Hist. Lit. Crit._Bk(1)

8/11/2019 Hist. Lit. Crit._Bk(1)

1/133

LUCIAN BLAGA UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF BRITISH AND AMERICAN STUDIES

A Short History of

Anglo-American Literary Criticism

Third Edition

by

Ana-Karina Schni!r

Sibiu 2012


2/133

A Short History of Anglo-American Literary Criticism

Ana-Karina Schneider

Lucian Blaga University Press,

Sibiu, 2012

Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Naionale a Romniei

SCHNEIDER, ANA-KARINA

A Short history o An!lo-American criticism/ Schneider

Ana-Karina. !d. a "-a, rev. Sibiu # !ditura Universit$%ii

&Lucian Blaga' din Sibiu, 2012Bibli(gr.

)SB* +-+"-"+--0

21.111.0+0.

821.111(73).09(075.8)82.09(075.8)

2


3/133

Table of Contents

Foreword 5

Part One Se!en Lect"res 8Lecture I: Introductory 8

DefinitionsW!t "ritics Do#!$$in% out te &erritory

Lecture II: 'recursors 17&e '!tonic Die!&e *ristotei!n Soution+ter ,ie-s

Lecture III: &e u!nist erit!%e 2/&e en!iss!nce

&e estor!tion&e ni%tenent

Lecture I,: &e ineteent "entury /&e o!ntics&e ,ictori!ns&e *eric!n Scene

Lecture ,: &e !ry &-entiet "entury 8Liber! u!nis'r!ctic! "riticise- "riticis+ter 4or!iss

Lecture ,I: &e Second !f of te &-entiet "entury 8/Structur!is'oststructur!is(s)

Lecture ,II: "oro!ry: &e Lessons of 'ostodernis 103&e *%e of 'ost6s'ostodernis !nd Its Discontents&e &!in% of &eory

otes 120

Part Two Three #ssays 123&e eturn to istory 123

&e eturn to of te nconscious 133&e eturn to te &et 1/2

otes 153

$ibliogra%hy 155

A%%endi& A Co"rse 'escri%tion 12A%%endi& $ Syno%sis and #&amination (e)"irements 1A%%endi& C Class Hando"ts 170

"


4/133

(re3(rd

According to Peter Barry, literary criticism has been a brief window of about 50 years inthe twentieth century (roughly 1!0"#0$, interru%ting a tradition of critical theory which hadstarted with Aristotles Poetics& (!00' #$) A history of criticism, is then, ine*itably, also a

history of literary theory+ it is, moreo*er, a history of culture, ha*ing subtle yet manifestconcatenations in art, %hiloso%hy, religion, education, economy, and %olitics) Additionally,Anglo"American criticism in fact originates in some of the ethical dilemmas of the ree-anti.uity)

/hat follows here is a concise history of critical ideas, from Plato and Aristotle to theearly twenty"rst century, in two %arts) he rst, com%rising lecture notes, ma-es no greatclaims to originality as it is hea*ily indebted to historians of criticism such as 2a*id 2aiches,3arry Blamires, 2a*id 4ichter, Peter Barry, the editors and authors of the Norton

Anthologiesand the New Pelican Guide to English Literature, and many others) his %artmerely %ur%orts to be hel%ful to students of nglish by o6ering them one %ossible handle ona com%le7 tradition of so%histicated ideas) 8t is a sur*ey, and therefore ine*itably selecti*e)9o biogra%hies are gi*en here and 8 seldom allude to the ctional or %oetic out%ut of the

writers who also e7%ressed themsel*es on theoretical issues) he reason for this scarcity ofinformation is that 8 rely on my students familiarity with the history of nglish literature,and choose to focus here e7clusi*ely on a history of critical and %hiloso%hical ideas) 8t is tothat end that %ractically e*ery subcha%ter begins with a brief %ortrait of the age or cultural%aradigm to which the critics dealt with there belonged) :n the other hand, the lecture notesfre.uently consist of little more than .uotes from other historians of criticism) ;y aim is notto engage with them %olemically, but rather to %ut together a com%endium that can ser*e asa starting %oint in critical research and an easily a*ailable and accessible reference boo- forstudents who are constantly %ressed for time) o that end, this *olume %resents a number ofim%ortant scholars and writers who ha*e written on literature, organised in a fairly

straightforward diachrony, and ma-es liberal use of mnemotechnic de*ices, such as variable

font types, numbered in*entories, underlined terms, Questions, and ibraries at >ucian Blaga ?ni*ersityand %urchasable online) @imilarly, most of the histories of criticism, anthologies, and readerslisted in the @electi*e Bibliogra%hy section are a*ailable in our libraries, and while 8 wouldnot insist that you read allof them, 8 do belie*e that the te7ts enumerated under @eminaro%ics in A%%endi7 A are a sine qua non(e*en the ones mar-ed :%tional 4eading&$ and that

)A) uddons Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory should not be unfamiliar toany student)

he red thread running through this section, also followed by 2idi"8onel enuCer in hisNotes on English Criticism (!001$, is re%resented by the Plato"Aristotle dis%ute around thenature and function of %oetry) As 2a*id 2aiches demonstrates in his consistent %ursuit of this%olemic in Critical Approaches to Literature(15D$, and as 2a*id 4ichter reiterates in theintroductory comments included in The Critical Tradition Classic Te!ts and ContemporaryTrends (!nded), 1E$, the debate around these issues has informed the whole tradition of


5/133

/estern thought) Being a Platonic or an Aristotelian thin-er determines ones denition ofliterature within the cultural conte7t and conditions ones a%%roach to indi*idual artistic%roductions)

A note on the reference a%%aratus em%loyed in the lectures should be added herewhene*er a .uote is followed by a %arenthetical reference, it comes from the history ofcriticism written by the commentator mentioned either in the %arenthesis or earlier in thete7t) he com%lete bibliogra%hical data is a*ailable in the list of Bibliogra%hy at the bac- ofthe boo-) 8f a .uote is not followed by %arenthetical references, it is a fragment from thewor- by the critic or theoretician discussed in that %articular section) As these wor-s are

*astly anthologised and generally either short or -nown in short fragments, %age numberswere considered neither necessary nor hel%ful)

8n the second %art of the boo- 8 tac-le three of the most intimidating critical tendenciesof the late twentieth century historicism, %sychoanalysis, and deconstruction) 8t is mycon*iction, also endorsed by Peter Barry in both Beginning TheoryandEnglish in Practice(!00'$, and by se*eral other critics, that the literary theories that gained momentum in the1#0s and E0s are best understood in conte7t) 8 therefore address them as returns toearlier critical %reoccu%ations and em%hasise their %oints of di*ergence) Although %erha%s

less didactically oriented, and clearly more %olemical than the lecture notes, 8 am condentthat these essays, too, will enhance your understanding of the subtle dynamics of criticalideas) 8n fact, >ecture F88 already introduces an argumentati*e note by %ro%osing both a newde%arture from the Age of heory and a way of taming abstruse terminologies and.uestioning the legitimacy and rele*ancy of theories) 8n the rst of these essays, whilee7amining thorny to%ics such as ideology or ;ar7ism and their relationshi% to history, 8 alsoma-e an attem%t to suggest a number of ways in which the discussion of literary studies isrele*ant to life in 4omania at the %resent time)

ontrary to generally held assum%tions of the intrinsic di6iculty of the eld of literarycriticism, 8 submit that its mastery is to a large e7tent a matter of learning the rele*antdenitions and of conte7tualisation) After all, theory is merely a draughtsmans grid, a%ers%ecti*al instrument which hel%s us see things in a certain way, focus on s%ecic as%ects

and angles, and ac.uire the medium for the articulation of cogent o%inion) 8 can only ho%ethat after reading my boo-, you will not only agree, but be able to a%%ly your newly"ac.uired-nowledge to the thoughtful, informed, and rewarding reading of literary te7ts)


6/133

Part One Se!en Lect"res

Lect"re * *ntrod"ctory

Questions to bear in mind throughout the semester:1. What is the nature of imaginative literature? (see Platos Ion i.e. inspiration or !raft?"

#. What $oes literature $o? What is its fun!tion?

%. What is the value of literature?

&. 'o $oes the literar) min$ operate in !reation?

*. What $oes the !riti! $o? (i.e. $oes he unveil the histori!al !ir!umstan!es in hi!h the or+ as !reate$? Anal)se its

language an$ form? Assess its so!ial fun!tion? ,a+e it a!!essible to the rea$ing publi!? et!."-. What $oes the literar) or+ $o to the !riti!? (i.e. $oes it prompt impressionisti! or autobiographi! revelation? oes

it stimulate him to or+ aroun$ rather than on it as in hermeneuti!s or in essa)isti! an$ literar) or+s?"

De$endin% on te !ns-ers to tese ;uestions< te critic=s !cti>ity c!n be s!id to be: ontoo%ic!< function!e< descri$ti>e< $sycoo%ic!< or !$$reci!ti>e.

?efore -e %o !ny furter in our !tte$t to deterine te roe of te critic !nd of criticis !nd to define soe ofte @ey terinoo%y< -e soud $er!$s s$ecify t!t:

&e $ioso$ic! Aor ontoo%ic!B in;uiry into te n!ture of iter!ture C -!t !re its distin%uisin% fe!tures o- does itdiffer fro oter @inds of discourse C !s been %oin% on in te Western -ord for -e o>er t-o tous!nd ye!rs< !nd itcontinues tod!y !s !cti>ey !s e>er. &is is te @ind of ;uestion e!c %ener!tion $refers to !ns-er in its o-n -!y< foriter!ture is ! co$e $enoenon different !s$ects of -ic !re seen !nd e$!siEed by different !%es. Fet< tou% te!ns-ers differ fro !%e to !%e< tere !re f!iy reseb!nces !on% %rou$s of !ns-ers< !nd it is not difficut to !@esoe %ener! c!ssific!tions !on% te. 4urter< soe !ns-ers< o-e>er uc bound u$ -it te $robes of !$!rticu!r iter!ture in ! $!rticu!r tie< !>e been es$eci!y %erin!G !ter critics !>e !cce$ted te or re6inter$retedte or buit on te or !de use of te in soe oter -!y. (D!ices /)

&is is -!t !@es ! istory of criticis necess!ry: not ony is te e>oution of critic! ide!s interestin% in itsef< but

soe of tose ide!s tr!nscend tie !nd recur !cross !%es< !beit in different foru!tions. 4or inst!nce< !sD!ices so-sis incudes ! tetets in te coection under te e!din% iter!ry criticisein% ! definition of te critic! !cti>ity !s st!%in%te encounter bet-een iter!ture !nd te current teory (5). &is is o-e>er ony ! oent!ry !$se. D!>is is not!one in de!in% -it criticis !nd teory !s coincident!. In A History of Literary Criticism(1991), !rry ?!ires

notes t!t u$ to te Second Word W!r criticis !d been ti%ty connected to de>eo$ents in iter!ture< -ere!s!fter-!rds it tended to iso!te itsef fro te s$ere of i>in% iter!ry $roduction !nd to deri>e its i$etus fro$ioso$y< in%uistics or soci! teory r!ter t!n fro conte$or!ry or $!st iter!ture (3/8). &us< ?!ires< tooeo$ents in iter!ry studies !s ! ne- $!se in criticis r!ter t!n ! ne- !$$ro!c to tetu!ity (!nd tus$otenti!y ! ne- disci$ine !to%eter).

+n te oter !nd< 'eter ?!rry in Beginning Theory< tou% $ur$ortin% to s$e!@ !bout iter!ry teory!rious trends to-!rd ! recurrin% subsection entited W!t AL!c!ni!n 4einist#!rist etc.B critics do!cuu.Fet it !so cre!tes ! cert!in !ount of confusion re%!rdin% teir res$ecti>e $ro>inces !nd obecti>es. In 195< in isboo@ on Critical Approaches to Literature< D!>id D!ices differenti!tes bet-een critic! teory !nd critic!

$r!cticee $reoccu$!tions -it te n!ture of iter!ture (en!r%ed u$oncronoo%ic!y in te c!$ter &e 'ioso$ic! In;uiry) !nd -it te !n!ysis !nd inter$ret!tion of s$ecific iter!ry-or@s (de!t -it in c!$ter 2: 'r!ctic! "riticis).

