Western Critical Thought Made Simple: Key Ideas and Thinkers in Unit 2

Table of Contents

Introduction :

You’ve probably heard the saying that criticism is as old as creativity itself. In fact, literary critics William Wimsatt and Cleanth Brooks once said that poets have always had strong opinions about their own art—and they often include these ideas in their poems. So, it’s no surprise that literary theory has existed for as long as poetry itself.

In this discussion, we’ll focus mostly on Western critical thought. Literary criticism comes from general ideas about beauty and art—what we call aesthetics—which are deeply shaped by philosophy. These philosophical ideas often explore big questions like: What is reality? Who or what is God? Can we ever truly know anything for sure?

There has always been a close link between philosophy and literary criticism. For example, in both ancient pagan and Christian traditions, there is a strong belief in the power of the “Word” or Logos. Think of the line, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God.” This reflects a deep connection between language and meaning, between words and the world we live in.

Just as philosophers have tried to help us understand the world and the Word, literary critics focus on helping us understand the world of literature—especially the written word.

Critical Antiquity and Classical Heroes :

Even in ancient times, poets were not just creators of beautiful verses—they also had ideas about how and why poetry should be written. Take the example of early Greek poets like Homer. When he starts his epic poems by calling upon the Muse, he’s not just being poetic—he’s actually making a statement: that poetry comes through divine inspiration. This belief has influenced literary thinking for centuries.

From Homer to Plato (around 428–348 BC), a lot of time passed, but during that period, many Greek poets and dramatists shared their thoughts—sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly—about what poetry means. Hesiod, Pindar, and even the comic playwright Aristophanes dropped hints about their views:

That poetry should be delightful,
That it should teach something meaningful,
That true poetic talent might be a natural gift—or something that must be learned through skill and technique.

Plato is considered the first person to really theorize about literature in a deep, structured way. His ideas set the foundation for a long tradition of literary criticism.

Over time, Western critical thought has focused on some big, interesting questions:

Does literature reflect the real world, or is it something separate?
What kind of truth, if any, does literature give us?
How does the human mind interact with literature—what makes us understand or enjoy it?
And how is literature connected to history and culture?

In this unit, we’ll explore different viewpoints that have shaped Western literary criticism. You’ll see how ancient ideas evolved over time, and how they still influence the way we understand stories, poems, and plays today.

Key Points :

Ancient poets were already thinking critically about poetry.
Homer and Milton believed poetry came from divine inspiration.
Poets like Hesiod and Pindar talked about poetry being charming, educational, and a mix of talent and skill.
Plato was the first to formally discuss literary theory.
Western criticism asks deep questions about reality, truth, psychology, and history in relation to literature.

Plato’s Parable – Why Did He Distrust Poetry?

The famous philosopher Alfred North Whitehead once said that all of Western philosophy is just “a footnote to Plato.” And honestly, that’s not far from the truth—especially when it comes to literary criticism. A big part of what we understand about literature today starts with Plato.

Plato and His Ideal State

In his well-known book The Republic, Plato talked about how an ideal society should work. He divided it into three groups:

Artisans – people who do the physical work
Military – people who protect the state
Philosophers – the wise rulers

Now here’s where things get interesting: Plato said that while the artisans and the military might enjoy poetry, it’s actually harmful for the philosophers—and by extension, the state. Why? Because poetry appeals to emotions and passions, which distract people from rational thinking. So, in Plato’s ideal society, poets would either be exiled or made to write only religious hymns or praise for heroes.

But before we judge him too quickly, there’s more to this idea.

It’s All a Metaphor

Plato wasn’t just talking about a real political state. He was using it as a symbol for the human mind. In his theory of the “Tripartite Soul”, the three parts of the state represent:

Artisans → our desires and appetites
Military → our emotions and willpower
Philosopher-kings → our reason and wisdom

For Plato, a good life means reason must guide our emotions and desires. That’s why he warned against poetry—it feeds the emotional and desire-driven parts of us and weakens our ability to think clearly.

