 Hello and welcome back to NPTEL national program on Technology Enhanced Learning, a joint venture of Indian Institute of Technology and Indian Institute of Science. As you are aware this lectures are for students in engineering colleges and IITs and we are the department of humanities and social sciences. The role is quite significant because we feel that the experience of humanities subjects and social sciences subjects help you to understand life better to apply your theories better to have any human interface. I am Krishna Barua. I have been teaching literature at IIT Guwahati for the last 14-15 years and it is a pleasure to teach humanities courses to engineering students. They have a beautiful way of looking at subjects at areas which are not their own and they bring a beautiful analysis or perspective to the understanding of text. We are in the presently in the lecture series language and literature. We are now in module 5 title literary criticism and lecture 1. So, here we are in lecture 1 of literary criticism and title classical criticism. Let us enjoy history of literary criticism. After we have done genres, we have done history of English literature, what is language, what is literature, what is a text. Let us see what is literary criticism, how do we evaluate or how do we understand or appreciate a text or a literary creative work. Let us enjoy therefore, the history of literary criticism in this module. A journey we are about to undertake in this module is not only to revisit some of the profound sources of history of literary criticism. We will go to the beginning as we had done in the history of English literature. We will go come from classical criticism to the different developments that has taken place in modern times, but to locate this history within the context of the main currents of Western thought. So, literary criticism or literary theory in other words in a strict sense is the systematic study of the nature of literature and the methods for analyzing literature. One of the fundamental questions of literary theory is what is literature, what is a text, what methods and conclusions and definitions are chalked out. As for consequence the word theory has become an umbrella term for a variety of scholarly approaches to reading text informed by various trends of philosophy and sociology. So, in literary criticism you have different streams of humanities and social sense getting together and that is how we understand how we appreciate a text or how we read or interpret a text. The schools of interpretation as such will be doing and this will be something which will be quite close to your discipline because we are going into a different methodology involved in understanding a text. And act as different lenses critics use to view and talk about art literature and even culture. These different lenses allows critics to consider works of art based on certain assumption within the school of history. As we are doing classical criticism now, we will be going to the ancient Greeks and the Romans and the different lenses also allows critics to focus on particular aspects of a work they consider important. The different interpretive and epistemological perspectives that is the meaning of text of different schools of theory often arise from and so gives support to different moral and political commitments. And when we read this text in different modules or in different perspectives or different literary criticism, then we find that there is a huge world of experience that has been opened up. Suppose we read Tempest in the form of a eco ecocriticism it takes on a different form. If we see it from Marxist, then it will take on a different form and meaning. So, the whole type and meaning of the text changes according to the way that we look at the text. So, literary theory and literary criticism are interpretive tools. How we interpret a text? That help us think more deeply and insightfully about the literature that we read. It is necessary to know the grammar of how we read the text. It is ok if we are reading the text from our point of view without even having an understanding of how this has come about that is also granted. But then if you know the actual grammar of how we read the methodology of how to evaluate or to appreciate a text, then it becomes the delight becomes more marked. Over time different schools of literary criticism have developed each it with its own approaches to the act of theory. From the Greek the word theory comes from the Greek theory which indicates a view or perspective of the Greek stage which way you look into the Greek stage. To enable us to craft interpretive close critical and comprehensive reading. What you understand by close? Close reading is that when you go into the detail study of the text, how what are the dialogues there, what is the meaning of the words, what is the analysis of the linguistic connections etcetera. We might say the theory therefore, is a systematic explanation of practice. So, it has a system or a situation of practice in broader framework. It shows us the connection of practice to ideology, power structures are own unconscious to psychology or political religious attitudes or economic structures. So, this is very much where the reader is concerned in how he writes the text. It is not reads the text and it is not so much the writer, it is the reader or the audience how he will look at a drama or read a text. It is not something natural, but it is a specific historical construct. Therefore, literary theory is the body of ideas and methods we use in the practical reading of literature. So, we have to be acquainted with this understanding how we interpret a text. Literary theory is a description of the underlying principles which we have just mentioned. One might say the tools by which we attempt to understand literature. It is literary theory that formulates the relationship between author and the work. Literary theory develops the significance of race, class, gender for literary studies. Well, the English word criticism as in theory derived from the ancient Greek term