&is reuct!nce to se$!r!te te t-o i%t be re%!rded !s ! sy$to of te tr!dition! -!riness of *n%o6*eric!n criticis to t!@e ! teoretic! turnindic!tion of $oetry=s athartic roe in society. &is conundru< sti >ery uc in effect !t $resentirtu!y i$ossibe to !tte$t !ny sur>ey of criticis in iso!tion fro te cutur! !nd $ioso$ic!

contet.4or $urey euristic (i.e.< instructi>e) re!sons< in -!t foo-s I $ro$ose ! distinction bet-een criticis !nd

iter!ry teory. *tou% concerned -it inerenty re!ted issues t!t !re !t e!rt fors of tetu! inter$ret!tionie-< conte$!teG to $erfor< !s in te!treG to $ut into $ers$ecti>e) focuses on !bstr!ctetodoo%ic! $rinci$es. It in>o>es dist!nce< $ers$ecti>e< fr!in%< re$resent!tion< inter$ret!tionG it e>inces!-!reness of oo@in%< of its situ!tedness !is-"-!is its obect. Its rues !re< on te one !nd< etr!cted fro tediscussion of te n!ture of tets (-eter tey be iter!ture< te >isu! !rts< f!sion< !rcitecture< $ioso$y< orcriticis) !s eiter !n%u!%e or cutur! $roducts< !nd< on te oter< !$$ied in furter !n!yses of tets. Criticismed by teory< but focuses on its obect r!ter t!n on its o-n etodG itusu!y $roceeds deducti>ey. "onse;uenty< tere is ! furter distinction re%!rdin% te n!ture of teir res$ecti>ediscourse ty$es: teory is %ener!y metacritical (i.e.< a#out criticis)< refle&i!e !nd self-referential (i.e.< itfocuses on itsef)< -ie criticis is ore ob>iousy referential< trans%arent!nd critic! of its obect r!ter t!n of

itsef< -itout o-e>er !c@in% sef6consciousness. &us< te st!nds t!@en by re!ders !is-"-!iste tet< !s -e !ste coice of tets to d-e on< s!$e to ! !r%e etent bot te tone !nd te subst!nce of critic! discourse. &eoryis< !s it -ere< t-ice reo>ed fro te !rtistic $roduct< !nd uc ore inde$endent to de>ise its o-n !-s !nd$rinci$es by reyin% on etr!6iter!ry disci$ines suc !s $sycoo%y< istory< socioo%y< !nd es$eci!y in%uistics."riticis is -!t D!>is ters $r!ctic! inter$ret!tion< t!t is< te site of te encounter bet-een iter!ture !ndteory.

Suc distinctions !re of course ine>it!by reducti>e !nd %o !%!inst uc conte$or!ry sco!ry tin@in%. Inrecent ye!rs criticis !nd teory !>e incre!sin%y en%!%ed in ! di!ectics t!t !@es it >irtu!y i$ossibe tose$!r!te te. 4urterore< $oststructur!ist sco!rsi$ insists on burrin% te bound!ry bet-een te iter!ry !ndte (et!)critic! tets !to%eter< re%!rdin% te !tter !s !noter n!rr!ti>e -ose referenti!ity is $!ced underer!sure by te >ery n!ture of ! !n%u!%e< et!!n%u!%e incuded (see Lecture ,I). *s I s$ecified !bo>e< te roe

of tese distinctions is stricty e$!n!tory !nd etodoo%ic!. In tis sense ony is it ree>!nt to ;uote ! discussionof te desir!biity of criticis=s rei!nce on istoric! contet< in -ic !yden Wite $rescribes -!t e dees tobe te ri%t !$$ro!c to iter!ry studies i:

&is is te function of teory in %ener!< t!t is to s!y< to $ro>ide ustific!tion of ! st!nce >is66>is te !teri!s bein% de!t-it t!t c!n render it $!usibe. Indeed< te function of teory is to ustify ! notion of $!usibiity itsef. Witout suc !


8/133

Part One

ustific!tion< criticis es$eci!y is eft -it notin% but coon sense to f! b!c@ on.In iter!ry teory in $!rticu!r< te !i is to define C for $ri!riy euristic $ur$oses !nd not !s ! !tter of constitutin%

soe '!tonic !bsoute C -!t -i be $eritted to count !s ! s$ecific!y iter!ry -or@ !nd -!t @inds of re!tionsi$s te-or@ tus defined c!n be concei>ed to be!r to oter @inds of cutur! !rtif!cts< on te one side< !nd to -!te>er $!sses for! non6cutur! !rtif!ct< on te oter. (in D!>is 198: 157)

Wite=s $rescri$tion of teory=s function $ro>ides us -it ! usefu -or@in% $reise in our !tte$t to $robe teco$e connections bet-een de>eo$ents in iter!ry criticis !nd teory. &e !tter !ost o$$ortunistic!y$ustifies and regulates! $erce$ti>e< in>enti>e res$onse to te tet C -eter it be ! istoric! e>ent< soci! re!tionsidu! $syce< or ! iter!ry -or@. Liter!ry criticis issuc ! res$onseG !nd !tou% focused $ri!riy oniter!ture< it often reies on !n etr!6iter!ry fr!e-or@ of ide!s !nd $rinci$es t!t ustifies its c!is to $!usibiity.

**+ ,hat critics do

*noter -!y of definin% criticis is by deterinin% -!t it is t!t critics do(!s o$$osed to -!t teoretici!nssay). In is ecture entited Wy &eoryers e>ery ye!r !t te ni>ersity of W!es< *beryst-yte s!id t!t #!ncester nited is not $!rt of te meaningof (ing Learbut it !y -e be $!rt of te significance. (ing Lear is !bout soebody -o retires< but c!n=t et %o. &ey -!nt to @ee$contro of teir s;u!d !nd @ee$ on !>in% ! s!y in runnin% te cub (or te @in%do). In oter -ords< te $!r!e bet-eenJin% Le!r !nd one of te e6$residents of t!t footb! cub< Sir #!tt ?urby< is !ctu!y $retty cose. *nd !fter !< te $!y doesention footb!: Jent tre!tens +s-!d< or tri$$=d neiter< you b!se footb! $!yer !nd ten tri$s i (*ct I< scene i>).

5. We think in terms of genre or literary type C t!t is< -e !s@ o- te iter!ry %enre !ffects te content of [email protected] inst!nce< in ! en!iss!nce st!%e tr!%edy !n e>i c!r!cter !y o$eny dec!re is >i!iny< !s -en ic!rd te &ird!nnounces< I ! deterined to $ro>e ! >i!in (I.i). ?ut -e don=t concude t!t e is ! $erson of uncoon sef6@no-ed%eor onesty< bec!use tis @ind of !nnounceent is one of te con>entions of te %enreG it !o-s te !utor to !ddress te!udience directy but by $roy< en!bin% te !ction to be %re!ty !cceer!ted (in ! sense< !ntici$!tin% te fors of direct!utori! coent on c!r!cters de>eo$ed !ter -it te rise of te no>e).

. We fre#uently read the literal as metaphoricalC t!t is< es$eci!y in re!din% $oes.4or e!$e< ! conte$or!ry $oe c!ed &e 4or@ed &ree by #!rion Lo!< -ic sees to be !bout ! re!tionsi$ery $uEEin%. It ten %oes on to ention ! buetod%ed inside before -e @ne- it -!s %ro-in%e o>e (iter!det!is i@e buets re!d et!$oric!y) is >ery coon in te re!din% of $oetry.

7. $n spite of this, we read the surface of the work accurately C in oter -ords< -e reco%nise te i$ort!nceof te $recise iter! -ords of te tet !nd do not t!@e iberties -it te.4or e!$e< in ! f!ous e$erient set u$ by I.*. ic!rds in te 1920s< se>er! re!ders concuded t!t te ines< * to!st


9/133

Part One

8. We look for patterns in literary worksC tou% -e re!ise t!t often te ost si%nific!nt $!rt is -ere te$!ttern is [email protected] e!$e< in te $oe &e 4or@ed &ree tere is ! re$e!ted $!ttern of tin%s in $!irs (obects< e>ents< etc.) !nd tere is!so !n e>ent -ic bre!@s tis $!ttern. In oter -ords< ! -ord -ic is out of @ey -it te rest< or -ic bre!@s te etric!$!ttern -i often be es$eci!y si%nific!nt< for it ust !>e been cosen eiter in s$ite of bre!@in% te $!ttern< or bec!use itdoes so< !nd is tereby fore%rounded. In te s!e -!y< if you oo@ !t ! undred ro-s of fo-ers in ! -!6$!$ered roo< te

ony ones -ic c!tc your !ttention !re te ones -ic !re not $ro$ery !i%ned.9. We identify stages and phases within a literary workC -ic ine in ! $oe is te end of te be%innin%< te

oent -ere e$osition sides into de>eo$ent Were is te oent in te cess %!e -en te routine-ood sn!$$in% of te idde $!se is o>er< !nd te st!r@ si$icity of te end%!e !s !rri>ed -en !ny !nde>ery o>e c!n be eiter ! decisi>e stro@e of brii!nce< or ! f!t! bunder Wic incident in ! no>e is te one-ere te introduction of settin% !nd c!r!cters $i>ots into te first si%nific!nt incident< or coice< or deni!4or e!$e< in S!@es$e!re=s Sonnet 73 A&e tie of ye!r tou !yst in e beodB< it is i$ort!nt to decide -eter tetree i!%es of !%in% (te b!re trees of !te !utun< te !st %iers of te sunset< !nd te dyin% ebers of fire) !re e!ntto re$resent soe @ind of $ro%ression< or ust tree e!$es of te s!e tin%.

10. %inally, as readers, we read in linguistic period, aware &among other things' of semantic changesC t!tis< c!n%es in te e!nin%s of -ords.4or e!$e< in S!@es$e!re=s '' Henry ')4!st!ff t!@s !bout is -ob (#y -ob undoes eers!ity Suc e$!n!tions !y bete$tin%< but te f!ct is t!t in iE!bet!n ties te -ord -ob sti !d te oder e!nin% of sto!c !nd -!s used ofbot en !nd -oen. 4!st!ff is si$y s!yin% t!t is !r%e sto!c $re>ents i fro bein% ! br!>e !nd !%ie sodier.

('eter ?!rry< *nglish in Practice1061/< si%ty !brid%ed)

Home assignment: /or our ne0t seminar meeting tr) to assign all these !riti!al a!tivities to the theoreti!al tren$s the)

are most !hara!teristi! of. What is missing?ii

***+ a%%ing o"t the Territory

+ur $resent in>o>eent is $ri!riy -it te e>oution of criticis< of te >!rious $r!ctic! !$$ro!ces toiter!ture< !nd ony t!n%enti!y -it te $ioso$ic! !nd teoretic! buttressin% beind it. We -i s!y< tereforee fro te $r!ctic! !cti>ity of tecritic.

+ne -!y of !$$ro!cin% te t-o6!nd6!6!f6ienni!6on% istory of criticis is by dr!-in% u$ c!rts !ndc!ssific!tions. &is is te etod e$oyed by D!>id . icter in te Introduction to The Critical Tradition< -eree renders >!rious teories of criticis in te for of tree !$s. I -i briefy re$roduce te e!st co$e !ndost tr!dition! of te ere< !nd icter=s di!%r! in *$$endi ". It is in f!ct ! !$ de>ised by te iter!ryistori!n #.. *br!s in is infuenti! tre!tise on ro!ntic >ie-s of !rt< The %irror and the Lamp (1953)eo$ed !round te be%innin% of te t-entiet century< $!yed do-n te connections of te-or@ of !rt -it te eterior -ord< te !udience< !nd te !rtist. &ese formal teories stressed te $urey !esteticre!tionsi$ bet-een te $!rts of ! -or@ of iter!ture< !n!yEin% its tees or otifs !s if ! iter!ry tet -ere ! for of

c!ssic! usic or !n !bstr!ct $!intin%< !nd stro>e for ! ;u!si6scientific obecti>ity. Nfor! teories Ano-!d!ysB f!ce !%re!t de! of co$etition. (icter263)

Fet icter dr!-s our !ttention t!t< !s *br!s isef -e @ne-< te -ord of criticis is not !s ce!r or !s ne!t!s tis di!%r! su%%ests. L!bes suc !s Oietic= or Oe$ressi>e= indic!te ony te $ri!ry orient!tion of !teory: O*ny re!son!be teory t!@es !ccount of ! four eeents= (3).

+


10/133

Part One

e.g. Aristotle belongs essentiall) to the mimeti! t)pe of theor) although he foresha$os mu!h of the rhetori!al an$ e0pressive

orientations in his Poeti!s.

#oreo>er< te f!ct t!t t-o critics beon% fund!ent!y to one ty$e of teory does not e!n t!t teir teoriescoincide or e>en !%ree< !s -e s! see is te c!se -it '!to !nd *ristote< te first t-o i$ort!nt teoretici!ns of

iter!ture. &o co$ic!te !tters furter< -e i%t re!r@ t!t te di!%r! is inco$ete: !>in% been de>ised inte 1950s< it does not co>er ore recent de>eo$ents in iter!ry studies< suc !s structur!is !nd te $ost6structur!ist trends. Its erit is t!t it syste!tises te @ey !$$ro!ces to te n!ture of iter!ry cre!tion< -ic !>ebeen $er$etu!ted since te tie of '!to !nd *ristote.

10


11/133

Part One

Lect"re ** Prec"rsors

*+ The Platonic 'ilemma

Plato (c./2763/8 ?") -!s essenti!y ! $ioso$er !nd did not -rite !ny iter!ry criticis per se.oneteess< in is $reoccu$!tion -it te n!ture of tin%s C -ic !s coe to be @no-n in $ioso$y !s'!tonic *dealismC e did sto$ to en;uire into te n!ture of te >!rious !rts. In 'on!nd es$eci!y in ?oo@ P of isepu#lic< '!to is concerned -it bot te ori%ins of iter!ture !nd -it its function in society. It is es$eci!y -itte !tter !s$ect t!t e de!s ost seriousy. epu#licP cont!ins is ost often6;uoted $osition on iter!ture: eb!nises $oets fro is ide! city bec!use in $resentin% te i$ro$er conduct of eroes !nd %ods tey corru$t teor!s !nd !nners of te youn% !nd of te citiEens !nd %u!rdi!ns of te city. '!to=s obection to $oetry istreefod:

1. $isteoo%ic! (i.e.< !>in% to do -it is teory of @no-ed%e): in bein% !n iit!tion of te !teri! -orded fro te -ord of Ide! 4ors< !nd terefore it isn=t true.

