论文部分内容阅读
摘 要：This thesis attempts to record the crucial moments during the evolvement of imitation theory by expounding on the explanations made by Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus, as well as the neo-classicist Samuel Johnson. Plato firstly put forward the concept of “mimesis”, which later was altered by Aristotle into “imitation with creation”. Then the great minds of the medieval time contended that by imitating the individual soul, poets could reach the One. Then the Romanticists changed “imitation” to “expression”. Meanwhile, after the Medieval, a group of critics, called medieval materialists, took the other way to develop the imitation theory, which reached its destination in periods of Realism and Naturalism. The word “representation” in their eyes meant reflection of reality.
关键词：imitation theory;Plato;Aristotle;Plotinus;Samuel Johnson;Romanticists
中图分类号：B12 文献标识码：A
文章编号：1009-0118（2012）08-0296-02
1.From Plato to Aristotle：from “mimesis” to “imitation with creation”
Plato was the very first person to bring up the discussion of imitation theory. In Book Ⅹ of his Republic, he begins the discussion by defining what is representation or representational poetry. He makes a general judgement of it in the first place. In his opinion, there are three worlds. The first and the unchanging is the Idea, or the real, which is created by God. It can be found in Nature. The second is an imitation of the Idea, which consists of those artists and craftsmen who have the ability to imitate the Form. The third is an appearance of the second world, which is imitated “as they appear to be” by painters, artists, poets, and etc. That is to say, as these kinds of people cannot see the whole thing but just part of it, they can merely imitate from a particular point of view, which is not truth, but an image of an imitation of truth. Thus they are third-degree imitators and the works they produce are “two generations away from reality”. The representational poetry belongs to this third degree generation. Thus poetry is bad, towards which Plato held a disdainful attitude. What is worse is that the poet is ignorant about what he is representing, as he does not have “knowledge” of the objects. Plato further criticizes how bad representation is by claiming that reason dwells upon the good part, the rational part “which accepts measurements and calculations”, while representation is governed by the other part which “must be a low-grade part of the mind”. The poet creates under the guidance of the untrustworthy irrational part of the mind, and so the representation cannot be trusted either. Therefore, the poet, being the worst imitator, can only grasp what is at his wheel, while the other kind of people, particularly, philosophers, are bound to accomplish the arduous task of scrutinizing the high-grade part of the mind and take down truthful notes. Still, Plato gives “representation” a final attack：representational arts have the power to “［deform］ good people” by using magic to trick them into indulgence in their freed feelings, which in turn feeds the irrational part and weakens the rational part. Although he acknowledges in the end of Book Ⅹ the permitted entrance of certain kinds of poetry, Plato, defining “representation” as “low-grade ［child］” produced by “a low-grade mother” and “an equally low-grade father”, is in disapproval of it in a larger proportion. A disciple of Plato, Aristotle was quite different from his teacher in his conception of representation. In his Poetics, he turns the concept of “imitation” into “imitation with creation”. He thinks that there are two sources for the generation of poetry. The first is that “representation is natural to human beings from childhood”, followed by the second one that “everyone delights in representations”. It is human instinct to imitate and it is also natural for them to have pleasure in imitation. Therefore, imitation is nothing to be ashamed of. The more challenging assertion in his book should be the part of his theory of tragedy in which he turns down Plato’s claim that poetry impairs the healthy mind by saying that tragedy has the power of “catharsis” as it produces the feelings of pity and fear in the audience and purifies their mind. As a result, poetry helps people to have a better mind. Aristotle takes a further step in asserting that poetry is “more philosophical and more serious than history”. That is because historians only record what has happened, while the poet tells things “that may happen, i.e. that are possible in accordance with probability or necessity”. By replacing the term “imitate” with the phrase “create when imitating”, Aristotle paved the way for the medieval critics and even for the Romanticists more than a thousand years later.
2.Medieval Idealism and the Romanticists
After these two great men, there came the Medieval, when two philosophical schools coexisted, namely, the Medieval Idealism and Materialism. The former school followed the ideas laid down by Plato of the Ideal and filled up what was left by Aristotle. Plotinus was a best representative. Same as Plato, he argued that there was the One in the universe. In his fully developed theory, the One creates two layers of Ideal archetypes, of which one is manifest in Nature, the external world, and the other is revealed in the Soul that is further subdivided into the universal Soul of God and the individual soul of men. According to the theories in his Fifth Ennead, he infers that art is far better than Nature, for the poet does not imitate the form, but distils from the object the soul. When the One creates, it endows all the creatures with the Ideal archetype. The human mind, in which there is also the Ideal archetype, can reach the One through his divine intellect which is attained to through self-contemplation and imagination. Thus, the poet can create art far better than Nature because objects cannot reflect. Moreover, even since the moment the object enters into our eyes, our Intellect has chosen the most beautiful elements of the thing. Plotinus later gives a further explanation of the process of creation of the artists. The artist is not imitating the world of Nature. Instead, under the guidance of God, the universal Soul, which the poet “prays” to “enter”, he is imitating his individual soul into which enters the world of Nature at that moment. Then, the natural world is different from the previous Nature in that it is perceived by the Intellect. Therefore, again, human mind can create a second and better Nature. It can be concluded that Plotinus lays much emphasis on the power of imagination in creation. Representation is interpreted as creation through imitation with the help of imagination and creation has taken up a larger proportion than imitation in Plotinus’ heart.
