Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from LYRASIS Members nd S!

o n "ound tion

htt#$%%www& rchive&org%det i!s%theoryof!iter tu''inwe!!

A!fred (ower Rutgers )niversity *ew +runswic,- *& .&

/heory of Liter ture

+Y R0*0 10LL02 2 nt in 0ng! nd 3 1 45 1 6 /he Rise of 0ng!ish Liter ry (istory 3 1 47 1 6 +Y A)S/I* 1ARR0* 8ofe s 9ritic nd (um nist 314246

/he 0!der (enry . mes 314576 9r sh w$ A Study in + ro:ue Sensibi!ity 314546 R ge for 'rder 3147;6

/(0'RY

'" LI/0RA/)R0

+y R0*0 10LL02 nd A)S/I* 1ARR0*

(AR9')R/- +RA90 A*D 9'M8A*Y *ew Yor,

.+1gSS9/Y '" "L'RIDA LI+RARI0S

9'8YRI<(/- 1472- 147=- 1474- +Y (AR9')R/- +RA90 A*D 9'M8A*Y- I*9&

A!! rights reserved- inc!uding the right to re#roduce this boo, or #ortions thereof in ny form&

8RI*/0D I* /(0 )*I/0D S/A/0S '" AM0RI9A

8ref ce /he n ming of this boo, h s been more th n ordin ri!y diffi> cu!t& 0ven #ro#er ?short tit!e-? ?/heory of Liter ture nd Methodo!ogy of Liter ry Study-? wou!d be too cumbersome& +efore the nineteenth century one might h ve m n ged- for then fu!!- n !ytic tit!e cou!d h ve covered the tit!e># ge whi!e the s#ine bore the inscri#tion ?Liter ture&? 1e h ve written boo, which- so f r s we ,now- ! c,s ny c!ose # r !!e!& It is not te@tboo, introducing the young to the e!ements of !iter ry ##reci tion nor 3!i,e MorizeAs Aims nd Methods6 survey of the techni:ues em#!oyed in scho! r!y rese rch& Some continuity it m y c! im with 8oetics nd Rhet> oric 3from Aristot!e down through +! ir- 9 m#be!!- nd 2 rnes6- system tic tre tments of the genres of be!!es>!ettres nd sty!istics- or with boo,s c !!ed 8rinci#!es of Liter ry 9riticism& +ut we h ve sought to unite ?#oetics? 3or !iter ry theory6 nd ?criticism? 3ev !u tion of !iter ture6 with ?scho! rshi#? 3?re> se rch?6 nd ?!iter ry history? 3the ?dyn mics? of !iter turein contr st to the ?st tics? of theory nd criticism6& It comes ne rer to cert in <erm n nd Russi n wor,s- 1 !ze!As <eh !t und <est !t- or .u!ius 8etersenAs Die 1issensch Bt von der Dichtungy or /om shevs,yAs Liter ry /heory& In contr st to the <erm ns- however- we h ve voided mere re#roductions of the views of others nd- though we t ,e into ccount other #ers#ec> tives nd methods- h ve written from consistent #oint of viewC in contr st to /om shevs,y- we do not undert ,e to give e!e> ment ry instruction on such to#ics s #rosody& 1e re not ec!ectic !i,e the <erm ns or doctrin ire !i,e the Russi n& +y the st nd rds of o!der Americ n scho! rshi#- there is some>

thing gr ndiose nd even ?unscho! r!y? bout the very ttem#t to formu! te the ssum#tions on which !iter ry study is con> ducted 3to do which one must go beyond ?f cts?6 nd something #resum#tuous in our effort to survey nd ev !u te high!y s#eci !> ized investig tions& 0very s#eci !ist wi!! un void b!y be diss tis>

vi 8reB ce fied with our ccount of his s#eci !ty& +ut we h ve not imed t minute com#!eteness$ the !iter ry e@ m#!es cited re !w ys e@ m#!es- not ?#roof? C the bib!iogr #hies re ?se!ective&? *or h ve we undert ,en to nswer !! the :uestions we r ise& 1e h ve Budged it of centr ! use to ourse!ves nd others to be inter> n tion ! in our scho! rshi#- to s, the right :uestions- to #rovide n org non of method& /he uthors of this boo,- who first met t the )niversity of Iow in 1454- immedi te!y fe!t their ! rge greement in !iter ry theory nd methodo!ogy& /hough of differing b c,grounds nd tr ining- both h d fo!> !owed simi! r # ttern of deve!o#ment- # ssing through histori> c ! rese rch nd wor, in the ?history of ide s-? to the #osition th t !iter ry study shou!d be s#ecific !!y !iter ry& +oth be!ieved th t ?scho! rshi#? nd ?criticism? were com# tib!e D both refused to distinguish between ?contem#or ry? nd # st !iter ture& In 1 471- they contributed ch #ters on ?(istory? nd ?9riti> cism? to co!! bor tive vo!ume- Liter ry Scho! rshi#- instig ted nd edited by *orm n "oerster- to whose thought nd encour> gement they re conscious of owing much& /o him 3were it not to give mis!e ding im#ression of his own doctrine6 they wou!d dedic te this boo,& /he ch #ters of the #resent boo, were undert ,en on the b sis of e@isting interests& Mr& 1e!!e, is #rim ri!y res#onsib!e for ch #ters 1>2- 7>=- 4>17- nd 14- Mr& 1 rren for ch #ters 5- ;nd 1 D>1 ; B both sh red e:u !!y in the conc!uding ch #ter& +ut the boo, is re ! inst nce of co!! bor tion in which the uthor is the sh red greement between two writers& In termino!ogytone- nd em#h sis there rem in doubt!ess- some s!ight incon> sistencies between the writers C but they venture to thin, th t there m y be com#ens tion for these in the sense of two different minds re ching so subst nti ! n greement& It rem ins to th n, Dr& Stevens nd the (um nities Division of the Roc,efe!!er "ound tion- without whose id the boo, wou!d not h ve been #ossib!e- nd the 8resident- the De ns- nd the de# rtment ch irm n of the )niversity of Iow - for their su##ort nd generous !!otment of timeC R& 8& +! c,mur nd .& 9& R nsom for their encour gementC 1 !! ce "ow!ie- Rom n . ,obson- .ohn Mc< !!i rd- .ohn 9& 8o#e- nd Robert 8enn

8reB ce vii 1 rren for their re ding of cert in ch #tersC Miss A!ison 1hite for c!ose- devoted ssist nce throughout the com#osition of the boo,& /he uthors wish to c,now!edge !so the ,indness of cert in editors nd #ub!ishers in #ermitting the incor#or tion of some # ss ges from their e r!ier writings into the #resent boo,$ to the Louisi n )niversity 8ress nd 9!e nth +roo,s- former edi> tor of the Southern Review 3for ?Mode of 0@istence of the Liter ry 1or,?6 C to the )niversity of *orth 9 ro!in 8ress 3for #ortion of ?Liter ry (istory-? in Liter ry Scho! rshi#ed& "oerster- 14716C to the 9o!umbi )niversity 8ress 3for # ss ges from ?8eriods nd Movements in Liter ry (istory? nd ?/he 8 r !!e!ism between Liter ture nd the Arts? in the 0ng!ish Institute Annu !s- 1470 nd 1071 s 6C to the 8hi!oso#hi> c ! Libr ry 3for # ss ges from ?/he Revo!t g inst 8ositivism? nd ?Liter ture nd Society-? in /wentieth 9entury 0ng!ished& 2nic,erboc,er- 147E6C nd to .ohn 8 !mer- editor of the Sew nee Review for ?/he <r du te Study of Liter ture&? Rene 1e!!e, Austin 1 rren *ew ( ven- M y 1- 147;

Contents

Preface

I. DEFINITIONS AND DISTINCTIONS I. Literature and Literary Study 3 II. The Nature of Literature 9 III. The Function of Literature 19 I . Literary Theory! Criticis"! and #istory $9 . %enera&! Co"'arati(e! and Nationa& Literature 3 ) II. P*ELI+INA*, OPE*ATIONS I. The Orderin- and Esta.&ishin- of E(idence /9 III. T#E E0T*INSIC APP*OAC# TO T#E ST1D, OF LITE*AT1*E

Introduction EF II. Literature and 2io-ra'hy 34 III. Literature and Psycho&o-y 45 I0. Literature and Society )9 0. Literature and Ideas 164 0I. Literature and the Other Arts 1$/ I . T#E INT*INSIC ST1D, OF LITE*AT1*E 0II. The Ana&ysis of the Literary 7or8 of Art 139 0III. Eu'hony! *hyth"! and +eter 159

@ 9ontents 0I . Sty&e and Sty&istics 144 0 . I"a-e! +eta'hor! Sy".o&! +yth 196 0 I. The Nature and +odes of Narrati(e Fiction $19 0 II. Literary %enres $35 0 III. E(a&uation $/) 0I0. Literary #istory $33 . T#E ACADE+IC SIT1ATION 00. The Study of Literature in the %raduate Schoo& $)5 Notes $99 2i.&io-ra'hy 3/4 Inde9 3)9

I Definitions nd Distinctions

C#APTE* I Literature and Literary Study

1e must first m ,e distinction between !iter ture nd !it> er ry study& /he two re distinct ctivities$ one is cre tive- n rt B the other- if not #recise!y science- is s#ecies of ,now!edge or of !e rning& /here h ve been ttem#ts- of course- to ob!iter te this distinction& "or inst nce- it h s been rgued th t one c nnot underst nd !iter ture un!ess one writes it- th t one c nnot nd shou!d not study 8o#e without trying his own h nd t heroic cou#!ets or n 0!iz beth n dr m without himse!f writing dr m in b! n, verse& 1 G Yet usefu! s the e@#erience of !iter ry cre tion is to him- the t s, of the student is com#!ete!y distinct& (e must tr ns! te his e@#erience of !iter ture into inte!!ectu ! terms- ssimi! te it to coherent scheme which must be r tion ! if it is to be ,now!edge& It m y be true th t the subBect m tter of his study is irr tion ! or t !e st cont ins strong!y unr tion ! e!ements C but he wi!! not be therefore in ny other #osition th n the histori n of # inting or the musico!ogist or- for th t m tterthe socio!ogist or the n tomist& 9!e r!y- some difficu!t #rob!ems re r ised by this re! tionshi#& /he so!utions #ro#osed h ve been v rious& Some theorists wou!d sim#!y deny th t !iter ry study is ,now!edge nd dvise ?second cre tion-? with resu!ts which to most of us seem futi!e tod y H 8 terAs descri#tion of Mon Lis or the f!orid # ss ges in Symonds or Symons& Such ?cre tive criticism? h s usu !!y me nt need!ess du#!ic tion or- t most- the tr ns! tion of one wor, of rt into nother- usu !!y inferior& 'ther theorists dr w r ther different s,e#tic ! conc!usions from our contr st between !iter ture nd its study$ !iter ture- they rgue- c nnot be ?stud> ied? t !!& 1e c n on!y re d- enBoy- ##reci te it& "or the restwe c n on!y ccumu! te !! ,inds of inform tion ? bout? !iter > G "or the notes- cf& ##& 244>57E& 5

7 /heory of Liter ture ture& Such s,e#ticism is ctu !!y much more wides#re d th n one might su##ose& In #r ctice- it shows itse!f in stress on environ> ment ! ?f cts? nd in the dis# r gement of !! ttem#ts to go beyond them& A##reci tion- t ste- enthusi sm re !eft to the #riv te indu!gence s n inevit b!e- though de#!or b!e- esc #e from the usterity of sound scho! rshi#& +ut such dichotomy into ?scho! rshi#? nd ? ##reci tion? m ,es no #rovision t !! for the true study of !iter ture- t once ?!iter ry? nd ?system tic&? /he #rob!em is one of how- inte!!ectu !!y- to de ! with rtnd with !iter ry rt s#ecific !!y& 9 n it be doneI And how c n it be doneI 'ne nswer h s been$ it c n be done with the methods deve!o#ed by the n tur ! sciences- which need on!y be tr ns> ferred to the study of !iter ture& Sever ! ,inds of such tr nsfer c n be distinguished& 'ne is the ttem#t to emu! te the gener ! scientific ide !s of obBectivity- im#erson !ity- nd cert inty- n

ttem#t which on the who!e su##orts the co!!ecting of neutr ! f cts& Another is the effort to imit te the methods of n tur ! science through the study of c us ! ntecedents nd origins > y in #r ctice- this ?genetic method? Bustifies the tr cing of ny ,ind of re! tionshi# s !ong s it is #ossib!e on chrono!ogic ! grounds& A##!ied more rigid!y- scientific c us !ity is used to e@#! in !it> er ry #henomen by the ssignment of determining c uses to economic- soci !- nd #o!itic ! conditions& Ag in- there is the introduction of the :u ntit tive methods ##ro#ri te!y used in some sciences- i&e&- st tistics- ch rts- nd gr #hs& And fin !!y there is the ttem#t to use bio!ogic ! conce#ts in the tr cing of the evo> !ution of !iter ture& 2 /od y there wou!d be !most gener ! recognition th t this tr nsfer h s not fu!fi!!ed the e@#ect tions with which it w s m de origin !!y& Sometimes scientific methods h ve #roved their v !ue within strict!y !imited re - or with !imited techni:ue such s the use of st tistics in cert in methods of te@tu ! criticism& +ut most #romoters of this scientific inv sion into !iter ry study h ve either confessed f i!ure nd ended with s,e#ticism or h ve com> forted themse!ves with de!usions concerning the future successes of the scientific method& /hus- I& A& Rich rds used to refer to the future trium#hs of neuro!ogy s insuring the so!utions of !! !iter ry #rob!ems& 5