2. tiit!ri!n $r!ctic!: not ony !re $!intin% !nd $oetry iit!tions of iit!tions< but tey !re de>ised by $eo$e

-o @no- neiter o- to use nor o- to buid te obects tey re$resent. iii*rt is tus concei>ed in i%nor!nce oftrut in bot senses of te -ord: bot !c@ of @no-ed%e !nd underst!ndin%< !nd !c@ of interest in te $otenti!utiity of findin% te trut.

3. #or!: not ony does te $oet iit!te ife< but e usu!y cooses to iit!te t!t -ic !$$e!s to te b!sestf!cuties: e de!s not -it re!ity !s it is< but cooses te etrees of u!n be!>iour. e does so< on teone !nd< bec!use tey !re e!sier to iit!te in bein% si$ific!tions< te c!n%in% surf!ces r!ter t!n teco$eity of trut< !nd< on te oter< bec!use te $!ssion!te !nd unst!be te$er< !on%side >ioence !ndinustice< ore e!siy c!tc te !ttention of coon s$ect!tors. &us !rt nourises !nd encour!%es< inste!d ofcurin%< te inferior $!ssions of te sou.

(see D!ices 20622)

&e die! $osed by '!to is doube6sided: on te one !nd< it is< !s e $uts it< te !ncient ;u!rre bet-een

$ioso$y !nd $oetry C ! !tter of te re!tionsi$ of $oetry to trut. +n te oter< it is te die! of te$r!ctic! or!ist !nd te $r!%!tic !n of business to -o !ny !cti>ity is sus$ect -ic c!nnot be directyre!ted to te $roduction of !n ob>ious %ood for society. '!to coses is indictent of $oetry by !uncin% !c!en%e to -oe>er coud $ro>e i -ron% to so- t!t $oetry coud redee itsef !nd !@e itsef !cce$t!be inte ide! city. &!t c!en%e -!s t!@en u$ by is !$$rentice< *ristote< !nd te die! -!s $ro>ision!y reso>ed.Fet -e sti !s@ tod!y soe of te s!e ;uestions t!t '!to r!ised:

W!t is te nat"re of te -or@ of art W!t !re its so"rcesin te !rtist< in te iter!ry scene< in te society for -ic it is$roduced W!t !re its %ro%erties. "ses. %owers< !nd !al"e o- is te n!ture of iter!ture circuscribed by te%ro%erties of lang"ageitsef< by te genderof te -riter or te re!der< by te intrinsic limitations of the h"man mindW!t !re iter!ture=s effectson indi>idu!s !nd on counities (icter 1 C y e$!sis)

Q:What $o e !all the metho$ emplo)e$ b) 5o!rates in $raing out the truth from his interlo!utors? Is its fun!tion to

$emonstrate the vali$it) of an i$ea or to persua$e the interlo!utor? (see 6Ion7"iv

**+ The Aristotelian Sol"tion

Aristotle (38/6322 ?") ('!to=s student in *tens for t-enty ye!rs !nd *e!nder te Hre!t=s tutor in#!cedoni! for ei%t ye!rs) -!s< i@e '!to< ! $ioso$er< !nd is contribution to $ysics -!s in>!u!be. It -!s isscientific bend t!t !o-ed i to endo- n!tur! $enoen! -it ! >!idity t!t '!to !d tr!nsferred to tetieess Ide!s. e -!s ess concerned -it i!%in!ti>e iter!ture=s educ!tion! function< !nd ore o$en to %i>in%iter!ture its due on its o-n %rounds. e -rote te first tre!tise on iter!ry teory e>er< te (oetics< in -ic edr!-s essenti! distinctions bet-een te >!rious iter!ry genres@no-n to i< !s -e !s usefu definitions !ndc!ssific!tions.

Remember?

!riteria for $istinguishing beteen +in$s of representational art8 the) !an $iffer in the representative me$iumemplo)e$ in the +in$s of ob9e!ts represente$ an$ in the a) in hi!h a given me$ium is han$le$ i.e. in medium,

subject-matter an$ technique.

the - formative elements of trage$)8 spe!ta!le (a!ting" $i!tion (the verses the !hara!ters re!ite" melo$)

(rh)thm" !hara!ter thought (or $ianoia i.e. an element in the personalit) of the $ramatis personae8 their intelle!tual

11


12/133

Part One

!apa!it) for reasoning an$ persuasion as evin!e$ in their language an$ rhetori!" an$ plot (the most important element

be!ause it !ontains an$ !onve)s the meaning of the trage$)". Plotis the a) in hi!h the a!tion or+s itself out thehole !ausal !hain hi!h lea$s to the final out!ome. Its most $ramati! parts are Peripeties (su$$en reversals of

fortune" an$ is!overies (su$$en revelations of !on!eale$ or mista+en i$entities an$ unravelling of m)steries". the three unities of time pla!e an$ a!tion ne!essar) to the formal perfe!tion of trage$).

generi! $ivisions b) 6voi!e78 in the epi! genre both the poet an$ the !hara!ters have a voi!e (narrative an$ $ialoguerespe!tivel)": in the l)ri! e hear onl) the poets voi!e: in the $ramati! onl) the !hara!ters.

D!>id D!ices e$!ins te di!ectics of iter!ture=s n!ture !nd function !ccordin% to *ristote:

is concern is te ontoo%ic! one of disco>erin% -!t in f!ct iter!ture is r!ter t!n te nor!ti>e one of describin% -!tit soud be A!nd do< -e i%t !ddB. e is describin%< not e%is!tin%G yet is descri$tion is so or%!niEed !s to !@e !n!ccount of te n!ture of iter!ture in>o>e !n !ccount of its function< !nd its >!ue eer%es in ters of its function. (2/)

*ristote=s !ccount of te n!ture of iter!ture $i>ots on is ne- underst!ndin% of mimesis. *s o$$osed to teistori!nents or situ!tions -ic e !$$ens to !>e noted or in>entedGe !ndes te in suc ! -!y t!t e brin%s out teir uni>ers! !nd c!r!cteristic eeents< tus iuin!tin% te

essenti! n!ture of soe e>ent or situ!tion -eter or not -!t e is tein% is istoric!y true. &e $oet -or@s !ccordin%to te !- of $rob!biity or necessity!tion or r!ndo in>ention. e is tus orefund!ent!y scientific t!n te istori!nN. ?ec!use te $oet in>ents or !rr!n%es is o-n story< e cre!tes ! sef6sufficient -ord of is o-n< -it its o-n co$ein% @ind of $rob!biity< its o-n ine>it!biity< !nd -!t !$$ens in te $oet=sstory is bot $rob!be in ters of t!t -ord !nd< bec!use t!t -ord is itsef ! for! construction b!sed on eeents inte re! -ord< !n iuin!tion of !n !s$ect of te -ord !s it re!y is. (D!ices 37)

&e -riter=s c!$!city to de>ise ! sef6sufficient -ord is te cre!tor=s i%est $o-erG it is @no-n !s mythopoeia.*ristote=s defence of $oetry in%es on it< !s it does !-!y -it si$istic notions of $!ssi>e co$yin% !nd tus -it'!to=s e$isteoo%ic! !nd utiit!ri!n obections. *s D!ices ec!is< -it *ristote iter!ry criticis re!ces !nentirey ne- e>e. &e i$ic!tions !re >!st:

&-o ne- notions !re in>o>ed. 4irst< tere is te notion t!t ! istoric! f!seood !y be !n ide! trut< t!t ! $rob!be

i$ossibiity !y refect ! ore $rofound re!ity t!n !n i$rob!be $ossibiityG !nd< second< tere is te $erce$tion t!t! iter!ry !rtist $roduces ! -or@ -ic !s ! unity !nd for! $erfection of its o-n< ! -or@ -ic tus cre!tes its o-n -ordof $rob!biity -itin -ic trut c!n be reco%niEed !nd !$$reci!ted. * @inds of de>eo$ents of e!c of tese t-o notions!re $ossibe. 4ro te first -e c!n de>eo$ ! >ie- of te co%niti>e !s$ects of te !rtistic i!%in!tion !nd so re%!rd !rt !s! e!ns of e$orin% te n!ture of re!ity. +n tis >ie- ! iter!ry -or@ becoes in te !st !n!ysis ! for of @no-ed%e< !uni;ue -!y of $resentin% ! @ind of insi%t into ! $!se of te u!n situ!tion -ic c!nnot be e$ressed or counic!t6ed in !ny oter -!y. 4ro te second i$ic!tion of te *ristotei!n >ie- of iter!ry $rob!biity -e c!n de>eo$ ! teory ofiter!ry for !nd structure< in>esti%!tin% te @inds of unity ! $oe or oter iter!ry -or@ c!n !cie>e !nd te @inds ofs!tisf!ction !fforded by reco%nition !nd !$$reci!tion of t!t unity. 'uttin% bot i$ic!tions to%eter< -e c!n see teuni;ue $!rt $!yed by for in $resentin% te s$eci! @inds of insi%t !cie>ed by te !rtistic i!%in!tion< te re!tionbet-een !rt !s $!ttern !nd !rt !s @no-ed%e< !nd -e c!n see< too< o- different @inds of iter!ry !rt c!n stress one oroter !s$ect C te co%niti>e or te $urey for! C unti -e re!c te $oint !t -ic te -or@ -ic cobines tecounic!tion of $rofound insi%t -it te s!tisf!ction of for! $erfection (Hamletor (ing Lear< for e!$e) is %re!tert!n ! -or@ -ic deonstr!tes ony te !tter ;u!ity (suc !s ! $erfect detecti>e story). (37638)

&is re!is!tion of te s$eci! n!ture of iit!tion !nd of trut in iter!ture !nd te criteri! for >!ue ud%eentst!t de>o>e fro it !re *ristote=s %re!test !cie>eent. Indeed< not ony does it so>e te '!tonic die!re%!rdin% te n!ture of i!%in!ti>e iter!ture< but it co$rises in ! nutse ! te found!tion! tenets of iter!rycriticis. In oter -ords< !fter *ristote criticis becoes !n inde$endent disci$ine -ic ud%es $oetry not by test!nd!rds of istory or $ioso$y< but on its o-n ters< of -ic !n essenti! $ro$osition is t!t ! i@eyi$ossibiity is !-!ys $refer!be to !n uncon>incin% $ossibiity.

*noter of *ristote=s i$ort!nt contributions is is refut!tion of '!to=s criticis of $oetry=s tendency to !rousefeein%s irres$onsiby !nd $erturb te e!rt to no r!tion! end. *ccordin% to *ristote< i% !rt (i.e.< te e$ic !ndtr!%edy) !s te c!$!city to $roduce fe!r !nd $ity in te !udience< !nd tus to $ur%e te !udience of cri$$in%$!ssions. &is c!$!city is c!ed katharsis< !nd it is $!rticu!ry !ssoci!ted -it te $resent!tion of c!r!cters -o!re unece$tion! (!nd terefore e!sy for te !udience to identify -it) !nd coe to !r not by !ny !ct of

-ic@edness< but !s ! resut of soe f!- in teir n!ture or soe error of ud%eent.&us< *ristote !ssi%ns ! !rts of iit!tion to te re! of te be!utifu r!ter t!n trut< !nd defines aesthetic>!ue not stricty in ters of infor!ti>e !ccur!cy !nd or! te!cin%< !s '!to !d< but !so of inteectu! !nd!estetic s!tisf!ction< !nd of its $roducin% ! better st!te of ind (trou% atharsis). *tou% usin% te c!te%oriesof or! ud%eent (%ood !nd b!d) in differenti!tin% te t-o ty$es of dr!!< *ristote does not !ssi%n !ustere

12


13/133


14/133

Part One

ecusi>ey on or!ity !nd te conte$!tion !nd -orsi$ of Hod in >ie- of te ne- need to e!ine te !>enuesto or! !nd s$iritu! e!t. *s !rry ?!ires $uts it< We !y t!@e St A"g"stine(35/6/30) !s re$resent!ti>e ofte istoric! de>eo$ent -ic -!s to $us iter!ry criticis out of te do!in of inteectu! ife for se>er!centuries (28). *ccordin% to *u%ustine< e>ery oent s$ent in enoyent of !rtef!cts is ! oent t!@en !-!yfro te true $ursuit of te o>e for Hod. It -!s not unti te 13 tcentury t!t !noter 4oundin% 4!ter of te

"risti!n "urc !de it $rofit!be !%!in to $ursue te conte$!tion of be!uty. Thomas A)"inas (c.122/67/)does not tre!t of !rt !t !< et !one of $oetry. In is >ie-< be!uty is !s fund!ent! !n !ttribute of Hod=s cre!tion !s%ood is< but -ie te !tter is te obect of desire (%ood is -!t ! tin%s desiree @no-ed%e. &is distinction o$ened te -!y for serious reconsider!tion of "risti!n!estetic.

