6 For differentiew,eeA.Ford,he riginsfCriticismPrincetonndOxford,002),96-8.7 Seethe assagesnGudemand 47a18 ndnHalliwelln.2),53n.11, 24n.27.8 SeeHalliwelln.2),123-4.9 It s well nownhatlato ad harplyriticizedaintingnhisworksparticularlyromthe epublicnwards);eeE.C.Keuls,lato ndGreekaintingLeiden 978),3-47, 18-25.Paintings for latohemost haracteristicimeticrt nd ssuchs oftenomparedopoetryCra.423D,Resp.597E, 598C,601A,603B,Plt.306D).Theparallelismf mimesisto mirrorhichan eheld nd urnedroundndifferentirectionsResp. 0.596D)lsorefersopainting.10Rhet..11.371b9:iAAadvAAoytatudsartvTv70r70O KEWVO,ISTE tavOaVELVLUUPOaLVEL.Cf.GudemandPoet. 448b17:Man rwartet0T70KEivo, as uch ie benitierte,anzihnlichetelleusderRhetorikestitigt,enn as iberlieferteasculinumnvolviertinenichtumotivierendeEinschriinkunges Gedankens.'lsoLucas d loc.: themasc.sstrangefteriE.'Karov'.



4/13

MIMESIS AND UNDERSTANDING 437after hephraseuvAAoy?EaoOalEKacTOV. The fact hatAristotle akes human ndi-vidual s anexamplefthe nferencerocess,swell s hisdifferentiationromheparallelRhetoric assage, annot e insignificant,speciallyf combinedwithAristotle'seferenceoportrait-paintersEZKovoyp(po0L) in1454b9. heportrait,ic-torial rsculptural,hichnclassical ntiquityepictedhewholehumaneing,sthe rtformarexcellence herehedepictionf the ndividualharacteristicsfa certain erson s attempted."1t can, therefore,e offereds an example fmimesisn whichdistinctharacteristicsrerepresented.his, s we shallsee,mighte ofsome ignificance.There s also,however,omethingnthe oetics assage nder iscussionhatsabsent romheparallel hetoricassage ndwhichmeritserious onsideration.This s thereferenceocommon olkwho reset part rom hephilosophersndare nferioro them s far s their ntellectualapacitiesreconcernedJAA''rtfpaXbKoLvwvojtlv

aTroi,[sc. T70oCtavOvELv]).12Aristotle's ingling ut of commonfolk nhisdiscussionf the ecognitionrocess anbe neither ithoutomepointnorwithoutome roundingnempiricalbservation.ur ommonverydayxperi-ence uggestshatverage eopleookingtphotographsill eactn specialwayfthey ecognize ell-knownersonsn hem. heir eactions evenmoremarked hentheymanageomake ut aceswhose eaturesave adedway: hemore emandingtherecognitionrocess,hegreaterhepleasure erived romtssuccessfulon-clusion.Aristotle'sormulationimsat stressinghis:namelyhatwe aredealingherewith nelementaryognitiverocess,nethatwe canobserve ven nordinarypeoplewho renotpossessedfparticularntellectualapacities.Wemay ow roceedoexamine,ngreateretail,he eryame ognitiverocess

describednchapter : avjpalvEL OEcWpovbva/av8OcvELvKaalvAAoytEaOa TE"KaUTov,otov OTLoVrog KELvo. Fromthe arallelassagenRhetoric(avAAoytLotE"UTVO"T7Too70 KEVO0, TE tatVdVELV GVTULPCtVEt)it becomes learthatn thisprocessovAAoyiEoUa6ogicallyprecedeswhile tlavcaveLvenotes he result. eavingasidethe meaningof ovAAoy,[EaOatfor the moment, herecan be little doubt that/CavwOcvEVhere denotes understanding'ather han leaming'.13At any rate,the" SeeE. Voutiras,tudienurnterpretationnd til riechischerortrdtses5.undfriihen4. JahrhundertsDiss.Bonn, 980),19ff.ometimesictorial ortraitsere ndisplay: eknow, or xample,hat ophocleswasdepictedyEyp~ipOat)ntheStoaPoikile layinghelyre Soph.Vita5=T 1,25 Radt; ee thediscussionn L. Sechan, tudes ur a tragediegrecque [Paris, 1926], 194ff.).On 'informal ketches', ee G. Richter,The Portraits f theGreeks1 (London, 1965), 18. In relation o Poet. 1454b9 (T70o yalobs EtKovoypa