Liter ture

nd Liter ry Study D

1e sh !! h ve to come b c, to some of the #rob!ems r ised by this wides#re d ##!ic tion of n tur ! science to !iter ry study& /hey c nnot be dismissed too f ci!e!yB nd there is- no doubt! rge fie!d in which the two methodo!ogies cont ct or even over> ! #& Such fund ment ! methods s induction nd deductionn !ysis- synthesis- nd com# rison re common to !! ty#es of system tic ,now!edge& +ut- # tent!y- the other so!ution com> mends itse!f $ !iter ry scho! rshi# h s its own v !id methods which re not !w ys those of the n tur ! sciences but re neverthe!ess inte!!ectu ! methods& 'n!y very n rrow conce#tion of truth c n e@c!ude the chievements of the hum nities from the re !m of ,now!edge& Long before modern scientific deve!o#ment- #hi> !oso#hy- history- Buris#rudence- theo!ogy- nd even #hi!o!ogy h d wor,ed out v !id methods of ,nowing& /heir chievements m y h ve become obscured by the theoretic ! nd #r ctic ! tri> um#hs of the modern #hysic ! sciences B but they re neverthe!ess re ! nd #erm nent nd c n- sometimes with some modific tionse si!y be resuscit ted or renov ted& It shou!d be sim#!y recog> nized th t there is this difference between the methods nd ims of the n tur ! sciences nd the hum nities& (ow to define this difference is com#!e@ #rob!em& As e r!y s 1;;5- 1i!he!m Di!they wor,ed out the distinction between the methods of n tur ! science nd those of history in terms of contr st between e@#! n tion nd com#rehension& 7 /he scientistDi!they rgued- ccounts for n event in terms of its c us ! nte> cedents- whi!e the histori n tries to underst nd its me ning& /his #rocess of underst nding is necess ri!y individu ! nd even sub>

Bective& A ye r ! ter- 1i!he!m 1inde!b nd- the we!!>,nown histori n of #hi!oso#hy- !so tt c,ed the view th t the historic ! sciences shou!d imit te the methods of the n tur ! sciences& D /he n tur ! scientists im to est b!ish gener ! ! ws whi!e the his> tori ns try to gr s# the uni:ue nd non>recurring f ct& /his view w s e! bor ted nd somewh t modified by (einrich Ric,ertwho drew !ine not so much between gener !izing nd individ> u !izing methods s between the sciences of n ture nd the sciences of cu!ture& E /he sciences of cu!ture- he rgued- re inter> ested in the concrete nd individu !& Individu !s- however- c n be discovered nd com#rehended on!y in reference to some scheme of v !ues- which is mere!y nother n me for cu!ture& In

E /heory of Liter ture "r nce- A& D& Jeno#o! distinguished between the n tur ! sciences s occu#ied with the ?f cts of re#etition? nd history s occu#ied with the ?f cts of succession&? In It !y- +enedetto 9roce b sed his who!e #hi!oso#hy on historic ! method which is tot !!y different from th t of the n tur ! sciences& = A fu!! discussion of these #rob!ems wou!d invo!ve decision on such #rob!ems s the c! ssific tion of the sciences- the #hi!oso> 1 #hy of history- nd the theory of ,now!edge& ; Yet few concrete e@ m#!es m y t !e st suggest th t there is very re ! #rob!em which student of !iter ture h s to f ce& 1hy do we study Sh ,es#e reI It is c!e r we re not #rim ri!y interested in wh t he h s in common with !! men- for we cou!d then s we!! study ny other m n- nor re we interested in wh t he h s in common with !! 0ng!ishmen- !! men of the Ren iss nce- !! 0!iz > beth ns- !! #oets- !! dr m tists- or even !! 0!iz beth n dr m > tists- bec use in th t c se we might Bust s we!! study De,,er or (eywood& 1e w nt r ther to discover wh t is #ecu!i r!y Sh ,e> s#e reAs- wh t m ,es Sh ,es#e re Sh ,es#e re D nd this is ob> vious!y #rob!em of individu !ity nd v !ue& 0ven in studying #eriod or movement or one s#ecific n tion ! !iter ture- the !it> er ry student wi!! be interested in it s n individu !ity with ch r cteristic fe tures nd :u !ities which set it off from other simi! r grou#ings& /he c se for individu !ity c n be su##orted !so by nother rgument$ ttem#ts to find gener ! ! ws in !iter ture h ve !w ys f i!ed& M& 9 z mi nAs so>c !!ed ! w of 0ng!ish !iter ture- the ?osci!! tion of the rhythm of the 0ng!ish n tion ! mind? be> tween two #o!es- sentiment nd inte!!ect 3 ccom# nied by the further ssertion th t these osci!! tions become s#eedier the ne rer we ##ro ch the #resent ge6- is either trivi ! or f !se& It bre ,s down com#!ete!y in its ##!ic tion to the Kictori n ge& 4 Most of these ?! ws? turn out to be on!y such #sycho> !ogic ! uniformities s ction nd re ction- or convention nd revo!t- which- even if they were beyond doubt- cou!d not te!! us nything re !!y signific nt bout the #rocesses of !iter ture& 1hi!e #hysics m y see its highest trium#hs in some gener ! theory reducing to formu! e!ectricity nd he t- gr vit tion nd !ight- no gener ! ! w c n be ssumed to chieve the #ur#ose

of !iter ry study$ the more gener !- the more

bstr ct

nd hence

Liter ture

nd Liter ry Study =

em#ty it wi!! seemC the more the concrete obBect of the wor, of rt wi!! e!ude our gr s#& /here re thus two e@treme so!utions to our #rob!em& 'nem de f shion b!e by the #restige of the n tur ! sciences- identi> fies scientific nd historic ! method nd !e ds either to the mere co!!ection of f cts or to the est b!ishment of high!y gener !ized historic ! ?! ws&? /he other- denying th t !iter ry scho! rshi# is science- sserts the #erson ! ch r cter of !iter ry ?underst nd> ing? nd the ?individu !ity-? even ?uni:ueness-? of every wor, of !iter ture& +ut in its e@treme formu! tion the nti>scientific so!ution h s its own obvious d ngers& 8erson ! ?intuition? m y !e d to mere!y emotion ! ? ##reci tion-? to com#!ete subBec> tivity& /o stress the ?individu !ity? nd even ?uni:ueness? of every wor, of rt H though who!esome s re ction g inst f ci!e gener !iz tions H is to forget th t no wor, of rt c n be who!!y ?uni:ue? since it then wou!d be com#!ete!y incom#rehensib!e& It is- of course- true th t there is on!y one ( m!et or even one ?/rees? by .oyce 2i!mer& +ut even rubbish he # is uni:ue in the sense th t its #recise #ro#ortions- #osition- nd chemic ! com> bin tions c nnot be du#!ic ted e@ ct!y& Moreover- !! words in every !iter ry wor, of rt re- by their very n ture- ?gener !s? nd not # rticu! rs& /he :u rre! between the ?univers !? nd ?# rticu! r? in !iter ture h s been going on since Aristot!e #ro> c! imed #oetry to be more univers ! nd hence more #hi!oso#hi> c ! th n history- which is concerned on!y with the # rticu! r- nd since Dr& .ohnson sserted th t the #oet shou!d not ?count the stre ,s of the tu!i#&? /he Rom ntics nd most modern critics never tire of stressing the # rticu! rity of #oetry- its ?te@ture-? its concreteness& 10 +ut one shou!d recognize th t e ch wor, of !iter ture is both gener ! nd # rticu! r- or H better- #ossib!y H is both individu ! nd gener !& Individu !ity c n be distinguished from com#!ete # rticu! rity nd uni:ueness& 11 Li,e every hum n being- e ch wor, of !iter ture h s its individu ! ch r cteristicsC but it !so sh res common #ro#erties with other wor,s of rt- Bust s every m n sh res tr its with hum nity- with !! members of his se@- n tion- c! ss- #rofession- etc& 1e c n thus gener !ize con> cerning wor,s of rt- 0!iz beth n dr m - !! dr m - !! !iter > ture- !! rt& Liter ry criticism nd !iter ry history both ttem#t to ch r cterize the individu !ity of wor,- of n uthor- of

; /heory of Liter ture #eriod- or of n tion ! !iter ture& +ut this ch r cteriz tion c n be ccom#!ished on!y in univers ! terms- on the b sis of !iter ry theory& Liter ry theory- n org non of methods- is the gre t need of !iter ry scho! rshi# tod y& /his ide ! does not- of course- minimize the im#ort nce of

sym# thetic underst nding nd enBoyment s #reconditions of our ,now!edge nd hence our ref!ections u#on !iter ture& +ut they re on!y #reconditions& /o s y th t !iter ry study serves on!y the rt of re ding is to misconceive the ide ! of org nized ,now!edge- however indis#ens b!e this rt m y be to the student of !iter ture& 0ven though ?re ding? be used bro d!y enough to inc!ude critic ! underst nding nd sensibi!ity- the rt of re ding is n ide ! for #ure!y #erson ! cu!tiv tion& As such it is high!y desir b!e- nd !so serves s b sis of wide!y s#re d !iter ry cu!ture& It c nnot- however- re#! ce the conce#tion of ?!iter ry scho! rshi#-? conceived of s su#er>#erson ! tr dition&

C#APTE* II The Nature of :Literature; The first 'ro.&e" to confront us is! o.(ious&y! the su.<ect "atter of &iterary scho&arshi'. 7hat is &iterature= 7hat is not &iterature= 7hat is the nature of &iterature= Si"'&e as such >uestions sound! they are rare&y ans?ered c&ear&y. One ?ay is to define :&iterature: as e(erythin- in 'rint. 7e then sha&& .e a.&e to study the :"edica& 'rofession in the four@ teenth century: or :'&anetary "otion in the ear&y +idd&e A-es: or :7itchcraft in O&d and Ne? En-&and.: As Ed?in %reen&a? has ar-ued! :Nothin- re&ated to the history of ci(i&iAation is .e@ yond our 'ro(ince: B ?e are :not &i"ited to .e&&es &ettres or e(en to 'rinted or "anuscri't records in our effort to understand a 'eriod or ci(i&iAation!: and ?e :"ust see our ?or8 in the &i-ht of its 'ossi.&e contri.ution to the history of cu&ture.: 9 Ac@ cordin- to %reen&a?Cs theory! and the 'ractice of "any scho&ars! &iterary study has thus .eco"e not "ere&y c&ose&y re&ated to the history of ci(i&iAation .ut indeed identica& ?ith it. Such study is &iterary on&y in the sense that it is occu'ied ?ith 'rinted or ?ritten "atter! necessari&y the 'ri"ary source of "ost history. It can .e! of course! ar-ued in defense of such a (ie? that histo@ rians ne-&ect these 'ro.&e"s! that they are too "uch 'reoccu'ied ?ith di'&o"atic! "i&itary! and econo"ic history! and that thus the &iterary scho&ar is <ustified in in(adin- and ta8in- o(er a nei-h.orin- terrain. Dou.t&ess no.ody shou&d .e for.idden to enter any area he &i8es! and dou.t&ess there is "uch to .e said in fa(or of cu&ti(atin- the history of ci(i&iAation in the .roadest ter"s. 2ut sti&& the study ceases to .e &iterary. The o.<ection that this is on&y a >ui..&e a.out ter"ino&o-y is not con(incin-. The study of e(erythin- connected ?ith the history of ci(i&iAa@ tion does! as a "atter of fact! cro?d out strict&y &iterary studies. A&& distinctions fa&&B e9traneous criteria are introduced into &it@ eratureB and! .y conse>uence! &iterature ?i&& .e <ud-ed (a&ua.&e 9