So, no—Plato wasn’t literally kicking poets out. He was saying that a truly wise person wouldn’t depend on poetry, because it pulls us away from reason.

Plato’s Big Concern: The Power of Imitation

Plato believed that art is powerful, and that power can be dangerous. Why? Because we humans tend to imitate what we see and hear.

Let’s break it down using Plato’s idea of mimesis, or imitation:

There’s a perfect world of ideas—what Plato called “Forms” or “The Good.”
Everything in our world is just an imperfect copy of those Forms.
Art (like poetry or painting) doesn’t even copy the real thing—it copies the appearance of the real thing.
So, art is a copy of a copy—it’s twice removed from truth.

An Easy Example: The Chair

Imagine your chair. It’s brown, soft, has wheels, and can be adjusted. All of that is just its appearance—the “accidents”, as Plato would say.

But what really makes it a chair is the idea of “Chairness.” That perfect, invisible Form of a Chair is the real thing. Everything else is just an imitation.

So, according to Plato:

Reality = the world of perfect ideas
Our world = a shadow of that reality
Art = a shadow of a shadow!

Why Plato Feared Art

Since art only imitates the outer look of things—and not their deeper truth—Plato believed it pulls people further away from reality and goodness.
He even said that poets are like madmen, and their passion could be contagious. If we admire poetry too much, we might lose touch with reason—and that’s dangerous.

But Here’s the Twist…

Even though Plato criticized poetry, he used poetic dialogue in his own writing! So, there’s a bit of irony there. He clearly knew the power of beautiful language—and used it to make his ideas unforgettable.

Further Considerations of Plato on Poetry

In his dialogue Ion, written in the early fourth century BCE, Plato presents a conversation between Socrates and a rhapsode named Ion. A rhapsode was a professional performer of poetry, sort of like a modern-day lecturer mixed with an entertainer. Plato, being a disciple of Socrates, uses this dialogue to share his views on literature and poetry, making it more of a historical perspective than just fictional storytelling.

One key point from Ion is that a rhapsodic attitude towards poetry is a bit like being a critic without any clear theory. Rhapsodes would often describe poetry with simple emotional reactions like “How touching!” or “Beautiful, beautiful!” without offering any deeper analysis. Plato’s critique of this kind of shallow response shows his belief that proper criticism requires more than just emotional reactions—it should have a strong, thoughtful foundation.

Plato’s Views on Poetry in His Other Works

Plato expands on his thoughts about poetry more fully in The Republic. In this text, he argues against the influence of poets on society, seeing them as potentially harmful. For Plato, poetry feeds the emotions and disturbs the balance of reason. He felt that poetry could cause unrest in the heart by stirring up passions and desires, which could lead to instability and distract from civic values like reason and order.

In Phaedrus, he critiques poetry further, suggesting that poets are relying on divine madness—a type of irrational inspiration—that makes them untrustworthy guides for moral behavior.

Plato’s skepticism of poets is evident in his description of how society should handle them. If poets or performers come into the ideal state, Plato suggests that they should be admired, but then sent away, because their emotional influence is not something that fits in a well-ordered society. Instead, the state would need poets who focus only on virtuous, moral topics, reflecting the kind of heroism and values Plato believes are necessary for a just society.

Why Does Plato Distrust Poetry?

Plato’s main reason for rejecting poetry is that it can lead people to immoral behavior. He believes poetry doesn’t always portray good examples. Instead of showing idealized heroes, poets like Homer and Hesiod present gods and heroes who are often flawed—quarrelsome, deceitful, and even morally questionable. For example, the gods in their stories are not always good but behave like imperfect humans. Heroes, too, may act unheroically or be ruled by emotions rather than reason.

This brings us to Plato’s idea of mimesis or imitation. He thinks that poetry simply imitates life, but not the ideal life—just the appearance of it, and these imitations can lead people away from true virtue and wisdom.