5/13

438 STAVROS TSITSIRIDISsense fovAAoyLEaOaLsbyno means technicalne, s Montmollinssumes.14t susedhere n generalense odenotecomprehendfterhinking',infer'.15 ut venso,the uestionemainsfwhatwe are omake f his assage.t s still nclear hatexactlyt s that he ommon ancomprehendsnd nfers' henevererecognizesthat hefigureepresentedn a portraits a specific,amiliarerson,ne he 'hasalreadyeen'.Theproblem as firsttatedn 1789byTwiningn hisannotateddition fthePoetics.AccordingoTwining,ristotle'sordsmplyrude' nd unskilful'pec-tators,ut evenwith espectothem,heprincipleeems carcelypplicableut oportraits,nd ndividualesemblances,uch smay ot e instantlyecognized'.uteven oAristotle's ords ail oyield atisfactoryense: whereheres not venmomentarygnorance,rdoubt, do not eehow ny nformationan be saidtobe acquired ythe pectator'.16 ince Aristotle's ords o not seemto refer oinartisticortraits-itsprecisely he eferenceo ELK6vas7sdpALcrrTaKpLgCO)E'VaSthat avourshe xactly ppositenterpretation-,Twining'sbjectionseem obehighly ertinent.Theproblemasbeen he bject f xtensiveiscussionver ince,ndmanytherinterpretationsavebeen dded, amelyhatnthis articularassageAristotlesreferringopleasures thenatural utcomef a cognitiverocesswhich ests nthe discoveryrrecognitionn ourpart fthemeaningfthepicture';17r, venfurther,hat hepleasurefmimesisonsistsntheunderstandingf a play nitsbroadestense inthe ealisticeconstructionf tsdetails,n tspsychologicalen-etration,n he iscoveryf tsdeeper, nderlyingoral rmetaphysicaleaning);18or thathepleasurefrecognitionearedealingwith ere oesnot oincide ithelevated estheticratification,incethereferenceappears o be rather o thepopular ppreciationf likeness han o true estheticnjoyment';19r that hepictures a kindof concept,whichpresentss notwith wholeobject e.g.'cow'),butwith omebasic orunderlyingeaturesf t e.g. features-of-cow');20orthatt snot questionfrecognizingcertainersonut atherhe ecognizing

14Montmollinn.2),35,presumeshat he erbs usedhereavec esensdefaire n yllo-gismevraiufaux)'viz.not s n 5.1461b2,ut s n16.1455a4,3 nd 4.1460a20).utthiswould equirehat hereemore han neproposition,resentr mplied,rom hichconclusion ould nsue.Additionally,he yllogisticuest evereads ashere) othe articu-lar, ndividualeing, ut nly o ndividualpeciesman,pple, ree,nd oon).15 Cf.LSJ .v. ; Bonitz,ndex ristotelicus.v. do not greewith . Belfiore'snterpreta-tionof EwpoivrES1448b11):Poetics contrastsheoriaf mages s imitationsitheeingimages s objects avingertainhapes nd colors.We seeugly hapes ndcolors, utbymeansf heoria e earn nd eason bout representationalelationshipetweenhemitationand he bjectmitated.heorias non ractical'Tragic leasuresPrinceton,992], 7).As arule heverbOEWopE~vith .g. lKovas, ypaps, rvp8ctvras cf.Poet. 1452a9) as itsobjectmeansnomore hanview',look t', nd seenoreason hyhe erb hould ot ave hismeaningnthis aseaswell.16Th.Twining,ristotle'sreatisenPoetry London, 8122), 84 I wasunfortunatelyunable o see thefirstdition;he talics reTwining's).imilarbjectionsre xpressedyLucas nhiscommentaryad 48b13): Theexplanations inadequate. henwe have earntwhat lreadyamiliarhing pictureepresentse havenot earnt uch.'17 I. Bywater,ristotlentheArt fPoetryOxford,909), d48b16. or hisnterpretationBywaterefersoProbl. 9.5.918a3.18J.Sykutrisn.2), *80-*81.19S. H. Butcher,ristotle'sheoryfPoetryndFineArtLondon, 9074), 01-2.20 J.M. Redfield,aturendCulturenthe liad: TheTragedyfHectorChicago ndLondon1975),52-55. Fora similar iew, ee R. Dupont-Rocnd J.Lallot,Aristote:aPoetiqueParis, 980), h.4 n.3.



6/13

MIMESIS AND UNDERSTANDING 439thegenus o which heparticularerson elongs 'thathe is "that ind fcreature",r... "That s a So-and-So" .21 But the forementionednterpretationsre either nsa-tisfactory,rtheydo notremove ll the difficulties.Special referencemust,however, e made to two more exhaustive pproaches.Sifakis ssumes n thispassage thatwe aredealingwith 'kind of"soft"reasoning'which s closely kintoEvOtBV~Lta:Because the rtist as rendered issubject nuni-versalterms,we recognize n therepresentationn instance f thekatholou, r avariant f a general ype, nd such a recognition rovides clue to understandingthe character f therepresentedubject, eingregarded,s itwere, gainst heback-ground f thekatholou.'22 ccordingohim, he nferenceo[o70' KEZVOS doesnot on-stitute judgement n the dentityfthedepictedperson, utrefers o thedeepercharacter raitsof the represented erson. For example, in the case of Zeus'smarble tatue yPheidias,we could infer hat hestatue shows whatZeus is reallylike, hestatue einghis ideal image'.