关键词：imitation theory;Plato;Aristotle;Plotinus;Samuel Johnson;Romanticists
中图分类号：B12 文献标识码：A
文章编号：1009-0118（2012）08-0296-02
1.From Plato to Aristotle：from “mimesis” to “imitation with creation”
Plato was the very first person to bring up the discussion of imitation theory. In Book Ⅹ of his Republic, he begins the discussion by defining what is representation or representational poetry. He makes a general judgement of it in the first place. In his opinion, there are three worlds. The first and the unchanging is the Idea, or the real, which is created by God. It can be found in Nature. The second is an imitation of the Idea, which consists of those artists and craftsmen who have the ability to imitate the Form. The third is an appearance of the second world, which is imitated “as they appear to be” by painters, artists, poets, and etc. That is to say, as these kinds of people cannot see the whole thing but just part of it, they can merely imitate from a particular point of view, which is not truth, but an image of an imitation of truth. Thus they are third-degree imitators and the works they produce are “two generations away from reality”. The representational poetry belongs to this third degree generation. Thus poetry is bad, towards which Plato held a disdainful attitude. What is worse is that the poet is ignorant about what he is representing, as he does not have “knowledge” of the objects. Plato further criticizes how bad representation is by claiming that reason dwells upon the good part, the rational part “which accepts measurements and calculations”, while representation is governed by the other part which “must be a low-grade part of the mind”. The poet creates under the guidance of the untrustworthy irrational part of the mind, and so the representation cannot be trusted either. Therefore, the poet, being the worst imitator, can only grasp what is at his wheel, while the other kind of people, particularly, philosophers, are bound to accomplish the arduous task of scrutinizing the high-grade part of the mind and take down truthful notes. Still, Plato gives “representation” a final attack：representational arts have the power to “［deform］ good people” by using magic to trick them into indulgence in their freed feelings, which in turn feeds the irrational part and weakens the rational part. Although he acknowledges in the end of Book Ⅹ the permitted entrance of certain kinds of poetry, Plato, defining “representation” as “low-grade ［child］” produced by “a low-grade mother” and “an equally low-grade father”, is in disapproval of it in a larger proportion. A disciple of Plato, Aristotle was quite different from his teacher in his conception of representation. In his Poetics, he turns the concept of “imitation” into “imitation with creation”. He thinks that there are two sources for the generation of poetry. The first is that “representation is natural to human beings from childhood”, followed by the second one that “everyone delights in representations”. It is human instinct to imitate and it is also natural for them to have pleasure in imitation. Therefore, imitation is nothing to be ashamed of. The more challenging assertion in his book should be the part of his theory of tragedy in which he turns down Plato’s claim that poetry impairs the healthy mind by saying that tragedy has the power of “catharsis” as it produces the feelings of pity and fear in the audience and purifies their mind. As a result, poetry helps people to have a better mind. Aristotle takes a further step in asserting that poetry is “more philosophical and more serious than history”. That is because historians only record what has happened, while the poet tells things “that may happen, i.e. that are possible in accordance with probability or necessity”. By replacing the term “imitate” with the phrase “create when imitating”, Aristotle paved the way for the medieval critics and even for the Romanticists more than a thousand years later.
2.Medieval Idealism and the Romanticists
After these two great men, there came the Medieval, when two philosophical schools coexisted, namely, the Medieval Idealism and Materialism. The former school followed the ideas laid down by Plato of the Ideal and filled up what was left by Aristotle. Plotinus was a best representative. Same as Plato, he argued that there was the One in the universe. In his fully developed theory, the One creates two layers of Ideal archetypes, of which one is manifest in Nature, the external world, and the other is revealed in the Soul that is further subdivided into the universal Soul of God and the individual soul of men. According to the theories in his Fifth Ennead, he infers that art is far better than Nature, for the poet does not imitate the form, but distils from the object the soul. When the One creates, it endows all the creatures with the Ideal archetype. The human mind, in which there is also the Ideal archetype, can reach the One through his divine intellect which is attained to through self-contemplation and imagination. Thus, the poet can create art far better than Nature because objects cannot reflect. Moreover, even since the moment the object enters into our eyes, our Intellect has chosen the most beautiful elements of the thing. Plotinus later gives a further explanation of the process of creation of the artists. The artist is not imitating the world of Nature. Instead, under the guidance of God, the universal Soul, which the poet “prays” to “enter”, he is imitating his individual soul into which enters the world of Nature at that moment. Then, the natural world is different from the previous Nature in that it is perceived by the Intellect. Therefore, again, human mind can create a second and better Nature. It can be concluded that Plotinus lays much emphasis on the power of imagination in creation. Representation is interpreted as creation through imitation with the help of imagination and creation has taken up a larger proportion than imitation in Plotinus’ heart.