Poetics and rhetoric. - History of ancient philosophy

Poetics and rhetoric.

The poetics and rhetoric of Aristotle will be examined in detail in connection with the fact that the works of the same name formed the basis of both the European philosophy of art, and the later theory of eloquence, and in many ways - of social communication.

Aristotelian theory of poetic art - poetics - is set forth in the eponymous essay "Poetics". The word poetics but its form is an adjective - poetike, defining the noun art - techne. Thus, we are talking about the methods and rules for creating a verbal product, first of all poetic, and more precisely - tragedy, although Aristotelian "Poetics" can be read extensively, and then the structure of tragedy becomes a paradigm for prosaic writing, for example, historical narrative.

Aristotle in Poetics asserts that he is engaged in poetic art as such and its kinds, in other words, it builds precisely the theory of poetry, and not its history; Meanwhile, in his presentation we see the process of the formation and formation of poetic art, and, more broadly, of verbal art.

According to Aristotle, nature, i.e. essence, poetry is realized in tragedy. "Tragedy," says Aristotle, "is an imitation of an important and finished action, having a [definite] volume, [produced] by speech, sweetened in various ways in its various parts, [produced] in action, and not in narration and accomplishing through compassion and the fear of the purification of such passions .

In this definition, we, like Plato, meet with the key concept of the theory of poetry - imitation (mimesis). The originality of the Aristotelian understanding of imitation lies in the fact that it is not the creation of copies, not a simple mapping. Imitation as a mimesis is carried out in a myth ( mythos ), i.e. in the legend. Aristotle says so: "The very imitation of action is a legend" . Legend (myth) Aristotle understands as a "combination of events". So, imitation of action is carried out as a combination of events. Let's pay attention to the fact that Aristotle does not talk about which events should be combined - all the reasoning about the nature of the tragedy is conducted from the point of view of the form.

Imitate should action complete and whole & quot ;, i.e. such as "has a beginning, middle and end" (again we pay attention to the Aristotelian formalism!). The very imitation-legend (myth) must meet the same requirements, i.e. be holistic and complete. In order for this principle to be realized, the tragedy must have a known volume, one that would allow the structure to be carried out in an optimal way, and therefore "that volume is sufficient, inside of which, with the continuous following of [events] but the probability or necessity, a turning point from unhappiness to happiness or from happiness to misfortune . Fracture, or peripeteia, - is one of the key moments of the tragedy. The other two necessary elements are recognition and suffering. To the legend (myth) Aristotle makes the following demands: "The Legend, being an imitation of action, must be [imitation of] a single and the whole, and parts of events must be so composed that with the permutation or withdrawal of one of the parts the whole would be changed and upset, for then, the presence or absence of which is imperceptible, is not part of the whole " . Thus, the unity of action is associated with the necessary order of the parts of the story, while the very requirement of unity of action seems to go against the natural order of things. Indeed, no action in the world of our experience is complete, complete, with a clearly visible beginning, middle and end-in fact, only in the act of imitation (the composition of a story) for the first time and there is a differentiation of the otherwise undifferentiated empirical continuum, the action gets its completion. Formed in the legend, the action appears in its reality. In other words, only in the legend (myth) as a form the event appears as a necessary unity of parts. That is why Aristotle calls the legend, and hence, imitation, "the beginning and, as it were, the soul of tragedy" . Thus, in the legend, the nature of the poetic art itself is realized, consisting in the fact that poetic art (and, more broadly, all art) is an imitation performed in the form of a legend (and in the case of other arts, in the form corresponding to them). In other words, the nature of art is not to be a reality or a copy of it, but to be an interpretation of reality. Thus, it can be said that Aristotle discovered the plot as the principle of constructing tragedy and at the same time - as the principle of the most poetic art. The literary critic and culturologist Yu. M. Lotman said that to discover the "plot aspect of reality" means to "decompose the nondiscrete flow of events into some discrete units, connect them to some values ​​(ie, interpret semantically) and organize them into ordered chains (to interpret syntagmatically)" . In other words, writing a story-story is a way of explaining, or interpreting, events.