Halliwell,on the otherhand,arguesthat hepleasureto which Aristotle efersderives from he recognition nd the understandingf the likenesses in otherwords,the spectator ealizesfrom hebeginning hatherewe have mimesis),butthat ne mustnotthereforessume thatwhatAristotle as inmind are the mimeticworks as mererepresentationsf alreadyfamiliar, articular bjects: 'When weappreciatemimeticworks,we recognize ndunderstandheways nwhichpossiblefeatures freality re intentionallyignifiednthem.'23According oHalliwell, hepleasure fknowledge hat s derived rommimesismust, t least nthe case of dra-maticpoetry, e associatedwith heknowledge f universalswhich s mentionednchapter . Tragedy's lKEca 8ov75must nstantiate, ust e onemajor peciesof, hegeneric leasuredefinednChapter '.24BothSifakis ndHalliwell retryingo connect hapter with hapter ,consider-ing hat, ince hat ragedysmimesis, ragedy's lKEla 1ovr5must ither e containedinorcoincidewith hepleasurederived rom heknowledge hatmimesis ffers. tfirstight, uch an assumptionppears o be unproblematic.ut could we presumethatAristotle rites hapter havingn mind ragedynparticularndpresupposingeverything e says about KaO6Aovn chapter9? Even more importantly,ouldwe assume that,accordingto Aristotle, ny mimema also an EIKOJVu'OdV ara

21 G.F. Else n.2), 131-2.However,norder osupporthisnterpretationlse sforcedoalter he ext(o,roSEKEZVOnstead fov'rosE'KEL. Forthis onjecturewhichM. C. Nussbaum,TheFragility f Goodness Cambridge,001 , 388, apparentlylso adopts) ee R. G.C. Levens, HS 81 (1961),190.Gudeman adconjecturedalthoughe did not doptt nthetext)70o70oKEVO (cf. above n. 10), usingtheRhetoric'sparallelpassage in support fhisproposal. . Gallop,AnimalsnthePoetics',OSAP 8 (1990), 168,suggestsn evengreaterhangeothe ext,onsideringhatwhatAristotleas nmind s not he dentificationofthe ubjectf a humanikeness'thats so-and-so'),ut he ecognitionfeachelementwithin complex iagramrreplica s representingcorrespondingart fa living hing('thats thekidney'),nd he earninghroughnferencefgeneralruthsboutivinghingsofthe elevantype 'what hekidneys',thats,whatt sfor ndhow tworks).22 G. M. Sifakis,Aristotle ntheFunction fTragicPoetryHerakleion, 001), 50 (Sifakis'sinterpretationas firstublishednJ.Betts t al. [edd.], tudiesnHonourfT B. L. Webster[Bristol,986], ,211-22).23 S.Halliwell,Pleasure,nderstanding,ndEmotionnAristotle'soetics',nA.O.Rorty(ed.),Essays nAristotle'soeticsPrinceton,992), 47;also d. n.3), 189;cf. d. n. 13),102: It is, then,fterll,unproblematichat ristotle'sxamplefunderstandingmimeticimagenPoetics should e a caseof dentifyingparticular:nderstandingarticulars,nall theiromplexity. mustlay n mportantartn he ppreciationfpoetry,sin he ppro-priatelyensitiveudgementfethicalssues.'24Halliwelln. 13),253.



7/13

440 STAVROS TSITSIRIDIS

17KpLOtf3,7V suchas, for xample, n ordinary hotographfa person)presents ni-versalualities?partromhis,heresanadditionalroblem:he roperleasureftragedy,s Heathproved erypersuasively,s not denticalwith hepleasuredescribednchapter, since he atteri) is not omethinghat haracterizesnlytragedy,ii) ispurelyognitive,nd iii)fails osolve heparadoxftragedy'.25Therefore,norder o be able tograsp ccuratelyhemeaningfthe irstart fchapter,we mustnitiallyonfineurselveso this articularassage ndtry oclarify ristotle's ords, ossibly y drawing omparisonsith herest f hisceuvre.ertainly,eitherhe oetics or heRhetoriconstituteshemostppropriatesource fAristotelianhoughtith egardothe ardinalssue hat asbeen aisednthis assage, amelyhe ssue ftheknowledgehat esultsrommimesis.norderfullyounderstandhatmatter,nemust elventoAristotle'seneralonsiderationsabout he ifferenttagesfknowledge,stheyre xpressedn wo ery ellknownpassages: he astchapterf the Posterior nalyticsnd thebeginningf theMetaphysics.Inthemuch-discussedassage .19ofPosteriornalytics,ristotleries o nswerthe uestionfhowman s n a positionoknowbout he firstrinciples'. hat eattempts,n other ords,s toexplain owman ttains isknowledgef henaturalworld. hebasic uestionhat oncernsimswhetherepossessnbornnowledgeof hose rinciples,rwhetherhat nowledgesacquired.f he atterstrue,henheprocessf his cquisitionastobeexplained.ristotlendorseseitherlternative.All ivingreatures,esays, ossess n nbornbilityor senseperception'hatwecallaisthesis99b35). ome f hese reaturesetain trace f haterceptionntheirsoul,while thers o not. hose reatureshat elongo he irstategoryall,nturn,into wo ubcategories:n the nehand,here rethose hatxperiencerecurrentpresence f theremainingraceof thatperceptionin otherwordsmemory,mneme),ndare thus ead to rationalhought,hile, n theother and, here rethose reaturesnwhich o suchprocess akes lace.The accumulationfmanyimages fthe ame bjectnthememory,esultsn experience',mpeiria100a5:at yap 7roAAcdV-LtLa dptOtp4L E7TLrELpla tua 'riv). Fromempeiria,namely alltheuniversal hich as come o rest n the oul',derives heprincipleftechnicaldexteritynd science.Throughhesefour tages, ccordingo the Aristotelian'geneticpistemology',an rrives,ia nduction,othe nowledgef he irstrin-ciples: s-Aov r-t E5TaywyY yvwpL'Etv