critis meaning judge. So, it is a perspective as is how we evaluate or we judge a work. Perhaps the first type of criticism was that which occurred in the process of poetic creation itself in composing his poetry. A poet would have made certain judgment how he goes into the creative process. What is what the words he would choose? What will be the structure of the of the rhythm? That itself also becomes critical literary criticism. Hence, the creative act itself was also a critical act. It follows side by side parallelly involving not just inspiration, but some kind of self assessment, reflection and judgment. What to choose? What not to include? What to disregard? This itself is a very critical process and therefore, the creative act as well as the critical act follows side by side or in juxtaposition. The practice of literary theory became a profession in the 20th century, but it has historical roots that run as far back as ancient Greeks. We will be doing that the classical criticism. Aristotle's poetic is an often cited early example, whether in judging a play by Shakespeare or by Bernard Shaw or by even modern playwrights. Ancient India we have Bharata Muni's Nite Sastra. We have ancient Rome in Longinus' on the sublime. Medieval Iraq we have as well as there are several even ill mutages Kitab al-Badi. Well, so the intellectual activity is that sort of development of classical literary theory in Europe. Let us come to this lecture one on literary criticism on classical criticism was based in Athens mostly the Athenian school of criticism. It developed along with other philosophical discussion that occupied the intellectual minds during 4th and 5th century BC. Athens became a hub for intellectual exchanges due to several factors. It was not only because in philosophy, in different formulations, in political governance, but it was also in the way that they read poetry and literature and drama. So, the mythic age if we go back to the Greek myths that were there also had a great part to play in literary criticism. We find references to muses. There are dominant muses which govern each stream of thought assigned to various forms of poetry like epic, lyric, comedy, pastoral, etcetera. These muses were tendons to the patron god of poetry who was Apollo. In the 6th century we see the reference to two mythic figures related to poetry who is obvious and amphion. It would be convenient to understand here that in ancient Greece why we are talking about the mythical connections to the understanding of classical criticism. It is pertinent because it is full of myths which identify with poetry alone, with creative process alone and other forms were not evolved or taken as forms of literature. Orpheus was considered having bewitching power of poetry who could even placate the similars and gods of the dead through his poetry. As a matter of fact, poetry was considered to be first an integral part of music because people wrote poems and they sang in praise of the gods. It was peyons and everything was in praise of the rolling deity. Orphic hymns which exalt in harmony were supposed to link man with the macrocosm. Such consideration made the poet a figure that is divinely inspired. There were spiritual connections with that, with the sacred that one who was a poet was also one who was close to the gods. As the son of Zeus was taught to play in Naya by Hermes herself, such meat was created upon his wonderful gift of poetry that he could build a wall of thebes by moving the stones by his power of songs. Beautiful isn't it? So, these are interesting facts to understand the background of literary criticism. Political economic social stability gave rise to intellectual freedom during the ancient Greeks specially in Athens which enabled the development of philosophical analysis. So, it was a very vibrant hub of activity. In this regard, what Prang clearly observed is important. Few of the ancient peoples advanced far beyond the mythological age and perhaps none of them can be said to have a genuine philosophy except the Greeks. This rupture of, but when we look at this rupture from mythological entrapment provided the great a solid foundation for the development of philosophical enquiry into all matter and existence. So, it was from the mythical conceptions, from the mythical ways of looking or the domains of looking at the text or in the creative process that they came into different sort of philosophical enquiry. Soon discussion of literature and criticism began to take shape with other philosophical enquiries. So, when we go and look back into the age before Plato, the discipline of literary criticism began to emerge when poetic and verbal artworks began to be encoded in written form, from the oral to the written form. Previously, literature had existed only in oral form and was for the purpose of public performance. In sixth and fifth century, written texts began to emerge, but oral performance continued to be primary till fourth century. Andrea Nightingale observes, in this period, most written texts functioned as scripts for performance. Mind you, this was closely connected with performance, but for the educated elite, written texts took a life of its own. These individuals began to read and evaluate literature in the privacy of their own homes outside the realm of public performance. So, it was an individual activity as well as a collective activity. Verbal artworks thus became literature and this in turn led to literary criticism. In the fourth century, especially in Europe, ancient Greece, a group of professional people emerged who were called the KTI, meaning judge. These people judged the merits and demerits of arts. They were as if they could give voice to what was required for society and looked at the function in the social, ethical and artistic framework. This was very interesting. At that time in the fourth century, therefore, a group of people who were separate from the onlookers or the audience and they could evaluate texts according to the social significance or the ethical significance. Heads of literary criticism can be also traced