Aristotle's Animals - Literary Theory

<html><a rel=“license” href=“http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/”><img src=“http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png” style=“border-style: none;” alt=“Public Domain Mark” /></a> This work (by <a href=“https://lucianofsamosata.info/wiki” rel=“dct:creator”>https://lucianofsamosata.info/wiki</a>), identified by <a href=“http://meninpublishing.org” rel=“dct:publisher”>Frank Redmond</a>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</html>

Authored by Frank Redmond, 2005

I. Autopsy

In the Poetics, section 7, Aristotle uses an odd metaphor to describe his ideal text: an animal. He says: “To be defined both an animal and every thing which is constructed from some parts should not only have these parts in order, but also possess a magnitude [megethos] that is not random”. This strange reference left me a bit confused when I first read it. But, I eventually came to understand what it is doing in the middle of the Poetics.

Since Aristotle was very familiar with the natural sciences, especially what we'd call biology today, he could easily see how a text is structured like an animal. He knew that every animal can be divided into many parts. And that each part served it own purpose. Yet, in order for the animal to prosper, to wield power, it needs to have all those parts working together towards the same final end, correctly and efficiently. Also, he knew that if one part is out of proportion, or given too much precedence, it will distort the creature's function.

He argues further, that what we consider a “fine” animal (and by way of analogy, a “fine” text), must be tangible to a human. He says: “For this reason a fine animal can neither be small, for observation becomes confused when it approaches an imperceptible instant of time; nor can it be very large, for observation cannot happen at the same time, but its unity and wholeness vanish from the observers view, e.g. if there were an animal a thousand miles long”. He comments after this long sentence, that consequently only something we can comprehend as a whole, something that is memorizable, is of rational worth. In other words, the animal must have a visual beginning, middle, and end for us to understand its worth.

Now one can easily see why Aristotle uses an animal as a metaphor for a text. For him, an animal is a self-sustaining, complete entity. An animal is a whole made of parts where each part has a useful magnitude and reliance on other parts. Aristotle speaks of plot in a similar tone. He says: “[The plot's] parts ought to be so constructed that, when some parts is transposed or removed, the whole is disrupted and disturbed”.

For Aristotle, a text is best when the parts within the whole are given the correct magnitude/size. For example, an hour long tragedy should have less actors and scenes than a eight hour epic film. If the opposite were true, then either the whole would become too saturated or depleted. He makes it clear that the whole must be divided into rational, differently-sized parts to ensure its effectiveness.

In section 8, Aristotle begins discussing what makes a plot good. As a principle, he says: “A plot is not unified, as some suppose, if it concerns only one single person”. Some of the poets have made a blunder in Aristotle's mind by only having one character. One character doesnÕt mean unity, because unity is formed through plot and not person. Aristotle uses the example of the Heracleid, a poem about Heracles' life. It's major flaw is that it tells the reader or listener everything about Heracles, and therefore, it has no plot. What makes a text effective is its cast of characters and their interactions around the general plot.

Instead, Aristotle idealizes Homer. He says: “Just as Homer is superior in other respects … in composing the Odyssey, he did not put everything in his poem that happened to Odysseus”. Homer excels because of his ability to weave a plot with many characters. The whole of the Odyssey is constructed around a single action, and similarly, the Iliad too. And neither have the shallowness of plot of the Heracleid. Homer effectively balances the text by using proper proportion and magnitude. His poems are like an organic creature.

II.

The artifact I've decided to explore is one Aristotle would've been very familiar with - the Iliad. In fact, it's probable, given his positive reference to Homer in section 8 (and throughout the Poetics), that Aristotle considered Homer as the perfect textual model. Everything Aristotle considers to be of importance in a text is given expression in the Iliad. In support of this thesis, I will comment on the Iliad's length, its characters, and its internal divisions.

A. Economy of Energy

The poem, which comes to a whopping 15,000 lines, may seem to be exactly what Aristotle criticizes when he says that a work's unity shouldn't vanish because of its size. At 15,000 lines, it can be hard to decipher the beginning from the end; in other words, it is hard to grasp the totality of the text. However, Homer uses a clever technique to resolve this conflict. He lets the audience know right away what the poem is about. The first five lines of the poem tell us both what the poem is about and what its ending is. Homer is not out to confuse or overawe his audience with the breadth of the poem, but to clarify his position from the start. This makes the remaining lines comprehensible, and it establishes a textual unity from beginning to end.

The poem says (with great economy):
Anger - sing, goddess, the anger of Achilles son of Peleus, that accursed anger, which
brought the Greeks endless sufferings and sent the mighty souls of many warriors to
Hades, leaving the bodies as carrion for the dogs and a feast for the birds; and Zeus'
purpose was fulfilled.

