Aristotle's contribution to the art of Criticism

Poetics or DE POETICA by Aristotle can be considered as the basis upon which the theory of literary criticism rests, has developed and achieved its new forms also. He is the first author in whose hands this very theory has attained a truly systematic formation. Now, the question comes– “Does Poetics possess no faults in its way of explanation of the theory?” or, “Does his theory of Poetry still hold good?” The answer to this question is a big “NO”.

We must keep in mind that no man can be above as well as too far ahead of his own age. His concepts had been collected from the ancient and the then Greek literature only. At this juncture, the point that needs a worthwhile discussion is that-

LITERATURE, the grand mirror of contemporary society is like an ever-flowing river; so change in its form and expression is inevitable and essential, otherwise that river must dry up.

Aristotle had only too limited materials at his disposal for the formation of his theory. He could not see the Elizabethan drama, the Restoration drama or even the Modern one-act plays. Only the Greek tragedies, comedies and satires had been witnessed by him for the composition of his theory.  His concepts are undoubtedly somewhat outmoded as they lack modern elements. Still, his influence on later generations has been of a lasting and all-pervasive nature. To quote a critic it can be said that he remains for centuries the

Emperor, the perpetual dictator of all the fine arts.

Aristotle's contribution to the literary field through the ages and his present condition can easily be apprehended from the following commentary of R.A. Scott-James which he makes at the onset of his discussion titled "The Poetics" in The Making of Literature.

It is not easy to disentangle Aristotle from the commentaries, arguments, and legend that have grown out of him through the ages. One epoch after another has fallen under his pervasive influence. He was the acknowledged master during the centuries of Greek and Roman culture; he imposed the rules of reasoning on the schoolmen of the Middle ages; and after the Renaissance, as if he had not already enslaved the world enough, he conquered a new Empire and became lawgiver and absolute monarch to the poets and critics. It is only in our own undeferential age that the glamour of divine right has fallen from him.

In the conclusion, following J.W.H. Atkins (Literary Criticism in Antiquity, Vol I) it can be said-

Of late the small treatise has been subjected to some amount of depreciation, a reaction doubtless from the extravagant praise of former ages. Yet in the history of criticism its importance is unquestionable and fundamental. It is neither an infallible guide nor yet an antiquated text-book, but for breadth of outlook and sanity of judgment, for sheer penetrating power into the mysteries of art, the work is unrivalled; and modern theorising has still to reckon with the contents of its discreet unromantic pages.