Plato and Love: A New Perspective

An interesting shift in more recent times is the way Plato’s dialogues on love have been reinterpreted. His ideas, particularly on the love between men, have become central to queer theory. What we now call “Platonic love” or “Greek Love” was once seen as a deep, non-physical bond between men, rooted in intellectual and emotional connection. These discussions have found a new relevance in modern conversations about queer theory and the study of relationships.

Conclusion

Plato’s view of poetry was one of deep skepticism. He thought poetry could manipulate emotions, distract people from reason, and even lead them into immoral behavior. For Plato, literature had the power to influence minds, but it wasn’t always for the good. His insistence on reason over emotion and his emphasis on the pursuit of higher truths led him to favor other forms of education and expression over the emotional and often deceptive nature of poetry.

This perspective, though centuries old, continues to influence modern discussions of literature and the power of art.

Aristotle’s View on Art and Tragedy

Aristotle (384–322 BCE) was one of Plato’s most famous students. While his ideas often contradicted Plato’s, Aristotle built upon many of Plato’s theories. Like Plato, Aristotle was an idealist, but instead of believing that ideas existed separately from the physical world, he believed that ideas were embedded within things themselves.

Aristotle’s approach to art is different from Plato’s. While Plato thought art was a copy of the world and could mislead people, Aristotle saw art as an imitation of the true essence of things, rather than just their accidental qualities. For Aristotle, art was higher than the physical world because it helps us understand deeper truths.

Aristotle’s Theory of Art and Tragedy

In his work Poetics, Aristotle analyzed the different forms of art, focusing mostly on Tragedy. He explained that art imitates life, but in a way that reflects deeper truths. According to Aristotle, art, like everything in the world, has a formal cause—a particular form or structure it should follow. For example, the best art, like the best furniture, closely follows its ideal form.

Aristotle applied scientific methods to art, analyzing it through different causes, much like he would analyze natural phenomena. He broke down Tragedy into four causes:

Material Cause: The most basic elements that make up a tragedy, such as words, gestures, and the performance itself. This can be further broken down into six elements: plot, character, thought, diction, spectacle, and song.
Formal Cause: This is the form or structure of the tragedy itself. Aristotle defines tragedy as the presentation of action (as opposed to narration, which is used in epic poetry or history).
Efficient Cause: The playwright, who creates the tragedy, is the efficient cause—the one who brings the work into being.
Final Cause: This is the most important. The final purpose of a tragedy is to arouse feelings of fear and pity in the audience, leading to catharsis (a kind of emotional cleansing). Aristotle believed that when we watch a tragic play, we experience uncomfortable emotions, but by doing so, we release them and restore emotional balance. For example, in Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex, the audience feels repelled by Oedipus’s relationship with his mother, horrified when he blinds himself, and pity for his helplessness. These feelings, though negative, are purged through the experience of the tragedy.

Aristotle’s Influence on Tragedy

Aristotle admired the Oedipus plays by Sophocles and used them as a model for his thinking about tragedy. He argued that the hero of a tragedy moves from a position of wealth and power to one of poverty and despair. This reversal (or peripeteia) is what makes the tragedy so powerful.

Aristotle also provided a clear structure for tragedy’s plot, which students still learn today. According to him, a tragedy’s plot should follow a clear progression: exposition (the introduction of the situation), rising action (building tension), climax (the turning point), and denouement (the resolution, or falling action).

In summary, Aristotle saw art, especially tragedy, as a way to elevate us and help us understand deeper truths about life. By going through the emotional rollercoaster of a tragedy, we are able to confront and release harmful emotions, ultimately restoring balance to our feelings.

Aquinas, Longinus, and Dante: Key Figures in Medieval Literary Thought

Despite Boethius’ (c. 475-525) strong criticism of poetry, which was based on medieval theology and philosophy, not all medieval thinkers shared his view. Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-1274), for example, was a highly skilled critic who applied his intellectual abilities to interpreting scripture. Dante Alighieri took Aquinas’ ideas further and demonstrated how they could be applied to secular texts, especially his own monumental work, The Divine Comedy.