IO Theory of Literature

on&y so far as it yie&ds resu&ts for this or that ad<acent disci'&ine. The identification of &iterature ?ith the history of ci(i&iAation is a denia& of the s'ecific fie&d and the s'ecific "ethods of &iterary study. Another ?ay of definin- &iterature is to &i"it it to :-reat .oo8s!: .oo8s ?hich! ?hate(er their su.<ect! are :nota.&e for &iterary for" or e9'ression.: #ere the criterion is either aesthetic ?orth a&one or aesthetic ?orth in co".ination ?ith -enera& inte&@ &ectua& distinction. 7ithin &yric 'oetry! dra"a! and fiction! the -reatest ?or8s are se&ected on aesthetic -roundsB other .oo8s are 'ic8ed for their re'utation or inte&&ectua& e"inence to-ether ?ith aesthetic (a&ue of a rather narro? 8indD sty&e! co"'osition! -enera& force of 'resentation are the usua& characteristics sin-&ed out. This is a co""on ?ay of distin-uishin- or s'ea8in- of &it@ erature. 2y sayin- that :this is not &iterature!: ?e e9'ress such a (a&ue <ud-"entB ?e "a8e the sa"e 8ind of <ud-"ent ?hen ?e s'ea8 of a .oo8 on history! 'hi&oso'hy! or science as .e&on-into :&iterature.: Studies are ?ritten ?ith such an assu"'tion .e@ hind the"D #enry #a&&a"Cs Introduction to the Literary #is@ tory of the Fifteenth! Si9teenth! and Se(enteenth Centuries dis@ cusses .oo8s on theo&o-y! &o-ic! and <uris'rudence! and e(en "athe"aticsB on&y E and for unaccounta.&e reasons E historio-@ ra'hy is &eft out. Thou-h #a&&a"Cs di(idin- &ine "ay see" 'ecu&iar&y ar.i@ trary! "ost &iterary histories do inc&ude treat"ent of 'hi&oso@ 'hers! historians! theo&o-ians! "ora&ists! 'o&iticians! and e(en so"e scientists. It ?ou&d! for e9a"'&e! .e difficu&t to i"a-ine a &iterary history of ei-hteenth@century En-&and ?ithout an e9tended treat"ent of 2er8e&ey and #u"e! 2isho' 2ut&er and %i..on! 2ur8e and e(en Ada" S"ith. The treat"ent of these authors! thou-h usua&&y "uch .riefer than that of 'oets! '&ay@ ?ri-hts! and no(e&ists! is rare&y &i"ited to their strict&y aesthetic "erits. In 'ractice! ?e -et 'erfunctory and ine9'ert accounts of these authors in ter"s of their s'ecia&ity. Fuite ri-ht&y! #u"e cannot .e <ud-ed e9ce't as a 'hi&oso'her! %i..on e9ce't as a historian! 2isho' 2ut&er as a Christian a'o&o-ist and "ora&ist! and Ada" S"ith as a "ora&ist and econo"ist. 2ut in "ost &it@ erary histories these thin8ers are discussed in a fra-"entary fashion ?ithout the 'ro'er conte9t! E the history of their su.<ect

The Nature of Literature 1 1 of discourse E ?ithout a rea& -ras'! that is! of the history of 'hi&oso'hy! of ethica& theory! of historio-ra'hy! of econo"ic theory. The &iterary historian is not auto"atica&&y transfor"ed into a 'ro'er historian of these disci'&ines. #e .eco"es si"'&y a co"'i&er! a se&f@conscious intruder. The study of iso&ated :-reat .oo8s: "ay .e hi-h&y co"@ "enda.&e for 'eda-o-ica& 'ur'oses. 7e a&& "ust a''ro(e the idea that students E and e(en .e-innin- students E shou&d read -reat or at &east -ood .oo8s rather than co"'i&ations or historica& curiosities. $ 7e "ay! ho?e(er! dou.t that the 'rinci'&e is ?orth

'reser(in- in its 'urity for the sciences! history! or any other accu"u&ati(e and 'ro-ressin- su.<ect. 7ithin the history of i"a-inati(e &iterature! &i"itation to the -reat .oo8s "a8es in@ co"'rehensi.&e the continuity of &iterary tradition! the de(e&o'@ "ent of &iterary -enres! and indeed the (ery nature of the &it@ erary 'rocess! .esides o.scurin- the .ac8-round of socia&! &in@ -uistic! ideo&o-ica&! and other conditionin- circu"stances. In his@ tory! 'hi&oso'hy! and si"i&ar su.<ects! it actua&&y introduces an e9cessi(e&y :aesthetic: 'oint of (ie?. There is o.(ious&y no other reason than stress on e9'ository :sty&e: and or-aniAation for sin-&in- out Tho"as #u9&ey fro" a&& En-&ish scientists as the one ?orth readin-. It is further to .e re"ar8ed that this criterion "ust! ?ith (ery fe? e9ce'tions! fa(or 'o'u&ariAers o(er the -reat ori-inatorsD it ?i&&! and "ust! 'refer #u9&ey to Ne?ton! 2er-@ son to Gant. The ter" :&iterature: see"s .est If ?e &i"it it to the art of &iterature! that is! to i"a-inati(e &iterature. There are certain difficu&ties ?ith so e"'&oyin- the ter"B .ut! in En-&ish! the 'ossi.&e a&ternati(es! such as :fiction: or :'oetry!: are either a&ready 're@e"'ted .y narro?er "eanin-s or! &i8e :i"a-inati(e &iterature: or .e&&es &ettresH are c&u"sy and "is&eadin-. One of the o.<ections to :&iterature: is its su--estion Iin its ety"o&o-y fro" 1teraJ of &i"itation to ?ritten or 'rinted &iteratureB for! c&ear&y! any coherent conce'tion "ust inc&ude :ora& &iterature.: In this res'ect! the %er"an ter" 7ort8unst and the *ussian s&o(esnost ha(e the ad(anta-e o(er their En-&ish e>ui(a&ent. The "ain distinctions to .e dra?n are .et?een the &iterary! the e(eryday! and the scientific uses of &an-ua-e. A recent dis@ cussion of this 'oint .y Tho"as C&ar8 Po&&oc8! The Nature of

1 $ Theory of Literature Literature= thou-h true as far as it -oes! see"s not entire&y satisfactory! es'ecia&&y in definin- the distinction .et?een &iterary and e(eryday &an-ua-e. The 'ro.&e" is crucia& and .y no "eans si"'&e in 'ractice! since &iterature! in distinction fro" the other arts! has no "ediu" of its o?n and since "any "i9ed for"s and su.t&e transitions undou.ted&y e9ist. It is fair&y easy to distin@ -uish .et?een the &an-ua-e of science and the &an-ua-e of &it@ erature. The "ere contrast .et?een :thou-ht: and :e"otion: or :fee&in-: is! ho?e(er! not sufficient. Literature does contain thou-ht! ?hi&e e"otiona& &an-ua-e is .y no "eans confined to &iteratureD ?itness a &o(ersC con(ersation or an ordinary ar-u@ "ent. Sti&&! the idea& scientific &an-ua-e is 'ure&y :denotati(e:D it ai"s at a one@to@one corres'ondence .et?een si-n and referent. The si-n is co"'&ete&y ar.itrary! hence can .e re'&aced .y e>ui(@ a&ent si-ns. The si-n is a&so trans'arent B that is! ?ithout dra?@ in- attention to itse&f! it directs us une>ui(oca&&y to its referent. Thus scientific &an-ua-e tends to?ard such a syste" of si-ns as "athe"atics or sy".o&ic &o-ic. Its idea& is such a uni(ersa& &an-ua-e as the characteristica uni(ersa&is ?hich Lei.niA had .e-un to '&an as ear&y as the &ate se(enteenth century. Co"'ared

to scientific &an-ua-e! &iterary &an-ua-e ?i&& a''ear in so"e ?ays deficient. It a.ounds in a".i-uities B it is! &i8e e(ery other his@ torica& &an-ua-e! fu&& of ho"ony"s! ar.itrary or irrationa& cate@ -ories such as -ra""atica& -enderB it is 'er"eated ?ith histori@ ca& accidents! "e"ories! and associations. In a ?ord! it is hi-h&y :connotati(e.: +oreo(er! &iterary &an-ua-e is far fro" "ere&y referentia&. It has its e9'ressi(e sideB it con(eys the tone and attitude of the s'ea8er or ?riter. And it does not "ere&y state and e9'ress ?hat it saysB it a&so ?ants to inf&uence the attitude of the reader! 'ersuade hi"! and u&ti"ate&y chan-e hi". There is a further i"'ortant distinction .et?een &iterary and scientific &an-ua-eD in the for"er! the si-n itse&f! the sound sy".o&is" of the ?ord! is stressed. A&& 8inds of techni>ues ha(e .een in(ented to dra? attention to it! such as "eter! a&&iteration! and 'atterns of sound. These distinctions fro" scientific &an-ua-e "ay .e "ade in different de-rees .y (arious ?or8s of &iterary artD for e9a"'&e! the sound 'attern ?i&& .e &ess i"'ortant in a no(e& than in certain &yrica& 'oe"s! i"'ossi.&e of ade>uate trans&ation. The e9'ressi(e

The Nature of Literature 1 3 e&e"ent ?i&& .e far &ess in an :o.<ecti(e no(e&!: ?hich "ay dis@ -uise and a&"ost concea& the attitude of the ?riter! than in a :'ersona&: &yric. The 'ra-"atic e&e"ent! s&i-ht in :'ure: 'oetry! "ay .e &ar-e in a no(e& ?ith a 'ur'ose or a satirica& or didactic 'oe". Further"ore! the de-ree to ?hich the &an-ua-e is inte&@ &ectua&iAed "ay (ary considera.&yD there are 'hi&oso'hica& and didactic 'oe"s ?hich cannot .e e9c&uded fro" &iterature! ?hich yet a''ro9i"ate! at &east occasiona&&y! the scientific use of &an@ -ua-e. Sti&&! ?hate(er the "i9ed "odes a''arent u'on an e9a"i@ nation of concrete &iterary ?or8s of art! the distinctions .et?een the &iterary use and the scientific use see" c&earD &iterary &an-ua-e is far "ore dee'&y in(o&(ed in the historica& structure of the &an-ua-e < it stresses the a?areness of the si-n itse&f B it has its e9'ressi(e and 'ra-"atic side ?hich scientific &an-ua-e ?i&& a&?ays ?ant so far as 'ossi.&e to "ini"iAe. +ore difficu&t to esta.&ish is the distinction .et?een e(eryday and &iterary &an-ua-e. E(eryday &an-ua-e is not a unifor" con@ ce'tD it inc&udes such ?ide (ariants as co&&o>uia& &an-ua-e! the &an-ua-e of co""erce! officia& &an-ua-e! the &an-ua-e of re@ &i-ion! the s&an- of students. 2ut o.(ious&y "uch that has .een said a.out &iterary &an-ua-e ho&ds a&so for the other uses of &an-ua-e e9ce'tin- the scientific. E(eryday &an-ua-e a&so has its e9'ressi(e function! thou-h this (aries fro" a co&or&ess of@ ficia& announce"ent to the 'assionate '&ea roused .y a "o"ent of e"otiona& crisis. E(eryday &an-ua-e is fu&& of the irrationa&i@ ties and conte9tua& chan-es of historica& &an-ua-e! thou-h there are "o"ents ?hen it ai"s at a&"ost the 'recision of scientific descri'tion. On&y occasiona&&y is there a?areness of the si-ns the"se&(es in e(eryday s'eech. ,et such a?areness does a'@ 'ear E in the sound sy".o&is" of na"es and actions. No dou.t! e(eryday &an-ua-e ?ants "ost fre>uent&y to achie(e resu&ts! to

inf&uence actions and attitudes. 2ut it ?ou&d .e fa&se to &i"it it "ere&y to co""unication. A chi&dCs ta&8in- for hours ?ithout a &istener and an adu&tCs a&"ost "eanin-&ess socia& chatter sho? that there are "any uses of &an-ua-e ?hich are not strict&y! or at &east 'ri"ari&y! co""unicati(e. It is thus >uantitati(e&y that &iterary &an-ua-e is first of a&& to .e differentiated fro" the (aried uses of e(ery day. The re@ sources of &an-ua-e are e9'&oited "uch "ore de&i.erate&y and

