Aristotle’s Theory of Imitation

Aristotle did not invent the term “imitation”. Plato was the first to use the word in relation to
poetry. Aristotle disagreed with Plato on its definition and gave it a new meaning. According to
Aristotle, poetic imitation is not mimicry, but an act of imaginative creation by which the poet,
drawing his material from the phenomenal world, makes something new out of it.

Plato equated poetry with painting but Aristotle related it with music. In Aristotle‟s view,
imitation forms the common basis for all fine arts but poetry differs from other fine arts in a way
that it is not just a servile depiction of the appearance of things, but it becomes a representation
of the passions and emotions of men. Aristotle, by his theory, thus enlarged the scope of
imitation. The poet imitates not the surface of things but the reality embedded within it. In the
very first chapter of the Poetics, he writes: “Epic poetry and Tragedy, Comedy also and
Dithyrambic poetry, and the music of the flute and of the lyre in most of their forms, are
all in their general conception modes of imitation. They differ, however, from one another
in three respects – the medium, the objects, the manner or mode of imitation, being in
each case distinct.”

The medium of the poet and the painter are different. One imitates through form and color, and
the other through language, rhythm and harmony. The musician imitates through rhythm and
harmony. Thus, poetry is more akin to music. Further, the manner of a poet may be purely
narrative, as in the Epic, or depiction through action, as in drama. Even dramatic poetry is
differentiated into tragedy and comedy accordingly as it imitates man as better or worse.

Aristotle says that the objects of poetic imitation are “men in action”. The poet represents men as
worse than they are. He can represent men better than those of real life based on material
supplied by history and legend rather than by any living figure. The poet selects and orders his
material and recreates reality. He brings order out of chaos. The irrational or accidental is
removed and attention is focused on the lasting and the significant. Thus he gives a truth of an
ideal kind. His mind is not tied to reality: “It is not the function of the poet to relate what
has happened but what may happen – according to the laws of probability or necessity.”

History tells us what actually happened while poetry tells what may happen. Poetry tends to
express the universal, history the particular. In this way, he exhibits the superiority of poetry over
history. The poet freed from the tyranny of facts, takes a larger or general view of things,
represents the universal in the particular and so shares the philosopher‟s quest for ultimate truth.
He thus equates poetry with philosophy and shows that both are means to a higher truth. By the
word „universal‟ Aristotle means: “How a person of a certain nature or type will, on a
particular occasion, speak or act, according to the law of probability or necessity.”

The poet constantly rises from the particular to the general. He studies the particular and devises
principles of general application. He exceeds the limits of life without violating the essential
laws of human nature. Elsewhere Aristotle says, “Art imitates Nature”. By „Nature‟ he does
not mean the outer world of created things but “the creative force, the productive principle of the
universe.” The poet imitates the creative process of nature, but the objects are “men in action”.
Now the „action‟ may be „external‟ or „internal‟. It may be the action within the soul caused by
all that happens to a man. Thus, he brings human experiences, emotions and passions within the
scope of poetic imitation. According to Aristotle‟s theory, moral qualities, characteristics, the
permanent temper of the mind, the temporary emotions and feelings, are all action and so objects
of poetic imitation.

Poetry may imitate men as better or worse than they are in real life or imitate as they really are.
Tragedy and epic represent men on a heroic scale, better than they are, and comedy represents
men of a lower type, worse than they are. Aristotle does not discuss the third possibility. It means
that poetry does not aim at photographic realism. In this connection R. A. Scott points out that:
“Aristotle knew nothing of the “realistic” or “fleshy” school of fiction – the school of Zola or of
Gissing.” Some critics, however, defend Aristotle for not discussing the third variant. They say:
“It is just possible to imagine life exactly as it is, but the exciting thing is to imagine life as it
might be, and it is then that imagination becomes an impulse capable of inspiring poetry.”

Aristotle by his theory of imitation answers the charge of Plato that poetry is an imitation of
“shadow of shadows”, twice removed from truth, and that the poet deceives us with lies. Plato
condemned poetry that in the very nature of things poets have no idea of truth. The phenomenal
world is not the reality but a copy of the reality in the mind. The poet imitates the objects and
phenomena of the world, which are shadowy and unreal. Poetry is, therefore, “the mother of
lies”.

Aristotle, on the contrary, tells us that art imitates not the mere shadows of things, but the „ideal
reality‟ embodied in the very object of the world. The process of nature is a „creative process‟;
everywhere ”in nature there is a ceaseless and upward progress” in everything, and the poet
imitates this upward movement of nature. Art reproduces the original not as it is, but as it
appears to the senses. Art moves in a world of images, and reproduces the external, according to
the idea or image in his mind. Thus the poet does not copy the external world, but creates
according to his „idea‟ of it. Thus even an ugly object well-imitated becomes a source of
pleasure. We are told in the Poetics: “Objects which in themselves we view with pain, we
delight to contemplate when reproduced with minute fidelity; such as the forms of the
most ignoble animals and dead bodies.”

The real and the ideal from Aristotle‟s point of view are not opposites; the ideal is the real, shorn
of chance and accident, a purified form of reality. And it is this higher „reality‟ which is the
object of poetic imitation. Idealization is achieved by removing accidental, transient and
particular from the real. Poetry thus imitates the ideal and the universal; it is an “idealized
representation of character, emotion, action – under forms manifest in sense.” Poetic truth,
therefore, is higher than historical truth. Poetry is more philosophical, more conducive to
understanding than Philosophy itself.

Thus Aristotle successfully and finally refuted the charge of Plato and provided a defense of
poetry which has ever since been used by lovers of poetry in justification of their Muse. He
breathed new life and soul into the concept of poetic imitation and showed that it is, in reality, a
creative process.