1


15/133

Part One

Lect"re *** The H"manist Heritage

n%is criticis c!n be s!id to be%in -it te ,ener!be ?ede (736735)< !tou% e did not contribute !nytin%

ne- to te $ioso$ic! discussions !round te n!ture of iter!ture. is boo@s (De Arte %etrica, On .igures andTropes of Holy Writ) focus on distin%uisin% !nd c!ssifyin% iter!ry %enres< styistic de>ices !nd $rosodic eeentst!t -ere !re!dy in use. is !in contribution -!s to re>i>e te interest in L!tin $oetry !nd !$$y critic! teory tote boo@s of te ?ibe. #ost of te subse;uent n%is sco!rs -e into te en!iss!nce insisted on teusefuness of e!rnin% !nd underst!ndin% te ?ibe !nd on $reser>in% te connection bet-een n%!nd !nd te!ncient L!tin cuture. &eir ist incudes suc $resti%ious n!es !s *cuin (c.735680/< "!re!%ne=s !d>iser onrei%ious !nd educ!tion! !tters)< Jin% *fred (8/9699)< Qon of S!isbury (c.1115680)< Sir &o!s yot (1/90615/)< !nd Sir o%er *sc! (15168< Rueen iE!bet te 4irst=s tutor). &ey ! s!re ! coon concern forte enricent !nd $reser>!tion of te n%is !n%u!%e !nd te bro!denin% of $eo$e=s inds trou% te re!din%of te -or@s of te $!st. Suc u!nist sco!rs !s yot !nd *sc! -ere @no-n !s #d"cationists< re%!rdessof te s!r$ differences in teir !$$ro!c to te $ro$er obect of e!rnin%.

Remember?The main !on!erns of the Renaissan!e !riti!s ere8

the nature of poetr) ($ivine inspiration? 5+ill? 5o!ial gra!e? ;t!."

the fun!tion of poetr) in so!iet) (to tea!h to move to entertain"

the fun!tion of the poet in so!iet) (bar$ !hroni!ler !reator prophet tea!her !orrupter of moralit)"

6the battle of the an!ients an$ the mo$erns7 (the !ontrovers) over the superiorit) of an!ient literature or of

!ontemporar) pro$u!tions"

$i!tion (the !hoi!e of or$s"

$is!ourse (the !hoi!e of sub9e!t matter"

$e!orum (the a$aptation of st)le to the sub9e!t matter"

the !omparative merits of rh)me$ verse vs. blan+ verse

the !omparative merits of ;nglish poetr) vs. Italian or+s

*+ The (enaissance1 or. Classicism

Remember?

The ey $roificone in -ritin% !nd $ubisin%< ost of -ic -!s rei%ious or educ!ti>e in $ur$ort< -ritten eiter in L!tin or inn%is. #!ny of tese boo@s -ere te $roduction of $resti%ious $rofessors te!cin% !t +ford< "!brid%e !nd teso6c!ed Inns of "ourt (institutions of bot te !- !nd educ!tion) in London. Infuenced by bot te u!niste!t!tion of c!ssic! !n%u!%es !nd te en!iss!nce desire for etern! f!e< !ny en!iss!nce sco!rs

(*sc!< &o!s #ore< etc.) -ere sus$icious of iter!ry $roductions -ritten in te unst!be >ern!cu!rs. *t tes!e tie< te rei%ious efor!tion $e!ded for ! -ider !ccessibiity of te -ritten -ord t!t cont!in!ted te$rof!ne !s -e !s te s!cred tet. &e contro>ersies bred by tese o$$osin% tendencies -ere i%y sein!< !sc!n be seen by co$!rin% o%er *sc!=s The cholemaster (170) -it Sir 'ii$ Sidney=s Defence of Poesy(-ritten 179< $ub. 195 in t-o eds.)< or te !tter tet -it its 'urit!n counter$!rt< Ste$en Hosson=s chool ofA#use(179)< or e>en te >!rious duc!tionists. Sir &o!s yot< for inst!nce< considered t!t ! iter!ture< e>ente b!-diest< c!n ser>e !s ! esson in or!ity by educ!tin% te re!der to !@e or! coices. o%er *sc!< onte contr!ry< insists t!t ony te finest of !ncient -ritin% be used !s !n obect of iit!tion bot in ters of retoric!nd or!s.

*s ore is co$osed in te n%is !n%u!%e< tere is !n incre!sin% nuber of metate&ts(i.e.< tets !boutiter!ture) de!in% -it te $rinci$es of $oetic co$osition. Suc !re te tre!tises of Heor%e H!scoi%ne (c.153/677) ("ert!yne Words of Instruction "oncernin% te #!@in% of ,erse or ye in n%isit !nd sce-it in Scotts 'oesiee boo@ The Arte of *nglish Poesie (1589) !ttributed to ic!rd 'utten! (c.1529691)< !nd teess $ertinent Discourse of *nglish Poetry(158) by Wii! Webbe (158691). 'utten! es$eci!y is o$en to teinno>!tions !nd erits of n%is $oetry< !nd e $r!ises Wy!tt !nd Surrey for !d!$tin% te It!i!n for of tesonnet !nd $oisin% te n%is !n%u!%e< "!ucer for te %r!>e !nd st!tey etre in Troilus and Criseyde

1


16/133

Part One

(!tou% e does not !$$reci!te The Canter#ury Tales)< !on%side !e%< Dyer< !nd Rueen iE!bet I.&rou%out te en!iss!nce< des$ite te %re!t de>eo$ent of ! -ide >!riety of iter!ry %enres< iter!ture -!s

re%!rded !s !n !dunct !cti>ity< ! $!rt of te educ!tion $rocess C -itness "!sti%ione=s 'l Cortegiano (1528< tr!ns.by &o!s oby in 151) !nd *sc!=s cholemaster. #oreo>er< educ!tion itsef -!s reser>ed ony for te i%erc!sses< !nd es$eci!y for teir !e ebersi$. ence< tere -ere co$!r!ti>ey fe- re!ders !nd $ubisers of

boo@s by our st!nd!rds< !nd no $rofession! en or -oen of etters. iE!bet!n -riters of r!n@< i@e Sidneyes !s courtiers< st!tesen< !nd !ndo-nersG tey considered $oetry ! soci! %r!ce !nd !courty $!stie. "onse;uenty< te $ri!ry !i of te c!refu study of te c!ssics -!s te !$$ro$ri!tion of teirresoundin% retoric !nd %r!cefu !n%u!%e. '!r!doic!y< ne>erteess< en!iss!nce -riters -ere not s!>isiit!tors of te !ncients. !ter< tey oo@ed to c!ssic! !nd "ontinent! -or@s !s odes to e!rn fro< eu!tee of teir e$ertise in ! >!riety of fieds -!s si$y !stoundin%< !nd tey>!ued !n intric!cy of desi%n !nd e!bor!teness of $!ttern in retoric.

&e first truy $ertinent !nd so$istic!ted tre!tise on iter!ture in n%is is Sir 'ii$ Sidney=s The Defence ofPoesie/ An Apologie for Poetrie(1595)< -ic !r@s ! return to te issue of te n!ture of $oetry !nd its roe insociety. Its -ritin% -!s $ro$ted by ! $!$et entited The chool of A#use(1579) by Ste$en Hosson (155/612/)< -o !d te b!d t!ste !nd $oor ud%eent to dedic!te is 'urit!n di!tribe !%!inst $oetry to Sir 'ii$Sidney< one of te %re!test $oets of te tie. &e !tter -!s not te ony -riter to ret!i!te: &o!s Lod%e (15586

125) -!s te first to re$y in is o-n Defence of Poetry (1579)< !nd dund S$enser (c.1552699) !tt!c@ed it in !etter to ! friend. Fet< !s ?!ires notes< &o turn to Sidney=s -or@ fro te -or@s $re>iousy de!t -it in tisc!$ter is to enter ! different -ord (55).

Sir Phili% Sidney(155/6158)&e first n%is en!iss!nce $oet of note< 'ii$ Sidney -!s -idey re%!rded in is o-n d!y !s !n ide!

en!iss!nce %ente!n. ?orn into ! nobe f!iy in Jent< e studied !t "!brid%e< bec!e inti!te -it Sir 4u@eHre>ie !nd Wii! "!den !nd oined te *reo$!%us (! cub fored ciefy for te $ur$ose of n!tur!isin% tec!ssic! etres in n%is >erse< -ic incuded S$enser< 4u@e Hre>ie< !r>ey< Dyer etc.). is de!t in teS$!nis W!r s$!r@ed %ener! ournin% in n%!nd !nd -!s e>o@ed in ee%ies by S$enser< Q!es ,I< #ic!eDr!yton !nd oters. &o is !dirin% conte$or!ries< Sidney -!s te n%is ode of te uni>ers! en!iss!nce!n: ! %ente!n of u!nist educ!tion coitted to bot te !cti>e ife of >irtue !nd te !rtistic !nd $!triotic

ide! of cre!tin% ! iter!ture to st!nd beside te %re!t >ern!cu!rs of uro$e. e defended n%is iter!ture !%!instte !tt!c@s of te 'urit!ns -o< in !ddition to considerin% it d!n%erous to "risti!n or!ity< o$$osed Sund!y$erfor!nces !nd te en!ctent of feinine roes by !e !ctors. Sidney !so defended iter!ture !%!inst '!tonic!tt!c@s on its n!ture !s ! $ernicious !nd useess iit!tion of !n iit!tion. *s D!ices $oints out< Sidney isef-!s bot ! 'urit!n !nd ! neo6'!tonist (! u!nist)< !s -e !s ! $oet< !nd terefore ABis defence of $oetry -!s !nobe !tte$t to cobine ! tese $ositions (70).

*s te editors of The 0orton Anthology $oint outiy infuenced by *ristote=s Poetics. NSidney=s en%!%in%tr!ct is i%y ecectic< dr!-in% to%eter !estetic $rece$ts fro se>er! tr!ditions !nd underscorin% tose t!t !re of$ri!ry i$ort!nce to te iE!bet!ns: ide! iit!tion< or! te!cin%< !nd decoru. (*br!s et !. /05)

Sidney foo-s *ristote in definin% $oetry !s !n iit!tion of u!n n!ture< but in@s mimesisto is o-n >ie- of te$oet !s !@er ( [email protected])< -ose !cti>ity refects (i.e.< irrors or iit!tes< but !so !nnounces C L!t. !atesM$ro$et) t!t of te Di>ine "re!tor. &e $oet iit!tes not te re!< i$erfect n!ture -e @no-< but ifted u$ -it te>i%our of is o-n in>entiono@es or!ce=s foru! t!t $oetry te!ces by dei%tin%< but e$!siEes its retoric! $o-er to o>eus to be >irtuous. e terefore i%i%ts te i$ort!nce of !d!$tin% subect !tter to %enre !nd stye C te ide! ofdecorumso de!r to te c!ssicists C !s $!rt of is soe-!t si$istic or! did!cticis. &e Defence co>erssoe of te !in !estetic $rinci$es of te en!iss!nce:

te dei%t inNO!bund!nce= of -ords< $oetic fi%ures !nd orn!entsG te cose re!tion of $oetry !nd retoricG te concern-it e>es of stye (i%< idde !nd o-)G !nd te continuin% i$ort!nce of !e%ory !s ! e!ns to te!c or! truts !s-e !s to su%%est te ysterious !n!o%ies !nd syboic re!tionsi$s t!t $ere!te !nd order Hod=s uni>erse. (*br!s

et !. /05)

Q:


17/133

Part One

&ou% >erse -ritin%< !nd es$eci!y sonneteerin%< -!s ! soci! %r!ce for Sidney< $oetry itsef -!s not !$!stie or !n eercise of wit: it -!s ! >ery serious for of !rt e!nt to instruct< dei%t< !nd o>e. is $oint of>ie- is ce!ry e$ressed in An Apologie for Poetrie< -ic is re!r@!be for te c!rity of !r%uent< r!n%e ofsco!rsi$ !nd i!%in!ti>e >ision. Ide!s fo- fro is $en. *$t iustr!tions< i!%in!ti>e turns of tou%t !nd ne!tdi!ectic! trusts cro-d is $!%es. *nd te $rose< !r%ey free of !rid odis tur%idities !nd su$erfuouscontri>!nces< c!rries te re!der e!%ery for-!rd (?!ires 55). is !r%uents for ! ne- ty$e of $oetry !ref!sioned !round te $ersu!si>e foru!e of te se>en6$!rt c!ssic! or!tion< !nd !ny of te !re in ine -it tec!ssic! L!tin retoric! tr!dition (te e$!sis on decoru< on te in!d>is!biity of iin% te %enres< es$eci!ytr!%edy !nd coedyG te or!ti!n misce utile dulci etc.). *tou% *ristote=s Poeticscoud !>e ser>ed !s !neffecti>e ode for tis defence of $oetry< its infuence is r!ter noin!< osty due to ! >ery restricti>eunderst!ndin% of t!t c!ssic! tet t!t !d to do -it its redisco>ery< tr!ns!tion !nd editin% by te It!i!nu!nists in te siteent century.

In Sidney=s boo@< te $oet is te first $ur>eyor of @no-ed%e< tr!dition!y ed in >ery i% estee in c!ssic!ci>iis!tionsG su$erior to ere !n!ysts of f!en n!ture i@e te or! $ioso$er !nd te istori!n< te $oet=s ind!one c!n %i$se te etern! ty$es of >irtues< >ices or -!t ese t!t underie te -ord of !$$e!r!nce. &ese>isions of te ide! te $oet ten s!$es in >erse< so t!t errin% en !y be dei%ted !nd i$ro>ed by te< e>en

if tey c!nnot fuy !tt!in to suc eceence tese>es. In oter -ords< by f!sionin% ee$!ry fi%ures< te $oetin!ents! %oden -ord for our $rofit !nd dei%t. is -or@ is ! f!itfu co$y of te etern! >erities r!ter t!n ofincident! !ctu!ities< of -!t should be< fro ! or! $oint of >ie- (r!ter t!n te *ristotei!n soud of$rob!biity or >erisiiitude).