1 / Theory of Literature syste"atica&&y. In the ?or8 of a su.<ecti(e 'oet! ?e ha(e "ani@ fest a :'ersona&ity: far "ore coherent and a&&@'er(asi(e than 'ersons as ?e see the" in e(eryday situations. Certain ty'es of 'oetry ?i&& use 'arado9! a".i-uity! the conte9tua& chan-e of "eanin-! e(en the irrationa& association of -ra""atica& cate@ -ories such as -ender or tense! >uite de&i.erate&y. Poetic &an@ -ua-e or-aniAes! ti-htens! the resources of e(eryday &an-ua-e! and so"eti"es does e(en (io&ence to the"! in an effort to force us into a?areness and attention. +any of these resources a ?riter ?i&& find for"ed! and 'refor"ed! .y the si&ent and anony"ous ?or8in-s of "any -enerations. In certain hi-h&y de(e&o'ed &it@ eratures! and es'ecia&&y in certain e'ochs! the 'oet "ere&y uses an esta.&ished con(entionD the &an-ua-e! so to s'ea8! 'oeticiAes for hi". Sti&&! e(ery ?or8 of art i"'oses an order! an or-aniAa@ tion! a unity on its "ateria&s. This unity so"eti"es see"s (ery &oose! as in "any s8etches or ad(enture stories < .ut it increases to the co"'&e9! c&ose@8nit or-aniAation of certain 'oe"s! in ?hich it "ay .e a&"ost i"'ossi.&e to chan-e a ?ord or the 'osi@ tion of a ?ord ?ithout i"'airin- its tota& effect. The 'ra-"atic distinction .et?een &iterary &an-ua-e and e(eryday &an-ua-e is "uch c&earer. 7e re<ect as 'oetry or &a.e& as "ere rhetoric e(erythin- ?hich 'ersuades us to a definite out?ard action. %enuine 'oetry affects us "ore su.t&y. Art i"@ 'oses so"e 8ind of fra"e?or8 ?hich ta8es the state"ent of the ?or8 out of the ?or&d of rea&ity. Into our se"antic ana&ysis ?e thus can reintroduce so"e of the co""on conce'tions of aesthet@ icsD :disinterested conte"'&ation!: :aesthetic distance!: :fra"@ in-.: A-ain! ho?e(er! ?e "ust rea&iAe that the distinction .et?een art and non@art! .et?een &iterature and the non@&iterary &in-uistic utterance! is f&uid. The aesthetic function "ay e9tend to &in-uistic 'ronounce"ents of the "ost (arious sort. It ?ou&d .e a narro? conce'tion of &iterature to e9c&ude a&& 'ro'a-anda art or didactic and satirica& 'oetry. 7e ha(e to reco-niAe transitiona& for"s &i8e the essay! .io-ra'hy! and "uch rhetorica& &iterature. In different 'eriods of history the rea&" of the aesthetic function see"s to e9'and or to contract D the 'ersona& &etter! at ti"es! ?as an art for"! as ?as the ser"on! ?hi&e today! in a-ree"ent ?ith the conte"'orary tendency a-ainst the confusion of -enres! there a''ears a narro?in- of the aesthetic function! a "ar8ed

The Nature of Literature 1 5 stress on 'urity of art! a reaction a-ainst 'an@aestheticis" and its c&ai"s as (oiced .y the aesthetics of the &ate nineteenth century. It see"s! ho?e(er! .est to consider as &iterature on&y ?or8s in ?hich the aesthetic function is do"inant! ?hi&e ?e can reco-niAe that there are aesthetic e&e"ents! such as sty&e and co"'osition! in ?or8s ?hich ha(e a co"'&ete&y different! non@aesthetic 'ur@ 'ose! such as scientific treatises! 'hi&oso'hica& dissertations! 'o&iti@ ca& 'a"'h&ets! ser"ons. 2ut the nature of &iterature e"er-es "ost c&ear&y under the referentia& as'ect. The center of &iterary art is o.(ious&y to .e found in the traditiona& -enres of the &yric! the e'ic! the dra"a. In a&& of the"! the reference is to a ?or&d of fiction! of i"a-ina@ tion. The state"ents in a no(e&! in a 'oe"! or in a dra"a are not &itera&&y true 5 they are not &o-ica& 'ro'ositions. There is a cen@ tra& and i"'ortant difference .et?een a state"ent! e(en in a historica& no(e& or a no(e& .y 2a&Aac ?hich see"s to con(ey :infor"ation: a.out actua& ha''enin-s! and the sa"e infor"a@ tion a''earin- in a .oo8 of history or socio&o-y. E(en in the su.@ <ecti(e &yric! the :I: of the 'oet is a fictiona&! dra"atic :I.: A character in a no(e& differs fro" a historica& fi-ure or a fi-ure in rea& &ife. #e is "ade on&y of the sentences descri.in- hi" or 'ut into his "outh .y the author. #e has no 'ast! no future! and so"eti"es no continuity of &ife. This e&e"entary ref&ection dis@ 'oses of "uch criticis" de(oted to #a"&et in 7itten.er-! the inf&uence of #a"&etCs father on his son! the s&i" and younFa&staff in +aurice +or-annCs a.surd&y o(er'raised essay! :The %ir&hood of Sha8es'eareCs #eroines!: the >uestion of :ho? "any chi&dren had Lady +ac.eth.: / Ti"e and s'ace in a no(e& are not those of rea& &ife. E(en an a''arent&y "ost rea&istic no(e&! the (ery :s&ice of &ife: of the natura&ist! is constructed accordin- to certain artistic con(entions. Es'ecia&&y fro" a &ater historica& 'ers'ecti(e ?e see ho? si"i&ar are natura&istic no(e&s in choice of the"e! ty'e of characteriAation! e(ents se&ected or ad"itted! ?ays of conductin- dia&o-ue. 7e discern! &i8e?ise! the e9tre"e con(entiona&ity of e(en the "ost natura&istic dra"a not on&y in its assu"'tion of a scenic fra"e .ut in the ?ay s'ace and ti"e are hand&ed! the ?ay e(en the su''osed&y rea&istic dia@ &o-ue is se&ected and conducted! and the ?ay characters enter and &ea(e the sta-e. 5 7hate(er the distinctions .et?een The

1 3 Theory of Literature Te"'est and A Do&&Cs #ouse! they share in this dra"atic con@ (entiona&ity. If ?e reco-niAe :nationa&ity!: :in(ention!: or :i"a-ination: as the distin-uishin- trait of &iterature! ?e thin8 thus of &iterature in ter"s of #o"er! Dante! Sha8es'eare! 2a&Aac! Geats rather than of Cicero or +ontai-ne! 2ossuet! or E"erson. Ad"itted&y! there ?i&& .e :.oundary: cases! ?or8s &i8e P&atoCs *e'u.&ic to ?hich it ?ou&d .e difficu&t to deny! at &east in the -reat "yths!

'assa-es of :in(ention: and :fictiona&ity!: ?hi&e they are at the sa"e ti"e 'ri"ari&y ?or8s of 'hi&oso'hy. This conce'tion of &iterature is descri'ti(e! not e(a&uati(e. No ?ron- is done to a -reat and inf&uentia& ?or8 .y re&e-atin- it to rhetoric! to 'hi&oso'hy! to 'o&itica& 'a"'h&eteerin-! a&& of ?hich "ay 'ose 'ro.&e"s of aesthetic ana&ysis! of sty&istics and co"'osition! si"i@ &ar or identica& to those 'resented .y &iterature! .ut ?here the centra& >ua&ity of fictiona&ity ?i&& .e a.sent. This conce'tion ?i&& thus inc&ude in it a&& 8inds of fiction! e(en the ?orst no(e&! the ?orst 'oe"! the ?orst dra"a. C&assification as art shou&d .e distin-uished fro" e(a&uation. One co""on "isunderstandin- "ust .e re"o(ed. :I"a-ina@ ti(e: &iterature need not use i"a-es. Poetic &an-ua-e is 'er@ "eated ?ith i"a-ery! .e-innin- ?ith the si"'&est fi-ures and cu&"inatin- in the tota& a&&@inc&usi(e "ytho&o-ica& syste"s of a 2&a8e or ,eats. 2ut i"a-ery is not essentia& to fictiona& state@ "ent and hence to "uch &iterature. There are -ood co"'&ete&y i"a-e&ess 'oe"s < there is e(en a :'oetry of state"ent.: I"a-ery! .esides! shou&d not .e confused ?ith actua&! sensuous! (isua& i"a-e@"a8in-. 1nder the inf&uence of #e-e&! nineteenth@ century aestheticians such as ischer and Eduard (on #art"ann ar-ued that a&& art is the :sensuous shinin- forth of the idea!: ?hi&e another schoo& IFied&er! #i&de.rand! *ieh&J s'o8e of a&& art as :'ure (isi.i&ity.: 3 2ut "uch -reat &iterature does not e(o8e sensuous i"a-es! or! if it does! it does so on&y incidenta&&y! oc@ casiona&&y! and inter"ittent&y. 4. In the de'iction e(en of a fic@ tiona& character the ?riter "ay not su--est (isua& i"a-es at a&&. 7e scarce&y can (isua&iAe any of Dostoe(s8yCs or #enry Ka"esCs characters! ?hi&e ?e &earn to 8no? their states of "ind! their "oti(ations! e(a&uations! attitudes! and desires (ery co"'&ete&y. At the "ost! a ?riter su--ests so"e sche"atiAed out&ine or

The Nature of Literature I K one sin-&e 'hysica& trait E the fre>uent 'ractice of To&stoy or Tho"as +ann. The fact that ?e o.<ect to "any i&&ustrations! thou-h .y -ood artists and! in so"e cases Ie.-.! Thac8erayCsJ! e(en .y the author hi"se&f! sho?s that the ?riter 'resents us on&y ?ith such a sche"atiAed out&ine as is not "eant to .e fi&&ed out in detai&. If ?e had to (isua&iAe e(ery "eta'hor in 'oetry ?e ?ou&d .eco"e co"'&ete&y .e?i&dered and confused. 7hi&e there are readers -i(en to (isua&iAin- and there are 'assa-es in &iterature ?here such i"a-inin-s see" re>uired .y the te9t! the 'sycho@ &o-ica& >uestion shou&d not .e confused ?ith ana&ysis of the 'oetCs sy".o&ic de(ices. These de(ices are &ar-e&y the or-aniAa@ tion of "enta& 'rocesses ?hich occur a&so outside of &iterature. Thus "eta'hor is &atent in "uch of our e(eryday &an-ua-e and o(ert in s&an- and 'o'u&ar 'ro(er.s. The "ost a.stract ter"s! .y "eta'horica& transfer! deri(e fro" u&ti"ate&y 'hysica& re&a@ tionshi's Lco"'rehend! define! e&i"inate! su.stance! su.<ect! hy@ 'othesisM. Poetry re(i(es and "a8es us conscious of this "eta@

'horica& character of &an-ua-e! <ust as it uses the sy".o&s and "yths of our ci(i&iAationD C&assica&! Teutonic! Ce&tic! and Christian. A&& these distinctions .et?een &iterature and non@&iterature ?hich ?e ha(e discussed E 'ersona& e9'ression! rea&iAation and e9'&oitation of the "ediu"! &ac8 of 'ractica& 'ur'ose! and! of course! fictiona&ity E are restate"ents! ?ithin a fra"e?or8 of se"antic ana&ysis! of a-e@o&d aesthetic ter"s such as :unity in (ariety!: :disinterested conte"'&ation!: :aesthetic distance!: :fra"in-!: and :in(ention!: :i"itation.: Each of the" de@ scri.es one as'ect of the &iterary ?or8! one characteristic feature of its se"antic directions. None is itse&f satisfactory. At &east one resu&t shou&d e"er-eD a &iterary ?or8 of art is not a si"'&e o.<ect .ut rather a hi-h&y co"'&e9 or-aniAation of a stratified character ?ith "u&ti'&e "eanin-s and re&ationshi's. The usua& ter"ino&o-y! ?hich s'ea8s of an :or-anis"!: is so"e?hat "is@ &eadin-! since it stresses on&y one as'ect! that of :unity in (a@ riety!: and &eads to .io&o-ica& 'ara&&e&s not a&?ays re&e(ant. Further"ore! the :identity of content and for": in &iterature! thou-h the 'hrase dra?s attention to the c&ose interre&ationshi's ?ithin the ?or8 of art! is "is&eadin- in .ein- o(erfaci&e. It en@

1 ) Theory of Literature coura-es the i&&usion that the ana&ysis of any e&e"ent of an arti@ fact! ?hether of content or of techni>ue! "ust .e e>ua&&y usefu&! and thus a.so&(es us fro" the o.&i-ation to see the ?or8 in its tota&ity. :Content: and :for": are ter"s used in too ?ide&y different senses for the" to .e! "ere&y <u9ta'osed! he&'fu& B in@ deed! e(en after carefu& definition! they too si"'&y dichoto"iAe the ?or8 of art. A "odern ana&ysis of the ?or8 of art has to .e-in ?ith "ore co"'&e9 >uestionsD its "ode of e9istence! its syste" of strata. )

