Aristotelian criticism, derived from Aristotle's "Poetics," is a foundational method of literary analysis and interpretation. Chicago critics, also known as Neo Aristotelians, advocated for a return to Aristotelian poetics in the 1930s. They emphasized Aristotelian elements of literature, such as plot, character, diction, and thought, and reaffirmed the importance of rhetoric in literary criticism. The Chicago School of Criticism, also known as Neo-Aristotelianism, emerged at the University of Chicago in the 1930s and 1950s, focusing on close textual analysis and the study of literary devices. Key figures in the Chicago school included R.S. Crane, Wayne C. Booth, Elder Olson, and Norman Maclean. Crane supported the New Criticism school of thought, which focused on careful reading of texts and disregarded biographical and historical backgrounds in literary analysis. Olson pushed for a methodical and all-encompassing critique based on Aristotelian ideas, suggesting that criticism should focus on poetic wholes and criticizing the New Critics for focusing on the diction of poetry.

This study aims to look at the nuances of the Chicago School of Criticism and their revival of Aristotelian concepts of poetic creation.

There have been several attempts to illustrate the theoretical and critical activity of this group of scholars. The basic assumptions, methodology and practices have also been well explored. It has been identified that this school of criticism took momentum in antithesis of New Criticism. However, much of the Aristotelian echoes are yet to be explicated in the descriptive research about the Chicago Critics. However, J.M. Gray’s “Aristotle's Poetics and Elder Olson” takes a look at the philosophical undercurrents of Elder Olson’s approach towards Poetics.

Chicago School of Criticism

At the University of Chicago in the 1930s and 1950s, English literature criticism blossomed under the influence of the Chicago School of literary criticism. Due to its emphasis on Aristotle's ideas about poetics, it was also known as Neo-Aristotelianism. Partly, it was a response to New Criticism. The Chicago critics sought complete objectivity and a solid classical foundation of proof for their criticism. The Chicago School saw language and poetic diction as just the foundation of poetry, whereas the New Critics thought them to be of utmost importance. Like Aristotle, they placed more weight on the overall form or structure of a literary work than on how complex the language was. Despite this, some people consider the Chicago School to be a component of the New Criticism movement. This school of criticism prioritised close textual analysis and the study of literary devices, focusing on a formalist approach to literature.

Critics

Ronald Salmon Crane better known as R.S. Crane, was a well-known literary critic and a key figure in the Chicago school. He supported the New Criticism school of thought, which stressed careful reading of texts and disregarded biographical and historical backgrounds in literary analysis.

Another important researcher of the Chicago Critics was Wayne C. Booth. He made contributions to our knowledge of literary narrative and rhetoric by putting out concepts like the implied author and the unreliable narrator. Elder Olson, another key figure, made contributions to the formalist approach to literature and is frequently recognised as one of the first Chicago Critics. He valued the value of the study of literary forms and linguistic analysis.  R.S. Crane was the father of this critical school and he wrote the famous essay “The Critical Monism of Cleanth Brooks”. Norman Maclean was yet another important figure who propounded his views on tragedy in the essay "Episode, Scene, Speech, and Word: The Madness of Lear".

Olson pushed for a methodical and all-encompassing method of critique that was based on the ideas of Aristotle's Poetics, but not restricted to them. He propounded these ideas in works such as essays in Critics and Criticism (1952)  Tragedy and the Theory of Drama (1961) and The Theory of Comedy (1968). He suggested that criticism should instead focus on poetic wholes and criticised the New Critics for focusing on the diction of poetry.

Elder Olson

Critics of this school of literary scholars extensively studied Aristotle and drew critical insights from his treatise Poetics. Through his essay, “The Poetic Method of Aristotle: Its Power and Limitations”,critic Elder Olson proves Poetics to be treatise on poetry as a productive science. He takes into consideration the problems— what knowledge, especially scientific knowledge, meant to Aristotle, how consecutively the subject of an art was handled by him, how all these considerations affect the structure of the poetics, and the consequent powers and limitations of his poetic methods.

According to Aristotle, all animals are capable of gaining knowledge. The knowledge can be acquired through various means like perception, observation and intuition. The acquisition of knowledge depends on the nature of knowledge, the nature of what is already known and the faculties involved at the end of knowledge. Arts and sciences are produced out of experience. Arts and sciences are the knowledge of the universe while experience is the knowledge of the individual. Experience is the base. Experience is the knowledge of fact, art and science is the knowledge of cause.

Aristotle believes that for scientific study, both the methods, inductive and deductive are important. Scientific knowledge is neither a matter of mere generality nor of mere specificity. Science is not single and all comprehending. There are different sciences and they differ in subjects as well as principles. Aristotle divides the sciences into three groups— theoretical sciences, practical sciences and poetic sciences. He distinguishes amongst these sciences as knowing, doing and making. The sciences differ in their subjects— matter, problems and methods, but are still interconnected. Theoretical sciences aim at knowledge; practical sciences have action as their end. In production sciences, production is the most important. Practical sciences are less exact than theoretical sciences while production sciences are more exact if they involve fewer elements and are less dependant upon other sciences. (“Aristotle’s Divisions of Science”)

The Poetics is greatly determined in its problems and methods by the fact that it is a treatise of a productive science. Olson while analysing Poetics as a treatise of productive science, evaluates the scope and structure of such sciences. The first question he addresses is whether a scientific knowledge of poetry is possible, and answers it by denying such a possibility. Science cannot be “accidental”; it is always incidental concerned only with universal facts or what is necessary or probable.  He also argues that nature cannot produce art. Although art has a basis in man, artistic activity is not necessarily an attribute of man. Artistic activity does not contain its principles because it is not an end in itself. The activity is determined by the product to be produced. (Olson, 55).