Longinus and the Sublime

Longinus is often seen as writing in response to Plato’s negative views on poetry. In his work On the Sublime, Longinus focuses on the concept of transcendence—what makes a work of art great is its ability to elevate the mind and make us see things beyond the ordinary. This idea of elevating the soul through art was something Plato feared, but Longinus embraces it.

In On the Sublime, Longinus explains that the true hallmark of great art is its ability to move us and inspire us. He identifies two main qualities for creating the sublime: the ability to think great thoughts and the ability to feel powerful emotions. According to Longinus, the poet must possess both a great mind and a great soul. The rest of what makes art sublime comes from the poet’s ability to communicate that greatness.

Longinus goes on to explain the craft of the poet, stating that they must have the skill to “form figures”—meaning not just creating characters, but also using thought and language in meaningful ways. The poet must be able to choose words carefully, use metaphors effectively, and compose the work in an elevated and dignified manner.

While the specifics of Longinus’ techniques are important, the larger point he makes is the most significant: great art comes from a “great soul.” He believed the ultimate aim of art was to transport or elevate the audience, and that using elevated language was the key to achieving this. He also argues that the reaction of a sensitive and intelligent audience is the true measure of a work’s value, not the traditional views about the work’s worth.

Aquinas and the Sacred Interpretation of Texts

In medieval thought, there were two main ways to understand God’s will: through the Bible and through the natural world, which was also seen as a form of divine revelation. Thomas Aquinas suggested that any passage of the Bible could be interpreted in multiple ways: literally, allegorically, morally, and anagogically (relating to eternal truths and the glory of God). This method of reading was incredibly detailed and often required a lifetime of study, with the understanding that much would always be missed.

Dante, in his own writing, clearly followed this kind of interpretive approach. His work, The Divine Comedy, is not just a great literary achievement but also a deeply theological and philosophical exploration. Like Aquinas, Dante’s writing invites multiple layers of interpretation, and scholars have spent centuries analyzing it.

Dante’s Role in Medieval Poetry

Dante (1265-1321) is important for several reasons. His work, especially The Divine Comedy, had a profound influence on later writers, including Modernists like T.S. Eliot and Ezra Pound, who admired Dante’s attention to detail and sought to create works that could withstand such rigorous criticism.

Dante also played a critical role in preserving poetry during the Middle Ages. At a time when many believed that the Bible was the only necessary text, and non-scriptural writings were often considered dangerous, Dante’s work was so beautiful, intelligent, and devout that it helped ensure poetry’s survival through the centuries. Many poets and texts could have been lost, but Dante’s influence kept the tradition of poetry alive.

In summary, Aquinas, Longinus, and Dante each made significant contributions to the development of Western literary thought. They helped elevate the role of literature and poetry, showing that it could both inspire deep emotions and engage in complex theological and philosophical discourse.

The English Tradition in Literary Thought

During the Renaissance, England began importing many classical texts, including the works of ancient philosophers and poets like Plato and Aristotle. However, not all of English literary theory came from abroad—many English thinkers also developed their own ideas. One notable figure was Geoffrey Chaucer (c. 1348-1400). While Chaucer didn’t write formal literary criticism, his characters in narrative poems, like the Wife of Bath, often discussed literary theory. Chaucer anticipated many modern ideas about literature, as pointed out by Professor Nalini Jain in an unpublished lecture.

Before Chaucer, a 13th-century English poem called The Owl and the Nightingale contained the earliest form of literary criticism in the English language. This allegorical poem argued that poetry should have a didactic purpose, teaching moral lessons.

Even William Shakespeare was a theorist in his own right, discussing drama, performance, poetry, and the role of the poet. By the 15th century, classical ideas were spreading more widely, especially after the fall of Constantinople. Greek and Roman thought became increasingly influential in English writing.

Sir Philip Sidney and Renaissance Literary Theory

Sir Philip Sidney (1554-1586) was the quintessential Renaissance man. He read and understood nearly every major classical work, and in his Apology for Poetry, he drew heavily from classical thinkers like Cicero (106-43 BC) and Quintilian (c. 35-100 AD). Sidney applied their ideas to Renaissance art, challenging earlier critics who focused too much on classical works and neglected contemporary writers.

