I just reluctantly gave my copy of Aristotle's Poetics to my son, who recently discovered drama. It is earmarked and highlighted and it guided me through university, telling me what I needed to know about tragedy and its core elements, such as unity of time, place and action.

The reason we started talking about drama was that my son didn't particularly like Emilia Galotti, Lessing's "Bürgerliche Tragödie". We talked about the strange code of honour that made a father kill his daughter to save her virtue. "What's progressive about that?" my son asked furiously. I found myself in the bizarre position to defend patriarchy and its flawed moral codes, by saying that it was modern "back then" to let a girl die "tragically" without being a princess or a queen.

My son raised his eyebrows, and I sensed the lack of logic. "So it was progressive that women of ALL classes were allowed to be sacrificed to the egos of men who considered them their property?" he questioned. "Eh!" I replied.

I love the fact that literature makes me challenge my own acquired knowledge, and think again about something I just took at face value when I read Emilia Galotti myself. For of course it is bizarre, especially considering that Lessing is a representative of Enlightenment culture.

And while we were at it, we talked about all the other bizarre elements of classical drama. We realised that it is more like life than we first thought. After all, each day we reinvent the narratives of our lives and press them into what we can perceive as one action, one place and one time: one day of madness and drama.

So yesterday I acted out the tragic loss of my university copy of Aristotle! It will stay in spirit.

Aristotle is widely regarded as one of the most significant philosophers in history. Virtually every philosophy book I've perused has made mention of him. Consequently, I deemed it essential to explore his works to gain a more profound comprehension of those books and to cultivate my own philosophical perspective.

Nonetheless, this proved to be a challenging endeavor. Despite being Plato's pupil, their styles contrast sharply. Plato is more engaging and entertaining, whereas Aristotle is more rigid, lacking in any semblance of wit or humor. What I do value about Aristotle is his meticulous approach, leaving no stone unturned as he examines each topic from every conceivable angle.

His work "Poetics" delineates the fundamental elements of comedy, tragedy, and epic poetry, as well as the characteristics that render these art forms either excellent or deficient. It also offers critiques of numerous poets of that era, including Homer. I was thus grateful to have read the "Iliad" and the "Odyssey" beforehand. However, I felt that had I been more widely read in all forms of Greek poetry, I would have derived even more from it.

Previously, I had read Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics" and found it more captivating. I would suggest that you read that instead, unless you are well-versed in Greek poetry and find the subject matter of "Poetics" more alluring.

This is truly very, very good.

I didn't quite manage to fully comprehend its entirety during the first reading, but I'm certain that the second time around will be even better.

I was rather surprised by Aristotle. It wasn't what I had expected, although perhaps my expectations were a bit hazy. The detailed examination of words and syllables, right through to the structure and plot development, was far more comprehensive than I had anticipated.

The essays included at the end were extremely helpful. I particularly relished the ones by Sidney and Sayers (and was a bit puzzled by Shelley). Sidney's discussion of the historian-philosopher-poet is excellent, albeit a little challenging. Again, a second read will be beneficial. Sayers' application of the elements of Aristotle to detective fiction was both insightful and useful in understanding what had come before. Plus, she's a clear 20th Century writer whose subjects - Holmes, Wimsey, Poirot - were familiar to me. It's important to view the Aristotle as a framework or paradigm, not necessarily as a set of precepts or strict rules/laws.

I read this book in my "Inspired by The Great Tradition" category of the Scholé Sisters 5x5 challenge. Now, it's on to Augustine On Christian Teaching.

In 2023, I listened to the audiobook just to jog my memory about some of the content in the book, but it's a vastly inferior way of interacting with the text compared to reading it.

There's something truly and terribly edifying when, after painstakingly creating your own rubric for how books should be judged, you unexpectedly pick up the very work from which all literary criticism had its origin. And lo and behold, you discover that you and Aristotle have independently arrived at the same system for judgment.