9(A8/0R III /he "unction of Liter ture /he n ture nd the function of !iter ture must- in ny co> herent discourse- be corre! tive& /he use of #oetry fo!!ows from its n ture$ every obBect or c! ss of obBects is most efficient!y nd r tion !!y used for wh t it is- or is centr !!y& It c:uires sec> ond ry use on!y when its #rime function h s ! #sed$ the o!d s#inning whee! becomes n orn ment- or s#ecimen in mu> seumC the s:u re #i no- no !onger c # b!e of music- is m de into usefu! des,& Simi! r!y- the n ture of n obBect fo!!ows from its use$ it is wh t it does& An rtif ct h s the structure #ro#er to the #erform nce of its function- together with wh tever cces> sories time nd m teri !s m y m ,e it #ossib!e- nd t ste m y thin, it desir b!e- to dd& /here m y be much in ny !iter ry wor, which is unnecess ry to its !iter ry function- though inter> esting or defensib!e on other grounds&

( ve conce#tions of the n ture nd the function of !iter ture ch nged in the course of historyI /he :uestion is not e sy to nswer& If one goes f r enough b c,- one c n s y yes 5 one c n re ch time when !iter ture- #hi!oso#hy- nd re!igion e@ist un> differenti ted$ mong the <ree,s- Aeschy!us nd (esiod wou!d #erh #s be inst nces& +ut 8! to c n !re dy s#e , of the :u rre! between the #oets nd the #hi!oso#hers s n ncient :u rre! nd me n by it something inte!!igib!e to us& 1e must not- on the other h nd- e@ gger te the difference m de by doctrines of ? rt for rtAs s ,e? t the end of the nineteenth century or more recent doctrines of ?foesie A#ureI /he ?did ctic heresy-? s 8oe c !!ed the be!ief in #oetry s n instrument of edific tion- is not to be e:u ted with the tr dition ! Ren iss nce doctrine th t the #oem #!e ses nd te ches or te ches through #!e sing& 'n the who!e- the re ding of history of esthetics or #oetics !e ves one with the im#ression th t the n ture nd the function of !iter ture- so f r s they c n be #ut into ! rge gener ! con> 14

20 /heory of Liter ture ce#tu ! terms- for com# rison nd contr st with other hum n ctivities nd v !ues- h ve not b sic !!y ch nged& /he history of esthetics might !most be summ rized s di !ectic in which the thesis nd counterthesis re (or ceAs du!ce nd uti!e$ #oetry is sweet nd usefu!& 0ither dBective se# r te!y re#resents #o! r heresy with reg rd to the function of #oetry H #rob b!y it is e sier to corre! te du!ce et uti!e on the b sis of function th n on th t of n ture& /he view th t #oetry is #!e sure 3 n !ogous to ny other #!e sure6 nswers to the view th t #oetry is instruction 3 n !ogous to ny te@tboo,6& 1 /he view th t !! #oetry is- or shou!d be- #ro# g nd is nswered by the view th t it is- or shou!d be- #ure sound nd im ge H r bes:ue without reference to the wor!d of hum n emotions& /he o#> #osing theses re ch their subt!est versions- #erh #s- in the views th t rt is ?#! y? nd th t it is ?wor,? 3the ?cr ft? of fictionthe ?wor,? of rt6& *either view- in iso! tion- c n #ossib!y seem cce#t b!e& /o!d th t #oetry is ?#! y-? s#ont neous musementwe fee! th t Bustice h s been done neither to the c re- s,i!!- nd #! nning of the rtist nor to the seriousness nd im#ort nce of the #oem D but to!d th t #oetry is ?wor,? or ?cr ft-? we fee! the vio!ence done to its Boy nd wh t 2 nt c !!ed its ?#ur#ose> !essness&? 1e must describe the function of rt in such w y s to do Bustice t once to the du!ce nd the uti!e& /he (or ti n formu! itse!f offers he!#fu! st rt if- remem> bering th t #recision in the use of critic ! terms is very recentwe give the (or ti n terms n e@tension generous enough to encom# ss Rom n nd Ren iss nce cre tive #r ctice& /he use> fu!ness of rt need not be thought to !ie in the enforcement of such mor ! !esson s Le +ossu he!d to be (omerAs re son

for writing the I!i d - or even such s (ege! found in his f vorite tr gedy- Antigone& ?)sefu!? is e:uiv !ent to ?not w ste of time-? not form of ?# ssing the time-? something deserving of serious ttention& ?Sweet? is e:uiv !ent to ?not bore-? ?not duty-? ?its own rew rd&? 9 n we use this doub!e criterion s b sis of definition of !iter ture- or is it r ther criterion of gre t !iter tureI In o!der discussions- the distinctions between gre t- good- nd ?sub!it> er ry? !iter ture r re!y ##e r& /here m y be re ! doubt whether sub!iter ry !iter ture 3the #u!# m g zine6 is ?usefu!?

/he "unction of Liter ture 2 1 or ?instructive&? It is common!y thought of s sheer ?esc #e? nd ? musement&? +ut the :uestion h s to be nswered in terms of sub!iter ry re ders- not in those of re ders of ?good !iter > ture&? Mortimer Ad!er- t !e st- wou!d find noetic e!ement in the interest of the !e st inte!!ectu ! nove! re der& And s for ?esc #e-? 2enneth +ur,e h s reminded us how f ci!e ch rge th t m y become& /he dre m of esc #e m y ? ssist re der to c! rify his dis!i,e of the environment in which he is #! ced& /he rtist c n & & - become AsubversiveA by mere!y singing- in !! innocence- of res#ite by the Mississi##i&? 2 In nswer to our :uestion- it is #rob b!e th t !! rt is ?sweet? nd ?usefu!? to its ##ro#ri te users$ th t wh t it rticu! tes is su#erior to their own se!f>induced reverie or ref!ectionC th t it gives them #!e s> ure by the s,i!! with which it rticu! tes wh t they t ,e to be something !i,e their own reverie or ref!ection nd by the re!e se they e@#erience through this rticu! tion& 1hen wor, of !iter ture functions successfu!!y- the two ?notes? of #!e sure nd uti!ity shou!d not mere!y coe@ist but co !esce& /he #!e sure of !iter ture- we need to m int in- is not one #reference mong !ong !ist of #ossib!e #!e sures but is ?higher #!e sure? bec use #!e sure in higher ,ind of ctivityi&e&- non> c:uisitive contem#! tion& And the uti!ity H the serious> ness- the instructiveness H of !iter ture is #!e sur b!e serious> ness- i&e&- not the seriousness of duty which must be done or of !esson to be !e rned but n esthetic seriousnessseriousness of #erce#tion& /he re! tivist who !i,es difficu!t modern #oetry o n !w ys shrug off esthetic Budgment by m ,ing his t ste #erson ! #reference- on the !eve! of crossword #uzz!es or chess& /he educ tionist m y f !se!y !oc te the seriousness of gre t #oem or nove!- s in the historic ! inform tion it #urveys or the he!#fu! mor ! !esson& Another #oint of im#ort nce$ ( s !iter ture function- or functionsI In his 8rimer for 9ritics- +o s g i!y e@#osits #!ur !> ism of interests nd corres#onding ty#es of criticismC nd- tthe end of his )se of 8oetry nd the )se of 9riticism- 0!iot s d!y- or t !e st we ri!y- insists on the ?v riety of #oetry? nd the v riety of things the ,inds of #oetry m y do t v rious times& +ut these re e@ce#tions& /o t ,e rt- or !iter ture- or #oetry serious!y is- ordin ri!y t !e st- to ttribute to it some use #ro#er

22 /heory of Liter ture to itse!f& 9onsidering Arno!dAs view th t #oetry cou!d su#ersede re!igion nd #hi!oso#hy- 0!iot writes$ ?& & & nothing in this wor!d or the ne@t is substitute for nything e!se& & & &? 5 /h t is- no re ! c tegory of v !ue h s re ! e:uiv !ent& /here re no re ! substitutes& In #r ctice- !iter ture c n obvious!y t ,e the #! ce of m ny things H of tr ve! or soBourn in foreign ! nds- of direct e@#erience- vic rious !ifeC nd it c n be used by the his> tori n s soci ! document& +ut h s !iter ture wor,usewhich nothing e!se does s we!!I 'r is it n m !g m of #hi!os> o#hy- history- music- nd im gery which- in re !!y modern economy- wou!d be distributedI /his is the b sic :uestion& /he defenders of !iter ture wi!! be!ieve th t it is not n rch ic surviv ! but #erm nence- nd so wi!! m ny who re neither #oets nor te chers of #oetry nd who therefore ! c, the #rofes> sion ! interest in surviv !& /he e@#erience of uni:ue v !ue in !iter ture is b sic to ny theory concerning the n ture of the v !ue& 'ur shifting theories ttem#t to do #rogressive!y better Bustice to the e@#erience& 'ne contem#or ry !ine sserts the use nd seriousness oL #oetry by finding th t #oetry conveys ,now!edge H ,ind of ,now!edge& 8oetry is form of ,now!edge& Aristot!e h d seemed to s y something !i,e th t in his f mous dictum th t #oetry is more #hi!oso#hic ! th n history- since history ?re! tes things which h ve h ##ened- #oetry such s might h ##en-? the gener ! nd #rob b!e& *ow- however- when history- !i,e !iter ture- #> #e rs !oose- i!!>defined disci#!ine- nd when science- r ther- is the im#ressive riv !- it is- r ther- contended th t !iter ture gives ,now!edge of those # rticu! rities with which science nd #hi!oso#hy re not concerned& 1hi!e neoc! ssic ! theorist !i,e Dr& .ohnson cou!d sti!! thin, of #oetry in terms of the ?gr ndeur of gener !ity-? modern theorists- of m ny schoo!s 3e&g&- <i!byR nsom- St ce6- !! stress the # rticu! rity of #oetry& S ys St cethe #! y 'the!!o is not bout Be !ousy but bout 'the!!oAs Be !> ousy- the # rticu! r ,ind of Be !ousy Moor m rried to Keneti n might fee!& 7 /he ty#ic !ity of !iter ture or the # rticu! rity$ !iter ry theory nd #o!ogetics m y stress one or the otherC for !iter ture- one m y s y- is more gener ! th n history nd biogr #hy but more # rticu! rized th n #sycho!ogy or socio!ogy& +ut not on!y re

/he "unction of Liter ture 25 there shifts in the stress of !iter ry theory& In !iter ry #r cticethe s#ecific degree of gener !ity or # rticu! rity shifts from wor, to wor, nd #eriod to #eriod& 8i!grim nd 0verym n undert ,e to be m n,ind& +ut Morose- the ?humorist? of .onsonAs 0#i> coene- is very s#eci ! nd idiosyncr tic #erson& /he #rinci#!e of

ch r cteriz tion in !iter ture h s !w ys been defined s th t of combining the ?ty#e? with the ?individu !? H showing the ty#e in the individu ! or the individu ! in the ty#e& /he ttem#ts t inter#reting this #rinci#!e- or s#ecific dogm s derived from ith ve not been very he!#fu!& Liter ry ty#o!ogies go b c, to the (or ti n doctrine of decorum- nd to the re#ertory of ty#es in Rom n comedy 3e&g&- the br gging so!dier- the miser- the s#end> thrift nd rom ntic son- the confidenti ! serv nt6& 1e recognize the ty#o!ogic ! g in in the ch r cter boo,s of the seventeenth century nd in the comedies of Mo!iere& +ut how to ##!y the conce#t more gener !!yI Is the nurse in Romeo nd .u!iet ty#eI If so- of wh tI Is ( m!et ty#eI A## rent!y- for n 0!iz beth n udienceme! ncho!i c- something s described by Dr& /imothy +right& +ut he is m ny other things !so- nd his me! ncho!y is given # rticu! r genesis nd conte@t& In some sense- the ch r cter which is n individu ! s we!! s ty#e is so constituted by being shown to be m ny ty#es$ ( m!et is !so !over- or former !overscho! rconnoisseur of the dr m fencer& 0very m n is convergence or ne@us of ty#es H even the sim#!est m n& So>c !!ed ch r cter ty#es re seen ?f! t-? s !! of us see #eo#!e with whom we h ve re! tions of sing!e ,ind C ?round? ch r cters combine views nd re! tions- re shown in different conte@ts H #ub!ic !ife- #riv te- foreign ! nds& D 'ne cognitive v !ue in the dr m nd nove!s wou!d seem to be #sycho!ogic !& ?/he nove!ists c n te ch you more bout hum n n ture th n the #sycho!ogists? is f mi!i r ,ind of ssertion& (orney recommends Dostoevs,y- Sh ,es#e re- Ibsennd + !z c s ine@h ustib!e sources& 0& M& "orster 3As#ects of the *ove!6 s#e ,s of the very !imited number of #ersons whose inner !ife nd motiv tions we ,now- nd sees it s the gre t service of the nove! th t it does reve ! the intros#ective !ife of the ch r cters& E 8resum b!y the inner !ives he ssigns his ch r> cters re dr wn out of his own vigi! nt intros#ection& 'ne might m int in th t the gre t nove!s re source boo,s for #sycho!ogists-