&is is te $rocess Sidney outines in is O$ro$osition= C te core of is !r%uent C -en e defines issubect tus: Poesieterefore is !n !rte of iit!tion< for so Aristotleteret it in is -ord %imesisC t!t is to s!yed !nd in>ented n!ture of te co$y< -ic< terefore< !@es no c!is to trut< !nd c!nnotin%. Sidney does not see to be !-!re ere t!t e is!ddressin% '!to=s !in obection to $oetry (its second6!nd iit!tion condition)< !nd r!ter t!n insist< in '!tonicters< on te Ide!s or >erities beind te iit!tion< e e$!sises te f!ct t!t iter!ture offers !n alternati!e to

re!ity< !nd ! su$erior one< !t t!t. e !so su%%ests t!t by dei%tin% te !udience -it is i!%es of $erfection!nd %oetic 2"stice< te $oet stiu!tes te to iit!te iter!ture< r!ter t!n consider iter!ture !n iit!tion ofre!ity. &e -ord Sidney e$oys is te or!ti!n o>eoue of sonnets< Astrophil and tella, is considered to be te best re$resent!ti>e of t!t %enre in te

en!iss!nce. &us< in !ddition to fi%tin% $oetry=s detr!ctors on teir o-n %round C t!t of or! te!cin% C isDefence of Poesie!so !s te !utority of !>in% been -ritten in fu !-!reness of te condition of te $oet< frote inside< !s it -ere. D!ices concudes:

*ristote=s Poetics!d been ! dec!r!tion of inde$endence for $oetry !s -e !s ! ustific!tion of itG Sidney is content to!cie>e te !tter !t te e$ense of te forer. *nd if C -it soe ustice C -e tin@ Sidney=s $osition n!T>e< -e i%t -ereeber t!t fro is d!y to ours te >!st !ority of re!ders of i!%in!ti>e iter!ture !>e t!@en subst!nti!y is >ie-!nd %ener!y !$$ied it -it ess cunnin% !nd sensiti>ity. (72)

Sidney3s Contem%oraries1 The Late (enaissance

&ere -!s uc discussion durin% te iE!bet!n *%e of !tters concernin% te function< te $ro$er$ro>ince (disco"rse)< !nd te $ro$er for (decoru) of $oetry. #!ny i$ort!nt $oets bec!e in>o>ed C !on%

te< dund S$enser< S!ue D!nie< &o!s "!$ion etc. #uc of tis deb!te fruitessy $i>oted !round tecontro>ersy of c!ssic! etres in n%is (Sidney isef fet co$eed to !ddress t!t issue in is Defence). 4!rore interestin% !re te ess!ys !$$ended by tr!ns!tors to teir n%is >ersions of c!ssic! !nd odern!ster$ieces< suc !s for inst!nce Sir Qon !rin%ton=s renderin% of *riosto=s Orlando .urioso (1591)< &o!sDr!nt=s tr!ns!tions fro or!ce< or Heor%e "!$!n=s >ersion of oer=s 'liad(1578).

1


18/133


19/133

Part One

rues Soud coedy be ied -it tr!%edy Is te $oet=s duty to instruct or to dei%t (9670)

Indeed te !%e -!s ric in contro>ersy< uc of -ic -!s s$!r@ed by te re!tionsi$ of $oetry eiter to"risti!nity or to !ncient !ntecedents< !nd -!s initi!ted on 4renc soi. It sedo !$$ened t!t te discussion -!sdisent!n%ed fro te inteectu!< or! !nd s$iritu! function of iter!ture< !nd fe- -ere !s dee$y !-!re of tefund!ent! !utonoy of te !estetic !s Qon Dryden -!s.

4ohn'ryden(13161700)e -!s not ony one of te ost i%y !$$reci!ted critics of is tie< but !so one of te ost intensey

in>o>ed in te deb!tes concernin% te n!ture !nd function of iter!ture< !nd es$eci!y of dr!!tic $oetry< !s c!nbe seen fro is nuerous (-ritten) di!o%ues -it conte$or!ry critics. is uc6ceebr!ted *ssay of DramaticPoesy(18) is ony one suc inst!nce< !nd it -!s foo-ed in te s!e ye!r by te $ubic!tion of A Defence of an*ssay of Dramatic Poesy. &ese< !s -e !s ! $etor! of $roo%ues< $ref!tory ess!ys !nd !$oo%ies< !r@ tee>oution not ony of is $erson! $references< con>ictions !nd $rinci$es< but of tose of te !%e. is *ssay ofDramatic Poesy!ounts to ! defence of $oetry !nd ! soution to te '!tonic die!. *ccordin% to Drydeney i!%e of u!n n!ture< re$resentin% its $!ssions !nd uours< !nd te c!n%es offortune to -ic it is subect< for te dei%t !nd instruction of !n@ind. In oter -ords< $oetry re>e!s c!r!cter byre!istic!y $resentin% it in !ction< !nd tus instructs !n@ind in $sycoo%y !s uc !s in or!s. * century !fterSidney< te e$!sis is no on%er on iter!ture=s roe to e$ic!te or! $ioso$y !s uc !s on con>eyin%e$iric! @no-ed%e !bout te re! -ord (see D!ices 7/675). In tis< Dryden is ! !n of is neoc!ssic! !%e.

&rou% uc of is c!reer e $e!ds t!t rye is te !$$ro$ri!te ediu for te di%nified !tter oftr!%edy< t!t to dei%t is $oetry=s $rie function< !nd t!t te c!ssic! rues !nd unities !re te $ro$er reins oni!%in!ti>e etr!>!%!nce. e defends n%is dr!! in te >!rious b!ttes of te !ncients >s. te oderns !nd te4renc >s. te n%is< c!iin% t!t it is $ossessed of ! uni;ue ;u!ity of >i%our !nd s$ont!neity t!t !@es u$ forits un$oised surf!ces !nd it is su$reey !d!$ted to te e$ect!tions !nd t!stes of its n%is !udience. e oo@su$ to ?en Qonson=s Tim#erfor neoc!ssic! $rinci$es t!t !re !d!$t!be to te n%is te$er!ent !nd f!sions.

Q1:'o $oes r)$ens $efinition of 6poes)7 $iffer from As!hams?Q2:Remember the stru!ture of The ;ssa) of .ramati! Poes)? What is the literar) strateg) use$ b) r)$en to e0press

his on positions?

viii

?y te tie e re6-rote S!@es$e!re=sAntony and CleopatraintoAll for Lo!e(178)< e !d coe to $referb!n@ >erse to rye !nd to re%!rd 4renc dr!! !s su$reey !rtifici! !nd borin%. &e net ye!r< in te $ref!ceto is re>ised >ersion of S!@es$e!re=s Troilus and Cressida (179)< e !@es ce!r is $reference for terefineents of is !%e in ters of !n%u!%e !nd c!r!cter< !nd ree!rses te need to obser>e te $rinci$es setfort by *ristote< or!ce !nd Lon%inus. e net turns is !ttention to tr!ns!tion< but is concern -it -!t is bot!$$ro$ri!te !nd !$$e!in% to te n%is $ubic is ne>er for%otten. &e fu r!n%e of Dryden=s critic! !cuen !ndte odd stre!@ of critic! insensiti>ity !re dis$!yed by is 'ref!ce to .a#les Ancient and %odern, Translated into)erse from Homer, )irgil, Boccace, and Chaucer(1700). &ereie- t!t te first be!uty of !n e$ic $oe consists in dictionG t!t is< in te coiceof -ords< !nd !rony of nubers Ai.e.< rytB. Words !y indeed be te first tin% to stri@e te re!der< but it is te

desi%n< te dis$osition< te !nners< !nd te tou%ts -ic !>e $rior i$ort!nce. (?!ires 101)

o-e>er< Dryden=s consider!be ;u!ities !nd $ecui!r iit!tions eer%e ost eo;uenty in is !$$r!is! of"!ucer. +f "!ucer=s >!st !nd !$t %!ery of c!r!cters !nd !nners< e $roc!is: ere is Hod=s $enty. +n teoter !nd< e s!ys< "!ucer is ! rou% di!onderse !nd !n%u!%e !c@ !rony !nd $ois< !nd tecritic does not esit!te to su%%est !d!$t!tion.

Dryden is !so te first to reco%nise te e>oution of iter!ture fro one !%e to !noter< te re!tion of te $oetto tr!dition< !s -e !s its soci! o>er6deterin!tion< tus est!bisin% te disci$ine of iter!ry istory. *s ?!iresconcudes< Dryden is te !n -o sees !ost sin%y to !>e !unced n%is iter!ry criticis on its -!y.?efore i te %enre sc!rcey eists. *fter i it !s bu@ !nd subst!nce (102). It is terefore -it %ood re!sont!t S!ue Qonson dubbed i te f!ter of n%is criticis


20/133

Part One

n%is (see *br!s et !. 1787). In is !%e< te ne- disci$ine of criticis enisted f!ous $erson!ities of teiter!ry !nd $ioso$ic! scene suc !s< e!ry on< &o!s obbes (15886179)< *br!! "o-ey (11867)< Sirobert o-!rd (12698)< Went-ort Dion< !r of oscoon (c.133685)< &o!s yer (1/161713)i W!r) $re6e$ted te soci! refor in-ose n!e tey !d been undert!@en.

In ess!ys suc !s The eason of Church 2o!ernment 6rg4d Against Prelaty (1/1) !nd Apology formectymnuus (1/2)< #iton tre!ts of is o-n >oc!tion !s ! $oet. Jeeny !-!re of te i% c!in% of te $oet !ndis o-n $otenti! for becoin% ! b!rd of is n!tion< e insists on te i$ort!nce of $erson! or! inte%rity !nderois to te one -o -i be ! $oet< !nd tus not ony ! ceebr!tor of %re!t deeds !nd ide!s but !so ! $erson!

e!$e. &is ofty conce$t of te $oet=s roe is ce!ry ree>!nt to te $roduction of is %re!t e$ic Paradise Losterse !nd ! subte syste of @ey-ords !nd ecoes< -ose roe !ndi$ort!nce !re defended in te 'ref!ce to t!t -or@ (18). ,ie-ed !%!inst te b!c@%round of $rose $ro$!%!nd!t!t #iton -!s -ritin% !ost to te ecusion of ! oter %enres durin% te "i>i W!r !nd "oon-e!t $eriode! te -riter to be not ony sef6ri%teous but !so o$inion!ted !nd critic!.

S$eci! ention soud be !de of te co$!nion $oes L4Allegro !nd 'l Penseroso< te unsur$!ssed!ster$ieces of is 1/5 >oue of $oetry. "ritic Louis #!rtE -!rns !%!inst te d!n%ers of re!din% te in $!r!e!s if tey -ere te t-o sides of !n !c!deic deb!teeo$ ! ine!r< se;uenti! effectin% fro youtfu edonis to-!rd te $ioso$ic< conte$!ti>e ind (in Wis!tt /11). #ic!e Widin%er< identifies te tee of tese t-o $oes !s te $oetic itsefity (in "orns 233). e insists ore onte outre!cin% tendency of te $oes< -ic $ro$ose !n ide! -!y of ife< idyic< rur!< free of te c!res of bot

fri>oous o>e !nd $oitic! turoi. Widin% !ssi%ns #iton=s !tte$t !t sef6@no-ed%e !nd te !usterity of is ide!sto te $oet=s 'urit!nis< -ie #!rtE is incined to see in te te infuence of '!tonis. *fter te estor!tion< !s#iton=s o$inions becoe bot $otenti!y d!n%erous to isef !nd ess i@ey to find ! !r%e !udience< e returnsto te f!r ore refined ediu of $oetry for te e$ression of is $ositions on rei%ion< $oitics< society< !nditer!ture.

20


21/133

Part One

***+ The #nlightenment

&e ei%teent century be%!n under te si%n of e!son !nd ended under t!t of Sentient. *s !rry?!ires $oints outious century.N It -!s !n !%e -en industry !nd coerce -ere e$!ndin%< -en !%ricuture< see$6f!rin%!nd -ooen !nuf!cture $ros$ered. O'urit!nis= -!s t!@in% on ! different %uise. ner%ies -ic !d %one into rei%iouscontro>ersy -ere bein% de>oted to tr!de !nd industry. (127)

In tis contet< te !rts !nd $ioso$y ;uic@y fourised:

In te iter!ry fied te de>eo$ent of %eriodical 2o"rnalism%!>e ! ne- outet for -riters !nd soon $ro>ided ! $!tforfor iter!ry criticis. &e Tatler -!s !unced in 1709 !nd te pectator in 1711. *t te s!e tie< cubs !nd coffee6ouses incre!sin%y $ro>ided centres of t!@ !nd soci!biity for tose interested in $oitics or iter!ture. &e use of te ter*u%ust!n *%e to identify te $eriod i$ies t!t in n%is iter!ry istory it !s te @ind of distinction -ic ,ir%i< or!ce!nd +>id %!>e to te rei%n of te $eror *u%ustus. (12869).