in the writings of authors like Homer, Hesiod and Genophonist, Pinda etcetera. We will go into that. The idea of divine inspiration behind poetry which we had just said mentioned just now is suggested in the opening lines of both Iliad and Odyssey. It starts with always an invocation and therefore, divine intervention always comes as a form of a close connection with the writing of poetry. If you read Milton's Paradise Laws, you will find that it being in the in the fashion of epic poetry, it starts also with an invocation to the creative muse. Homer appeals to the muse for inspiration to other truth of the things. Hesiod in his preface to Theogony refers to the muse who bidet into him the art of divine music. So, there is one dominant deity who inspires the creative process. Both Homer and Hesiod get commanded upon the function of poetry as a tool to derive pleasure and education. Let us now as we continue in this lecture, we will find that these two tools of literary criticism to give pleasure as well as to give instruction goes hand in hand. Homer when described the shield of Achilles evoked a powerful appeal of illusionistic art. Well if we go to Jennifer Ness in 6th century BC, we find maybe he is the first critic to comment on literary works in particular. He criticized Homer and Hesiod for attributing human characteristics to God. This is what he says, but mortal suppose the gods are born, wear their own clothes and have a voice and body, but if horses or oxen or lions had hands, they would draw with their hands and accomplish such work as men. Horses would draw the figure of gods similar to horses and the oxen are similar to an oxess. So, this way evaluative way of how one looked at the way the gods were being given human attributes. Pinder on the other hand closely followed made a direct attempt to discuss poetry as a specific form. He classified poets on the ground of inspired or natural knowledge. It is part inspiration and part natural knowledge and acquired knowledge. He contrasted between the man who knows my nature and man who learns. When we will be doing Eliot and we will see that Eliot has says that you acquire knowledge only then you become a critic and this is very close to what we have the high consciousness in Wordsworth and that is natural knowledge as well as acquired knowledge as well as not inspired knowledge. He commented upon techniques which enabled a precise discourse. So, this is where we come to the crux of the matter. It is that we they evaluate what are the forms or what are the manner in which a written text is being written. He stressed on the part of a poet to know the parts that shorten. Now, going back to the first intellectual and political backgrounds which had a great important part in classical literary criticism. First recorded instances of criticism we go back to Aristophanes's play The Frogs performed in 405 BC. We may find certain trace of literary criticism here. This work is an agon or debate. It is in the form of a debate about relative merit of dramatists, Euripidus and Aeschylus. In this work Dianza's patron god of Theta he descends into Hades that is hell to bring back Euripidus to judge his dramatic merit. So, there will be a debate on who is the better dramatist between Euripidus and Aeschylus. But in the end finds Aeschylus a better dramatist. So, in Aristophanes's Frog we find he announced the standard of criticism is skill in the art. You have to have a particular skill and wise counsel for the state. Some literary tendencies of both the dramatists are brought to focus and criticize and we find here the wild whirling magnilokins of Aeschylus and the sentimentality of Euripidus are mocked at and at the end we come to the core the persuasions only trying its eloquent speech, the role of persuasive speech or the role of ruddering. Thus the frog can be seen as a work of comparative analysis and criticism of two prominent authors. We can say that this is the first instance of literary criticism in western literature. So, all these criticisms as we can see were fragmentary and did not use specific theoretical tools. The most sophisticated and coherent literary criticism of course, comes in the western world began with Plato. This was before Plato. However, Plato did not deliberately propound a theory of literature. He did not give a theory of literature as such, but his doctrine it evolved from an epistemic construction of the world and its essence. What is the nature of the world? How it is being represented? What is this essence? Greatly he was influenced by the teachings of Socrates for 70 to 399 BC and he followed a similar pattern of dialectical, dialectic which his master does does Lingley use to uncover essential soul. So, this system of dialectics started from Socrates to Plato to Aristotle. Socrates' philosophical aim was to achieve a summum bonum, the highest good in the pursuit of knowledge. So, what is the text? What is the nature of existence? What is the nature of truth? All this, what is the meaning of essence? These were the questions which were dealt in the dialogic connection in the form of dialectics. So, we come to Socrates in the 4th century BC. Socrates is considered the arts of painting, poetry, music, dancing and sculpture as imitation. So, we come to the core of classical criticism, the concept of mimesis which started from Socrates. Socrates' method was what? Mimesis is imitation. First, the method is skeptical. It begins with Socrates' real or professing knowledge of the truth of the matter under discussion. Whatever the truth or the essence, one is skeptical to it. Secondly, it is conversational. It employs the dialogues not only as a deductive device, but as a technique for the discovery of truth. Through the dialectics method, you go on discussing what is the truth, what is the essence. Then it derives a conception or definition. So, the method is conceptual. Then it becomes a concept. After the dialogic methodology, you come to a concept. In the 4th place, Socrates method is empirical or inductive. You go and apply it to different spheres. In that