Poetic, Mental, and Other Images

Abstract

A number of definitions of imagery emphasize that literary images are not necessarily of a visual nature, but can address any one of the senses. In addition, imagery in literature cannot be equated with mental images. Even the term “mental image” is not completely unambiguous; however, in general use there is a predominant belief that mental images are some sort of internal pictures that one observes with the mind. The beginnings of theoretical studies of mental images reach at least back to Aristotle’s treatise On the Soul. In order to explain thought, Aristotle introduced an intermediary link between perception and thinking: imagination. He defined it as the ability that leads people to say that they “see” a certain image or phantasm. – Aristotle’s assertion that the soul never thinks without an image became the source of numerous disputes and efforts to prove that, in reality, thinking does not take place in images. Following Aristotle’s model, philosophers have treated images as internal pictures and mainly connected their origin with perception. In recent decades, now that cognitive psychology has been focusing on images again, the thesis has been developed that mental images are ultimately linguistic descriptions rather than pictures. – Amplifying the meaning of “image” from visual perception to any sense originates in Hobbes’ sensualist theory. Eighteenth-century English authors that dealt with literary studies, followed by nineteenth-century German aesthetics, accepted the term “image” into their vocabulary and used it, among other things, to denote a renewed sensual perception. They treated images that originate in perception as the material that writers use to create their works. When the idea was finally recognized that internal pictures are not material for metaphors and comparisons (or at least not the only material), advocates of the term “literary image” began emphasizing its metaphoricity. The term “(poetic) image” is thus not a metonymy (internal pictures are not necessarily material for images in literature), but a metaphor denoting the use of words that (like pictures) demands multi-sensory perception and interpretation.