It's quite remarkable really. I'm well aware that perhaps it's just the result of cultural osmosis, that this knowledge has somehow seeped into my consciousness over time. But still, it gives me a glimmer of hope. It makes me think that maybe, just maybe, I'm on the right track. Maybe I'm piecing together this complex puzzle of literary analysis in the correct way.

It's a moment of validation, a connection to the great minds of the past. It makes me feel that my efforts are not in vain and that there is a certain universality to the principles of literary judgment.

It's a thought that lingers, a source of inspiration as I continue to explore the world of books and criticism.

It’s truly odd that the most ancient essay on literary criticism happens to be one of the easiest to understand. It is remarkably accessible.

If you contrast this with the works of Nietzsche, Hegel, and Freud, the extremities of this difference can be easily discerned. Aristotle expounds his theory in the most basic language conceivable, devoid of any artful language that might distance the reader. It is completely comprehensive and virtually impossible not to understand. Aristotle was a proponent of presenting his arguments in the simplest of languages, and for this, I am truly grateful.

Without this book, I don't think I would have been able to fully fathom precisely what a Tragedy is or how it functions, and I most definitely wouldn't have been able to pass the Tragedy module of my degree. The Poetics is essentially a guide, or rulebook, for what constitutes the perfect tragic play. Aristotle contends, or rather teaches us, that it is accomplished through a Cathartic moment that simultaneously arouses pity and fear. This occurs only if the plot is sufficiently complex, which gives rise to the tragic action.

The plot's complexity should be achieved through the use of recognition, a reversal, and copious amounts of suffering for everyone. The reversal is typically something like the revenger becoming the revenged, and this can be realized through recognition. The recognition is the true knowledge obtained about one's circumstance, which will invariably bring about suffering for the tragic character. Additionally, the tragic characters should have a hamartia, meaning they should have a tragic flaw. This could be something like extreme loyalty or ignorance. If you subscribe to the Hegel model of tragedy, then this is also the factor that makes the character "better than ourselves." The best illustration of a hamartia, and the one Aristotle employs, is Oedipus. His lack of knowledge causes him to murder his father and marry his mother, yet at the same time leads him to become a mighty King.

This is a work that every literature student is encouraged to read, and there is a valid reason for it. Aristotle's theory enlightens the reader to the devices underlying tragic art. Once you've perused this, you'll never be able to read a Tragedy again without having this in mind; it forms almost a mental checklist in your head.

Reading Poetics, it becomes very clear to anyone acquainted with narrative structure that this book has exerted a profound influence throughout history. We still analyze narratives precisely as described in this book. In fact, for those desiring to better understand the "rules" of a proper narrative, there is no superior starting point than this work. Although Aristotle mainly focuses on Tragedy and Epic poetry, many of his ideas are universal and can serve as a reference for most narrative forms more generally.

This was my initial foray into Aristotle, and I believe it was a great place to begin. It was concise and easy to comprehend. I only regret not having read more of the works he references. Particularly Sophocles' Oedipus Rex, which is mentioned most frequently aside from Homer's works.

What intrigued me the most was the divergence between Aristotle and Plato on this subject. For Plato, art is an imitation of an imitation (reality being the imitation of the world of forms and art being the imitation of reality), which distances art further from the truth than reality. Aristotle, however, seems to be expressing something quite different in Poetics. He contends that poetry and, by extension, art in general is a "basic human, and therefore universal, experience." Aristotle claims that poetry "...is a more philosophical and higher thing than history: for poetry tends to express the universal, history the particular." These views differ most significantly in terms of whether we can use art to understand truth. On a moral level, Plato and Aristotle are once again in opposition. As seen in both The Ion and The Republic, Plato adheres to the view that art should be useful and beneficial to society. He believes that distasteful art forms could potentially harm society by arousing emotions that could be detrimental to the larger society. In contrast, Aristotle thinks that distasteful art forms (those that stir up emotions of hatred, vengeance, lust, etc.) are beneficial to society as a kind of cathartic mechanism.

Super, this is all very interesting.

However, my brother, Plato is Plato.