avayKca'OV.Ka'L yap 77 a't'aOrlat rcoTO

KaOO6v L-oLE-t(100b3).26TheMetaphysicsegins,s is wellknown, ith he elebratedtterancehatallmenbynatureesire o know'.Thisbecomespparent,s Aristotleays, rom helovewehave or ur enses,articularlyhat f ight, hich ermitsstodifferentiateamong hings.27ll living reaturesre endowedwith hesamesenses, ut fewcommandhe bilityf memory',hile nlyman an attainexperience'hrough'manymemoriesfthe ame bject'.When rommany otions fexperienceherecomes a singleuniversaludgement,henmen attain echnical nowledgend25M.Heath,Aristotlend he leasuresfTragedy',nAndersenndHaarbergn.13),9-10.26 For he roblemsfnterpretationhichhe ristotelianassageresentsnd llrelevantdoxography,ee W.Detel,Aristoteles:nalyticaosteriora,ristoteles erke I-II, Bd. II(Berlin, 993), 31-54.27 As W.Jaeger,ristotelesBerlin,9232),68-9 hasshown, ristotlead lreadyevel-opedn a more etailedashionnhisProtrepticushe iews eputs orthnthe irstwochaptersfMetaphysics.



8/13

MIMESIS AND UNDERSTANDING 441science.n theMetaphysics,herefore,eencounterhe ame heoryfknowledgewe hadalreadyoundn thePosteriornalytics. emust, owever,nderlinewopointsnthis econdAristotelianxposition:irst,he pecial oleofsights high-lighted, articularlynregardo thedifferentiationfobjects; econd,tbecomesentirelylear hatmpeiria ertainsxclusivelyo humansnd o none fthe therspecies.Oneobserves,hen,hatnboth eferenceshe unctionfmemorysverymport-ant.This, ccordingoAristotle,onstituteshe nterimtage etweenense ercep-tion ndthe cquisitionfthe apacityor bstraction.hat sworthotings thatmemorylays very mportantart n thepassageunder iscussion s well-afact hat, ntil ow,has notbeenpointedut.Notonlydoes 'KETVo~ in thephraseOVT70oKECVOQreferothe ast,28utt salso xplicitlyentionedhatounderstand-ing anbereachedndnoconclusionanbearrivedt and, onsequently,oplea-sure anbe derivedrom imesis),nless nehasnot een efore(rrpoEwpaK0s)hatwhichsrepresentedn he isualworkf rt.29his sthe rucial oint:nedoesnotseethedepictedndthe ealface imultaneously,ut hevery act hat heres anidentificationo take lacemeans hat certainmountftime aselapsediXE-vosreferso a more r essdistantast), fact hatmost ertainlynforceshe ctivationofmemory.o fully rasp,hen,henaturefthe ognitiverocessmpliednthispassage,wemust akento onsiderationristotle'sdeas nmemoryndparticularlyon recollection.Aristotlexpoundsis deason these opicsnhisbrief ut nterestingssayDememoriat reminiscentia.30et us summarizeis essential ropositions:emory,as anyothermentalctivity,31s basedon thefunctionfphantasia, hich romsense-imagesaloalqxara) reatesmentalmagescpavrdaolara)nthehuman oul.The mnemonicrocesssparalleled ith he ecognitionfanobjectn a paintingor of an impression adeby a signet-ring.32he distinctiveeaturef thoseimagess thatheyre opies rmodels f he bjectshatman as lready erceivedthroughis senses n thepast.33Maintainingn object'srepresentationn one'spsychewhile, t thesametime, eingconscious hat hisrepresentations the

28For he hrase70ro KELVO;,eeHalliwelln.3),178n. 3 and189. disagreenthis ointwith he nterpretationfSifakis[n. 22],47-8 with .29)whodoesnotdistinguishetweenthis nd thecolloquial se of thephrase; or his mportantistinctionee P. T. Stevens,Colloquial Expressions n Euripides,HermesEinzelschriften 8 (Wiesbaden, 1976), 31-2;see also M. Schanz,Novae commentationeslatonicae Wiirzburg,871), 16; furtherW.Havers,Das Pronomenerener-DeixismGriechischen',F 19 1906), sp.4-5.29Theprevailinguestionswhat appensnthe aseofmythicalersons. ristotleouldhave ccepted, assume,hat nthose asesthe dentificationfthedepictederson ouldderive romther imilaricturesrbydifferenteanssomethinghat lsohappensnthecaseof Christianaints).30Belfioren.15), specially9-50, s one f he ew cholars ho ook his articularorkseriouslynto onsiderationnher nterpretationfPoetics.31 SeeMem.49b31Kat VOE oVK E"rtv avEv Oav7rU Trogs),e An.3.431a178t6 biTorTEVOELaVEr avTaordkEarosOvx(),431b2-8.32 Picture-like: em.450b30 ('anTEpv 77 ypaqpj s ElKva OEWpEL, cf.also 450b21,23, 27,451a2, 12,16); impressionproduced by a signet-ring: 50a30 4- yap ywvotirl Xivrl~osEvarlalvETratLtov TV7ov rtvalovaLaOt7Lcar,s KaOdrWrLpl L(ppayLSO(EvotLoig SaKTvAlotL~,lso450b16 carOrEp5roS~ ypagqv -'t1av.oth thenotion fmental mageand themetaphoricalvocabularyetraylato's nfluence,ee R. Sorabji, ristotlenMemoryLondon, 0032),n. 1; cf.R.McKeon,LiteraryriticismndtheConceptf mitationnAntiquity',nR. S.Crane ed.), Critics nd Criticism.:ncient nd Modern Chicago, 1952), 121-7.33 f hesewere otikenesses,ewould ot e n positionorecollectomethinghichsnotpresent;eeSorabjin.32),7.