This tells us two things: First, the poem is centered around the anger of Achilles, which will bring endless suffering to those around him and eventually himself. And second, that by the end of the poem Zeus' purpose will ultimately prevail. This is the kernel of the poem and its main plot. Everything in the poem resonants from this initial spark. This clever device makes the poem a rational, tangible whole, no matter how long it becomes. The reader (or listener) is always aware what the basic plot is. And so, the audience understands better. Brilliant.

We can also see this economy in Homer's treatment of the war itself. In all, the poem only covers fifty days with nearly four-fifths of the action occurring over a period of four days. What is shocking is that the war lasted over 10 years!

But, why such economy of time?

Well, according to Aristotle's logic, by covering only one human event - “the Wrath of Achilles” - and one divine event - “the Purpose of Zeus” - Homer further bridles the expanse of the work. Exactly the same principal is in play when Aristotle states: “In composing the Odyssey, [Homer] did not put everything in his poem that happened to Odysseus”. Likewise, in the Iliad, Homer didn't desire to put everything that happened in the Trojan War; that would only convolute the poem. Therefore, the whole is made “finer”. This is exactly what Aristotle means when he says that an animal must stay within the boundaries of perception. It can only be regarded as “fine” if it stays within our visual grasp.

B. Muscles

Aristotle adamantly believes that having many rich characters, who are consistent in their roles, help keep the whole stable. (You could say it provides the plot with with its muscular strength). Although the Iliad is constructed around the Anger of Achilles and the Purpose of Zeus, neither of these tropes would hold interest without the incorporation of many characters and different minor themes. It is for this reason that Aristotle believes that poems featuring one main character have no unity. They are unbalanced efforts. And, like animals, if an imbalance occurs then the whole organism will be in jeopardy. Therefore, the whole story, in order for it to be effective, must have conflicting characters and battles. The plot may be simple, but the road to its end may be very rough-going. All is well as long as the end remains the same.

Furthermore, each character acts like an organ with a specific function within the whole. The Iliad has an extraordinarily large number of characters (numbering in the hundreds), yet each one adds their distinctive flavor to the text. If one character was to be removed or erased, the text, like an animal, would cease in being. The text would suffer a tremendous blow. Aristotle says: “[The plot's] parts ought to be so constructed that, when some parts are transposed or removed, the whole is disrupted and disturbed”. For example, if Odysseus were erased from the pages of the Iliad, then the Odyssey might never have come into being. Or, if Achilles kills Agamemnon in Book 1 and keeps his booty, then the poem would end too soon. Or, even if a very minor character like Erechtheus didn't exist in the poem, Athens wouldn't even be mentioned once. If these elements, or parts, were removed, the poem would become disjointed and wouldn't fulfill its two main objectives. It wouldn't satisfy the audience. Essentially, the removal and insertion of characters and parts would kill the text. It would be like slowly killing an animal.

C. Skeleton

Finally, the simple act of dividing the text into separate chapters, or “Biblia”, in the Iliad, helps keep the text in parts. (You could say it forms the skeleton of the text.) The Iliad is composed of 24 Books each with a different central theme. These boundaries, although constructed, help guide and focus the reader through the text. Also, they provide the audience with a breath of fresh air before the next plunge. This is seen, for example, in the transition between Books 20 and 21:

20: And the son of Peleus pressed on in search of glory, spattering his unconquerable
hands with gore.

21: When the Greeks reached the ford of the sweetly smelling river, eddying Scamander…

Once again, this reiterates the theme of Aristotle - the parts must flow to make the whole fine. Sometimes a harsh transition can be alleviated with a simple division of the text into constituent parts.

III. Results

In conclusion, Aristotle saw potential in the powerful metaphor of the animal-text. His hands-on familiarity with the world of living-beings helped him understand how a text could be seen as an organic formation. He knew that a text needs all the main parts of an vertebrate organism to function: a skeleton, many muscles to put the creature into motion, and an economy of energy. Although one could say that his Poetics doesn't do a good job of elaborating this concept, the animal metaphor runs freely throughout the rest of his output. He conceived of man as the political animal, wrote the first major tracts on the science of biology, and frequently used animals as examples in his metaphysical speculations.

While I have chosen the Iliad as an example, one could very easily apply this concept to other texts as well. The world has millions-upon-millions of different types of animals ranging from the mundane to the truly rare. And, some just defy description (like those “things” at the bottom of the ocean's abyss that feed on sulfur). All I'm suggesting is this: If you look hard enough, your text probably has an animal counterpart, even if it doesn't fit into Aristotle's “fine” paradigm.

CITATIONS

Aristotle. “Poetics”. Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, The. Editor: Leitch, Vincent B. New York: W.W. Norton Co., 2001.
Homer. Iliad. Trans. Rieu, E. V.; revised by Rieu, D.C.H. London: Penguin, 2003.

Table of Contents

Aristotle's Animals - Literary Theory

Authored by Frank Redmond, 2005