Sidney’s Apology for Poetry follows the structure of a classical oration, which has eight parts:

Exordium (the attention-grabber)
Narratio (history of the issue)
Propositio (the main argument)
Partitio (breakdown of the argument)
Confirmatio (proof of the argument)
Refutatio (counter-arguments are refuted)
Digressio (discussion of related topics)
Peroratio (the conclusion and call to action)

Sidney begins by stating that all human cultures blend art and utility, with poetry playing a central role in every society. He makes a bold claim that poetry is more important than philosophy, as it has the power to inspire virtuous action in a way philosophy cannot. Philosophy deals with universal truths that can seem distant from everyday life, while poetry blends universal themes with the specifics of human experience. Poetry, therefore, is the most powerful form of art because it can inspire noble action in its audience.

In the refutatio, Sidney tackles common criticisms of poetry. He argues that poetry is not a waste of time, as it can inspire us to act nobly. He defends poetry against accusations of falsehood, following Boccaccio‘s argument that art is neither true nor false, and thus, poetry cannot be considered a lie. Sidney also argues that just because there is bad poetry doesn’t mean all poetry should be devalued. He makes an interesting point about Plato, claiming that Plato, who criticized poetry, was not attacking poetry itself but only its misuse. Sidney’s most significant contribution comes in the digressio, where he argues that English is a legitimate language for poetry, just as much as Latin or Italian. This insight turned out to be prophetic, as English poetry flourished soon after.

The Decline of Renaissance Humanism and the Rise of Neo-Classicism

After the Renaissance, the humanistic and individualistic spirit began to fade. Following the Restoration of the monarchy in 1660, a new wave of enthusiasm for classical texts emerged, leading to the rise of Neo-Classicism. Writers like John Dryden (1631-1700) began to explore the relationship between the Ancients and the Moderns through dialogues and critical works. This period led to the high Neo-Classical movement of the 18th century, where the influence of thinkers like Samuel Johnson (1709-1784) was dominant.

The focus now shifted towards reason, order, and clarity, drawing heavily on classical ideals. However, the pendulum was about to swing again as new literary ideas emerged during the Romantic period, which I’ll discuss next.

Some Philosophical Foundations

The philosophical debates of the 17th and 18th centuries, particularly between empirical and analytical thinking, set the stage for many of the ideas that followed. One major movement that arose in response to the rise of science was German Romanticism. This movement aimed to restore the lost harmony between humans and nature, as well as between different aspects of human consciousness. The German thinker Friedrich von Hardenberg (known as Novalis) in his essay Christendom or Europe famously criticized science, claiming it was destroying the universe’s creative energy. He argued that science was turning the “infinite, creative music of the universe” into a “dull clattering of a gigantic mill,” driven by random chance, with no architect or purpose. In his view, science had reduced everything to mechanical processes, leaving the universe without meaning.

At the heart of this shift was Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), whose work played a major role in reshaping how we think about knowledge and the world. Kant’s idea of a “Copernican revolution” in philosophy was a major turning point. The term “Copernican revolution” comes from Copernicus, who changed our view of the universe by putting the sun at the center, not the Earth. Similarly, Kant argued that instead of looking outward to the world for truth, we should focus on the mind and how it actively shapes our experience of reality. This shift was a response to thinkers like David Hume (1711-1776), who emphasized empirical observation and analysis.

Before Kant, John Locke (1632-1704) had proposed that the mind was like a blank slate (a tabula rasa) at birth, shaped by sensory experiences. Kant critiqued this idea, arguing that the mind doesn’t passively receive information; instead, it actively organizes and shapes what we experience. He also challenged the belief that reason was the ultimate authority, as many had believed.

Kant’s work Critique of Judgment (1790) bridged his earlier work on science and ethics, introducing a new way of understanding aesthetics. In this work, Kant made an important contribution to modern aesthetics and literary theory. He divided human experience into two realms: the physical world, which can be understood through science and reason, and the moral world, which is guided by our choices and the categorical imperative (the moral law we must follow). Between these two realms, Kant introduced the concept of aesthetics, which involves our feelings of beauty and the sublime.

