displaying the world to its audience can survive (and has survived). It’s
just that the simplistic notion of a theatre that tries to be as true to
the appearance of life as possible isn’t terribly convincing. Hence, a third
line of response to Plato: obviously, theatre can’t and shouldn’t try to
imitate the appearance of the world as closely as possible; but it can still,
via imitation, tell us about the world. As Hegel remarked, if all art
wanted to do was to imitate nature, then it would be just like a worm
chasing after an elephant.^30 And in such a case, Hegel adds, we could
only admire the artist for his sleight of hand–never for any ultimate,
successful achievement. But supposing we accept that theatre isn’t aiming
at simple verisimilitude. Perhaps, then, theatre can still imitate certain selec-
ted features of the world; perhaps, in fact, it can do this very effectively and
convincingly. And perhaps, in doing so, it can lead to a greater under-
standing of (aspects of) the world, which would otherwise be harder to
grasp–harder, say, than if confronted in the swirl of everyday existence.
Thefirst response to Plato amounts to a denial that his metaphysics is
correct. The second response denies that his analysis of what playwrights
are doing (and how audiences respond) is correct. But this third response
is compatible with his views on both of those subjects (although it
doesn’t presuppose them). We could accept that there’sa‘more real’
world, say, of forms; it’s just that theatre needn’t direct us away from that
real world–it can bring us closer to it. And part of the reason that it
brings us closer to the real world is that audiences take these imitations
seriously (if not uncritically). This, then, amounts to more than just a
defence of theatre against Plato. It suggests that Plato, on his own terms,
would do well to take theatre seriously.^31 There is, not accidentally, a
parallel here with Christian debates about art in general: art can direct
the viewer’s attention away from the message of the gospels; or perhaps, if
used in a certain way, it can highlight and emphasise certain key mes-
sages, hence playing a crucial role. Still, just as with Plato, whose account
of the world (as forms and their imitations) led to his views about thea-
trical imitation, so with the other philosophers we’ll consider: what you
think theatre can and should imitate depends on what you think the
world is and ought to be like. What I want to consider now is a response
of this third kind, written by Plato’s pupil, Aristotle.
Aristotle onmimesis
Aristotle writes about theatre in hisPoetics. Again, a word about the text.
ThePoeticsdoesn’t read like a completed, published volume, but rather as
a series of notes, possibly unfinished. The aims and context of Aristotle’s
writing are hard to know with any certainty, but thePoeticsis obviously
directly concerned with theatre (and tragedy in particular–it refers to a
32 From the World to the Stage