Let's return to the so-called forming parts of the tragedy: fracture , or peripeteia , recognition (anagnorisis) and undergoing , or passions. Aristotle defines these parts as follows: "A fracture (...) is a change made into its opposite, and thus (...) [change] probable or necessary (...). Learning the same (...) is a change from ignorance to knowledge (...) Passion is an act that causes death or pain, for example, death on stage, torment, wounds, etc. " .

So, we discussed what Aristotle understands by imitation. Now let's move on to the next important component of the definition of tragedy - action. Aristotle says that tragedy is an imitation of action, and people are acting. In this connection, it would be quite possible to expect reasoning about human characters, or ethos. Athos - this is what causes the pass to be called acting characters by somebody . However, from the customary point of view, Aristotle asserts the strange: "Without action, tragedy is impossible, and without characters it is possible." How to understand this statement? In order to answer this question, it is necessary to recall the difference between the possibility (dynamis) and of the reality (energeia). In the light of this distinction, the ethos of man turns out to be the possibility of one or another act , which is updated in action. Thus, undergoing ( pathos ) is the reality of ethos, which is relevant only in action. So, the conclusion is this: tragedy is an imitation of action and mainly through it to actors. "

We still need to consider one more key notion of definition of tragedy - purification ( katharsis ). Cleansing, or catharsis, is the goal of the tragedy. It reaches its completion in the viewer. Thus, the structure of the tragedy includes a recipient, one in whom the meaning of the work must be realized. Aristotelian concept of catharsis is very contradictory, it has repeatedly provoked and will still provoke controversy among researchers. What purification are we talking about? The difficulty is caused by the very phrase "cleansing of such passions". What is such passions is clear from the context: compassion ( eleos ) and fear ( phobos) - the problem itself is the design itself, because it can be interpreted in two ways (in fact, it was this duality that became the stumbling block): the phrase he ton toiouton pathematon katharsis can be understood both as a "purification of this kind of passions", and as "purification of this kind of passions". Hence the possibility of interpreting catharsis as 1) liberation from the corresponding emotions that arises from the empathy of the heroes of tragedy, which can be expressed in psychological detente; 2) the purification of the passions themselves, which can be realized only in an intellectual act - an act of understanding the essence of what is happening, through which passions no longer determine the psychological state of the viewer during and after a visit to the theater, but being understood as a necessary element of a tragic action, about the essence of being-human-in-the-world.

Both interpretations are completely legitimate: how the viewer experiences purification depends only on himself, on his character and upbringing, or, in modern terms, on his aesthetic experience.

It should be noted that Aristotle considers a model of the tragic art of "Oedipus King" Sophocles. It remains an open question: did it coincide that this Sophocles tragedy was consistent with the principles of Aristotle's poetics, or Aristotle built his theory, guided by the "Oedipus King".

Aristotelian theory of rhetoric is set forth in a number of works, which in the corpus of Stagirite's works are united under the general title of "Rhetoric". Researchers believe that initially there were two separate treatises - actually "Rhetoric" and "About prose", which in the final edition of Corpus Aristotelicum correspond to: the first to the first two books, the second to the third book of the available "Rhetoric". The word rhetoric & quot ;, like the poetics & quot ;, is in its form an adjective - rhetorike, defining the noun art - techne. Rhetoric is engaged in speech - rhesis, namely, ways and methods of making speech in such a way that it influences the listener and the reader. It is not surprising that the theory of rhetoric, or eloquence, acquires special significance in Greece and Rome: we have already noted the special attitude of the Greeks towards the word (Logos) as a fundamental feature of the human being. Thus, rhetoric is the art of practical application of the word, realized in the art of communication, i.e. communication, necessary to maintain the unity of the policy.

The meaning of the word rhetoric is revealed in the following series of oppositions:

1) rhetoric and poetics: rhetoric is the art of prosaic speech, poetics is the art of poetic speech;

2) rhetorical speech and everyday speech, literary speech and speech of everyday communication;

3) rhetoric and hermeneutics: rhetoric is the art of producing the text, hermeneutics is the art of interpreting the text.

The heyday of Greek rhetoric falls on the fifth century. BC. and is associated with the activities of the Sophists and political speakers. However, the sophistical position, as mentioned earlier (see Chapter 3), was seriously criticized by opponents who believed that the Sophists manipulated words and speeches, ignoring the question of the true meaning of words and things. As a result, in philosophical circles there arose the need to oppose philosophical rhetoric to sophistry. This project was tried to implement Plato, for example, in the dialogue "Phaedrus", and his pupil Aristotle continued to work in this direction.

