I
Imitation was called mimesis in Greek and imitatio
in Latin: it is the same term in different languages.
The term exists since antiquity; the concept however,
has changed. Today imitation means more or less the
same as copying; in Greece its earliest meaning was
quite different.
The word “mimesis” is post-Homeric: it does not
occur in either Homer or Hesiod. Its etymology, as
linguists maintain, is obscure. Most probably it origi-
nated with the rituals and mysteries of the Dionysian
cult; in its first (quite different from the present) mean-
ing the mimesis-imitation stood for the acts of cult
performed by the priest—dancing, music, and singing.
This is confirmed by Plato as well as by Strabo. The
word which later came to denote the reproducing of
reality in sculpture and theater arts had been, at that
time, applied to dance, mimicry, and music exclusively.
In Delian hymns, as well as in Pindar, this term was
applied to music. Imitation did not signify reproducing
external reality but expressing the inner one. It had
no application then in visual arts.
In the fifth century B.C. the term “imitation” moved
from the terminology of cult into philosophy and
started to mean reproducing the external world. The
meaning changed so much that Socrates had some
qualms about calling the art of painting “mimesis” and
used words close to it such as “ek-mimesis” and “apo-
mimesis.” But Democritus and Plato had no such
scruples and used the word “mimesis” to denote imita-
tion of nature. To each of them, however, it was a
different kind of imitation.
For Democritus mimesis was an imitation of the way
nature functions. He wrote that in art we imitate
nature: in weaving we imitate the spider, in building
the swallow, in singing the swan or nightingale
(Plutarch, De Sollert. anim. 20, 974A). This concept
was applicable chiefly to industrial arts.
Another concept of imitation, which acquired
greater popularity, was also formed in the fifth century
in Athens but by a different group of philosophers: it
was first introduced by Socrates and further developed
by Plato and Aristotle. To them “imitation” meant the
copying of the appearances of things.
This concept of imitation originated as a result of
reflection upon painting and sculpture. For example,
Socrates asked himself in what way do these arts differ
from the others. His answer was: in this, that they
repeat and imitate things which we see (Xenophon's
Comm. III, 10, 1). So he conceived a new concept of
imitation; he also did something more: he formulated
the theory of imitation, the contention that imitation
is the basic function of the arts (such as painting and
sculpture). It was an important event in the history
of thinking on art. The fact that Plato and Aristotle
accepted this theory was equally important: thanks to
them it became for centuries to come the leading
theory of the arts. Each of them, however, assigned
a different meaning to the theory and, consequently,
two variants of the theory, or rather two theories
originated under the same name.
Plato's Variant. In his early writings Plato was
rather vague in his use of the term “imitation”: he
applied it to music and dance (Laws 798D) or confined
it to painting and sculpture (Republic 597D); at first
he called “imitative” only poetry in which, as in trag-
edy, the heroes speak for themselves (epic poetry de-
scribes and does not imitate, he said). Finally, however,
he accepted Socrates' broad concept which embraced
almost the entire art of painting, sculpture, and poetry.
Later, beginning with Book X of the Republic, his
conception of art as imitating reality grew very ex-
treme: he saw it as a passive and faithful act of copying
the outer world. This particular conception was in-
duced primarily by the then contemporary illusionist
art of painting. Plato's idea was similar to what was
in the nineteenth century advanced under the name
of “naturalism.” His theory was descriptive and not
normative; on the contrary, it disapproved of the imi-
tation of reality by art on the basis that imitation is
not the proper road to truth (Republic 603A, 605A;
Sophist 235D-236C).
Aristotle's Variant. Aristotle, seemingly faithful to
Plato, transformed his concept and theory of imitation;
he maintained that artistic imitation may present things
either more or less beautiful than they are; it also may
present them such as they could or ought to be; it can
and ought to limit itself to their characteristics which
are general, typical, and essential (Poetics 1448a 1;
1451b 27; 1460b 13). Aristotle preserved the thesis that
art imitates reality but imitation meant to him not
faithful copying but a free and easy approach to real-
ity; the artist who imitates can present reality in his
own way. Aristotelian “imitation” was, in fact, the
result of a fusion of two conceptions: the ritualistic
and the Socratic. The idea of imitation, therefore, was
just as applicable to music as to sculpture and theater.
Later theoreticians of art referred more often to
Aristotle, but tended to uphold the simpler and more
attractive conception of Plato's. Due to Aristotle's
personal interests the theory of imitation was for cen-
turies more concerned with poetry than with visual
arts. To Aristotle “imitation” was, in the first place,
imitation of human actions; however, it gradually be-
came the imitation of nature, which was to be regarded
as the source of its perfection.
In summary, the classic period of the fourth cen-
tury B.C. used four different concepts of imitation:
the ritualistic concept (expression), the concept of
Democritus (imitation of natural processes), Platonic
(copying of nature), Aristotelian (free creation of the
work of art based on elements of nature). While the
original concept was gradually falling into eclipse and
the ideas of Democritus were recognized only by a
few thinkers (e.g., Hippocrates and Lucretius), both the
Platonic and Aristotelian conceptions proved to be
basic enduring concepts in art; they were often fused
into one and the awareness that they were different
concepts was frequently lost.
