Hi Anne, thanks for your thoughtful words about the power of, well, words. Prompted by the question mark following the attribution of the opening quote to "Plato," I thought I would offer a possible correction and modest elaboration. I hope you don't mind!
I suspect the passage you are thinking of in fact comes from Aristotle. In the Poetics, Aristotle writes that "poetry is a more philosophical and more serious [spoudaios, one of Aristotle's highest words of praise, which could also be translated 'consequential'] thing than history; poetry tends to speak of universals, history of particulars."
It should be said that Aristotle was thinking more of tragic dramas by the likes of Sophocles or Euripides than of the verses we usually think of today as poetry. But I think the point still stands. Poets craft images in words that tend to speak to something universal in human experience. History may also have lessons to teach about the work of being human, but the explicit aim of the historian is more to document and reconstruct particular times and events, leaving interpretation to those who follow.
In fact, one could argue that the more history tries to represent its particulars as universals -- declaring, in effect, that this story is in fact The True Story, the one that tells how things Really Are -- the more it risks becoming propaganda.
For his part, Plato's view of poetry is much more suspicious (and conflicted). In the Republic, he has Socrates design a supposedly ideal city that would strictly censor, if not outright ban, the kind of poets Aristotle praises. Why? For much the same reason we are rightly suspicious of propagandizing historians -- namely, their intent to manipulate the discernment of reality.
At the same time, we can't ignore that Plato's critique of poetry was itself written in a poetic form: a dialogue, an imagined conversation among imagined characters in an imagined time and place. Perhaps the implication is that we cannot avoid some degree of propagandizing. We all have points of view, and judgments we wish to promote about what is good and bad. Knowing this, I think we should seek to handle our words with extreme care and diligence. They can, as you say, do great damage -- but they can also help and heal (consider, e.g., Aristotle's notion of katharsis).
I guess I would say poetry and history can both be done well or poorly, in their own ways. In the present context, the difference seems to me to be a matter of whether they serve or -- as those you shared with us do -- repudiate fascism.
Dagnabbit, now I’m hearing, “by zombies” after each verb. 😜
I think something out of Jim Harrison’s “Letters to Yesenin” would be appropriate here, I’ll go look.
Hi Anne, thanks for your thoughtful words about the power of, well, words. Prompted by the question mark following the attribution of the opening quote to "Plato," I thought I would offer a possible correction and modest elaboration. I hope you don't mind!
I suspect the passage you are thinking of in fact comes from Aristotle. In the Poetics, Aristotle writes that "poetry is a more philosophical and more serious [spoudaios, one of Aristotle's highest words of praise, which could also be translated 'consequential'] thing than history; poetry tends to speak of universals, history of particulars."
It should be said that Aristotle was thinking more of tragic dramas by the likes of Sophocles or Euripides than of the verses we usually think of today as poetry. But I think the point still stands. Poets craft images in words that tend to speak to something universal in human experience. History may also have lessons to teach about the work of being human, but the explicit aim of the historian is more to document and reconstruct particular times and events, leaving interpretation to those who follow.
In fact, one could argue that the more history tries to represent its particulars as universals -- declaring, in effect, that this story is in fact The True Story, the one that tells how things Really Are -- the more it risks becoming propaganda.
For his part, Plato's view of poetry is much more suspicious (and conflicted). In the Republic, he has Socrates design a supposedly ideal city that would strictly censor, if not outright ban, the kind of poets Aristotle praises. Why? For much the same reason we are rightly suspicious of propagandizing historians -- namely, their intent to manipulate the discernment of reality.
At the same time, we can't ignore that Plato's critique of poetry was itself written in a poetic form: a dialogue, an imagined conversation among imagined characters in an imagined time and place. Perhaps the implication is that we cannot avoid some degree of propagandizing. We all have points of view, and judgments we wish to promote about what is good and bad. Knowing this, I think we should seek to handle our words with extreme care and diligence. They can, as you say, do great damage -- but they can also help and heal (consider, e.g., Aristotle's notion of katharsis).
I guess I would say poetry and history can both be done well or poorly, in their own ways. In the present context, the difference seems to me to be a matter of whether they serve or -- as those you shared with us do -- repudiate fascism.