Aristotle calls rhetoric art, corresponding to dialectics. In other words, rhetoric deals with evidence, but a special kind. The usual area of ​​application of rhetorical art is the court, where one must speak in defense, giving sufficient arguments, or, on the contrary, making accusations. The arguments presented should influence the judge - convince him. Therefore, the speech of the speaker must be convincing, but the truth (which Parmenides of Elay spoke about), or, at least, its likeness, persuades. Only someone who can find the truth can speak about similarity: for only one who knows or is able to find the truth can distinguish from it the similarity. By the way, in the field of dialectics one should be able to distinguish between the correct syllogism and the wrong one. Persuasiveness is achieved through art.

Aristotle believes that the scope of rhetoric should not be limited to judicial practice. Rhetoric is useful because it helps to discover and express the truth or its similarity, which itself is already important, not to mention the fact that oratory is dealing with justice. In addition, rhetoric has an important educational and educational significance. Indeed, a person, even if he has the most accurate and reliable knowledge, is not easy to convince others of this, because others are often unable to assess this knowledge because they lack the appropriate education. And because they need to be treated in a special way. And most importantly: possession of a word is a fundamental property of human nature.

So, according to Aristotle, rhetoric is "the ability to find possible ways of persuasion for each given subject", and "it does not concern any particular, specific class of objects" . This rhetorical art, like dialectics, differs from other arts: in contrast to the rhetoric and dialectics, a person who owns any particular art, say, medical or measuring (geometry), can be convincing only within the boundaries of his art. In other words, in other arts, the content, the subject matter, is important, while in rhetoric, form is important. Rhetoric is the art of constructing correct speech and, as such, must be based on a number of principles, one of which is the genre belonging to speech, depending on the case in which the speaker pronounces it. Aristotle distinguishes three kinds of speeches: advisory, epidemiological and judicial.

The conscientious speech is spoken in the congregation and has as its purpose to give advice on the polis life based on an understanding of the polis good. The deliberative speeches concern only possible private goods or evils that can arise in the event of an erroneous policy-events that have or are taking place or will necessarily occur, deliberative speeches do not concern, nor do they concern what happens independently of a person. Moreover, the very purpose of the existence of a policy, which is its prosperity, or happiness ( eudaimonia ) - does not constitute an object of deliberative speech. Thus, the goal of deliberative speech is to find ways and means that are most suitable and useful for achieving the benefit of the policy. Consultative speeches are made about international relations - issues of war and peace, and domestic politics (state of finances, protection of the policy, provision of food, and, finally, legislation). The advisory speaker should understand what is the benefit of the policy and what is the benefit of citizens. Since every person individually and all people together are striving for happiness, every speaker who speaks with deliberative speeches should know:

1) what happiness is and by what means it is achieved;

2) what kinds of good are (virtue, pleasure, friendship, beauty and health, wealth, honor, fame, science, art);

3) what is the benefit and what is useful for the policy and its citizens;

4) what are the forms of political structure (democracy, oligarchy, aristocracy and monarchy) and which of them and how are they realized in other policies.

The epicenteric speech has as its goal the praise or blasphemy. The speaker who speaks epideictic speech must be competent in matters of ethics, to understand virtue and its types: justice, courage, moderation, discretion, generosity. Knowing what virtue and its kinds are, the author of the epideic speech knows the opposite, something that is worthy of blame.

Trial speech, as the name implies, is pronounced in court, i.e. in a situation where an incident is being handled, which should be evaluated in terms of law and justice. The speaker who makes the speech in court must be able to reasonably present his position of defense or, conversely, the accusation, to give convincing arguments, and besides, to call in the judges the emotions necessary for achieving his goal. Thus, the speaker pronouncing the speech of the court must be well versed in regard to justice, the law, the causes and motives of actions, i.e. understand why a person acts in one way or another.

