Although Aristotle states a theory of beauty in the Metaphysics: “The
chief forms of beauty are order and symmetry and definiteness, which the
mathematical sciences demonstrate in a special degree” (The Complete Works
of Aristotle Barnes ed., volume 2, 1705, 1078a36), the theory he
offers in the Poetics is quite different, and quite a bit more
original. The Metaphysics comment
is preceded by a statement that the mathematical sciences say a great deal
about beauty.
The Metaphysics theory can be found as far
back as the fragments and lore of Pythagoras. Pythagoras gave us the
terms "harmony" and "symmetry" both of which seem to be
central to his (or the Pythagoreans') theory of beauty. The reference to
mathematics also connects both the Pythagorean and the Platonic notions of
beauty. Aristotle, by contrast to Plato, was generally more inspired by
biology than mathematics, and this comes out in his discussion of beauty in the Poetics.
It is also noteworthy that in The Organon Topics Book
3 Part 3 Aristotle says, "if one thing be desirable for itself, and the
other for the look of it, the former is more desirable, as (e.g.) health than
beauty. A thing is defined as being desired for the look of it if, supposing no
one knew of it, you would not care to have it. Also, it is more desirable both
for itself and for the look of it, while the other thing is desirable on the
one ground alone. Also, whichever is the more precious for itself, is also
better and more desirable. A thing may be taken to be more precious in itself
which we choose rather for itself, without anything else being likely to come
of it." [taken from R. B.
Jones]
But as I have said, the most interesting contribution to a
theory of beauty is to be found in his Poetics. There, he
develops the notion of beauty as related to organic wholes. Yet, his
initial discussion of beauty does not actually mention the term. It is in
Chapter 3. There, he talks about how imitation is natural to man, how we
are the most imitative creatures, and how we delight in works of imitation. (I
am working here with The Oxford Translation of Aristotle edited by W. D. Ross
and appearing in Art in its Significance by Stephen David
Ross, 3rd. ed., 1994). It seems that this delight is an aesthetic
delight. He observes that we even delight in realistic representations of
"the lowest animals" and of dead bodies. (This sort of thing is
accounted for by some 20th century philosophers in terms of "taking an
aesthetic attitude." See, for example, Paul Ziff "Anything
Viewed.") He further observes that we delight in a picture because
we learn from it at the same time, for example we learn that a man falls into a
certain category. Even things we have not seen before can, when
represented, give us delight in the execution or coloring. We know
he is thinking of beauty here since he also mentions that harmony and rhythm
are natural to us.
When Aristotle gets around to defining tragedy in Chapter 6
of Poetics he doesn't explicitly mention beauty and, since the
purpose of tragedy is catharsis of pity and fear, it seems that beauty is not
central to tragedy. But there are two reasons to question
this conclusion. First, one could say that there is a kind of beauty in
that which causes catharsis. Second, his account of beauty is essential
to evaluating tragedy. I will discuss that later. Note also that
tragedy is often full of depictions of painful things...and these were recently
mentioned in the section on the value of imitation. In the
definition of tragedy he does explicitly mention "language with
pleasurable accessories" by which he means "with rhythm and harmony
superadded." This may imply that these things provide a kind of
beauty, although perhaps only as an add-on to the core experience of
catharsis. So the key issue is whether the play in its central purpose
can be understood in terms of beauty.
The central discussion of beauty comes in the second part of
Chapter 6 when Aristotle talks about the proper construction of a Plot.
We find that a tragedy is an "imitation of an action complete in itself, a
whole of some magnitude" and that the whole should have a beginning,
middle and end, the beginning and end being non-arbitrary. I take it that
"magnitude" does not just mean "size" but rather
"appropriate size," and maybe even more than that, i.e.