9/13

442 STAVROS TSITSIRIDISobject'smages what onstitutesemory451b16: TL pavd-oiiarog,s EdKKOVOS~cvTraaa, "~s).An mportantonclusionollows: ristotleerceives emorynthesame ermss heperceives imesisn visual rts.Thepreservationf an object's mage ndits automaticecall fter certain

amountftime-thats,memory-forms,ccordingoAristotle,psychic acultydistinctromhat frecollection.namnesisonsistsnthe apacityorecoveron-sciouslyhementalepictionsfthe ast.When hewhole rocess omes o a suc-cessful nd and the ncomplete emorys madecomplete,ne attainsmemory.This ecoveryspossible ecause namnesiss akind fmovement:romome ccur-rence,ven slightne, he oul earchesor rreconstructshe ffinitiesnd s ledtowardshe ecoveryftheknowledge,ensation,rmemoryhat xists na latentstate ithinhe oul.34t strue,f ourse,hatecollectionsbased nthe ssociativeinterconnectionf deas;neverthelesstpresupposeshe onsciousnessf ime ast,the emporalocalizationf he ersonrobject emembered,nd he ecognitionfthe ecreatedmage.Asa consciousrocessnd ntentionaluest, ecollections anexclusiveharacteristicfman.35 ristotleot nlytresseshis eaturemphatically,he alsodraws parallel-in passage fgreatmportance-betweenecollectionnda kind f yllogismMem. 53a12):a 6tv TtO ava1vCL/tl7aKEuOaLUTVLOV UVAAOyUJOrya69t" rtO p 7ITp'TEpOV JSEV 7KOVUEV7) TLrotoTroV aOEI, avAAoyIErato'valipvi)aK6/LEvor,al'cavOv ri7TairrT.TOo 6S'r01Kar. TO/0VAEEUVTK6o7Ta'PKEL, PuELtIvotg CJUrV//lE'KEV-aL yatpTO30ov0AE6EUrOL uVAAoyLuFL'rr rEtTTv.Both hephrasingoJovvAAoytcr6Ctrc) nd hegeneralenor fthis assage par-ticularlyhereferenceo thefPovAEvUtK6v),ake t clearthatovAAoytcprs,s notusedherenthenarrowense f the erm.36yllogismonsistsn a search, hichhas as itspoint fdeparturehe nferencefan initial onclusionx effectudcausam. romhis oint fview hefrequentseof pr/Ikwnd 5T7qus, in this artof hework,renoteworthy.37hisnotionfrecollections search ndunderstandingisstronglyeminiscentf he latoniconceptfavctvrlvatJ,houghristotleoesnotaccept,f ourse, is eacherheoryn ts ntirety.38nany ase, hemportantacts

34 Mem.51b3:AA'TavyvaAatLg3av-)v0TpirepovLXEI7TLAT7rLvV a7 O?tCyNoV76 IorT7VEetV TAYo/1EVkV7lUkV,ror'TEUTLKal OTEToava/.LIV?7)KE(Taat TV EPqpE`VC0WVt.35Cf. ist.n. .1.1488b25:alLV77/Lr EVKat &S6ax7-)oA OLtvavWd,vaft/Lv41aKEala6'o'6Sv 'AAo Uvarat 7rirv vOpworog.36 J. .Beare,he arvaNaturaliaTheWorksfAristotleOxford,908]), d oc.)renderstheermithhe ordinference',nd xplains:The nlyeductiveactorn he rocesss hemajor,hatveryuchqpavraajLamustave causeviz. n experience")r e apablef eingaccountedor. his tartshe rocessf 7qT7aLsr.While he oAEvaLsnds yfindingut heway oact,avlv-~Vesends yplacingheqpivraatain tsrelationopast xperience'. .D.Ross,Aristotle:arvaNaturaliaOxford, 935), d453a9-14, ttemptso nterprethe ermmorenarrowly:Onehasa generalmpressionhat cpcivaafkanone's mindmust avecause nprevious xperiencemajor remiss). ne is aware f a present aivraupLaminorpremiss).ne hereforeoncludeshathisqpxvraTauaust ave cause npreviousxperience.On this ollows he ~q7)UtLfor he ause,which7T7)oUL eadstorecollection.'ut Ross'sinterpretationeemso mepedantic.agreewith . SiwekAristotelisarvaNaturalia[Romae963], 67n.107)who elieveshat he ermsnot sedheren ts iteralense,butinsensuatiore',s isveryftenhe ase n Aristotlecf.Bonitz,ndex ristotelicuss.v.711b48).37 451b22r/7TroL),23 pC9'qrovrTIE), b28(rrpo7IqT/ouaS,el.edd.), 30(Ir/~7TrE),52a8(~rq7Tv),16(n'rm7TrCv),22(~r5EL),a23(&rrqTEZ'),53a12.15(5TrI7qS),25(Tob7Tro7V'evov).38 Cf. specially eno 1D4-5:Toyapq7reTLVpa KalT7avOaVELV avapVat AovovUT . Seealso C. E. Huber, namnesiseiPlato Munich,964), 206-13;J.Klein, CommentarynPlato'sMeno ChapelHill,1965),108-72; Sang-In ee,AnamnesismMenon, uropiischeHochsculschriften. XV,Bd. 83 (Frankfurt,001),147-59,B. Kyrkos,ie Dichtungls