27 /heory of Liter ture or th t they re c se histories 3i&e&- i!!ustr +ut here we seem to come b c, to the f ct th t use the nove! on!y for its gener !ized ty#ic ! dr w off the ch r cter of 8ere <oriot from the M ison K u:uer6 nd conte@t of ch r cters& tive- ty#ic ! e@ m#!es6& #sycho!ogists wi!! v !ue$ they wi!! tot ! setting 3the

M @ 0 stm n- himse!f minor #oet- wou!d deny th t the ?!iter ry mind? c n- in n ge of science- ! y c! im to the dis> covery of truth& /he ?!iter ry mind? is sim#!y the uns#eci !izedm teur mind of #rescientific d ys ttem#ting to #ersist nd t ,> ing dv nt ge of its verb ! f ci!ity to cre te the im#ression th t it is uttering the re !!y im#ort nt ?truths&? /ruth in !iter ture is the s me s truth outside of !iter ture- i&e&- system tic nd #ub> !ic!y verifi b!e ,now!edge& /he nove!ist h s no m gic short cut to th t #resent st te of ,now!edge in the soci ! sciences which con> stitutes the ?truth? g inst which his ?wor!d-? his fiction ! re !> ity- is to be chec,ed& +ut then- be!ieves 0 stm n- the im gin tive

writer H nd es#eci !!y the #oet H misunderst nds himse!f if he thin,s of his #rime office s th t of discovering nd communi> c ting ,now!edge& (is re ! function is to m ,e us #erceive wh t we see- im gine wh t we !re dy- conce#tu !!y or #r ctic !!y,now& = It is difficu!t to dr w the !ine between views of #oetry s re !iz tion of the given nd views of #oetry s ? rtistic insight&? Does the rtist remind us of wh t we h ve ce sed to #erceive or m ,e us see wh t- though it w s there !! the time- we h d not seenI 'ne remembers the b! c, nd white dr wings in which there re conce !ed figures or f ces com#osed of dots nd bro,en !ines$ they were there !! the time- but one did not see them s who!es- s designs& In his Intentions- 1i!de cites 1hist!erAs discovery of esthetic v !ue in fog- of the 8re>R #h e!ite discov> ery of be uty in ty#es of women hitherto not seen s be utifu! or s ty#es& Are these inst nces of ?,now!edge? or ?truth?I 1e hesit te& /hey re discoveries of new ?#erce#tu ! v !ues-? we s y- of new ? esthetic :u !ities&? 'ne sees gener !!y why esthetici ns hesit te to deny ?truth? s #ro#erty nd criterion of rt$ ; # rt!y- it is n honorific term- nd one registers oneAs serious res#ect for rt- oneAs #> #rehension of it s one of the su#reme v !ues- by the ttributionC nd # rt!y- one is i!!ogic !!y fe rfu! th t if rt isnAt ?true? it is

/he "unction of Liter ture 2D ?!ie-? s 8! to- in vio!ence- c !!ed it& Im gin tive !iter ture is ?fiction-? n rtistic- verb ! ?imit tion of !ife&? /he o##osite of ?fiction? is not ?truth? but ?f ct? or ?time nd s# ce e@ist> ence&? ?" ct? is str nger th n the #rob bi!ity with which !iter > ture must de !& 4 Among the rts- !iter ture- s#ecific !!y- seems !so to c! im ?truth? through the view of !ife 31 e!t nsch uung6 which every rtistic !!y coherent wor, #ossesses& /he #hi!oso#her or critic must thin, some of these ?views? truer th n others 3 s 0!iot thin,s D nteAs truer th n She!!eyAs or even th n Sh ,es#e reAs6 5 but ny m ture #hi!oso#hy of !ife must h ve some me sure of truth H t ny event it ! ys c! im to it& /he truth of !iter ture- s we re now considering it- seems to be the truth in !iter ture H the #hi!oso#hy which e@ists- in system tic conce#tu ! form- out> side of !iter ture but m y be ##!ied to or i!!ustr ted by or em> bodied in !iter ture& In this sense- the truth in D nte is 9 tho!ic theo!ogy nd scho! stic #hi!oso#hy& 0!iotAs view of #oetry in its re! tion to ?truth? seems essenti !!y of this sort& /ruth is the #rovince of system tic thin,ers C nd rtists re not such thin,ersthough they m y try to be if there re no #hi!oso#hers whose wor, they c n suit b!y ssimi! te& 10 /he who!e controversy wou!d ##e r- in ! rge me sure- se> m ntic& 1h t do we me n by ?,now!edge-? ?truth-? ?cogni> tion-? ?wisdom?I If !! truth is conce#tu ! nd #ro#osition !then the rts H even the rt of !iter ture H c nAt be forms of

truth& Ag in$ if #ositivist reductive definitions re cce#ted!imiting truth to th t which c n be methodic !!y verified by ny> one- then rt c nAt be form of truth e@#eriment !!y& /he !tern tive to these seems some bi>mod ! or #!uri>mod ! truth$ there re v rious ?w ys of ,nowing? D or there re two b sic ty#es of ,now!edge- e ch of which uses ! ngu ge system of signs$ the sciences- which use the ?discursive? mode- nd the rts- which use the ?#resent tion !&? J1 Are these both truthI /he former is wh t #hi!oso#hers h ve ordin ri!y me nt- whi!e the ! tter t ,es c re of re!igious ?myth? s we!! s #oetry& 1e might c !! the ! tter ?true? r ther th n ?the truth&? /he dBec> tiv ! :u !ity wou!d e@#ress the distinction in center of b ! nce$ rt is subst ntive!y be utifu! nd dBective!y true 3i&e&- it doesnAt conf!ict with the truth6& In his ?Ars 8oetic -? M cLeish t>

2E /heory of Liter ture tem#ts to dBust the c! ims of !iter ry be uty nd #hi!oso#hy by the formu! #oem is ?e:u ! to$ not true?$ #oetry is s serious nd im#ort nt s #hi!oso#hy 3science- ,now!edge- wis> dom6 nd #ossesses the e:uiv !ence of truth- is truth>!i,e& Mrs& L nger stresses the #! stic rts nd- sti!! more- musicr ther th n !iter ture- in her #!e for #resent tion ! symbo!ism s form of ,now!edge& 8resum b!y she thin,s of !iter ture s in some w y mi@ture of ?discursive? nd ?#resent tion !&? +ut the mythic e!ement- or rchety# ! im ges- of !iter ture wou!d corres#ond to her #resent tion !& ?Men who fo!!ow the se -? she writes- ?h ve often dee# !ove for th t h rd !ife& +ut in their d ngerous c !!ing they fee! secureC in their comfort!ess :u rters they re t e se& 1 ters nd shi#s- he ven nd storm nd h rbor- somehow cont in the symbo!s through which they see me ning nd sense in the wor!d& & & &? 12 "rom views th t rt is reve! tion or insight into the truth we shou!d distinguish the view th t rt H s#ecific !!y !iter ture H is #ro# g nd - the view- th t is- th t the writer is not the discov> erer but the #ersu sive #urveyor of the truth& /he term ?#ro# > g nd ? is !oose nd needs scrutiny& In #o#u! r s#eech- it is ##!ied on!y to doctrines viewed s #ernicious nd s#re d by men whom we distrust& /he word im#!ies c !cu! tion- intention- nd is usu !!y ##!ied to s#ecific- r ther restricted doctrines or #ro> gr ms& 15 So !imiting the sense of the term- one might s y th t some rt 3the !owest ,ind6 is #ro# g nd - but th t no gre t rt- or good rt- or Art- c n #ossib!y be& If- however- we stretch the term to me n ?effort- whether conscious or not- to inf!uence re ders to sh re oneAs ttitude tow rd !ife-? then there is #! usi> bi!ity in the contention th t !! rtists re #ro# g ndists or shou!d be- or 3in com#!ete revers ! of the #osition out!ined in the #receding sentence6 th t !! sincere- res#onsib!e rtists re mor !!y ob!ig ted to be #ro# g ndists& According to Montgomery +e!gion- the !iter ry rtist is n ? Airres#onsib!e #ro# g ndist&A /h t is to s y- every writer do#ts view or theory of !ife& & & & /he effect of the wor, is !w ys

to #ersu de the re der to cce#t th t view or theory& /his #er> su sion is !w ys i!!icit& /h t is to s y- the re der is !w ys !ed to be!ieve something- nd th t ssent is hy#notic H the rt of the #resent tion seduces the re der& & & &? 0!iot- who :uotes +e!>

/he "unction of Liter ture 2= gion- re#!ies by distinguishing ?#oets whom it is str in to thin, of s #ro# g ndists t !!? from irres#onsib!e #ro# g ndists- nd third grou# who- !i,e Lucretius nd D nte- re ?# rticu! r!y conscious nd res#onsib!e? #ro# g ndists D nd 0!iot m ,es the Budgment of res#onsibi!ity de#end on both uctori ! intention nd historic effect& 17 ?Res#onsib!e #ro# g ndist? wou!d seem to most #eo#!e contr diction in terms C but- inter#reted s tension of #u!!s- it m ,es #oint& Serious rt im#!ies view of !ife which c n be st ted in #hi!oso#hic ! terms- even in terms of systems& 1D +etween rtistic coherence 3wh t is sometimes c !!ed ? rtistic !ogic?6 nd #hi!oso#hic ! coherence there is some ,ind of cor> re! tion& /he res#onsib!e rtist h s no wi!! to confuse emotion nd thin,ing- sensibi!ity nd inte!!ection- sincerity of fee!ing with de:u cy of e@#erience nd ref!ection& /he view of !ife which the res#onsib!e rtist rticu! tes #erce#tu !!y is not- !i,e most views which h ve #o#u! r success s ?#ro# g nd -? sim#!eC nd n de:u te!y com#!e@ vision of !ife c nnot- by hy#notic suggestionmove to #rem ture or n ive ction& It rem ins to consider those conce#tions of the function of !iter ture c!ustered bout the word ?c th rsis&? /he word H Aristot!eAs <ree,- in the 8oetics H h s h d !ong history& /he e@egesis of Aristot!eAs use of the word rem ins in dis#uteC but wh t Aristot!e m y h ve me nt- n e@egetic ! #rob!em of inter> est- need not be confounded with the #rob!ems to which the term h s come to be ##!ied& /he function of !iter ture- some s y- is to re!ieve us H either writers or re ders H from the #ressure of emotions& /o e@#ress emotions is to get free of them- s <oethe is s id to h ve freed himse!f from 1e!tschmerz by com#osing /he Sorrows of 1erther& And the s#ect tor of tr gedy or the re der of nove! is !so s id to e@#erience re!e se nd re!ief& (is emotions h ve been #rovided with focus- !e ving him- t the end of his esthetic e@#erience- with ?c !m of mind&? 1E +ut does !iter ture re!ieve us of emotions or- inste d- incite themI /r gedy nd comedy- 8! to thought- ?nourish nd w ter our emotions when we ought to dry them u#&? 'r- if !iter ture re!ieves us of our emotions- re they not wrong!y disch rged when they re e@#ended on #oetic fictionsI As youth- St& Augustine confesses- he !ived in mort ! sinC yet ? !! this I we#t not- I who we#t for Dido s! in& & & &? Is some !iter ture in>

