RoR: Forum

Fascinating, Peter. Not much to add, other than to say I enjoyed your piece. I've always thought intellectual clarification and a good sob make for a great night at the movies!

Post 1

Sunday, May 16, 2004 - 2:03pm

Thanks Cameron. "I've always thought intellectual clarification and a good sob make for a great night at the movies!" Indeed they do. No art/entertainment dichotomies here:-)

As it happens, actor/director Michael Hurst agrees. Talking with him Saturday night after seeing 'Goldie' he affirmed that intellectual clarification and powerful emotion are precisely the point of good drama, and exactly what he enjoys in classic Greek and Shakespearian tragedies.

Of course, it's also the point of good architecture. :-)

(Edited by Peter Cresswell on 5/16, 2:04pm)

Post 2

Monday, June 14, 2004 - 6:37am

Hi Peter,

Thanks for the insights and bringing to my attention Leon Golden, I look forward to reading his work. What a cool man Aristole must have been.

Michael

Post 3

Monday, November 28, 2005 - 7:09am

Great article!

Monday, November 28, 2005 - 10:12am

In a way, am surprised this supposed dichotomy even came up, especially if one is recognising the integrated being, wherein emotions are seen as 'just is', expressions responding to what is viewed in the Arts involved - even if it is wistfulness of 'what might have been'...

Post 5

Monday, November 28, 2005 - 10:49am

Liddell & Scott's Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford) does list a "clarification" definition, but the quote from Aristotle's Poetics is listed separately. It seems (if I've translated it correctly) to refer to tragedy as bringing about, through compassion and fear, the catharsis of sufferings of such a kind (employing an emphatic-such adjective where a "such" adjective might have been expected). If he'd really meant "epiphany" wouldn't he have said so? The cleansing metaphor might have implied "intellectual clarification", in a prophylactic sense, but doesn't seem to stretch that far itself. What's the gist of his argument for that interpretation?

I hadn't noticed Golden's book at Schoenhof's, and just now didn't find books by him either on their website, or at Bolchazy-Carducci, where he is listed as an associate editor. Elsewhere he's reported as having retired. To what Golden book are you referring?

Post 6

Monday, November 28, 2005 - 5:05pm

"To what Golden book are you referring?"

Aristotle on Tragic & Comic Mimesis, by Leon Golden, 1992, American Philological Association, Scholars Press, Georgia

"If he'd really meant "epiphany" wouldn't he have said so?"

That's what Golden says he was saying, and that he's been misinterpreted since.

"The cleansing metaphor might have implied 'intellectual clarification,' in a prophylactic sense, but doesn't seem to stretch that far itself. What's the gist of his argument for that interpretation?"

I've summarised it only very briefly in the article, but some good summaries exist on the net if you want to Google them. And I do recommend the book very highly, where of course you get the full argument - and even if you disagree with Golden's philological detective work, his argument is so startlingly close to Rand's that it's worth consideration.

Post 7

Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 10:55am

Sorry; I missed the reference below the line. I had better luck searching with "and" spelled out.

There were so many search results that it seems better just to get hold of Golden's book directly. I found these notes and this review useful, though.

Golden's argument for the intellectual-clarification meaning of katharsis appears to proceed from a general recognition of rationality and of rational emotions in Aristotle. In the absence of an explanation of katharsis from Aristotle himself, a "healing" meaning, in the sense of bringing back into better order a disordered mind, emotionally and intellectually, does seem a likely candidate for Aristotle's basic sense of the word, and fits the cleansing metaphor.

BTW, Golden (presumably) recommends his own translation of the Poetics here.

Post 8

Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 8:18pm

T. David Hudson suggested: If he'd really meant "epiphany" wouldn't he have said so?
Peter Cresswell countered: "That's what Golden says he was saying, and that he's been misinterpreted since."

Epiphany is a Greek word. If Aristotle intended it, it would have used it.

Phane = appearance
epi = after. p ==> f ... epi ==> afi...
(Epimetheus = After-thought. Epicycle: cycle required to adjust another cycle.)

Epiphany = consequential to appearance.

Katharsis is the toughie. I am interested in what Golden has to say.

Post 9

Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 8:49pm

In this case, a phaneia is a shining, and epi means "upon," as in "epidermis". Prepositions are as ambiguous in Greek as they are in English, just not in the same way. An epiphany is thus a shining-upon, as in the story of the Holy Ghost appearing to the apostles on Epiphany Sunday in the form of a ray of light.

Peter

Post 10

Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 9:00pm