|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aristotle than it would be on Foucault. Aristotle was willing to substitute the hegemonic language of persuasion (democratic terms) for the crude terminology of force in the eternal struggle between rich and poor in the city state. (The language of force even in democratic societies is well expressed in Thucydides' Melian dialogue.) His political analysis underlies and justifies his scientific analysis of rhetoric, and by natural extension, his analysis of poetics and even his sociological justification of the effects of tragedy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aristotle saw that the nature of the audience's response determines the techniques of rhetoric, and indeed of literature in general. Analysis of the forms of persuasion was the first step to the scientific mastery of rhetoric, and thus the main avenue at that time to political power. This should be the aim of rhetoric as a science, as a teachable subject. This aim is frequently lost sight of in the oversubtle analyses of the Hellenistic and Roman theoreticians of rhetoric such as Cicero and Quintilian. Teleologically, however, the aim of all this mastery of the spoken (and written) word was political and ideological power, however unrealistic this aim became in changed political conditions, when military intervention was so obviously more direct and effective. The power of rhetoric was however soon transferred to the saving of men's souls, to the religious rather than the secular sphere. It would later emerge as a powerful religious force in secular affairs once again, as political and social conditions changed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mimesis as the imitation, adaptation, and emulation of other authors becomes an important subject of discussion in the Hellenistic period. It would greatly concern Horace, and later such Renaissance worthies as Ben Jonson. It is naturally tied to the important question of reader or audience reception. The old paradigm is the later author, who looks to earlier originals for inspiration, guidance, and material to be borrowed, adapted, or even perverted; to precursors who are to be admired and praised; improved on or surpassed; or even challenged or confuted. The obvious case in point here would be Vergil and the ramifications of his relations with Homer, Hesiod, Apollonius Rhodius, Theocritus, Ennius, and Lucretius, which inspired much critical comment later about aemulatio, imitatio, and even plagiarism. As even Velleius Paterculus noticed (1.17): talent is fed by emulation; jealousy and admiration both fire the wish to imitate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But the classical investigation of reader-response was of course not limited to this. It is no great exaggeration to claim that the most ancient discussions of literature are audience-oriented. Poetry was seen as a means of producing effects, not expressing the author's psyche. Self-expression, Art for Art's sake, are more modern, if out-dated, concepts. For the ancient critic the audience is seen as the responsive and reactive reader. Theophrastus (fr. 65 Wimmer) specifies the effect of literature on the audience: pleasure, curiosity, conviction, emotional stimulus to action: he therefore puts poetry |
|
|
|
|
|