According to Aristotle, all arts are concerned with things that are a necessity or come into being it; their origin is in the maker. The product is the most important. The artist does not produce form or matter; he produces, what Aristotle calls synolon or the “concretum”.  The productive process has two aspects— reasoning and making. Reasoning proceeds from form to the thing  which can be produced; making proceeds from the thing to the form which is to be produced. Art is concerned with making with reasoning.This reasoning universalised is scientific knowledge of the productive kind. Making, is production in accordance with knowledge and it is dependent upon skill and experience.The artist is concerned not only with the nature of the thing to be produced but also the excellence. Aristotle divides poetry into three phases-In the first phase man had the instinct of imitation for pleasure and knowledge derived from imitation. Man had also the instinct for tune and rhythm. It gave birth to poetry. In the second phase poetry diversified because people imitated noble or ignoble actions or characters. It depended on the moral nature of the imitator himself. The desirable forms are developed in the third phase. In this phase we have the art proper. In the three phases of poetry causes of poetry are imitative, ethical and artistic respectively. In the first phase means of poetry is developed, in the second phase object is developed and in the third phase manner is developed.

R. S. Crane

Crane places the Chicago critics in the middle of dogmatism and scepticism in the foreword to the condensed edition of Critics and Criticism. He urges an educated commitment to Aristotle rather than a dogmatic one. In any case, the Chicago technique is largely inclusive. It necessitates a variety of specialised techniques targeted at various aspects of the literary enterprise. Crane also suggests that meta-criticism may address universal themes, comparative evaluations, and historical generalisations applicable to a wide range of works. (Groarke, 193). Crane's essay "Criticism as Inquiry: Or, The Perils of the 'High Priori Road" provides a thoughtful analysis of some of the theoretical flaws of the New Critics, such as their lack of ability to choose first principles for critical investigation or their departure from pro-per inquiry. Crane points out that the proponents of the New Criticism rejected the older order of scholarship by placing criticism in a direct opposition to it in an effort to elevate criticism by including it into the curriculum of studies (Crane, 26). As a result, there is some tension between the historical researchers and the new critics, two separate organisations. It was arguably more or less justified during the trial era of criticism in the 1930s, when it was attempting to establish a reputable and popular position, to place criticism in opposition to historical study. One can then minimise the significance of the issues that the historical researchers primarily concern themselves with and maximise the benefits of critical study by understanding and perhaps even appreciating the efforts of the critics.

These were the basic tenets of Neo-Aristotelianism which hold a significant place in literary criticism even after almost a century. It reinforces the foundation of western literary criticism, as Neo-Aristotelian criticism builds upon the ideas of Aristotle's "Poetics," making it one of the earliest and most foundational works in the Western world. It continues to influence discussions and analyses of literature and drama, serving as a fundamental reference in the study of literature for centuries. It focuses on mimesis and catharsis. Like Aristotle, Neo-Aristotelian criticism places emphasis on mimesis, the imitation of human action in art, and catharsis, the emotional cleansing or purging experienced by audiences through tragedy. These concepts remain fundamental in understanding the purpose and effects of literature, sparking debates and discussions among scholars over time. Neo-Aristotelian criticism continues Aristotle's analysis of tragedy in "Poetics," profoundly impacting the study of dramatic works. The identification of key elements such as plot, character, thought, diction, melody, and spectacle serves as a standard framework for evaluating tragic literature and theater. The critics uphold Aristotle's view that plot is a critical element of successful drama. A well-structured plot with a clear beginning, middle, and end remains essential for engaging audiences and creating powerful storytelling. Like Aristotle's ideas, Neo-Aristotelian criticism's principles are not confined to a specific time or culture. They address universal aspects of human experience and storytelling, making this approach applicable to various literary works across different periods and regions. Neo-Aristotelian criticism, like its foundation in Aristotelian ideas, has withstood the test of time. It continues to be studied and debated by literary scholars, even in modern times. While other literary theories have emerged over the centuries, the Neo-Aristotelian approach to plot, character, and the emotional impact of literature remains relevant, shaping discussions on the nature of art and aesthetics.

1. Aristotle’s Divisions of Science.” Academy of Ideas | Free Minds for a Free Society, Mar. 2018, academyofideas.com/2014/01/aristotles-divisions-of-science.

2. Crane, R. S. "Criticism as Inquiry : Or, The Perils of the High.Priori Road", The Idea of the Humanities and other Essays, Critical and Historical. Vol.II. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago. 1967.

3. Gray, J. M. “Aristotle’s Poetics and Elder Olson.” Comparative Literature, vol. 15, no. 2, 1963, pp. 164–75. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1768902. Accessed 1 May. 2023.

4. Groarke, Louis. “Following in the Footsteps of Aristotle: The Chicago School, the Glue-Stick, and the Razor.” The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, vol. 6, no. 3, 1992, pp. 190–205. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25670034. Accessed 26 April 2023.

5. Newman, John Henry. Poetry, With Reference to Aristotle’s Poetics. 1891.

6. Olson, Elder. Aristotle's Poetics and English Literature. 1966.