proposed definition are criticized by reference to particular instances. So, there is complete logic and analysis of applicability of the methods which have been discussed. Finally, the method is also deductive, not only inductive as well as deductive. From the general to the particular to the general, in that given definition is tested by drawing out its implication by deducing its consequences. So, why we have mentioned Socrates as the most remarkable forano of literary criticism is that his method is by Plato in his various undertakings. So, we come to the key figure of classical criticism Plato 428 to 347 BC. Western philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato. This is what A. N. Whitehead said. Everything of western philosophy or western poetics as such is a footnote is a series of footnotes to Plato. We have to give him the homage to Plotto Nandilus. He laid the foundations of western philosophy. He gave initial formulations to the most basic questions and problems of what use our literature and the arts. What is the purpose of art? What is the purpose of a text? Plato's philosophy in dialogue form. Mind you, this is what you have to always concentrate or understand. This dialectics or dialogue form, the dialectical method truth by systematic questioning of received ideas and opinion. So, the others opinion and your opinion it goes on in a process of erasing or taking in different inputs. In iron, Plato examines the godlike power of poets to evoke feelings such as pleasure or fear. Yet he went on to attack this manipulation of emotions and banished poets from his ideal republic. This is a contradiction by itself. Plato's most significant contribution to philosophy is his theory of ideas. Let us come into this history of ideas now. This theory was anticipated in the ideal theory by the Pythagorean number, mysticism and most of all by the Socratic doctrine of concepts. We had just done about how this dialogue dialectics gave way to concepts and to mysticism and therefore, in this history of ideas that he had brought about, he defined forms or ideas whatever you want to present in a text or in a poem or in a drama, defined as the objects corresponding to abstract concepts are real and entities. The Platonic form is simply the reification or edification of the Socratic concept endowed with the properties of eletic being that is the essence of being. Plato's notion of ideas therefore, belong to a realm of abstract entities, a heaven of ideas separable from concrete particulars in space and time. The separation of the forms and the exemplifications is referred to as the Platonic dualism. The essence is separate from the actual form and when the form comes in it is only a replica of the replica of the replica. The forms are superior to particulars in degree of reality and value. The forms are the realities of which particulars are mere appearances. The form is a model or archetype of which the particular is only a copy. I hope you have got this point here, this notion of ideas. If you want to find therefore, in classical philosophy and link between aesthetics and representation poetry and music, literature and fine arts it is provided primarily by this concept of mimesis which was brought out by Plato who had worked upon the Socratic mode of concepts. The mimetic orientation therefore, with the basis of all classical criticism is this mimetic orientation. The exploration of art as essentially an imitation. Mimesis is imitation and imitation of aspects of the universe was probably the most primitive aesthetic theory, but mimesis is no single concept by the time it makes its first recorded appearance in the dialogues of Plato. Abraham's in mirror and the lamp has traced the evolution of mimetic theory as representation through two significant metaphors that is the mirror and the lamp which are two common and antithetic metaphors of mind. One comparing the mind to a reflector of external objects that is the mimetic and the other to a radiant projector which makes contribution to the object it perceives. So, that will go into the expressive theories not the mimetic theories. Therefore, Plato did not formally assume a role of consciously of a literary critic. However, his doubt over the reality of imaginative literature valorized an important literary term known as mimesis. For Plato all arts paintings, culture, poetry, music are all imitation are mimesis. It is imitation of pure ideas. The Platonic philosopher deals with three categories of realities. This is how it is being shown. The first category is that of eternal and unchanging ideas. The second category it reflects this is the category of sense and manifested world how the senses perceive the manifested world. The third category in turn reflect the second comprises such things as shadows images in water and mirror and in fine arts. The influence and legacy of Plato therefore, fundamental areas of Western thought literary theory continuing to the present day. So, this question of mimesis and the legacy of Plato this views on how you look at art at Western thought literary continue till today. Andrea Nightingale makes the following observation. In arguing for this Plato, Plato set forth a number of ideas that have proved central to discipline of literary criticism. First and foremost he introduced the concept of mimesis. He turns this word into a technical term and gives it a much broader range of meaning. According to Plato the artistic representation therefore, this question of imitation it becomes technical has a different stature from the people objects and events in the ordinary world. Literature does not depict the reality of its objects, but rather portrays the way they appear. So, there is this dividing line between the essence and the form. In book 10 office republic, Plato may have given us the first volume of detail and lengthy literary criticism. The dialogue between Socrates and two of his associates shows the participation of this discussion concluding that art must play a limited and very strict role in the perfect Greek republic. Richter provides a nice