Indeed< te n!e of te !%e !y !>e been coined by te $oet Leon!rd Wested (188617/7)< but te f!e of te!%e de$ended on ! triu>ir!te of -riters C Qose$ *ddison< Qon!t!n S-ift !nd *e!nder 'o$e C sii!r instren%t< infuence !nd $references to te o!n one. &ey -ere surrounded by ! ste!r foo-in% t!t cuin!tedin te second $!rt of te century -it te %re!test critic n%!nd !d !s yet $roduced< Dr S!ue Qonson. &en%is *u%ust!n *%e -!s so i$ressi>e t!t ,ot!ire (19/61778)< !fter is >isit to n%!nd in 172629< -!so>ed to !tt!c@ te ancien r7gime!t oe in is Lettres Philosophi5ues(173/).

The #ssayists

&e !$$e!r!nce of $eriodic! ourn!is c!n be d!ted -it $recision: it -!s in>ented by (ichard Steele inThe Tatler, in *$ri 1709. *tou% ori%in!y $oitic! ne-s !de te obect of $eriodic!s< n%!nd=s re!ti>ey$e!cefu intern!tion! re!tions !nd doestic censure !de it ore $rofit!be< !s -e !s s!fer< -itin si onts ofits initi! !$$e!r!nce< to be !ost entirey de>oid of $oitic! ne-s !nd coent. It soon bec!e coon for todis$!r!%e te !$$etite for ne-s. Inste!d< ourn!s $ro$osed coser !ttention to te indi>idu!< to !nners !nd

or!s< to fors of entert!inent< !nd %ener!y to sef6de>eo$ent. It -!s tus te c!se t!t by te tie Thepectatorst!rted to !$$e!r in 1711 te cief obect of te $eriodic! ess!yists -!s te %re!t coon ;uestion ofo- to i>e. ic!rd Steee< Qose$ *ddison< !nd !ter S!ue Qonson >!riousy turned tis ;uestion into !nindustry of iensey f!sion!be $eriodic! -ritin%.

* Wi% $oitici!n -it decided rei%ious o$inions< 4ose%h Addison (17261719) for%ed for isef !distin%uised ourn!istic c!reer in te fied of te etters by $ubisin% insi%tfu !rtices in te pectatorbet-een1711 !nd 171/. is out$ut c!n be di>ided into tree c!te%ories: !rtices on criticis %ener!y< on Paradise Loste ensured !n i$ort!nt $!ce for i in te $!nteon of n%is criticis< in s$ite ofis !c@ of $rofundity !nd !n!ytic! $recision.

4onathan Swift(17617/5) -!s ! uc ore s$irited neoc!ssicist< -ose Battle of the Boos(170/) doesnot s$!re e>en te best of is conte$or!ries (Dryden< for inst!nce< is one of is >ictis). is di!tribes !re ce!re>idence t!t te so6c!ed ?!tte of te *ncients !nd te #oderns -!s sti >ery uc in effect !t te be%innin% ofte ei%teent century. is f!e !s !n ess!yist< o-e>er< does not rest on is $!rtici$!tion in iter!ry deb!tes !suc !s on is soci! !nd $oitic! s!tires. *side fro is !rs !nd de!ndin% criti;ue of current iter!ry

21


22/133

Part One

!cie>eent !nd iter!ry criticis< it is is intense !nd -e6controed style. c!r!cterised by si$icity !nd s-ifttone >!ri!tion< t!t !de i !n i$ort!nt infuence. ,ery often is si$icity in synt! !nd diction is i!be to be !c!ouf!%e for insidious intentions. It is ! retoric! de>ice not entirey different fro te -itty is!$$ic!tion ofe!rned ide!s in su$$ort of !n !ud!cious $ro$osition< -ic e !d e!rned fro te #et!$ysic! $oets. In isbrii!nt $!y -it te od odes of e!rned s$ecu!tion< is i!%in!ti>e fertiity in de>eo$in% concretey !n !bsurd

$seudo6scientific conce$tion< is di!ectic! resourcefuness !nd effrontery< te !dir!be !rt of O!r%uin% trou%i!%ese -it C te !rtof de>eo$in% ! $!usibe yet outr!%eous !r%uent C !re Donne< Dryden !nd S-ift< !nd tey s$rin% fro ! on%6st!ndin% tr!dition of te!cin% di!ectic tin@in% in scoo.

Q: Who is the father of $iale!ti! thin+ing?i0

In ters of teir re!ti>e $osition in iter!ry deb!tes< Heor%e 4!r;u!r (17861707)< *ntony *sey "oo$eres on te oter side: uni@e S-ift< tey $e!d t!t n%is iter!ture!nd criticis !>e uc to offer -en $ro$ery !$$ro!ced. 4or ! of te< !s for S-ift< te -ritin% of $eriodic!ess!ys $ro>ed !n essenti! esson in stye: ! -riter -o !d under%one te disci$ine of t!t sort for -!s essi@ey to !>e recourse to unnecess!ry $o$osity or e!nin%ess !r%on in oter -ritin%. &e infuence of te$eriodic! ess!y !de for c!rity< si$icity< !nd iter!ry %ood !nners. &e ess!yists !nd -riters ser>ed teir!$$renticesi$ in $eriodic!s suc !s: The 2uardian, The Ad!enturer, The World, The Connoisseur, The Citi8en ofthe World(run by +i>er Hodsit), The Champion(to -ic enry 4iedin% contributed), te sort6i>ed dinbur%%irror !ndLounger, etc.

&e oter !or critic of te tie -o !d te st!tus of !n *ddison or ! Dryden (?!ires 1/) -!sAle&ander Po%e (188617//). is >erse *ssay on Criticism (1711) ree!rses in or!ti!n for ost of tefund!ent! tenets of neoc!ssic! criticis !nd insists t!t ! torou% @no-ed%e of te !ncients is ! $rere;uisiteof criticis. Fet e dist!nces isef fro tose -o recoend ! s!>is !derence to te !ncient rues !ndodes. In $oetry tere !re On!eess %r!ces -ic no etods te!c= (1/8)< !nd %enius is !nifested $recisey-en te infrin%eent of te rues $roduces resuts t!t f!r sur$!ss tose yieded by teir obser>!nce. &e %oodcritic is c!r!cterised !s unbi!sed< e!rned< -e6bred< sincere< odesty bod !nd u!ny se>erey.

*s ! eber of te Scriberus "ub (-ic !so incuded S-ift< *rbutnot< !nd Hr!y< ! %rou$$ro%r!!tic!y deterined to oc@ ! te f!se t!stes in e!rnin%)< 'o$e contributed ! tre!tise to ! >oue of%iscellanies(1728) under te $seudony #!rtin Scriberus. In t!t tre!tise< entited Peri Bathous< or &e *rt ofSin@in% in 'oetry!nt >oices of is

tie. is ess!ys !re ore often t!n not -ritten in >erse. In ! stye t!t !s te c!rity of cryst! !nd teeor!be ;u!ity of ! $ro>erb< !s -e !s te c!$!city to eet te i%est !rtistic st!nd!rds of te !%e< e de!s-it e>ery e>ent< con>ention !nd ent!ity t!t c!n be !ssi%ned to te *u%ust!n er!. &e ri%orousness of is!rtistic tr!inin% is e>ident in e>erytin% e $ubised: one is conscious of st!nd!rds edit!ted first !nd ten @e$tcontinu!y in ind. In tis -!y it !y be s!id t!t te strin%ency of conte$or!ry criticis contributed soe-!t tot!t e;uisite $oise of ud%eent -ic is te !r@ of ! 'o$e=s -or@ (or!n "!!n< in 4ord< >o. /< $. 237).Theape of the Loc (17126/)


23/133

Part One

$eriodic! ess!ys in te am#ler !nd te 'dlerG te edition of S!@es$e!reG !nd te Li!es of the Poets.4urterore< in is $rose f!be asselas(1759)< e !s !n od $ioso$er< I!c< -o dei>ers ! descri$tion of tebusiness of te $oet t!t ecoes 4iedin% !nd !ntici$!tes te o!ntics Words-ort !nd Seey. *ccordin% totis descri$tion< te $oet ust obser>e -!t is uni>ers!y >!id in u!n n!ture !nd -rite !s te inter$reter ofn!ture< !nd te e%is!tor of !n@ind< !nd consider isef !s $residin% o>er te tou%ts !nd !nners of future

%ener!tions. &e $oet !s te %enius for !@in% te f!ii!r tin%s of e>eryd!y ife see ne-.s$eci!y in The am#ler< but !so in The 'dler< Dr Qonson $ubised soe of is best iter!ry !nd cutur!criticis. *tou% in te forer e !$$e!rs to !>e >irtu!y no sense of uour !nd is %ener!y >ery critic!< te>oue for -!s $ubised to %re!t !cc!i !nd coerci! success. &is deonstr!tes t!t by te 170s@no-ed%e of ! fe- %re!t -riters -!s not ! !tter for $rofession! sco!rs ony< but ! $!rt of %ener! cutureer< ! critic! interest in te s$o@en !n%u!%e is ! !r@ ofiter!ry !turity. is br!nd of in%uistic ee%!nce -!s to infor %ener!tions of $ri>!te etter -riters.

In !ny of is !rtices Dr Qonson -!rns t!t iter!ture is not reducibe to ! syste!tis!be ist of rues !ndre%u!tions< !nd neiter is criticisG e conse;uenty !d>ises !%!inst undue rei!nce on critics. &e 'ref!ce to isne- edition of S!@es$e!re=s -or@s is ! brii!nt iustr!tion of is e$iric! etod of !n!ysin% teories !ndtestin% te !%!inst e$erience. e ree!rses te !in $oints de>eo$ed by S!@es$e!re criticis since Dryden

(S!@es$e!re !s te $oet of n!ture< not e!rnin%< !s te cre!tor of eor!be c!r!cters< !s $oet -o su$reeye>o@es !nd e$resses $!ssion)< but !tt!c@s !nd disisses te on%6st!ndin% re>erence for te unities of tie !nd$!ce in ! f!rsi%ted trust t!t e>o@es "oerid%e. e deonstr!tes t!t< t!n@s to te i!%in!tion of te s$ect!tor!ti>e diction!ry of te n%is!n%u!%e to d!te (!tou% not te first diction!ry e>er: in f!ct te 18 t century -!s one of uti$e %ooddiction!ries). *bo>e !< e sou%t to fi te e!nin% or e!nin%s of -ords< !nd to tis end e !dded iustr!ti>e;uot!tions r!n%in% fro Sidney for-!rd. 4or e!c -ord< -ere $ossibe< e %!>e etyoo%ies< !nd e>en tou%soe of is etyoo%ies sound ridicuous in >ie- of odern $ioo%ic! studies< e !de %ood use of te %ro-in%

-or@ of *n%o6S!on sco!rs. 4urter< one of is $ri!ry !is -!s to unify s$ein% C ! $roect to -ic tede>eo$ent of ourn!is contributed r!dic!y C !nd !ccentu!tion trou% rudient!ry $onetic tr!nscri$tion. Fet!noter erit of is infuenti! diction!ry -!s to introduce ne- -ords< !ny of te in>ented by Qonson isef!te re! of con>ers!tion !ndcorres$ondence.

Dr Qonson=s infuence !teri!ised in ! %r!du! re2ection of neoclassicism. &e ost i$ort!nt critics !tte end of te ei%teent century -ere: d-!rd Foun% (1836175 C $re6o!ntic $oet)< Q!es W!rton (172261800)< &o!s W!rton (1728690 C broter of te forer< 'rofessor of 'oetry !t +ford !nd e>entu!y 'oetL!ure!te)< ic!rd urd (172061808). *so< te $ioso$ers D!>id ue (171167)< dund ?ur@e (1729697)er< te $r!ctitioners of iter!ture tese>es becoe ore outs$o@en. +i>er

Hodsit (173067/)< enry #!c@enEie (17/561831)< ic!rd "uber!nd (173261811) !re soe of te osti$ort!nt no>eists -o -rote on teir cr!ft.

Henry Fielding(170765/)+f te no>eists< 4iedin% brou%t ! b!st of fres !ir into te -ord of criticis< not ony bec!use e so

2"


24/133

Part One

ceerfuy e$osed $retentiousness< but bec!use e c!e re$resentin% ! ne- %enre of iter!ture -ic -!se>entu!y to tr!nsfor te !ren! of critic! studies (?!ires 17). 4iedin% enters te iter!ry -ord dr!%%in% !te $!r!$ern!i! of neoc!ssicis beind i in is s$ect!cu!r tr!ectory fro dr!! to te no>e. Fet for ! t!tindebtedness< e @no-s o- uc of !n inno>!tor e is: 4or !s I !< in re!ity< te founder of ! ne- $ro>ince of-ritin%< so I ! !t iberty to !@e -!t !-s I $e!se tereinen u$ $!y-ritin%< set out to$!rody S!ue ic!rdson=s Pamela !nd< i$icity< current $rose f!sions:Fet te need for ori%in!ity is so ucstron%er t!t te boo@ e>entu!y o>es !-!y fro te obect of its $!rody !nd !tte$ts to %ener!te ! neiter!ry%enre !to%eter. In te 'ref!ce to 9oseph Andre1s4iedin% !$$e!s to oer !nd *ristote !s !utorities for iso-n s$ecies of $oetryeG cont!inin% ! uc !r%er circe of incidents< !nd introducin% ! %re!ter >!riety of c!r!cters (ye$!sis). &is %enre !s ! i%t !nd ridicuous f!be inste!d of ! %r!>e !nd soen one< $ersons of inferiorr!n@ !nd !nners inste!d of su$erior ones< !nd in its sentients !nd diction it substitutes te udicrous for tesubie (see ?!ires 1768)G t!t is to s!y< tey !re not subect to te i% st!nd!rds of te tr!%ic. Fet it is frote c!ssics t!t e deri>es is $ostu!tion of te !r%e !rr!y of c!r!cters !nd e>ents !ccood!ted by te no>e.