The sublime, as Kant described it, is a feeling of awe or amazement, something deeply personal yet also universal. It’s the emotional response we have to something vast or overwhelming, like the greatness of nature. Kant also distinguished between the beautiful and the sublime. The beautiful, in Kant’s view, isn’t just about personal pleasure. It has a universal quality that appeals to everyone, regardless of personal taste. The beautiful is not about a specific purpose or goal but about a harmonious fit between nature and our ability to experience it. It’s what Kant called “purposiveness without purpose”—the idea that nature is ordered in a way that satisfies our capacity for understanding, without any specific end goal.

In summary, Kant’s philosophy shifted the focus of thought from an external, objective view of the world to the internal, active role of the mind in shaping experience. His ideas on beauty, the sublime, and the active role of reason in our understanding of the world became foundational for modern aesthetics and literary theory.

Early Romanticism

The American and French Revolutions played a significant role in shaping the early ideas of Romantic thinkers like Wordsworth and Coleridge. These revolutions brought about major political changes: the aristocracies that once held power in Europe were weakening, the middle class was growing, and political power was increasingly being shared with the common people. This shift in power made it natural for Wordsworth’s poetry and criticism to focus on the common man, rather than the educated aristocrats. However, some scholars have questioned this simple view of literary history.

For both Wordsworth (1770-1850) and Coleridge (1772-1834), this change in society led to a shift in their approach to poetry. They moved away from using elevated, formal language and topics, focusing instead on spontaneity and motion. Like the ancient critic Longinus, the Romantics believed that a poet was born with a “Great Soul,” but they also thought that ordinary, everyday language was the best way to express that soul. In their view, a poet was simply “a man speaking to men.” For Wordsworth, this meant using rural, pastoral language, as he believed the best wisdom came from connecting with nature. For Coleridge, it meant using the language spoken by ordinary people in their daily lives.

Another major change in Romantic poetry was its purpose. In earlier times, people saw poetry as something meant to influence or change people’s behavior. The Romantics rejected this idea, believing instead that poetry existed simply as a way to express deep feelings and emotions. This is why Wordsworth famously defined poetry as “emotion recollected in tranquillity.”

The last major aspect of neoclassicism that the Romantics rejected was the mechanical model of composing poetry. In line with their focus on nature, the Romantics believed that poems should have an organic, natural flow, rather than following a strict, mechanical structure. While they still wrote in traditional forms like sonnets and elegies, they also experimented with blank verse and even free verse, breaking away from the “rules” set by earlier neoclassical poets.

Answer the following questions:

1. What are Plato’s arguments against poetry?

Plato’s arguments against poetry are primarily found in his work The Republic, where he expresses strong concerns about its potential negative effects on society. He argues that poetry can be dangerous because it often appeals to the emotions rather than reason. Plato believes that poetry misrepresents reality, as poets imitate things that are mere copies of the real world. For instance, in his view, poetry imitates the physical world, which is itself a copy of the eternal Forms, the true reality. Since poets deal with imitations of imitations, their work is even further removed from the truth.

Furthermore, Plato claims that poets portray the gods and heroes in immoral ways, often showing them acting irrationally or wrongly. This, he argues, could influence people to act unethically, especially the young and impressionable. He also criticizes the way in which poetry stirs up emotions like anger, sadness, and fear, as it distracts people from reason and self-control, the qualities Plato holds in high regard for leading a just life. According to Plato, the primary goal of art should be to promote truth and virtue, which poetry fails to do because it relies on imitation rather than presenting the truth.

In The Republic, Plato even suggests that poetry should be censored in the ideal society because it could corrupt the minds of citizens. He also mentions that poets, unlike philosophers, do not possess knowledge of the forms, and therefore cannot contribute to the search for truth. In summary, Plato’s objections to poetry are based on its potential to mislead, corrupt, and disturb the balance of a rational and just society.

