Notesale: Turn your study into money

Document Preview

Extracts from the notes are below, to see the PDF you'll receive please use the links above

---

MASTERS’ LEVEL
CATEGORY: ENGLISH LITERATURE
SUBJECT: Drama
Question: What is the main difference between poetry and history? What does
Aristotle apparently mean by the term "universal"?
Answer:
“The true difference is that one relates what has happened, the other
what may happen
...

He makes a clear distinction between both of them straightaway
...
One is based on the facts: the true context
in what the events in the past happened, while the other is hypothetical
consideration of what might have happened or may happen
...
By the
universal, I mean how a person of a certain type on occasion speak or act,
according to the law of probability or necessity”
History addresses that of the particular, it is way of cataloguing our past
...
Poetry
therefore is meant to be “universal” something that everyone can relate to like
feelings of love, hatred, friendship, betrayal etc
...
It
holds in it, themes that apply to audiences of every race, creed, or background
...
A good example would be
looking at emotions, due to the nature of being human; it is a constant for them
and can be found in every language which makes them universal such as “love” or
“hate”
...
However, many of the plays do have some basis and
background story, or at least allusions, to the ruling monarch in England at that
time period
...
) So as Aristotle points out even
though these plays may be historically relevant to the Renaissance period, and
even though their conventions are those of a different time they still speak to
contemporary audiences
...
This is exactly, why Shakespeare is so relatable, even
in his most “historical plays” such as Richard III though the plot may focus on the
succession of leaders the real story lies in the motives and emotions of characters
that stand the test of time
...
From this
statement of Aristotle, we can explain another perspective of poetry that it’s not
necessary to have a good structure for better written poetry but the “idea” that it
is based on
...
It didn’t remain as original as it was in their mind
...
For plots, more than merely
organizing events into a coherent structure, serve to represent the universal laws
of probability
...


Poetry is more "philosophical" than history, according to Aristotle, because
in order to unfold a plot in a manner that is convincing to the audience, the poet
must grasp and represent the internal logic, the necessity, of the outcome of
those events
...
Such a chronicle is history, but not poetry
...
He compares history and
poetry in order to elucidate the object of “poetic mimesis” rather than criticize
history as a discipline
...
As in Poetics he puts that
“Poetry is a more philosophical and better thing than history, since poetry
states more universal things whereas history states particular things”
So shortly it can be said that the main difference between history and
poetry is that one tells us what really happened in the past while the other tells us
what may happen from looking at the past event
...
Furthermore, Aristotle said that a universal is identical in
each of its instances
...

To understand this term better, it can also be said that the language of
emotions, which is understood by every normal human being, and it also makes
them the best of all creatures, is universal in its true nature
...
But the poets whose is still well known among people in the modern
world internationally was also written on their historical events but what makes it
fascinating is that these events were moulded in such a way that even now it
represents the universal feelings more than their history, which can be felt by any
person in any corner of the world
...
webeeps

---