Q:What is a!!or$ing to /iel$ing in this Prefa!e the proper provin!e of a 6!omi! roman!e7?0

4iedin%=s ife6on% coitent to ustice !nd u!nit!ri!nis did not !teri!ise !s $sycoo%ic! $enetr!tion !nd! sense of u!n $erfectibiityG r!ter< is fiction eudes ! dense !-!reness of its o-n !rtifici!ity. Wit isoniscient n!rr!tors !nd !cid irony< 4iedin% c!is !n e$ic erit!%e t!t is descri$ti>e r!ter t!n $rescri$ti>e !nd-ic !o-s i to re$resent u!n ty$es -it te >erb! e;ui>!ent of te confident brusstro@es of is friendes< !on% -it Defoe=s< beon%ed to te *%e of e!son< ony 4iedin%=s-or@ !rose fro !ny sense of t!t tr!dition e!n!tin% fro te !ncientsG te oters !d o>ed on to ebr!ceeiter te etos of i$eri!is or of sentient. *ccordin% to 4iedin%< o-e>er< te ost >!u!be istory of u!nn!ture !s been su$$ied by oer !nd #iton r!ter t!n te istori!ns or $ioso$ers. *s ?!ires notese te t-o ost inno>!tory-riters< 4iedin% !nd Q!es Qoyce< soud !>e found te b!sis for teir inno>!tion in oer (19). It is e;u!yre!r@!be< -e i%t !dd< t!t te first !or no>eist !r@ens b!c@ to te first n%is critic< Sir 'ii$ Sidney< inis underst!ndin% of te docuent!ry >!ue of iter!ture.

2


25/133

Part One

Lect"re */ The 0ineteenth Cent"ry

*+ The (omantics

ere is o- ?!ires describes te be%innin% of te nineteent century:

&e o!ntic !%e -!s !n !%e of re>oution< soci! !nd tecnoo%ic!< $ioso$ic! !nd iter!ry. &e !rnessin% of ste!6$o-er< te conse;uent de>eo$ent of mass-%rod"ction< !nd te o>eent of te $o$u!tion fro rur! !re!s to te%ro-in% urb!n !re!s of industry !nd coerce< !r@ed one of te cruci! turnin% $oints in odern istory. "ities -erebuit< fortunes !de< !nd -or@ers= i>es rendered dis!y !borious in !$$yin% te laisse*-faire $rinci$es of teeconoist Adam Smith(1723690)< -ose study The Wealth of 0ations(177) encour!%ed te $ursuit of indi>idu! $rofit!s te route to n!tion! $ros$erity. &e *nd"strial (e!ol"tiontr!nsfored te f!ce of te countryside !nd trust -or@ersto%eter in te ne- urb!n en>ironents< $!c@ed !nd so@y. (217< y e$!sis)

In tis un$ro$itious ci!te< 4r!nce< -ose court !d on% ce!sed to set te cutur! f!sion for uro$e< soc@edte -ord into ! ne- !-!reness of $ro%ress:

&e 4renc e>oution< -it its incon%ruous s$ect!ce of fer>our for iberty !nd tirst for bood< e!rtened !nd !$$!ed te-!tcin% -ord. It coud not but be !n issue in te c!reers of !ert conte$or!ries. It fed t-o contr!ry i$uses< tede!nd for $oitic! !nd soci! refor< !nd te deterin!tion to !>oid ! bood6b!t. &e rise of !$oeon !nd te -!r -it4r!nce c!st ! s!do- o>er !ny ide!istic ibert!ri!n o>eents in n%!nd. Fet te inteectu! ferent of -ic tere>oution -!s born infected tin@in% en !nd -oen -it disturbin% uncert!inties< not ony !bout te inerited soci!f!bric of society< but !so !bout te inerited f!brics of beief !nd or!ity. &e ferent -!s ins$ired by $o-erfu iter!ryfi%ures< %oin% b!c@ to Qe!n6Q!c;ues ousse!u (1712678)< te !$oste of indi>idu! !utonoy in te f!ce of corru$tin%ci>iis!tion. *t oe contro>ersy -!s fueed by tin@ers suc !s &o '!ine (173761809) -it is boo@ The ights of %an(1791)< Wii! Hod-in (1756183) -it is Political 9ustice (1793)< !nd #!ry Wostonecr!ft (1759697) -it er)indication of the ights of Woman(1792). (21768)

Liter!ry criticis c!nnot be e$ected to de! -it ! tese issues e$icity< but tey eft !n indeibe i$rint oniter!ry tin@in%. +ne of te !or c!n%es t!t resuted -!s ! ne- connot!tion for te conce$t of trut to n!ture:!ture is no on%er $ri!riy te $rinci$e of si$icity -ic f!sion!be society offends !%!inst -it its orn!ents

!nd fo$$eries. It is te force -ic binds !n to oter e!rt< -ic surrounds i -it is !nd co>ers i -itte s@y. *nd -!t offends !%!inst it is te i ciney !nd te ste! en%ine< f!ctory !bour !nd te city su(218). *t te be%innin% of te nineteent century iter!ry criticis is doin!ted by te o!ntic $oets !nd teir$ioso$ic! ecursus into te subte corres$ondences bet-een te u!n s$irit !nd n!ture.

,illiam ,ordsworth(177061850)Words-ort is< !bo>e !< te $oet of reebr!nce of tin%s $!st< or !s e isef $ut it in te 'ref!ce to

Lyrical Ballads (2nded.< 1800)< of emotion recollected in tran)"illity. Soe obect or e>ent in te $resenttri%%ers ! sudden rene-! of feein%s e !d e$erienced in youtG te resut is ! $oe eibitin% te s!r$discre$!ncy bet-een -!t Words-ort c!ed t-o consciousnesses: isef !s e is no- !nd isef !s e once-!s. &e $!st t!t e recoected -!s one of oents of uinous intensity< !nd of eotion! turoi -ic isordered< in te c!er $resent< into ! !rd6-on e;uiibriu. &e resut is ! $oetry of ecit!tion in c!G %enius< !s

Words-ort s!ys in is !ster$iece< The Prelude(be%un in 1798G $ubised $ostuousy in 1850)< is born totri>e by interc!n%e +f $e!ce !nd ecit!tion. *s tie -ent on< o-e>er< te $rec!rious e;uiibriu of is %re!tcre!ti>e $eriod bec!e ! !bit< !nd Words-ort fin!y %!ined -!t< in te Ode to Duty(-ritten 180/)< e on%edfor< ! re$ose -ic e>er is te s!e C but !so ! !nneris.

Fet is critic! consider!tions !re consistenty deocr!tic !nd o$en6inded. Words-ort i$icity denies tetr!dition! !ssu$tion t!t te $oetic %enres constitute ! ier!rcy< fro e$ic !nd tr!%edy !t te to$ do-n trou%coedy< s!tire< $!stor!< to te sort yric !t te o-er re!ces of te $oetic sc!eG e !so reects te c!ssic!$rinci$e of decorum. e defines $oetry !s te bre!t !nd finer s$irit of ! @no-ed%eN. 'oetry is te first !nd !stof ! @no-ed%e C it is !s iort! !s te e!rt of !n. &e $oet is ! !n s$e!@in% to enin% iedi!te $e!sure to ! u!n ?ein% -o !so res$onds -it is e!rt.

Wen Words-ort !sserted in te 'ref!ce t!t e deiber!tey cose to re$resent incidents !nd situ!tions

fro coon ifeoc!bu!ry or of synt!< but ! s!eness in

2


26/133

Part One

eotion! %enesis. Inste!d of consistin% in contri>ed !nd !rtfu constructions< bot fors of !n%u!%e ori%in!tes$ont!neousy< !s te -ords !nd fi%ures t!t !re te ost f!itfu e$ression of feein%.

Words-ort=s !ssertions !bout te !teri!s !nd diction of $oetry !>e been %re!ty infuenti! in e$!ndin%te r!n%e of serious iter!ture to incude coon $eo$e !nd ordin!ry tin%s !nd e>ents< !s -e !s in ustifyin% !$oetry of sincerity r!ter t!n of !rtifice< e$ressed in te ordin!ry !n%u!%e of its tie. Words-ort !so !ttributed

to i!%in!ti>e iter!ture te $ri!ry roe in @ee$in% u!n bein%s eotion!y !i>e !nd or!y sensiti>e C t!t is!%e tor$or.

o oter boo@ of $oes in n%is !nnounces ! neiter!ry de$!rture ore $!iny t!n Words-ort=s LyricalBallads!nd its 'ref!ce. Fet< o-e>er r!dic! teir $!rticu!r !$$ic!tion by Words-ort< te >!ues t!t $ere!teis 'ref!ce !re te centr! u!nistic >!ues of te 18 t6century ni%tenent C t!t is< te use< !s ! st!nd!rd< ofeeents t!t e re$resents !s essenti!< si$e< uni>ers!< !nd $er!nent in u!n n!ture.

Remember?

'ere is ho avi$ ai!hes sums up more than to !enturies of ;nglish !riti!ism along the lines of poeti! orm8

In te 'ref!ce< Words-ortN-!s not ce!r on te ;uestion of o- te $oet=s !i !ffected is -!y of -ritin% !nd of o- !$oe< !s !n indi>idu! -or@ of iter!ry !rt< differs fro oter fors of e$ression. &e etric! eeent in $oetry e tendedto re%!rd !s !n o$tion! !dornent< !nd !s for te ;uestion of $oetic dictionNsince $oetry concerns itsef -it %r!ndeeent! f!cts !bout !n !nd n!ture< te $oet soud !>oid tr!nsitory !nd !ccident! orn!ents !nd use si$e !ndeeent! !n%u!%e. &e od $robe of te re!tion of for !nd content -!s tus sti unreso>ed. Wie not !int!inin%

Q1:is!uss Wor$sorths $e8 Intimations of Immortalit)in terms of oc!tions -ent !nd in !nd -it i. is!in -or@ -!s to tr!nsfor te ec!nistic $sycoo%y of te 18 tcentury !nd to initi!te ! re!ction !%!inst it. ere>i>ed te oder tr!dition of '!tonis !nd introduced to n%!nd te ne- ide!is of Her!ny. e set out toe$ore te unconscious -or@in%s of te ind C te terra incognitaof our n!ture C for $oetry. e co$eted tere>oution of t!ste -ic !s entroned S!@es$e!re !s ! %enius no ess re!r@!be for is ud%eent t!n is

in>enti>eness. #ore t!n !ny oter of te n%is o!ntics< e brou%t !bout te re>oution in iter!ry tou%tt!t consists in re%!rdin% te i!%in!tion !s te so>erei%n cre!ti>e $o-er< e$ressin% te %ro-t of ! -oe$erson!ity. * te $ubised $rose of te second !f of is ife< incudin% Biographia Literaria< consists offr!%ents !nd di%ressions -renced fro i by te occ!sion< but intended !s $re$!r!ti>es for ! >!st$ioso$ic! undert!@in%< -ic "oerid%e tou%t of !s is counter$!rt to Words-ort=s Prelude.

Q:,a+e a list of the !riti!s $is!usse$ so far ho approa!he$ 5ha+espeare $e!isivel).

Percy $isshe Shelley(179261822)

D!ices introduces Seey !s foo-s:

Seey=s Defence of Poetry< -ritten in 1821 !nd $ubised in 18/0< -!s ori%in!y concei>ed !s te defense of te >!ue of$oetry !%!inst te !r%uents brou%t for-!rd by &o!s Lo>e 'e!coc@ in The .our Ages of Poetry A1820B t!t $oetry!d outi>ed its usefuness !nd in !n !%e of @no-ed%e< re!son< !nd eni%tenent !$$e!ed ony to obscur!ntis !ndsu$erstition. ?ut !s te -or@ de>eo$ed te $oeic eeent dis!$$e!red !nd te ess!y eer%ed !s ! !r%e teoretic!

2


28/133

Part One

st!teent of te n!ture !nd >!ue of $oetry odeed in %ener! stye on Sidney=s Defencetou% !c@in% te si$edid!cticis so i$ort!nt to Sidney=s $osition. Seey=s !r%uent is conducted in ters of $!ssion!te !bstr!ctions< !nd intis res$ect is reiniscent of soe of te %re!t ren!iss!nce critic! docuents. It is in ! sense !n !n!cronis< forine ori%in in te '!tonic sense< !nd to enco$!ss te best of u!n tou%t in !do!ins< e%is!tion !nd $oitics incuded. "onse;uenty< te $oe< ere too< is erey ! s$ecies of $oetry< but !$ri>ie%ed one< since its ediu is !n%u!%e.

L!n%u!%e is te ost effecti>e ser>!nt of te i!%in!tion bec!use te i!%in!tion itsef $roduces it for its o-n needseness !s e!ns of e$ressin% !n i!%in!ti>e >isionN. !rony of utter!nce< !cie>ed by te$ro$er coice of -ords !nd te re!tion of sound to senseNis $!rt of te -!y in -ic te i!%in!tion !cie>es !corres$ondence -it te ide! orderN. Sound !nd sense coe to%eter !s !n or%!nic -oe (D!ices 1156)en tou% te %re!t !ronisin% $o-ers of te i!%in!tion !y !t ties !nifest tese>es in indi>idu! -ords!nd $r!ses ony.

