Andra-Elena Agafiței

American Studies

MA

The Poet – Outcast, Genius or God?

Poets… a poet… the poet… “What’s the difference?", one could ask oneself. In times
in which we – and by “we” I mean “students”, “professors”, “critics” etc. – struggle to find
the most hidden meanings or allusions, the most “accurate” and “exhaustive” interpretations
of literary works – if such interpretations can ever be possible – the importance of “the one”
writing them seems to be either left out or given less importance.

For most people, the person “behind the curtains”, behind words does not matter too
much, their interest being built around the text itself; of course, the situation changes if you
are a student and you have to write a certain essay; thus, you will make all the necessary
efforts in order to find out everything possible about the subject, including information about
the author, in our case, the poet, information which displays general knowledge about life,
works, the literary current in which he has been placed by critics and canons etc. Still, all
these things are just matters of the surface – helpful ones, to some extent – that do not
provide you any insight about the human being, about his status in the society of his times or
about the way in which others have perceived him. Sure, you do know details about his
private life and works but… is this enough?

In order to create a fair, respectful portrait of the poet, as he truly deserves, we have
thought of taking into consideration the opinions of some of the greatest minds of both
philosophy and literature and what better way to begin than with the considerations of the
ancient Greek philosopher, Plato.

As we already know, in Plato’s perspective, the poet does not find his place in the
perfect society of the Republic, being an “outcast”, and only a falsifier of the truth, who has
pretensions of knowledge that he does not possess, thus placing him in an inferior position,

1
when compared to the philosopher. According to Plato, the one thing that a poet knows is to
imitate, his work, like that of the rhapsode, being the “imitation of imitation”1 .

Aristotle, “the most brilliant student at Plato’s Academy” 2 does not follow the same
thinking thread, at least not entirely. Like Plato, Aristotle holds that poetry is, essentially, a
mode of imitation; still, he invests the work of the poet with a positive significance, which
has moral and epistemological functions. “For Aristotle, the poet is an integral part of
human society, rationally developing and refining basic traits which he shares with other
beings”3. As we can see, with the passing of time, the view of the poet and of his “status” in
society changes. From an “outcast” and an “outsider”, who does nothing more than to
interpret whatever comes from the Muses, he becomes an integrative part of the community,
with a specific role, that of formalizing the “impulses possessed in common by human
beings”4.

From a Kantian perspective, the poet is a “genius”, detached from the previous image
of the mere imitator. It is now when true merits are given to the artist, who is claimed to
possess the “faculty of presenting aesthetic ideas”5, imagination being the most powerful tool
in “creating <<another nature>> out of the material the actual nature gives” 6. In this stage,
the poet’s capacity to imitate is seen, in fact, as what it really is, a creative imaginative force.

In Romanticism, the poet is also seen as a genius, “set apart from other men”7. As
Coleridge states, the role of the poet, “described in ideal perfection”8, is that of bringing “the
whole soul of man into activity”9.

1
M. A. R. Habib, A History of Literary Criticism – From Plato to the Present, Blackwell Publishing, 2005, p. 37.

2
Ibid., p. 41.

3
Ibid., p. 51.

4
Ibid.

5
Ibid., p. 379.

6
Ibid.

7
Ibid., p. 451.

8
Ibid.

9
Ibid.

2
 From our point of view, the most interesting and complex image of the poet is offered by
Ralph Waldo Emerson, in his essay, “The Poet”, which positions the artist in a higher sphere.

In Emerson’s eyes, the poet is of course, a transcendentalist. The universe, he says, has
three children, <<the Knower, the Doer and the Sayer. These stand respectively for the love
of truth, for the love of good and for the love of beauty>>. These three are equal, and the
poet “is the sayer, the namer, and represents beauty10.

When talking about poets, Emerson refers to them as “liberating gods… They are free, and they
make free. (…) They liberate us from the tyranny and fragmentation of conventional perceptions,
from <<the jail-yard of individual relations>>, and enable us to see ourselves and the world in a
more comprehensive and far-reaching light”11. From this angle, poets are seen in a bright new
way, as of gods who have the gift of liberating humans from the mundane, offering them
compensatory worlds, through their literary works.

In his turn, Wordsworth acknowledges the difference between the poet and all the other
men, considering him endowed with “a more lively sensibility, … greater knowledge of human
nature, and a more comprehensive soul”12, with a “disposition to be affected more than other
men by absent things as if they were present; an ability of conjuring up in himself passions” 13. In
this situation also, the poet is a special being, apart from other people, gifted with special
“powers”.

In the end of our essay, we conclude by stating that the status of a poet has suffered
changes with the passing of time. If, at first, the poet and his work have been seen as having no
purpose, except that of exposing an imitative image of reality, in time, things change. Great minds
like Immanuel Kant, Coleridge, Wordsworth or Emerson “wash away” the unappreciative image
created by the ancients, placing the poet on a pedestal, where his place should have been from the
very beginning.

Bibliography:

10
M. A. R. Habib, op. cit., p. 462.

11
Ibid.

12
Ibid., p. 436.

13
Ibid.

3
1. Habib, M. A. R., A History of Literary Criticism – From Plato to the Present, Blackwell
Publishing, 2005.