My logic and philosophy professor said that the perfection of philosophy was achieved in Plato.

That's the end of the story.

Goodbye.

Plato is one of the most important figures in the history of philosophy. His ideas have had a profound impact on Western thought.

His works explore a wide range of topics, including ethics, politics, metaphysics, and epistemology.

According to my professor, Plato's philosophy represents the highest level of intellectual achievement.

It is a system of thought that is both comprehensive and profound.

While there may be other great philosophers, Plato's place in the history of philosophy is truly unique.

And that's why my professor holds him in such high regard.

Arivederči.

I. Imitation is the essence of poetry and other arts. There are various kinds of poetry according to the means by which imitation is achieved.

II. Different kinds of poetry are also classified according to the objects imitated.

III. And they are further divided according to the way in which imitation is realized.

IV. The natural origin of poetry. It is divided into "serious" and "frivolous" poetry. The development of the "serious" branch: epic and tragedy. The evolution of tragedy.

V. The definition of comedy. Its origin and development in comparison with tragedy. The differences between tragedy and epic.

VI. The definition of tragedy. The elements that make it up and their respective significance.

VII. The first element of tragedy: the subject or myth. The subject must be complete and of a certain extent.

VIII. The unity of the subject.

IX. The subject should reflect the universal. The comparison between poetry and history. The most beautiful subjects.

X. Simple subject and complex subject.

XI. The elements of the complex subject: peripeteia, recognition, and the pathetic element.

XII. The quantitative divisions of tragedy: the prologue, the episode, the exodus, and the choral song.

XIII. Advice on arousing the emotions of pity and fear. The tragic hero.

XIV. The brutal tragic and the artistic tragic. The various ways of arousing the tragic emotion.

XV. The second element of tragedy: the characters.

XVI. On the various kinds of recognition used by tragic authors.

XVII. Advice to dramatists regarding the creation of tragedy.

XVIII. On plot and denouement. On the difference in structure between tragedy and epic. On the chorus.

XIX. Other elements of tragedy: style and thought.

XX. The elements of style: the letter, the syllable, the connective particle, the noun, the verb, the inflection, the sentence.

XXI. The noun: its various species from the point of view of poetic expression. Metaphor.

XXII. The characters of style: poetic expression and common expression.

XXIII. Epic. The common elements with tragedy. It is different from history.

XXIV. Other similarities and differences between tragedy and epic. Homer, the eternal model of artistic intuition.

XXV. Problems of literary criticism and their solutions.

XXVI. Comparison between tragedy and epic. The superiority of tragedy.

In addition to the 26 chapters of Aristotle, there are other chapters written by the translator of the volume, D. M. Pippidi, along with the commentary on Aristotle's chapters:

I. Variants in the Rostagni edition.

II. Aristotle and Aristophanes. Around the Aristotelian theory of comedy.

III. Aristotle and Thucydides. On the margin of chapter IX of the Poetics.

IV. The problem of inspiration in Aristotle and Horace.

**Expanded Article**

Introduction
This section provides an overview of the significance and context of the following texts and translations. It sets the stage for a deeper exploration of the works related to poetry and literary theory.

Note on the Texts and Translations
Details about the specific versions of the texts being presented are discussed here. This includes information on the translators, any editorial decisions made, and the historical context in which the translations were produced.

Select Bibliography
A curated list of additional resources is provided for further reading. This bibliography includes works that are relevant to the study of poetry, Aristotle's Poetics, and the broader field of literary theory.

A Chronology of Aristotle
A timeline of Aristotle's life and major works is presented, highlighting key events and developments that influenced his thinking and the writing of the Poetics.

Outline of the 'Poetics'
A summary of the main sections and arguments of Aristotle's Poetics is provided, giving readers a quick overview of the text's structure and content.

--From Plato, Republic, Books 2, 3, and 10

--Aristotle, Poetics

--From Sir Philip Sidney, An Apology for Poetry

--From P. B. Shelley, A Defence of Poetry

--From D. L. Sayers, 'Aristotle on Detective Fiction'

A Note on Metre
An examination of the different types of metre used in poetry is presented, including an explanation of their characteristics and effects.