summary of this point. Poets may stay as servants of the state if they teach piety and virtue, but the pleasures of art are condemned as inherently corrupting to citizens. So, this famous passage from republic book 10 discussing the nature of art. I will just quote some of this. Socrates is depicted pointing out that there are three beds. The idea which is the essence of the bed and is made by realm of truth God, the bed made by the carpenter and the bed found in a painting. Well then, here are three beds. One existing in nature which is made by God as I think that. We may say for no one else can be the maker. No, there is another which is the work of the carpenter. Yes, and the work of the painter is the third. Yes, beds then are of three kinds. There are three artists superintending them, God, the maker of the bed and the painter. Yes, there are three of them. God, whether from choice or from necessity made one bed in nature and one only. Two or more such ideal beds neither ever have been or nor never will be made by God. Why is that? Because even if he had made two, a third would still appear behind them which both of them would have further idea. God knows this and he desired to be the real maker of a real bed. Therefore, he created a bed which is essentially and by nature one and only. So, this is interesting. So, we believe shall we then speak of him the natural author or maker of the bed? What is the essence then? The tragic poet is an imitator therefore, because he represents one which is only the essence and therefore, like all imitators, he tries to remove from the king and from the truth. That appears to be so. This is the interesting dialogue which goes on in the republic. Thus the poet is just like artisans, not artisans, artisans are tries to remove from reality. In his iron, Plato further relegates poetry as an improper tool for education. For instance before drawing a circle, there one must have an idea of circularity. So, in this history of ideas, in this play of ideas, the priority of the perfect form over the transient reflection or of the representation of it is called realism as opposed to nominalism. Well, so Plato's theory of mimesis called for a metaphysical reality and in its essence he considered imaginative literature cannot do justice to it. Among all the fine arts, it was certainly poetry about which Plato had most to say in the republic. He says, the arts of poetry, painting, music, dancing and sculpture, socrates says are all imitations. Plato's discussion on poetry or literature seems to be solely concentrating on theme and not on structure. He often ignores the formal structure. When we come to Aristotle, we will find that he will pay attention more or less to the structure as well as to the theme and therefore, the interpretation of text takes on different meanings. Andrea Nightingale makes the following observation. We are giving more space to Plato and Aristotle because they were the key players in this field of classical criticism and many ideas which we have inherited from them still continues to be unfocused. Nightingale makes the following observation. In arguing for this Plato, Plato set forth a number of ideas that have proved central to the discipline of literary criticism. First and foremost he introduced the concept of mimesis which we have said and he turns this into a technical term. The artistic representation has different stature from the people, objects and events in the ordinary world. Literature does not depict the reality of its objects, but rather portrays the way they appear. Thus, Plato's theory of philosophy where he made comment on literature and literature cannot achieve higher ethical goal. His then is not that of a literary critic. We have mentioned it before rather an evaluator of culture and its discourses, but that does not mean he was unaware of the power of poetry maybe because of this realization. He wanted restriction on imaginative literature. He welcomed in his ideal state composer of hymns to the god and panigrics of hymnsmen. His discussions were taken to new heights by his disciple Aristotle. So, we come to Aristotle whom we look to even when we look at how we read a drama suppose a play of Shakespeare or any other text. Aristotle great philosopher and polymer the student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great. So, this is how the history of ideas have gone from one scholar to the other, one philosopher to the other and the legacy is being built up on the context of how we appreciate a text or a work of art. Aristotle 384 to 322 BC defends the value of art in his poetics and his analysis of tragedy has influenced generation of critics from their analysis onwards. It is a different school of criticism altogether. Aristotle Aristotleian concept of tragedy or his concept of how he looks at drama. In poetics Aristotle breaks with his teacher Plato in the consideration of art. Aristotle considers poetry and rhetoric a productive sense not that it is less imaginative, but it has also written for a purpose. Whereas, he thought logic and physics to be theoretical sciences and ethics and politics practical sciences. He calls poetry a productive science because Aristotle saw poetry and drama as means to an end. For example, an audience enjoyment and delight he established some basic guidelines for authors to follow to achieve certain objectives. So, this is a famous painting of Plato and Aristotle. Plato's disciple Aristotle differed from his master from one significant sense though he retains Plato's idealistic principle, but rejects its transcendent nature. He believed forms are not apart from things which Plato had said, but inherent in them it has something which is inherent in the form. Matter is not to be equated with non-being, but a dynamic being. Forms or ideas cannot exist without its phenomenological manifestation where Plato's thinking can be dubbed as a form of mysticism. Aristotle on the other hand can be said to be scientific. He valued individual and material phenomena equally as Plato valued the timeless ideas. So, we come to the poetics