10/13

MIMESIS ANDUNDERSTANDING 443that ecollections characterizeds a kind fsyllogism,nd that his yllogismsidentical ith heone we haveencounterednchapter of thePoetics.What smore,Aristotle,n the above-mentionedassage from hePoetics, does not useverbs that ndicateutterancesthat s, A,yEW,plVELV,nd so on), or memorythatis, /vWfLYovEV"ELV,EvIaOL, andso on),but nly erbs enotingntellectualctivity(Gtav06vELv Kac avUvAAooyEUat).o summarize: n my opinion,Aristotlenterpretsthe knowledgeand the subsequentpleasurederived frommimesisby proposingthat hemimetic rt s based on a cognitive rocesswhich s related o the unctionofmemorynd especiallyto thatofrecollection.39Withthe features f the magedepicted s his startingoint, hespectators led, through cognitive rocess, oidentifyhe said imagewiththe actual object that t represents. he spectatorsguidedfrom hefeatures f thefigure,s they re representedn the image,andthrough cognitive rocess, o identificationith heactualobject. n order o illus-tratewhathemeans,Aristotle ses themost ypical xampleofrecognition:he rec-ognition f an individualwhichmeans,primarily,isface).40The objectionone might aise is that n the Aristotelianxampleofportraiture,there s no indication hat nyamount f time has elapsed,and that onsequentlytherecollectionrocessneedsto be activated. his s true nough,nspite fthe ndir-ect ndicationshat,t east, ometemporal istance spresupposed. think, owever,thatAristotles not nterestedere n offeringistinctionsf thatkind--besides, edoes not evenmention he relevantnotions.41 or does anythingndicate hathehadthoroughlylaborated nthe heoryf mimesis nrelation o that frecollection.WissensproblemeiAristotelesAthens,972), 06-7, srightnremindings ofPlato's oc-trine f namnesis,ut edoesnotnterpretorrectly,nmy pinion,he elevanthapterf hePoetics,when epresumeshat:Ahnlich ie beiPlaton er verwundertenblick",er usanf'inglichererlegenheitesDenkens um bewunderndenchauen" er dee desSch6nenfiihrtPhaidros . Symposion),irdbei Aristotelesas AnblickeninesNachgeahmten(1448b13), ie ntuitiverfassungerWahrheit,lspl6tzlicheision, lseinAufblitzenesWissens in der Artdes Verstehens zw. Wiedererkennens(o'ro9 EKEvoS) verstanden'104,cf. 105 n. 4). It does not seem at all probablethatAristotle s usingavAAoy?Eoatheretodenotenly 'pl6tzlicheision'.39 ntheparallel assagefrom heRhetoric1.11.1371b4-10)mentionedreviouslyhesame houghts lurking,lbeit bfuscatedor simple eason.nthewhole elevanthapter,Aristotle,iscussingorensicpeechesnd onsideringhe uest or leasures an nducementtocommitnjustcts, s simplynumeratinghingshat ivepleasure. ne ofthe hingshatcause pleasure,because of its connectionwith earning nd Oavy~LiEtv,s mimesis.But it isobvious hat hatwehavehere ssimplypassingeference,ithincontextfnoparticularrelevance o oursubject; ence,tcanbe interpretedndependently.fgreaternterestsAristotle'seferenceometaphornthe hirdookof theRhetoric3.10.1410bl10-20),utthiswould require pecial discussion. ufficet to mention ere A. Laks's article:'Substitutiontconnaissance:ne nterpretationnitaireoupresque) e a theorieristotelici-enne e ametaphore',nD. J.FurleyndA.Nehamasedd.),Aristotle'shetoricPrinceton,1994), 83-305.P.Swiggers,CognitivespectsfAristotle'sheoryfMetaphor',lotta 2(1984), 0-5 arrivest henterestingonclusionhathe ognitiveackgroundf hemetaphoris constitutedyAristotle'sheoryfmimesis'43).40 Aristotle'seferenceothe ecognitionf personsperhapsot ccidental.emir eki,anauthorityncognitiveeurology,entionsinhisbooknnerVision. nExplorationfArtandBrain Oxford,999], h.17)thathe rain oesnot nly ave special reafor he ec-ognitionffaces, ut scharacterizedy ven reaterpecialization:herexistpecial ectionsof he rain hich ecognizef he ace s a familiarne.He alsorefersothewell-knownon-ditionf prosopagnosia'.41 1 mnot ure, owever,hatheAristotelianistinctionetween emorynd ecollectioncanbeappliedseasilynrealitys in heory.or xample,ow anone xclude he ossibilitythat,n he ourse f mnemonicrocess,ecollectionsalsoactivated ith egardo particu-lardetail,rto a veryimitedegree?



