Publisher's Synopsis
Scott revolutionizes the standard interpretation of Aristotle's Poetics, which has been considered to be poetic-literary theory since Avicenna wrote the first commentary in the 11th century. This is in spite of not one poem existing in the treatise! The treatise's title and theme, stemming from poiesis (-poetry-), have been interpreted as if they came from the sophist Gorgias (c.483-c.380 BCE), who first gave the word that meaning in 415 BCE. Rather Scott demonstrates that by hypothesizing instead that poiesis means what Plato (c.428-347 BCE ) says it means via Diotima in the Symposium, -music [in the Greek sense] and verse, - we achieve a much clearer understanding of the Poetics and resolve a number of perennial dilemmas. For one, we understand why Aristotle (c. 384-322 BCE) does not care about the poetic forms per se in his treatise, and only focusses on tragedy and comedy, which were fully performed dramatic arts with music, dance and spectacle in his day (with the final art covered in the treatise, epic, being considered -quasi-dramatic-).
Scott's article -The Poetics of Performance: The Necessity of Performance, Spectacle, Music, and Dance in Aristotelian Tragedy, - Performance and Authenticity in the Arts (Cambridge University Press, 1999) has been revised and included, and additional arguments given to show that because -music- is included in the definition of tragedy it cannot be merely optional, as traditionally thought. Moreover, additional evidence is provided to reveal that HARMONIA KAI RHUTHMOS, always translated to this day as -harmony (or melody) and rhythm- in the context of orchestral art for Plato and Aristotle, must really mean -music and dance- in that context. All of this has important ramifications for dance history and for the type of literary criticism that has railed against Aristotle for placing plot above character, as if he were merely or especially giving literary principles.
In addition, in 2003 Scott published the brief reasons in -Purging the Poetics- (Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy) why Aristotle could not have written the catharsis clause in the definition of tragedy. The article, reprinted as Chapter 5, has generated debate on both sides of the Atlantic, with a number of specialists now supporting Scott with regards to catharsis itself. Here Scott provides the additional reasons to advance his view that -pity and fear- are also inauthentic in the catharsis clause, even if they are authentic in the middle chapters. As a result, Scott is able to prove that tragedy for Aristotle is simply serious drama showing noteworthy individuals, which can end in misfortune or in fortune. This enables Scott to resolve conclusively the perennial debate of how Oedipus can be the best tragedy when Aristotle explicitly in Chapter 14 ranks its type below the tragedies that end happily, e.g., Cresphontes.
The final chapters explain the real goal(s) of tragedy for Aristotle, and how he truly responds without catharsis to Plato's censorship of tragedy and comedy in the ideal republic. They also show, based on passages in the Politics and Rhetoric, that Aristotle almost certainly explained catharsis in the lost section on comedy and how that art is more important for him than generally conceived. The book concludes with thoughts on the relevance of Aristotle's work for Broadway musicals, our closest genre to ancient -drama, - and to the other arts, like literature or film.
All of this absolves Aristotle of a number of historical criticisms and allows a fresh appraisal of the treatise that in spite of the two fundamental misconceptions has been the most important work of literary, dramatic and artistic theory in Western culture.