2; /heory of Liter ture citory nd some c th rtic- or re we to distinguish between grou#s of re ders nd the n ture of their res#onseI 1= Ag in$

shou!d !! rt be c th rticI /hese re #rob!ems for tre tment under ?/he Re! tion of Liter ture to 8sycho!ogy? nd ?/he Re! tion of Liter ture to Society? C but they h ve- #re!imin ri!yto be r ised now& /h t- for #ro#er re ders- !iter ture does not nd shou!d not incite the emotions is our hy#othetic ! nswer& 0motions re#re> sented in !iter ture re- neither for writer nor for re der- the s me s emotions in ?re ! !ife?C they re ?reco!!ected in tr n> :ui!!ity? C they re ?e@#ressed? H th t is- re!e sed H by n !ysis C they re the fee!ings of emotions- the #erce#tions of emotions& /o conc!ude$ the :uestion concerning the function of !iter ture h s !ong history H in the 1estern wor!d- from 8! to down to the #resent& It is not :uestion instinctive!y r ised by the #oet or by those who !i,e #oetryC for such- ?+e uty is its own e@cusefor being-? s 0merson w s once dr wn into s ying& /he :ues> tion is #ut- r ther- by uti!it ri ns nd mor !ists- or by st tesmen nd #hi!oso#hers- th t is- by the re#resent tives of other s#eci ! v !ues or the s#ecu! tive rbiters of !! v !ues& 1h t- they s,is the use of #oetry nyhow H cm bonoI And they s, the :ues> tion t the fu!! soci ! or hum n dimension& /hus ch !!enged- the #oet nd the instinctive re der of #oetry re forced- s mor !!y nd inte!!ectu !!y res#onsib!e citizens- to m ,e some re soned re#!y to the community& /hey do so in # ss ge of n Ars 8oetic & /hey write Defense or Afo!ogy for #oetry$ the !it> er ry e:uiv !ent of wh t is c !!ed in theo!ogy ? #o!ogetics&? 1; 1riting to this end nd for this #ros#ective udience- they n t> ur !!y stress the ?use? r ther th n the ?de!ight? of !iter tureC nd hence it wou!d be sem ntic !!y e sy tod y to e:u te the ?function? of !iter ture with its e@trinsic re! tions& +ut from the Rom ntic movement on- the #oet h s often given- when ch !> !enged by the communitydifferent nswer$ the nswer which A& 9& +r d!ey c !!s ?#oetry for #oetryAs s ,e?C 14 nd theorists do we!! to !et the term ?function? serve the who!e ? #o!ogetic? r nge& So using the word- we s y- #oetry h s m ny #ossib!e functions& Its #rime nd chief function is fide!ity to its own n ture&

9(A8/0R IK Liter ry /heory- 9riticismnd (istory

As we h ve envis ged r tion !e for the study of !iter turewe must conc!ude the #ossibi!ity of system tic nd integr ted study of !iter ture& 0ng!ish ffords no very s tisf ctory n me for this& /he most common terms for it re ?!iter ry scho! r> shi#? nd ?#hi!o!ogy&? /he former term is obBection b!e on!y bec use it seems to e@c!ude ?criticism? nd to stress the c demic n ture of the study C it is cce#t b!e- doubt!ess- if one inter#rets the term ?scho! r? s inc!usive!y s did 0merson& /he ! tter term- ?#hi!o!ogy-? is o#en to m ny misunderst ndings& (is> toric !!y- it h s been used to inc!ude not on!y !! !iter ry nd !inguistic studies but studies of !! #roducts of the hum n mind& /hough its gre test vogue w s in nineteenth>century <erm ny-

it sti!! survives in the tit!es of such reviews s Modem 8hi!o!ogy8hi!o!ogic ! Mu rter!y- nd Studies in 8hi!o!ogy& +oe,h- who wrote fund ment ! 0ncy,!ofAddie und Methodo!ogie der fhi> !o!ogischen 1issensch ften 31;==- but b sed on !ectures # rt!y d ting b c, to 1;046- 1 defined ?#hi!o!ogy? s the ?,now!edge of the ,nown? nd hence the study of ! ngu ge nd !iter turesrts nd #o!itics- re!igion nd soci ! customs& 8r ctic !!y identic ! with <reen! wAs ?!iter ry history-? +oe,hAs #hi!o!ogy is ob> vious!y motiv ted by the needs of c! ssic ! studies- for which the he!# of history nd rch eo!ogy seems # rticu! r!y necess ry& 1ith +oe,h- !iter ry study is on!y one br nch of #hi!o!ogyunderstood s tot ! science of civi!iz tion- # rticu! r!y science of wh t he- with <erm n Rom nticism- c !!ed the ?* tion ! S#irit&? /od y- bec use of its etymo!ogy nd much of the ctu ! wor, of s#eci !ists- #hi!o!ogy is fre:uent!y understood to me n !inguistics- es#eci !!y historic ! gr mm r nd the study of # st forms of ! ngu ges& Since the term h s so m ny nd such diver> gent me nings- it is best to b ndon it& Another 24 !tern tive term for the wor, of the !iter ry scho! r

50 /heory of Liter ture is ?rese rch&? +ut this seems # rticu! r!y unfortun te- for it stresses the mere!y #re!imin ry se rch for m teri !s nd dr wsor seems to dr w- n unten b!e distinction between m teri !s which h ve to be ?se rched for? nd those which re e si!y v i! b!e& "or e@ m#!e- it is ?rese rch? when one visits the +ritish Museum to re d r re boo,- whi!e it ## rent!y invo!ves different ment ! #rocess to sit t home in n rmch ir nd re d re#rint of the s me boo,& At most- the term ?rese rch? sug> gests cert in #re!imin ry o#er tions- the e@tent nd n ture of which wi!! v ry gre t!y with the n ture of the #rob!em& +ut it i!! suggests those subt!e concerns with inter#ret tion- ch r cteri> z tion- nd ev !u tion which re #ecu!i r!y ch r cteristic of !it> er ry studies& 1ithin our ?#ro#er study-? the distinctions between !iter ry theory- criticism- nd history re c!e r!y the most im#ort nt& /here is- first- the distinction between view of !iter ture s simu!t neous order nd view of !iter ture which sees it #ri> m ri!y s series of wor,s rr nged in chrono!ogic ! order nd s integr ! # rts of the historic ! #rocess& /here is- then- the further distinction between the study of the #rinci#!es nd criteri of !iter ture nd the study of the concrete !iter ry wor,s of rt- whether we study them in iso! tion or in chrono!ogic ! series& It seems best to dr w ttention to these distinctions by describing s ?!iter ry theory? the study of the #rinci#!es of !iter ture- its c tegories- criteri - nd the !i,e- nd by differen> ti ting studies of concrete wor,s of rt s either ?!iter ry criti> cism? 3#rim ri!y st tic in ##ro ch6 or ?!iter ry history&? 'f course- ?!iter ry criticism? is fre:uent!y used in such w y s to inc!ude !! !iter ry theory C but such us ge ignores usefu!

distinction& Aristot!e w s theorist B S inte>+euve- #rim ri!y critic& 2enneth +ur,e is ! rge!y !iter ry theorist- whi!e R& 8& +! c,mur is !iter ry critic& /he term ?theory of !iter ture? might we!! inc!ude H s this boo, does H the necess ry ?theory of !iter ry criticism? nd ?theory of !iter ry history&? /hese distinctions re f ir!y obvious nd r ther wide!y c> ce#ted& +ut !ess common is re !iz tion th t the methods so design ted c nnot be used in iso! tion- th t they im#!ic te e ch other so thorough!y s to m ,e inconceiv b!e !iter ry theory without criticism or history- or criticism without theory nd his>

Liter ry /heory- 9riticAism y

nd (istory 5 1

tory- or history without theory nd criticism& 'bvious!y- !iter ry theory is im#ossib!e e@ce#t on the b sis of? study of concrete !iter ry wor,s& 9riteri - c tegories- nd schemes c nnot be r> rived t in v cuo& +ut- converse!y- no criticism or history is #os> sib!e without some set of :uestions- some system of conce#tssome #oints of reference- some gener !iz tions& /here is hereof course- no unsurmount b!e di!emm $ we !w ys re d with some #reconce#tions- nd we !w ys ch nge nd modify these #reconce#tions u#on further e@#erience of !iter ry wor,s& /he #rocess is di !ectic !$ mutu ! inter#enetr tion of theory nd #r ctice& /here h ve been ttem#ts to iso! te !iter ry history from theory nd criticism& "or e@ m#!e- "& 1& + teson 2 rgued th t !iter ry history shows A to derive from +- whi!e criticism #ro> nounces A to be better th n +& /he first ty#e- ccording to this view- de !s with verifi b!e f cts B the second- with m tters of o#inion nd f ith& +ut this distinction is :uite unten b!e& /here re sim#!y no d t in !iter ry history which re com#!ete!y neu> tr ! ?f cts&? K !ue Budgments re im#!ied in the very choice of m teri !s$ in the sim#!e #re!imin ry distinction between boo,s nd !iter ture- in the mere !!oc tion of s# ce to this or th t uthor& 0ven the scert ining of d te or tit!e #resu##oses some ,ind of Budgment- one which se!ects this # rticu! r boo, or event from the mi!!ions of other boo,s nd events& 0ven if we gr nt th t there re f cts com# r tive!y neutr !- f cts such s d tes- tit!es- biogr #hic ! events- we mere!y gr nt the #ossi> bi!ity of com#i!ing the nn !s of !iter ture& +ut ny :uestion !itt!e more dv nced- even :uestion of te@tu ! criticism or of sources nd inf!uences- re:uires const nt cts of Budgment& Such st tement- for e@ m#!e- s ?8o#e derives from Dryden? not on!y #resu##oses the ct of se!ecting Dryden nd 8o#e out of the innumer b!e versifiers of their times- but re:uires ,now!> edge of the ch r cteristics of Dryden nd 8o#e nd then con> st nt ctivity of weighing- com# ring- nd se!ecting which is essenti !!y critic !& /he :uestion of the co!! bor tion of +e u> mont nd "!etcher is inso!ub!e un!ess we cce#t such n im> #ort nt #rinci#!e s th t cert in sty!istic tr its 3or devices6 re re! ted to one r ther th n to the other of the two writers B other>

F2 /heory of Liter ture wise we h ve to of f ct& cce#t the sty!istic differences mere!y s m tter

+ut usu !!y the c se for the iso! tion of !iter ry history from !iter ry criticism is #ut on different grounds& It is not denied th t cts of Budgment re necess ry- but it is rgued th t !iter ry history h s its own #ecu!i r st nd rds nd criteri - i&e&- those of the other ges& 1e must- these !iter ry reconstructionists rgueenter into the mind nd ttitudes of # st #eriods nd cce#t their st nd rds- de!iber te!y e@c!uding the intrusions of our own #re> conce#tions& /his view- c !!ed ?historicism-? w s e! bor ted consistent!y in <erm ny during the nineteenth century- though even there it h s been criticized by historic ! theorists of such eminence s 0rnst /roe!tsch& 5 It seems now to h ve #enetr ted direct!y or indirect!y into the )nited St tes- nd to it m ny of our ?!iter ry histori ns? more or !ess c!e r!y #rofess !!egi nce& ( rdin 9r ig- for inst nce- s id th t the newest nd best #h se of recent scho! rshi# is the ? void nce of n chronistic thin,> ing&? 7 0& 0& Sto!!- studying the conventions of the 0!iz beth n st ge nd the e@#ect tions of its udience- wor,s on the theory th t the reconstruction of the uthorAs intention is the centr ! #ur#ose of !iter ry history& D Some such theory is im#!ied in the m ny ttem#ts to study 0!iz beth n #sycho!ogic ! theories- such s the doctrine of humors- or of the scientific or #seudo>scientific conce#tions of #oets& E Rosemond /uve h s tried to e@#! in the origin nd me ning of met #hysic ! im gery by reference to the tr ining in R mist !ogic received by Donne nd his con> tem#or ries& = As such studies c nnot but convince us th t different #eriods h ve entert ined different critic ! conce#tions nd conventionsit h s been conc!uded th t e ch ge is se!f>cont ined unity e@#ressed through its own ty#e of #oetry- incommensur te with ny other& /his view h s been c ndid!y nd #ersu sive!y e@> #ounded by "rederic, A& 8ott!e in his Idiom of 8oetry& 5 (e c !!s his #osition th t of ?critic ! re! tivism-? nd s#e ,s of #ro> found ?shifts of sensibi!ity-? of ?tot ! discontinuity? in the history of #oetry& (is e@#osition is the more v !u b!e s he com> bines it with n cce#t nce of bso!ute st nd rds in ethics nd re!igion& At its finest- this conce#tion of ?!iter ry history? re:uires n