11/13

444 STAVROS TSITSIRIDISHe ismerelyryingoshow,na very implemannerndwith tmostrevity,hepresencef a cognitivelementnmimesis.One should ememberere familiarcene romhe latonic haedo. ocratesstryingoproveo Simmiashat nowledgesrecollection.s anexamplellustratingthe ecollectionp'6pootwveuses he ypotheticalortraitfhis nterlocutor73e9):'Is itpossible,hen,f omeoneould ave een immiasepicted',sks ocrates,torecollect(&vakvorlcq)vat)hevery ame Simmias?'This is absolutelyertain',Simmiasnswers. ristotleoesnot f ourse ubscribeoPlato's eneralonclusionconcerninghenaturefknowledge,ut t snoteworthyhat lato haracterizesherecognitionfhis nterlocutory thirdersonasedon hispictorialepresentationas 'recollection'ndnot s 'memory'.42Specialmentionhould e made f he acthat,nthe oetics assage nder is-cussion, ristotlepproacheshe henomenonfmimesisessfromhe reator'ser-spective,nd morefrom hat f thespectator.e indirectlyormulatesveryimportantbservation,amelyhat he pectator'sntellectlsoparticipatesntheprocess f mimesis. his s extremelyard vento become ware f, et aloneexplain,utmodem eaders illbe betterquippedo understandhisAristotelianconceptftheyurno twochaptersnErnst ombrich'sookArt nd llusion,43namelyThe mage ntheClouds' nd Conditionsf llusion'.Gombrichefersothepsychologicalunctionfthe guided rojection'nd draws hefollowingon-clusion: The likeness hich rt reates xistsnour maginationnly' 191). Atanotheroint e stresses:Themind f he eholderlsohas ts haren he mitation'(182).Apartromhe xampleseusesfromainting,ombrichlsoquotesnextre-mely nterestingassagefrom hilostratus'ife ofApollonius fTyana. n thatpassage hilostratusays hatthe rt fmimesisspresupposedlso for hosewhoobserve hepaintings',ecausenobodyould eally ppreciatehepaintedorse rbulloradmirehepainted ias, fhe couldnot recall o mind' heirmage.44Onemight,f course,wonderwhyAristotleoes notproceed o elaborate-accordingo he iews e sets ut nhis ther orks--amoreomplexnd ll-embra-cing nterpretationf he henomenonfrecognitionescribednchapter. He couldhavementioned,orxample,hatince,n his ase, he hingmitatedsperceivedsbeing copy f notherhing,t lsoconstitutesstartingointnd useful ool seeMem. 50b27, 51a2:tiv7tyrvEv?a)for he pectatorobegin is searchn order orecollecthe riginalbject. urthermore,he pectatoroesnot omparehe epictedfigureithnly nemnemonicmage, ut,nmostases,with n abstractionerivedfromne, rmore hanne,mnemonicmages,hats,with n magehat esultsromE(?urEpla. e could lso have ointeduthere hat he eholder akes pronounce-ment elatedo the dentityftwo epresentations,nother ords, e nterlacesherepresentationsfter avingdislocated' hem. his combinationas Aristotleadalready stablished,nd as we undoubtedlycknowledgeoday)constitutes

42 Platomakeshis istinctionn hlb. 4A-B. or he ristotelianotionf ecollectionncomparisonithts latonicounterparteeSorabjin.32), 5-46.43 E. H. Gombrich,rt nd llusion:AStudyn the sychologyfPictorial epresentation(New ork,9612).44 Philostr.A .22p.66, Kayser):GEvITOLV' KaL rob 6pvrag 7a - ypaotK'q EpyaptL/qTrLK7/EWOOaL.0oyap v EIaLVEUEE1r )rvyEypa(LoLEvv7T7Trovravpovi-To4CpovEvOvtFL'ELrtO, ELKaaTraL, oi' &v -rv AtavTr4 TL r7v TttoLudXOva.aaO[q5`, 3 5 'alivayiypamrrata M/orlqv74, ELtv7 ivahdlao-rt Vcv vovvA'aVTO t" Aov Kat'OsEK0s aavrovTaEKTOVCLaT-it v1- Tpo' fov3K6ALaaOTOcLL ct7TELp-qKOTa, fOgVoAi1ITOtOvEVOVKat Eav7-lKVTEvaL.