2. How did Aristotle argue in favour of the poets?

In contrast to Plato, Aristotle offered a strong defense of poetry, especially in his work Poetics, where he lays out his arguments in favor of the value of poetry and dramatic arts. Aristotle takes a more pragmatic view, arguing that poetry serves a significant purpose in society and plays an essential role in understanding human experience. His arguments are centered around the idea that poetry can offer deep insights into the nature of humanity and the world around us.

Aristotle’s most influential idea is his theory of catharsis, which is the process by which tragedy (a form of poetry) purges or cleanses the emotions of the audience, especially fear and pity. Aristotle argues that by experiencing these emotions vicariously through a tragic play, the audience undergoes an emotional cleansing, which leads to a sense of emotional balance. This emotional release is beneficial, as it helps to prevent these feelings from overwhelming individuals in their everyday lives. In this way, poetry serves a therapeutic function, which Plato fails to recognize.

Moreover, Aristotle asserts that poetry, particularly drama and epic poetry, provides a unique ability to present universal truths about the human condition. Even though the stories in poetry may be fictional, they reflect universal human experiences, such as love, loss, ambition, and betrayal, which have a timeless quality. Through the events and characters in these stories, poetry explores the complexities of human emotions, actions, and moral choices, and teaches important lessons about life. In contrast to Plato’s dismissal of imitation, Aristotle believes that poetry’s ability to represent life, even through fiction, makes it an invaluable tool for learning and personal growth.

Aristotle also defends the idea of poetic structure. He emphasizes that poetry should have a clear beginning, middle, and end. This structured approach makes poetry effective in presenting its themes and teaching its lessons. Aristotle’s ideas on plot structure and the importance of character development in tragedy have influenced generations of writers and poets.

Ultimately, Aristotle’s argument in favor of poetry rests on its emotional and intellectual benefits, as well as its ability to reflect deeper truths about life. He believes that poetry is not merely a form of entertainment or emotional manipulation, as Plato suggests, but an essential part of the human experience that enriches our understanding of ourselves and the world.

3. What is Longinus’ theory of the Sublime? (20 marks)

Longinus, in his treatise On the Sublime, presents one of the most important early theories of aesthetic experience in literature. He argues that the Sublime is a unique and elevated quality in writing or speech that has the power to move and inspire the audience. Longinus believed that the Sublime is not merely about beauty or grandeur, but about writing that stirs profound emotions, lifts the spirit, and transcends ordinary experience.

For Longinus, the Sublime arises from passionate expression that draws the reader or listener into a higher emotional state. It is the ability of great writing to convey not just ideas but intense feelings that elevate the mind. He believes that the greatest works of literature and oratory contain this sublime quality, which can make ordinary events seem extraordinary and bring a sense of awe and admiration. The Sublime is not just a matter of the style or technical proficiency of the writer; it’s about **how effectively the work communicates something universally impactful and elevates the reader beyond the mundane.

Longinus identifies several elements that contribute to the creation of the Sublime, including grandeur of thought, strong emotions, and powerful language. He argues that the most effective writers use vivid imagery, bold ideas, and passionate rhetoric to convey their message in a way that creates a lasting impression on the audience. Writers like Homer, Plato, and Demosthenes are cited as examples of those who achieve the Sublime, because their works manage to elevate the spirit of their audience and make an immediate, lasting impact.

The Sublime, according to Longinus, also involves a sense of the infinite or the divine—an experience that takes the reader beyond their normal, everyday perception of the world. It is something that transcends the immediate moment and resonates on a deeper, more universal level. Longinus compares this to the effect that great speeches or epic poetry can have on their audiences, making them feel that they are connected to something larger than themselves.

In conclusion, Longinus’ theory of the Sublime emphasizes the ability of great literature and oratory to elevate the human experience and stir the soul in a way that ordinary, everyday speech or writing cannot. It is the powerful connection between language, emotion, and the human spirit that makes the Sublime a central element in the experience of great art.