"appropriate size to be considered beautiful." For then he says
"Again: to be beautiful, a living creature, and every whole made up
of parts, must not only present a certain order in its arrangements of parts,
but also a certain definite magnitude." The analogy to the living
creature will be picked up later as he expands on the notion of an organic
whole. Clearly it is not enough for something to be beautiful to be made
up of ordered parts, but that the parts need to be arranged in a way similar to
the way they appear in an organism. Seemingly reverting to the
Pythagorean view, Aristotle follows this by saying that "Beauty is a
matter of size and order." Still, he understands "order"
now in a different way because of the animal analogy.
But, before we go into the animal analogy, we need to
consider his idea that beauty is impossible in a minute creature, or in one of
vast size. In the first case, the creature is not beautiful because it is
indistinct, and in the second case it is not beautiful because it cannot be
seen "all at once" and "the unity and wholeness ... is lost to
the beholder." So beauty has something to do not only with harmony,
symmetry and order but also with clarity, unity and wholeness.
When Aristotle applies this idea to poetry, he introduces a
psychological dimension. The beauty of a poem depends on our memory's
ability to take it all in, much like the beauty of a large object depending on
our perceptual ability to do so. So, he holds, the
longer a story is the more beautiful it is based on its magnitude. Here,
he is taking magnitude to mean "the right size." However, he
then gives another account of magnitude. It is a length that "by a
series of probable or necessary stages [the hero passes] from misfortune to
happiness or from happiness to misfortune." He says that this
"may suffice as a limit for the magnitude of the story." That
is, the story has good magnitude if it has the right length
for this series of probable or necessary stages to be worked through, i.e.
making a good plot (and thus bringing catharsis to the audience.)
Note that in the very next sentence, but the first sentence
of Chapter 9, he also uses the phrase "probable or necessary,"
although in this case referring to the function of the poet, which is to
describe "not the thing that has happened, but a kind of thing that might
happen, i.e. what is possible as being probable or necessary." So,
part of what is meant by "magnitude" is the sense of probable or
necessary movement within the poem with respect to the plot. This is the very
thing that distinguishes poetry from history, which is only concerned with what
"has been," not with what "might be." Thus,
Aristotle's defense of poetry's cognitive power against Plato, follows from his
theory of beauty as magnitude, where magnitude is seen as a quality of an
organic whole in which the parts are intimately related.
The key quote in this is to be found in Chapter 8, which is
mainly about the unity of a plot (unity being necessary for beauty). That
a plot is about one man is not enough to make it unified: there must be
one story. So here is the quote: "so in poetry the story, as an
imitation of action, must represent one action, a complete whole, with its
several incidents so closely connected that the transposal or withdrawal of any
one of them will disjoin and dislocate the whole. For that which makes no
perceptible difference by its presence or absence is no real part of the
whole." So, the organic whole is like the body of an organism:
if you take away an organ you will severely diminish the capacity for the
organism to function. Similarly the parts of the beautiful play are
closely intertwined that if you take away one you will destroy the beauty of
it. This is Aristotle's original idea about beauty.
There is one qualification to this. Aristotle also
holds that something can be made more beautiful if it goes beyond just
imitating an organic whole. The painter or poet can make something
true-to-life and yet make it more beautiful, by preserving the type and yet
also making it nobler: "Again, since Tragedy is an imitation of
persons who are above the common level, the example of good portrait painters
should be followed. They, while reproducing the distinctive form of the
original, make a likeness which is true to life and yet more beautiful.
So too the poet, in representing men...[who have] defects of character, should
preserve the type and yet ennoble it." (Chapter 15)
It may not be that all forms of beauty need to meet
Aristotle's standard as set forth here. At the same time, it is arguable
that organic beauty is a particularly impressive form of beauty, and may be
distinguished from that which, although called beautiful, may be a simple
beauty, or even merely charming or pretty. The concept of
"necessity" may be of value here: there is a kind of necessity
(not mathematical or causal) which reveals a compelling dynamic energy, that (coupled
with such things as order, harmony and symmetry) gives us beauty in this
sense. Thus it would make sense to apply the term beauty paradigmatically
to a great tragic play despite the painfulness of the events portrayed.
1 comment:
Post a Comment