12/13

MIMESIS AND UNDERSTANDING 445judgement:he nferencethispersons that ne' is but judgementn themosttypicalense fthe erm.45Why ot, herefore,more laboratenterpretation?The answer o this uestions, believe, simple ne.Aristotle's ain oncernhere s to establishbiological-anthropologicalxplanationfthephenomenonfmimesis.This has an exactparallel n two otherAristotelian orks.TheMetaphysicsbegin, as has alreadybeen mentioned,with the remark: TIVTEscivOpwlToroTooE2SivaLpEyoVrataL e. With his hrase,ndwithwhat ollowsfter-wards,man sranked,fter ehasbeen omparedith he theriving pecies,nthescala naturae.t s furthermoremphasizedhat hilosophyas biological-anthro-pological asis.Thesame lso holds or he eginningf he olitics: nthe econdchapter f the first ook,Aristotle utsforthheargumenthat6ovOpwosro(1pbaE7TOALTLK6V W4v 1253a2). In an identicalmanner,man is placed on the scale oftheanimal ingdomccordingo his socialbehaviour.46his snotvery ar rom hatwe suggests Aristotle'srgumentnthePoetics.Man is distinctrom heotheranimals ecausehe is themostmimeticfthem ll,andbecausehe learns romthe earliest tagesof his lifethroughmimesis, featurehat s innate(a;6vlPVrov).Ifthe bove nterpretationf theknowledgeonnected ithmimesisnd oftherelationf this ognitiverocesso recollections correct,hent s worthwhileoexamine urtherhe moregeneral onsequencesf theAristotelianonception.Firstly,tfollowshatAristotle otonlyregardshephenomenonfmimesissbeingnnateo thehuman ind, uthe alsoascribesognitiveharacteristicsventothe implestormsfmimesis. e rejects,nother ords, lato'sviews nart,notonly s far s itsmost efinedchievements,uch s tragedy,reconcerned,but lso with egardoall itsdifferentenresnd at all its evels.As a result,heideaofdivinenspirationas noplace ntheAristotelianheoryf art.Apart romthat, owever,heAristotelianonceptsffer general xplanationor he uestionwhymimeticworks fart reattractivendgivepleasure oall (7TcvraS), rrespectiveofthe bject f mimesis.heexplanationoesnot pply,s is commonlyhought,only othedistinctionetween herepresentedbject ndtherealone. t appliesmainlyo the ery lementaryalthough,nessence, ar romimple) rocessfrec-ognition,ymeans f ntellectualearch,f he ontentfmimesis. his lementarycognitive rocess s, in otherwords, heone thatoffers leasure: 70tvOivEtLv ob?6vov 70ro


13/13

446 STAVROS TSITSIRIDISpersuasivenough. ccordingoAristotle,he oethasathisdisposalhemeans omodifyr kilfullyandle hesufferings'epictednthemythhat asbeenhandeddown,n order omake tmore ffective.ow canthat e achieved? uripides'Electra ndOrestesrevery ood xamplesfwhat ristotleas nmind,speciallyin the aseofClytemnestra'surder,hichs mentionednthe oetics swell.48Finally,nequestionemains:hatf he elationshipf he assage nder iscus-sionwithhemportantirstart f hapter,where ristotleeferso he niversalityofpoetrynd o ts uperiorityver istoryecause f he ormereingmore hilo-sophical. necannot,fcourse, enturet this ointnto more etailednterpret-ation fthemuch-discussedinthhapter.t s clear, owever,hatwhats atstakeinboth ases s the elationshipetween imesisndknowledge,ince ydefinitionpoetrys mimesisnd hedescriptionLAoaocpn-0povanonly efero a certain indofknowledge.his, fterll,has ed severalnterpretersoconnecthe wo hapters.Nonetheless,hedifferencesresignificantnd, trust,iscerniblefter he boveanalysis fchapter. Near thebeginningf thePoetics, he nnate haracterfmimesisndthe ccompanyinglementaryognitiverocessre discussed.nthecase ofpoetryomethingore omplexs presupposed,hats,a 'mimesisfanaction',which, yusing articulareans ndmodes,speaks funiversals'--assmost learlytated--inmore uccessful annerhan istory.hemeaningfthislastpointmighte thefollowing:incepoetryoesnotdescribectual vents,utratherhekinds fthingshatmight appen,t is capableofrelatingheeventswithinheplot na causalmannerin order oopenupfor ts udienceshe uasi-philosophicalcopeofcomprehensionnddiscernmenthatt s capable fprovid-ing'.49n other ords,t s withinhe pectator'sossibilityoreflectpon ndtoleadhimselfnductivelyo somethingeyondmpiricalata.On thecontrary,nthe implend xactmimesisfpaintinghichsdescribednchapter,the niver-salsarenot resented,or s inductivehoughtresupposed.I would ike o endmydiscussionfthismportantristotelianassage ymen-tioningn nterestingiew hat mbertoco hasexpressedna text elevantothePoetics:As am bsolutelyonvincedhat ant as aid hemostnterestinghingsbouturognitiveprocesses,otn he ritiquef ure easonwheree peaksboutnowledge),utn heCritiquefJudgementwheree seemsotalkboutrt), hy,nthe ameway, oes nenot ook or modemheoryfknowledge,otonly)ntheAnalytics,utnthe oeticsand he hetoricswell?50Whilet s certainhat co didnothave nmind he roblem ehave een ryingoexamine ere, iswordsmay ontain fair mount ftruth.UniversityfPatras STAVROS [email protected]

48 See Th.K. Stephanopoulos,mgestaltungesMythosurchuripidesAthens,980),esp.37-8 and131-60 on Orestes).49 Halliwelln.3), 199.50 U. Eco,'LaPoetica noi' nSulla etteraturaMilan, 002), 73 my ranslation).

aristotle mimesis and understanding

Documents