only true reality. To defend poetic against the strictures of his master
Aristotle reads more into the word than that.

In discovering what Aristotle had in mind when he speaks of imitation, the
student must read from one treatise to another, for few writers of any
period are so addicted to the habit of cross-reference. In the
_Psychology_ Aristotle states that all stimuli received by the senses at
the moment of perception are impressed upon the mind as in wax. The images
held by the image-forming faculty are thus the after effect of sensation.
These images remain and may be recalled by the image-forming faculty. From
this store-house of images, or after effects of sensation, the reasoning
faculty derives the materials for thought as well as those for artistic
expression.[15] Imagination evidently has much to do with Aristotle's
conception of the nature of poetic. Imitation, then, to him, meant a
conscious selection and plastic mastery of the sense impressions stored as
images by the image-forming faculty of the author, whose writings are
addressed to the imagination of the reader or auditor. Furthermore,
Butcher's interpretation of "imitation of nature" seems both sound and
suggestive. According to him the imitation of nature is the imitation of
nature's ways. In this sense the act of the poet may well be called
creation.

As imitative arts Aristotle mentions poetry, dancing, music, and painting.
They differ, he says, in their medium, objects, and manner. Poetry,
dancing, and music he classifies together because they use the similar
media of rhythm, language, or harmony either singly or combined. Music,
for instance, uses both rhythm and harmony, dancing uses rhythm alone, and
poetry uses language alone. Aristotle by this does not, as might seem,
exclude rhythm and harmony from poetry. Indeed, he states explicitly that
most forms of poetry do use all of the media mentioned: rhythm, tune, and