A brief overview of the main types of speeches makes it possible to conclude that any speaker, no matter what speech he utters, has one and the same goal - to influence the listeners and convince them. Hence, the art of the speaker is manifested in his ability to build his speech in such a way that it is as convincing as possible. And if so, Aristotle can not bypass the very concept of convincing (to pithanon ): what is convincing, and for what reason convincing has its power.

With this formulation of the question, the accent from the figure of the speaker's speaker-speaker inevitably moves to the figure of the addressee , which leads to the inclusion of the listener's figure in the theory of rhetoric: it turns out to be an obligatory element of the rhetorical structure and must be taken into account when drawing up speeches. Speaking to the public, he must take care that his arguments have a convincing effect, so he should use all possible means to achieve the goal, including the presentation of speech. The task of the speaker is to arrange listeners not only through arguments, but also to evoke in them a certain mood and sympathy for oneself. Hence, the speaker should in some sense be an actor, and the goal of a speech is achieved in the process of establishing contact between the speaker and his listeners. The speaker must take into account the peculiarity of the public in order to bring everyone into this or that state: from the ability of the speaker to evoke in the public the emotions necessary to him depends on the outcome of speech. Therefore, a very important element of the Aristotelian theory of rhetoric is the analysis of those states (ta pathe ), which are achieved as a result of the skillful actions of the speaker. Aristotle says that ta pathe is everything, under the influence of which people change their decisions, which involves a sense of pleasure and displeasure, such as anger, compassion, fear and all these similar and opposite [feelings] .

So, in order to achieve his goal - the conviction that arises as a result of the location of the public that is consistent with this goal - the speaker must apply certain techniques. Let's consider some of them.

The main way of proving in speeches of any type is a special kind of reasoning - enthymem . Entimma is a syllogism in which one of the premises is missed, as a result of which such a syllogism will turn out to be incomplete. Elements of the rhetorical enthymem are topos - packages containing statements about which there is a consensus, and evidence based on what everyone admits; such premises possess convincing force. Topos should always be in the arsenal of the speaker. Sources of topos can be proverbs and sayings, parables, sayings of famous people, historical examples, quotations from poetry, laws. To enhance the effect on the listener, the speaker is encouraged to draw comparisons to make the described deeds more exaggerated, or hyperbole.

However, the speaker should know not only what to say, but also for how this very important part of Aristotelian rhetoric is devoted to - the so-called doctrine of the style ( lexis). The doctrine of style includes the following elements: the art of composing speech, locating parts and presenting speech - recitation.

The merits of speech Aristotle recognizes the clarity of speech, its grammatical and syntactic correctness, relevance, ie. its expediency: one thing is laudatory speech, the other is advisory or judicial. It should be borne in mind that the speech intended for public recitation is different from the speech intended for reading: in the first one one can assume that in the second one it is fair to be considered a disadvantage, for example frequent repetitions. The speaker speaking in front of the public is akin to the actor: he intones his speech with a voice, accompanied by a gesture. A special effect is created by the rhythm of speech.

The main parts of the rules of speech are introduction , story , proof and conclusion.

To keep the speech clear, without losing the effect, it is necessary to use correctly and appropriately the figures of thought and rhetorical figures, or trails. Thought figures are intended to clarify the author's position in relation to the topic of speech and situation, in which it is pronounced, help to establish contact with the public. In practice, the figures of thought are realized with the help of linguistic means, both syntactic (repetitions, permutations, unexpected order of words) and lexical (use of synonyms, homonyms, epithets). Rhetorical figures, or trails (tropos - turn , turn ), serve to change the basic meaning of a word. The main trail Aristotle considers metaphora (metaphora) - transfer of the name of one object to another, possible due to some similarity (analogy) between these objects. Aristotle leads in Poetics and repeats in Rhetoric such an example of a metaphor: "The cup so refers to Dionysus, as a shield to Ares, so you can call the cup" the shield of Dionysus, "and the shield -" the cup of Ares " . The metaphor is a comparison.

thematic pictures

Also We Can Offer!

Other services that we offer

If you don’t see the necessary subject, paper type, or topic in our list of available services and examples, don’t worry! We have a number of other academic disciplines to suit the needs of anyone who visits this website looking for help.

How to ...

We made your life easier with putting together a big number of articles and guidelines on how to plan and write different types of assignments (Essay, Research Paper, Dissertation etc)