of Aristotle. Perhaps this standpoint made him tolerant towards imaginative literature. This is very beautiful you know the way the reading of text took on such different developments, such different dimensions. His is among the first names in the world that seriously look in the formal aspects what is the form, what is the shape of a text or structure of creative literature in a detailed manner and it is it was being documented in a detailed manner. Aristotle's poetics therefore is singularly important document in the field of literary criticism. We start therefore with classical criticism. We are giving equal importance to Plato and Aristotle because they were the ones who have showed away how literary criticism should be that influence all the critics or theorists of posterity. Nicole says the found of all true study of the essential elements of dramatic form lies in the poetics of Aristotle. If you want to know what is the drama, what is the tragedy, what is the comedy you come to understand, you go to the poetics of Aristotle. Aristotle in his poetics also defines poetry as imitation not only drama as imitation, but poetry also as imitation, epic poetry and tragedy as also comedy, the trombic poetry which is sung in the praise of gods and most flute playing and live playing are all viewed as a whole modes of imitation and the objects of the imitator represents our actions. To help Arthur's achieve the objectives Aristotle developed elements of organization. So, he brought about a methodology of how to see a text and methods for writing effective poetry and drama known as the principles of dramatic construction, how modern he was, how he could talk about reader response or the way that how the audience would see a drama or how an audience could read a text. Aristotle believed that elements like language, this are the components. Language, rhythm, harmony as well as plot, character, thought, diction, song, spectacle influence the audience's catharsis. Catharsis is a sort of catharsis of emotions or satisfaction with the work and so here we see one of the earliest attempts to explain what makes an effective or ineffective work of literature. It has to be completely perched your emotions in seeing a pure tragedy or a pure creative work and only then when you have this catharsis of emotions a purging of all other emotions and sense of pity and fear comes in only then can you judge that to be a pure form of work. Aristotle's poetics may be considered as an answer to Plato's philosophical considerations, but for Aristotle as for Plato the theory of literature we come to this theory the judgment or the evaluation or the interpretation of literature is only a part of the general theory of reality. It is a reflection of reality yes, it is a representation of reality yes, but for a comprehensive understanding of Aristotle's ideas we need to take into account his idea of metaphysics, his idea of ethics and politics and rhetoric. As we have already noted Aristotle reacted against Platonic notion that world of phenomena has an ephemeral copy of the senseless ideas. He considered the change as a vital unifying force he admitted that it is a dynamic process a passage from potentiality to act. His notion of poetry therefore, has him that the pleasure that can be derived from literature the delight in the pleasure should be taken as an experience by itself and it is more rational and beneficial activity. Its own product properties and a set of objective because of this it has its own set of principles it can be rationally understood by following its set rules. So, he places poetry into general feel of human activity. He divides human activities into three main categories the theory the thought the praxis the action and poesis the production. In book 8 of politics Aristotle considered the educative value of visual and other arts the visual culture which we are so, immersed with now both poetics and rhetoric can be said as expansion of that standpoint he takes into account both pleasure and ethical principles put together. For Aristotle in his poetic also defines poetry as imitation well. So, I here in Aristotle poetics he starts like this I propose to treat of poetry in itself and its various kinds noting the essentially essential quality of each to enquire into the structure of the plot as requisite to a good poem into the number and nature of the parts of which a poem is composed and similarly into whatever else falls within the same enquiry. Following then the order of nature let us begin with the principles which come first. So, it is completely detailed methodology which he brings about in his poetics. He talks about epic poetry and tragedy comedy also and the trombic poetry and the music of the flute and the lyre in most of the forms are all in the general conception modes of imitation. They differ however, from one another in three aspects how through the medium that they represent the objects the manner or mode of imitation being in each distinct. For as there are persons who by conscious art or mere habit imitate and represent various objects through the medium of color and form it may be in visual art it may be in painting it may be in a sculpture or in a poem or again by the voice. So, in the arts above mentioned taken as a whole the imitation is produced sometimes by rhythm sometimes by language or sometimes by harmony either singly or combined. Just like Plato Aristotle admits that all arts are forms of imitation. For Aristotle imitation is not a several copy of some eternal idea as it was in Plato rather it is a creative process in itself. So, the saint itself adds dynamism to the original. In chapter 4 of the poetics he says that imitation is a fundamental human instinct and poetry is manifestation of this instinct. It is representation of the universal unlike Platonic ideas this universal are permanent modes of human thought and action. So, he gives permanence to this copies of the copies of the copies which Plato have said. So, there is in the representation also of the universal has added to the permanence of the object. Aristotle