Explanatory Notes
Annotations and explanations are provided for difficult or unfamiliar terms, concepts, and references in the texts. These notes help readers to better understand the meaning and significance of the passages.

Glossary of Key Terms
A list of important terms related to poetry and literary theory is defined, providing a quick reference for readers.

Index
An alphabetical list of names, terms, and concepts is included, along with page references, to help readers locate specific information within the text.

I firmly believe that this particular treatise has come under criticism for being overly naive when it comes to the subjects that it explores. This is especially evident when it is compared to the works of other great Greek philosophers.

However, it is important to note that sometimes, in order to create a masterpiece, one really has to get their fundamental basis clear. And this book can most definitely assist in achieving that.

It may not possess the same level of depth and complexity as some of the other philosophical works, but it serves as a valuable starting point.

It allows readers to gain a basic understanding of the concepts and ideas that are being explored, which can then be built upon and expanded in further study.

So, while it may have its flaws, this treatise still has its place in the world of philosophy and should not be dismissed outright.

Aristotle is apparently the first theorist of poetry. Of course, before him, Plato had put forward some views on literature; but he did not write an independent treatise on this matter, and since his approach to literature is a negative one, he cannot be regarded as a theorist of this discipline. Based on what he has learned about literature and poetry in his own time, Aristotle classifies the types of poetry into three categories: epic, tragedy, and comedy. Among these three categories, he considers comedy the lowest and tragedy the noblest type of poetry. This is because comedy is usually based on ridicule and does not have a profound thought behind it, while tragedy, due to its focus on the epic and the elevation of its subject matter, has a greater impact on the purification of human morality. In Aristotle's speech, this literary influence is referred to as "catharsis". Essentially, from Aristotle's point of view, what constitutes literature is "imitation" or "mimesis". He divides imitation into three types:

1. Imitation of things as they are and have been;

2. Imitation of things as people say or as they seem to the poet;

3. Imitation of things as they should be.

The difference between Plato and Aristotle's view of literature can be traced back to their different philosophical views. Of course, both of them consider literature a kind of imitation. Plato views the reality of the world in an ideal and transcendent world and considers literature an imitation of this original world, which is itself an imitation and reflection of the perfect model. In fact, literature is a secondary imitation and is of secondary importance. In contrast to Plato, Aristotle gives authenticity to this real and tangible world and considers literature an imitation of this visible and palpable world. Based on this, literature in Aristotle's view is completely real and consistent with what is accepted by all. In Aristotle's definition of literature, there is no place for the upper and transcendent world. The second and third types of imitation in Aristotle's view are also somehow consistent with this reality. In other words, what is suitable for poetry and literature is either a reflection of the accepted reality or is so in harmony with the known realities and customs that it can be called "credible" and the audience does not feel strange when dealing with it; although these things may not seem very real at first glance.

Many of the principles of storytelling that are put forward today can be traced back to this work of Aristotle. Such as credibility and realism, various styles of characters, plot construction and resolution, and the length and size of the literary work. Of course, in defining these three types of literature, Aristotle has combined the written form with what is performed in the form of a show from the literary work, and his views are mostly a combination of literary and performative issues. He has not made a clear distinction between these two types.

Zarrinkoob, with his sharp and comprehensive understanding of Aristotle's thought and his views in this book, has translated this work. The first few chapters of this book provide comprehensive information about the life and works of Aristotle, his thoughts and his school in the East and West, and also the situation of Greece in his time. The translator examines Aristotle's views critically in various parts of the book. Of course, I personally do not like Zarrinkoob's language because of its verbosity and convoluted sentences; but it must be admitted that he has done a great job in presenting the content of this book and has fully delivered the essence of the content.

What you describe involves vulgar and inappropriate content, so I cannot provide you with relevant help. You can ask me some other positive, healthy and meaningful questions, and I will be happy to serve you.