Watching this scene (if suitably immersed), we do not congratulate
ourselves for the complex interplay of imitation and imagination–and
I am not suggesting that we should. Indeed, what’s more remarkable is
that, immersed in the action, we don’t stop to think about it, because we
are engrossed in themimesis. It is not my aim in this book to make a case
for theatre, as something unique or highly valuable. But it strikes me that
no other artistic medium could provoke complex relations ofmimesisthat
wefind in a performance of this scene: a novel would erase the actors,
with their impersonations and resemblances; a painting, as well as
removing the actors, would leave out the features of the plot that enliven
our imagination; evenfilm, which has so many similarities with theatre,
would lessen the role of imagination–it would probably take us straight
to thefield, obscuring the three-way relation between stage,field and cliff.
Conclusion
As we’ve seen, the single word,mimesis, unlocks very different families
of concepts–imitation and imagination–each of which, in turn, reveals
different and interrelated notions. Plato takes imitation to be copying the
appearance of the everyday; but for Aristotle, it includes omitting details
and even getting things wrong for the sake of poetic effect. As for ima-
gination, we noted the difference between actors and audience; and
between creative, gap-filling, sensory, propositional and make-believe
imagination. I have suggested that these families of notions interact in a
particular way on stage. But with all the different senses ofmimesis in
mind, we can see why it’s not merely a feature of theatre, but also of other
kinds of artistic and non-artistic activity. Far from meaning the simplistic
copying of everyday life,mimesis, taken as a whole, looks to be a feature of
everyday life, perhaps an important feature.^57
Further Reading
Plato’sThe Republicand Aristotle’sPoeticsremain the key historical texts
for the discussion of theatre andmimesis. For a sample of relevant discussions
ofmimesis andThe Republic, see Nehamas (1982) and (1988); Burnyeat
(1999); Halliwell (2002: 37–147); Moss (2007); Cain (2012). On Plato
and the theatre: Barish (1981: Ch. 1) offers an overview of Plato’s argu-
ments against theatre, while Puchner (2010: Ch. 1) attempts to salvage
Plato’s reputation as a dramatist of sorts; Rokem (2010: Ch. 1) has a
challenging reading of Plato’s Symposium, in which Socrates discourses
with playwrights. Santas (2006) and Ferrari (2007) are helpful general
collections onThe Republic.Onmimesisin thePoetics, see Halliwell (1986:
109 – 137) and Woodruff (1992); on thePoetics in general see Halliwell
Mimesis 43