added a structural element to the essential for poetry. So, this insistence upon the concept of structure he gives new dimension to literary criticism. He gives the element of plot by plot he meant an organic structure of events which would do justice in representing the action especially in a drama according to the laws of probability and necessity. Thus Aristotle presented imitation as an aesthetic faculty. Aristotle's classification of different types of literature. This was the first time that we can talk about genres which were being formulated. What was comedy? What was tragedy? What was epic poetry? What was prose? He distinguished tragedy and comedy in other forms of literature. Aristotle considered tragedy as a serious occupation whether comedy stemmed from the imitation of common folks. It is slightly baser. One is derived from an imitation of noble soul. The other from common elements tragedy is the imitation of action arousing pity and fear and is meant to effect the catharsis of those same emotion. So, students of literature always they come and get acquainted with how to look at a tragedy. Suppose you read Shakespeare's Hamlet. You look it from Aristotle concept of tragedy or of a tragic hero. What is a tragedy? What is the plot like? Does it bring in this? The character is it being able through the action able to bring in catharsis of emotion. Aristotle concludes poetics with a discussion on which if either is superior epic or tragic mimesis. He suggests that because tragedy possesses all the attributes of an epic, possibly it possesses additional attributes such as spectacle and music is more unified and receives the aim of his mimesis. In shorter scope it can be considered as superior to epic. So, you consider the way that you look at a film or you look at a you go and see a drama or you go to a theatre. When you apply Aristotle's concept of the tragic hero or how the tragedy should be, you really get an understanding of the elements of drama. So, Aristotle offers famous definition of tragedy. Every student of literature and everyone who understands drama tries to understand drama has come across this idea definition of tragedy. Literature is about character and the character is revealed through action and he tries to identify the required stages in the progress of a plot. And so we can say that we will be doing that reader response later. This was the first literary criticism which has concentrated on reader response, reader centre approach to literature. Tragedy he says to stimulate the emotions of pity and fear. Aristotle called catharsis whereby this emotion are exercised rather than exorcised. While discussing the creative arts Aristotle does not forget to outline the crucial difference between poetry and history and philosophy. Referring to the role of a poet he says in chapter 9 of the Poetics, it is not the function of the poet to relate what has happened, but what may happen, what is possible to according to law of probability or necessity. Aristotle proposes to study poetry by analysing its components or constitutive parts. Most of the discussion of Poetics that survives mainly discussions about tragedy and epic poetry. Aristotle finds 7 major characteristics of tragedy. First it is an imitation, we have lofty thought, rhythm, harmony, it has 6 parts plot, character addiction, thought, melody and spectacles. Well this definition of tragedy which we had done is something which is very beautiful. Tragedy is an imitation of an action that is complete mind you that and whole and of certain magnitude. So, this is a question of the perfect timing or the perfect action or the perfect character development which should be there in a tragedy. As therefore, in the other imitative arts the imitation is one when the object imitated is one. So, the plot being an imitation of an action must imitate one action and that a whole there should not be too many sub plots and if there are sub plots it deters to the idea of a tragedy. The structural union of the parts being such that if any one of them is displaced or removed the whole will be disjointed and disturbed. For a thing whose presence or absence makes no visible difference is not an organic part of the whole. This was about the organic unity of a play or of a drama. In doing that he had also referred to the classical unit is in his poetics. The unity of action where a play should have one main action and that it follows with no or few subjects. Then the unity of place a play should cover a single physical space it should not be over a different locations. The unity of time the action in a play should take place over no more than 24 hours. There may be elements of surprise in a plot one of it he calls the peripitia or reversal of fortune. Adar is anachnoresis the sudden discovery of fact. Tragedy arouses the Pythian phobia when a spectator observes a man in high state or high position due to some lack of character and falls to misery which was called the haemorrhagia or tragic flaw. Like Plato Aristotle views on art heavily influenced western thought. So, it had given a legacy of different developments on mimesis. But the difference between the way the term imitation functions in Aristotle and Plato distinguishes radically their consideration of art. The debate between Platonist and Aristotleians still continue the neo-Platonist of the second century AD, the Cambridge Platonist of the later 17th century and the idealist of the romantic movement. Even today the debate continues. We come to another Roman lyric poet in 65 BC Horace who during the time of Augustus because it was a saint from the republic to the empire. He had written many treatises and his many satirists he is placed in literary criticism is well pronounced which influenced many poets in 18th century England. The classical period in English literature we had already done that in the history of English literature and Horace's promotes a style of poetic craftsmanship. How a poem should be rooted in wisdom there should be ethical insight as well as decorum. He compares the poem as a painting to the auditory