It is by stiu!tin% !nd stren%tenin% i!%in!tion t!t te $oet !cie>es or! %ood. 'oetry does not te!cor!s directy< by $ro>idin% e!$es of %ood be!>iourG neiter does it $ur%e te eotions trou% $ity !nd fe!re it: suc $reoccu$!tions defe!t teir >ery $ur$ose. ?ut in stren%tenin% i!%in!tion< !ndtus te $ositi>e !ffections< $oetry is bot !n instruent of or! %ood !nd of sef6@no-ed%e. Seey does notc!rry tese ide!s to teir o%ic! concusions in !estetic ters< but $roceeds to e$!sise te re!tionsi$bet-een $oetry !nd society< !nd es$eci!y te roe of te $oet in i$osin% ! >ision of te ide! order !s!$$reended by i!%in!tion. e s$e!@s in %r!ndiose ters of $oetry !s te record of te best !nd !$$iestoents of te !$$iest !nd best inds


29/133

Part One

eotion! $!rtici$!tion of te >ie-er. ?!ires coents: &ere is ! curious !ir of odernity !bout AJe!ts=sB-iin%ness to teorise directy fro sef< !s $oet !nd !n of feein%< in ! @ind of $ioso$ic! >!cuu (237).

,illiam $la5e (178761827)< too< $roduced critic! !$oriss< ost of te directed !%!inst -!t e$ercei>ed !s te y$ocrisy of conte$or!ry !rtists -o !tte$ted to define $oetry in ters of iit!tion of n!ture.*ccordin% to ?!@e< te $oet=s i!%in!tion re!ces outside te -ord !$$reended by te senses into te s$iritu!

s$ere. "onse;uenty< Words-ort is !d!!nty cob!ted !s te !tur! #!n risin% u$ !%!inst te S$iritu! #!n"ontinu!y< !nd ten e is o 'oet but ! e!ten $ioso$er !t nity !%!inst ! true 'oetry or Ins$ir!tion. Inte -ords of !rry ?!ires< ?!@e=s e$!sis on i!%in!tion !nd ins$ir!tion< !nd Words-ort=s e$!sis on te$ri!cy of feein% (Ote s$ont!neous o>erfo- of $o-erfu feein%=) !c;uired in te one c!se ! ystic! diension!nd in te oter c!se ! or! diension -ic introduced !n eeent of sef6disci$ine (23). &is sef6disci$ine-!s to ! cert!in etent sii!r to t!t i$osed by Seey=s !nti6'!tonic '!tonis !nd "oerid%e=s "risti!nity< butit -!s soetin% t!t Je!ts -ised to !>e no s!re in. ?!@e=s inde$endence of ind !ccounts for te infuencee !d on te !estetic tin@in% of te !te 19tcentury.

We !>e seen t!t Seey=s Defence of Poetry-!s -ritten in ! s!cred r!%e $ro>o@ed by !n ess!y by te$oet Thomas Lo!e Peacoc5 (1785618). In is 4our *%es of 'oetry (1820)< 'e!coc@ $oses te e%iti!te;uestion of -eter< in ! odern scientific !%e -en $ioso$ers !nd scientists c!n in>esti%!te re!itysyste!tic!y !nd ri%orousy !nd $eo$e !>e out%ro-n te yts of $oetry< te $oet !s not becoe !n

!n!cronis< ! sei6b!rb!ri!n in ! ci>iised counity. I$icity tis r!ised te issue of te function !nd trut of$oetry< of te -!y in -ic it coud be inte%r!ted in te indset of odern society. is ;uestion -!s to be t!@en u$-it incre!sed ur%ency trou%out te 19t!nd 20tcenturies.

&e essay-!s ! f!>ourite iter!ry for -it te outst!ndin% tin@ers of te nineteent century. It offered te$ossibiity of t!c@in% ! %re!t >!riety of to$ics: iter!ry< $oitic!< istoric!< econoic< or!G it !o-ed !t te s!etie for ! %re!t freedo of e$ression. #!ny o!ntic ourn!ists found it ! %enuine ediu for e$ressin%o$inions on iter!ture. ,illiam Ha6litt(177861830) -rote ! >!riety of unsyste!tic< i$ressionistic ess!ys !ndectures on $!rticu!r -riters !nd e>en $ioso$ers. is descri$ti>e !$$ro!c is stiu!tin% !nd infectious< !nd isstye is c!r!cterised by >it!ity< entusi!s< !rdour< !nd %usto< !tou% is o$inions !re not !-!ys correct or$ertinent. Thomas 'e 7"incey (178561859) -!s !n e;u!y re!d!be ourn!ist !nd ess!yist -o tended toenc!$su!te $sycoo%ic! !s$ects of te -riters e ud%ed< !nd cose to do so -it resort to ! ric coection of$erson! !necdotes. e s!red in te ro!ntic re!$$r!is! of te re!tionsi$ bet-een re!son !nd i!%in!tionised ! $rinci$e of iter!ry $o-er -ic e c!ed !nt!%onis C te resut of te coision of te i!%ery ofcities< cro-ds< !nd !rtistry< -it t!t of rest< soitude !nd $ri! innocence. * r!ter in!$t critic but entusi!sticourn!ist -!s Leigh H"nt(178/61859)< -ose !in contribution -!s to c!$ion !nd !cc!i te %re!t $oets!on% is conte$or!ries (ciefy Seey< ?yron !nd Je!ts)< often in te f!ce of ridicue !nd ostiity. is Scottiscounter$!rt< Francis 4effrey (177361850)< -!s ! discernin% !nd udicious re>ie-er< -it ! bro!d !$$reci!ti>er!n%e. *n e;u!y distin%uised contributor to te iter!ry ourn!s of te d!y< !nd es$eci!y to te &ory Scottis;uarterly e!ie1< -!s Sir ,alter Scott(177161832). is Li!es of the 0o!elistsre$resents ! -orty successor ofDr Qonson=s Li!es of the Poetsin so-in% ! co$!r!be -ei%t of %ood sense !nd iter!ry sy$!ty brou%t tobe!r on ! >!riety of -riters< !on% -o ost $roinenty fi%ure ic!rdson< 4iedin%< Soett< Sterne< !nd Q!ne*usten. e foo-s Dr. Qonson in distin%uisin% bet-een te no>e< -ic de!s -it te odern st!te of societyeous !nd uncoon incidents


30/133

Part One

!nd scientific $ro%ress of te ,ictori!n !%e. &e ne- teories in te fied of n!tur! sciences !nd $sycoo%yo$ened ! ne- er! for $ioso$ic !nd scientific tou%t. It -!s te !%e of rei%ious contro>ersies !nd of te confictbet-een science !nd rei%ion on !ccount of D!r-inis !nd scientific disco>ery. 8tilitarianism !s !n etic!doctrine -it econoic< uridic! !nd soci! i$ic!tions !d ! consider!be infuence u$on 19 t6century tin@in%!nd -!s b!sic!y foru!ted by 4eremy $entham(17/861832)< ! $ioso$er< econoist< !nd teoretic! urist.

is first ess!y in econoics< Defence of 6sury (1787)< so-s t!t e -!s ! disci$e of *d! Sit !nd !su$$orter of te laisse8-faire$rinci$es. &e b!sic tiit!ri!n $rinci$e st!tes t!t !n !ction is ri%t if it !cie>es te%re!test %ood for te !r%est nuber of $eo$e.

Q:What oul$ be a utilitarian rea$ing of 4eorge ;liots ,i$$lemar!h? What about William Wor$sorths 6I on$ere$lonel) as a !lou$7?

4ohn St"art ill(18061873) !ter on !dded ne- s!des to tis teory< so-in% t!t >irtue !nd @no-ed%ecoud $roduce !$$iness of ! su$erior @ind. is @ey ide!s -ere e$ressed in t-o ess!ys $ubised in teWestminster e!ie1< one on Bentham (1838) !nd te oter on Coleridge (18/0)< -o !ccordin% to ire$resented te t-o !in tendencies of te !%e: r!tion!is< $r!ctic!6indedness< !nd r!dic!is< side by side-it te i!%in!ti>e !nd conser>!ti>e s$irit. InAuto#iography!nd in is ess!y What 's Poetrye >!ue trou% its effects u$on u!n eotions. *tou% is $reoccu$!tion -ititer!tureper seis r!ter iited< is -or@ is of %re!t interest !s e de!s co%enty -it te i$!ct of society !ndideoo%y on te indi>idu! ind. e %r!du!y c!e to reect soe of te utiit!ri!n st!nd!rds !nd to etend !nd!d!$t ore %enerous ide!s of !rt to tis doctrine. e -!s !so critic! of deocr!cies i@e t!t of te nited St!tesidu!ity to te e>e e c!ed ! coecti>eediocrity. &rou%out is -ritin%s< e>en in is discussions of te !d>!nt!%es of soci!is< #i -!s concerned-it deonstr!tin% t!t te indi>idu! is ore i$ort!nt t!n institutions suc !s st!te !nd curc.

Thomas Carlyle(179561881) so $erfecty refected te !in $ro%ressi>e ide!s of te !%e< t!t e c!e to bec!ed te S!%e of "ese! by te stre! of >isitors fro n%!nd< te "ontinent< !nd te nited St!tes t!t c!eto isten to i ($rob!by ost not!be !on% te -!s !$ W!do erson< te founder of *eric!n&r!scendent!is). +f ! te %re!t $ioso$ers of is !%e e coes cosest to -riters of iter!ture (Dr Qonsonerytin% in ters of te $resence or !bsence of soe >it! s$!r@< of ener%y< -ic is initsef ! $roof of te eistence in te uni>erse of ! %ode!d< !nd conse;uenty r!tes $eo$e< institutions< boo@s< e>en!ndsc!$es< !s !i>e or de!d< dyn!ic or erey ec!nic!. e !so s$e!@s of te iit!tions of te conscious!n!ytic inteect !nd $r!ises inste!d te instincti>e res$onses of te unconsciousy e!ty sou< res$onses t!tincude ! sense of rei%ious !-e.

Remember?

ie- of te is of te odern -ord. %odern Painters< -ic

e be%!n -ritin% !t te !%e of t-enty6tree !fter is %r!du!tion fro +ford< -!s ! defence of te n%is $!interQ.#.W. &urner (177561851). &e defence (-ic e -!s to etend to fi>e >oues) in>o>ed us@in in $robes oftrut in !rt (!s in te c!$ter on te Pathetic Fallacy) !nd in te uti!te i$ort!nce of i!%in!tion (!s in isdiscussion of &urner=s $!intin% The la!e hip). &o tese %re!t >irtues e !dds ide!s in !rt< by -ic e e!nsor! ide!s< -ic !re e!nt to round u$ our inteectu! $erce$tion of be!uty in !rt. In The tones of )eniceee$!ins te rise of te Hotic in ters of te or! >irtue of te society t!t $roduced it< ! society in -ic teindi>idu! -or@ers coud e$ress tese>es !nd enoy teir -or@< !nd !ttributes its decine to te dis!$$e!r!nce oft!t >irtue. is re!tin% or!ity to !rt !s ob>ious sortcoin%s< but it !o-ed i to conduct fierce !tt!c@s on te'iistines of is tie< on laisse8-faireeconoics< ec!nis!tion< !nd -!t e c!ed te Hoddess of Hettin%6on.

*tou% e described isef !s ! >ioent &ory of te od scoo C W!ter Scott=s scooerse !s Wii! #orris< Heor%e ?ern!rd S!-< !nd D.. L!-renceG !nd in $!rticu!r !on% te founders of te

?ritis L!bour $!rty< is infuence -!s to be $rofound !nd !stin%. is !-!reness of $oution !nd of irres$onsibee!dersi$ in odern industri!is !>e resuted in t-entiet6century ecoo%y !nd ecocriticis. is -!s !conser>!tis t!t ide!ised te #idde *%es for te refection of or! !nd inteectu! >!ues in !rt< !nd tese ide!sbec!e %uidin% ines for te 're6!$!eites. e -!s !%!inst te $ursuit of be!uty for its o-n s!@e< for te roe of!rt -!s to inter$ret !nd edify. In te tendencies of W!ter '!ter !nd +sc!r Wide !nd in te $!intin%s of Wister e

"0


31/133

Part One

s!- ! reection of is ide!s !nd ! -orryin% desire to free !rt fro te soci! e$erience !nd or! $rinci$es -ice considered to be essenti! to its eistence.

atthew Arnold(182261888)us@in too@ !rt !s is %uide to te deficiencies of conte$or!ry ci>iis!tionG #!tte- *rnod too@ iter!turee !teri!is of n%!nd< its !c@ of s-eetness !nd i%t. *t te s!e tie e beie>ed t!t ten%is idde c!sses re$resented te o$e of ci>iis!tion< !nd e terefore set isef to educ!te te. *rnod-!s ! u!nist -o de>oted ! !r%e $!rt of is ife to deonstr!tin% te centr! $!rt t!t !n !de;u!te iter!rycuture coud !nd soud $!y in society !nd to rescuin% rei%ion fro te r!tio

Hist. Lit. Crit._Bk(1)

Documents

Transcript of Hist. Lit. Crit._Bk(1)