senses. They have similar abilities to move. He maintains that poets specially in his arts poetica should always keep in mind the audience. He should join the instructive with the agreeable with one which is pleasing and which is agreeable. In his arts poetica he gives instruction to a budding poet how a poem should be. Thus Horace's work is more of a treaty than literary criticism. We come to Longenus and his treaty on the sublime probably in the first and third century AD and he is a particular interest for literary studies. The mention of Longenus because he explores the nature of inspiration in poetry and prose. So, specially in the Roman domain by the word sublime he means a certain elevation or loftiness in literary work. So, there has to be a loftiness and grandeur. Sublime state cannot be imitated is the kind of divine influence. He identifies the sources of the sublime as follows the grand thought the capacity for strong emotion appropriate use of figures of speech nobility of diction. You have to be really acquainted with everything dignity and elevation of composition. Longenus's method is similar to that of Matthew Arnand who in the similar fashion tend to try to judge poetry by comparing with valued works and established works of literature. So, when we come to literary criticism and aesthetic theories the diversity of aesthetic theories however makes the task of the historian a very difficult one. It is not only that answers to such questions as what is art what is poetry disagree the fact is that many theories of art cannot readily be compared at all because they lack a common ground on which to meet and clash. The history of the aesthetics if we look into it while we do literary criticism underwent a lot of changes from the age of the Greeks to the moderns. When Plato discussed beauty in the Symposium and Phedra's he was speaking not merely of physical beauty, but of beauty of human being, but also beautiful habits of the soul and of beautiful cognitions. Plotinus in his famous treatises on beauty when we took up the aesthetics which takes part in literary criticism he was also concerned primarily with metaphysical and ethical questions. But he does include in his treatment of centuries beauty the visible beauty of the works of sculpture and architecture and the audible beauty of music. All this goes to the point of how much it gives the light the sensory appeal of beauty as well as of a written text. In Augustine's speculation of beauty also their references to the various arts yet the doctrine was not primarily designed for an interpretation interpretation of the fine arts. So, this mimetic orientation that we had done till now the explanation of art as essentially an imitation of aspects of the universe was probably the most primitive aesthetic theory. But mimesis is no simple concept by the time it makes his first recorded appearance in the dialogues of Plato. The arts of poetry, painting, music, dancing, sculptures after the essays are all imitation this was what Plato had said. From the initial position that art imitates the world of appearance and not of essence it follows that works of art have a lowly stature somewhere or the order of existing things. Imitation continued to be a prominent item in the critical vocabulary for a long time after Aristotle all the way through the 18th century. In fact, the systematic importance given to the term differ greatly from critic to critic who those objects in the universe that art imitates or should imitate were variously conceived as either actual or in some sense ideal. And from the first there was a tendency to replace Aristotle action as the principle object of imitation which has elements as human character or thought or even inanimate objects. Aesthetics therefore is closely associated with poetics which denotes the theory of literary form and literary discourse. It is true that the course of aesthetic theory displays its full measure of the rhetoric and logomancy which seems an inseparable part of man's discourse about all things that matter. For discussion therefore, let us see discuss Plato's theory of mimesis and Aristotle's defense of this theory. Aristotle definition of tragedy about structure about the tragic hero Aristotle definition of the tragic hero. By now I think you had a fair idea of how all this took place the first initial way that literary criticism took place. Therefore, we find two common and antithetic metaphors of mind as M is Abraham's had written in the mirror and the lamp one comparing the mind to a reflector of external objects as a reflector and the other to the radiant projector which makes a contribution to the objects it perceives. Critical thinking therefore, like that in all areas of human interest has been in coincidental part thinking in parallels and critical argument has to that extent been an argument from analogy. The polemical tradition does not abate with the end of classical antiquity the debate goes on. Criticism of the Italian Renaissance had its famous quarrels, neoclassicism renewed the battle between the ancients and the moderns, between classicism and romanticism, another blood-eatery, philologist from Jesus Schalke to a houseman very known for their virtuosity in verbal abuse, interpretations therefore, differed. Lastly, literary theory in recent years has sought to explain the degree to which the text is more the product of culture rather than an individual author and in turn how this text helped to create the culture. Literary theory refers to any principles therefore, derived from internal analysis or from perspective of literary text or from knowledge external to the text that can be applied in multiple interpretation. So, the works cited were Ellen Bridges, The Writing Lab and The Owl at Purdue, Abraham's The Mirror and the Lamb, History of Literary Criticism Balmiras, The Beginning Theory and Introduction to Literary and Cultural Theory, Andrea Nightingale, Mimesis and Jane Greek Literary Theory and David H. Richter, The Critical Tradition and M. A. R. Habib, Modern Literary Criticism and Theory. Thank you.