Liter ry /heory N 9riticism-

nd (istory 55

effort of im gin tion- of ?em# thy-? of dee# congeni !ity with # st ge or v nished t ste& Successfu! efforts h ve been m de to reconstruct the gener ! out!oo, in !ife- the ttitudes- conce#> tions- #reBudices- nd under!ying ssum#tions of m ny civi!iz > tions& 1e ,now gre t de ! bout the <ree, ttitude tow rd the gods- women- nd s! ves C we c n describe the cosmo!ogy of the Midd!e Ages in gre t det i! C nd we h ve ttem#ts to show the

very different m nner of seeing- or t !e st the very different rtistic tr ditions nd conventions- im#!ied by +yz ntine nd 9hinese rt& 0s#eci !!y in <erm ny there is #!ethor of studiesm ny of them inf!uenced by S#eng!er- on the <othic m n- the + ro:ue m n H !! su##osed to be sh r#!y set off from our time!iving in wor!d of their own& In the study of !iter ture- this ttem#t t historic ! recon> struction h s !ed to gre t stress on the intention of the uthorwhich- it is ssumed- c n be studied in the history of criticism nd !iter ry t ste& It is usu !!y ssumed th t if we c n scert in this intention nd c n see th t the uthor h s fu!fi!!ed it- we c n !so dis#ose of the #rob!em of criticism& /he uthor h s served contem#or ry #ur#ose- nd there is no need or even #ossi> bi!ity of further criticizing his wor,& /he method thus !e ds to the recognition of sing!e critic ! st nd rd- th t of contem#or ry success& /here re then not on!y one or two but !iter !!y hun> dreds of inde#endent- diverse- nd mutu !!y e@c!usive conce#> tions of !iter ture- e ch of which is in some w y ?right&? /he ide ! of #oetry is bro,en u# in so m ny s#!inters th t nothing rem ins of it$ gener ! n rchy or- r ther!eve!ing of !! v !ues must be the resu!t& /he history of !iter ture is reduced to series of discrete nd hence fin !!y incom#rehensib!e fr g> ments& /he e@treme form of this historicism is the 9hic go *eo> Aristote!i nism- which- denying the #ossibi!ity of gener ! theory of !iter ture- !e ves us with uni:ue nd thus incommen> sur te nd e:u ! wor,s& 4 /he recommended rhetoric ! n !ysis c n be c rried out indifferent!y with the Divine 9omedy or the tr shiest detective nove!& A more moder te form is the view th t there re #o! r #oetic ! ide !s which re so different th t there is no common denomin tor between them $ 9! ssicism nd Rom n> ticism- the ide ! of 8o#e nd of 1ordsworth- the #oetry of st te> ment nd the #oetry of im#!ic tion&

57 /heory of Liter ture /he who!e ide th t the ?intention? of the uthor is the #ro#er subBect of !iter ry history seems- however- :uite mis> t ,en& /he me ning of wor, of rt is not e@h usted by- or even e:uiv !ent to- its intention& As system of v !ues- it !e ds n inde#endent !ife& /he tot ! me ning of wor, of rt c nnot be defined mere!y in terms of its me ning for the uthor nd his contem#or ries& It is r ther the resu!t of #rocess of ccretioni&e&- the history of its criticism by its m ny re ders in m ny ges& It seems unnecess ry nd ctu !!y im#ossib!e to dec! res the historic ! reconstructionists do- th t this who!e #rocess is irre!ev nt nd th t we must return on!y to its beginning& It is sim#!y not #ossib!e to sto# being men of the twentieth century whi!e we eng ge in Budgment of the # st$ we c nnot forget the ssoci tions of our own ! ngu ge- the new!y c:uired ttitudesthe im# ct nd im#ort of the ! st centuries& 1e c nnot become contem#or ry re ders of (omer or 9h ucer or members of the udience of the the ter of Dionysus in Athens or of the <!obe in London& /here wi!! !w ys be decisive difference between n ct of im gin tive reconstruction nd ctu ! # rtici# tion in

# st #oint of view& 1e c nnot re !!y be!ieve in Dionysus nd ! ugh t him t the s me time- s the udience of 0uri#idesA + cch e seem to h ve doneC 10 nd few of us c n cce#t D nteAs circ!es of (e!! nd mount in of 8urg tory s !iter ! truth& If we shou!d re !!y be b!e to reconstruct the me ning which ( m!et he!d for its contem#or ry udience- we wou!d mere!y im#overish it& 1e wou!d su##ress the !egitim te me nings which ! ter gener tions found in ( m!et& 1e wou!d b r the #ossibi!ity of new inter#ret tion& /his is not #!e for rbi> tr ry subBective misre dings$ the #rob!em of distinction be> tween ?correct? nd wrong>he ded re dings wi!! rem in- nd wi!! need so!ution in every s#ecific c se& /he historic ! scho! r wi!! not be s tisfied to Budge wor, of rt mere!y from the #oint of view of our own time H #rivi!ege of the #r cticing critic- who wi!! rev !u te the # st in terms of the needs of #resent>d y sty!e or movement& It m y be even instructive for him to !oo, t wor, of rt from the #oint of view of third time- contem> #or neous neither with him nor with the uthor- or to survey the who!e history of the inter#ret tion nd criticism of wor, which wi!! serve s guide to the tot ! me ning&

Liter ry /heory - 9riticism-

nd (istory 5D

In #r ctice- such c!e r>cut choices between the historic ! nd the #resent>d y #oint of view re sc rce!y fe sib!e& 1e must bew re of both f !se re! tivism nd f !se bso!utism& K !ues grow out of the historic ! #rocess of v !u tion- which they in turn he!# us to underst nd& /he nswer to historic ! re! tivism is not doctrin ire bso!utism which ##e !s to ?unch nging hum n n ture? or the ?univers !ity of rt&? 1e must r ther do#t view for which the term ?8ers#ectivism? seems suit b!e& 1e must be b!e to refer wor, of rt to the v !ues of its own time nd of !! the #eriods subse:uent to its own& A wor, of rt is both ?etern !? 3i&e&- #reserves cert in identity6 nd ?histori> c !? 3i&e&- # sses through #rocess of tr ce b!e deve!o#ment6& Re! tivism reduces the history of !iter ture to series of discrete nd hence discontinuous fr gments- whi!e most bso!utisms serve either on!y # ssing #resent>d y situ tion or re b sed 3!i,e the st nd rds of the *ew (um nists- the M r@ists- nd the *eo> /homists6 on some bstr ct non>!iter ry ide ! unBust to the his> toric ! v riety of !iter ture& ?8ers#ectivism? me ns th t we rec> ognize th t there is one #oetry- one !iter ture- com# r b!e in !! ges- deve!o#ing- ch nging- fu!! of #ossibi!ities& Liter ture is neither series of uni:ue wor,s with nothing in common nor series of wor,s enc!osed in time>cyc!es of Rom nticism or 9! ssi> cism- the ge of 8o#e nd the ge of 1ordsworth& *or is it- of course- the ?b!oc,>universe? of s meness nd immut bi!ity which n o!der 9! ssicism conceived s ide !& +oth bso!utism nd re! > tivism re f !se C but the more insidious d nger tod y- t !e st in the )nited St tes- is re! tivism e:uiv !ent to n n rchy of v !uessurrender of the t s, of criticism& In #r ctice- no !iter ry history h s ever been written without some #rinci#!es of se!ection nd some ttem#t t ch r cteriz tion nd ev !u tion& Liter ry histori ns who deny the im#ort nce of

criticism re themse!ves unconscious critics- usu !!y deriv tive critics- who h ve mere!y t ,en over tr dition ! st nd rds nd re#ut tions& )su !!y- tod y- they re be! ted Rom nticists who h ve c!osed their minds to !! other ty#es of rt nd es#eci !!y to modern !iter ture& +ut- s R& <& 9o!!ingwood h s s id very #ertinent!ym n ?who c! ims to ,now wh t m ,es Sh ,es#e re #oet is t cit!y c! iming to ,now whether Miss Stein is #oetnd if not- why not&? u

5E /heory of Liter ture /he e@c!usion of recent !iter ture from serious study h s been n es#eci !!y b d conse:uence of this ?scho! r!y? ttitude& /he term ?modern? !iter ture used to be inter#reted so wide!y by c demics th t sc rce!y ny wor, fter Mi!tonAs w s considered :uite res#ect b!e obBect of study& Since then- the eighteenth century h s been cce#ted into good nd regu! r st nding s convention ! !iter ry history nd h s even become f shion b!esince it ##e rs to offer n esc #e into more gr cious- more st b!e- nd more hier rchic wor!d& /he Rom ntic #eriod nd the ! ter nineteenth century re !so beginning to receive the ttention of the scho! rs- nd there re even few h rdy men in c demic #ositions who defend nd #r ctice the scho! r!y study of contem#or ry !iter ture& /he on!y #ossib!e rgument g inst the study of !iving uthors is the #oint th t the student foregoes the #ers#ective of the com#!eted wor,- of the e@#!ic tion which ! ter wor,s m y give to the im#!ic tions of the e r!ier& +ut this dis dv nt ge- v !id on!y for deve!o#ing uthors- seems sm !! com# red to the d> v nt ges we h ve in ,nowing the setting nd the time nd in the o##ortunities for #erson ! c:u int nce nd interrog tion or t !e st corres#ondence& If m ny second> or even tenth>r te uthors of the # st re worth studyfirst> or even second>r te uthor of our time is worth studying- too& It is usu !!y ! c, of #erce#tion or timidity which m ,es c demics re!uct nt to Budge for themse!ves& /hey #rofess to w it the ?verdict of the ges-? not re !izing th t this is but the verdict of other critics nd re ders- inc!uding other #rofessors& /he who!e su##osed im> munity of the !iter ry histori n to criticism nd theory is thor> ough!y f !se- nd th t for sim#!e re son$ every wor, of rt is e@isting now- is direct!y ccessib!e to observ tion- nd is so!ution of cert in rtistic #rob!ems whether it w s com#osed yesterd y or thous nd ye rs go& It c nnot be n !yzed- ch r> cterized- or ev !u ted without const nt recourse to critic ! #rinci#!es& ?/he !iter ry histori n must be critic even in order to be n histori n&? 12 9onverse!y- !iter ry history is !so high!y im#ort nt for !it> er ry criticism s soon s the ! tter goes beyond the most sub> Bective #ronouncement of !i,es nd dis!i,es& A critic who is con> tent to be ignor nt of !! historic ! re! tionshi#s wou!d con>

Liter ry /heory- 9riticism-

nd (istory 5=

st nt!y go str y in his Budgments& (e cou!d not ,now which wor, is origin ! nd which deriv tiveC nd- through his igno> r nce of historic ! conditions- he wou!d const nt!y b!under in his underst nding of s#ecific wor,s of rt& /he critic #ossessed of !itt!e or no history is inc!ined to m ,e s!i#shod guesses- or to indu!ge in utobiogr #hic ! ? dventures mong m ster#ieces-? nd- on the who!e- wi!! void concern with the more remote # st- content to h nd th t over to the nti:u ri n nd the ?#hi!o!ogist&? A c se in #oint is mediev ! !iter ture- es#eci !!y 0ng!ish mediev ! !iter ture- which H with the #ossib!e e@ce#tion of 9h ucer H h s sc rce!y been ##ro ched from ny esthetic nd critic ! #oint of view& /he ##!ic tion of modern sensibi!ity wou!d give different #ers#ective to much Ang!o>S @on #oetry or to the rich mediev ! !yric- Bust s- converse!y- n introduction of historic ! #oints of view nd system tic e@ min tion of genetic #rob!ems cou!d throw much !ight on contem#or ry !it> er ture& /he common divorce between !iter ry criticism nd !iter ry history h s been detriment ! to both& 15

9(A8/0R K <ener !- 9om# r tivend * tion ! ALiter ture

1ithin !iter ry studies- we h ve distinguished between theoryhistory- nd criticism& )sing nother b sis of division- we sh !! now ttem#t system tic definition of com# r tive- gener !- nd n tion ! !iter ture& /he term ?com# r tive? !iter ture is troub!e> some nd doubt!ess- indeed- one of the re sons why this im> #ort nt mode of !iter ry study h s h d !ess th n the e@#ected c demic success& M tthew Arno!d- tr ns! ting Am#ereAs use of ?,istoire com# r tive? w s ## rent!y the first to use the term in 0ng!ish 31;7;6& /he "rench h ve #referred the term used e r!ier by Ki!!em in- who h d s#o,en of ?!itter ture com# re e? 31;246- fter the n !ogy of 9uvierAs An !omie com# ree 31;006& /he <erm ns s#e , of ?verg!eichende Liter turge> schichte&? 1 Yet neither of these different!y formed dBectives is very i!!umin ting- since com# rison is method used by !! criticism nd sciences- nd does not- in ny w y- de:u te!y de> scribe the s#ecific #rocedures of !iter ry study& /he form ! com> # rison between !iter tures H or even movements- figures- nd wor,s H is r re!y centr ! theme in !iter ry history- though such boo, s "& 9& <reenAs Minuet- 2 com# ring s#ects of "rench nd 0ng!ish eighteenth>century !iter ture- m y be i!!u> min ting in defining not on!y # r !!e!s nd ffinities but !so divergences between the !iter ry deve!o#ment of one n tion nd th t of nother& In #r ctice- the term ?com# r tive? !iter ture h s covered nd sti!! covers r ther distinct fie!ds of studv nd grou#s of #rob!ems& It m y me n- first- the study of or ! !iter ture- es#eci !!v of fo!,>t !e themes nd their migr tion D of how nd when they

h ve entered ?higher-? ? rtistic? !iter ture& /his ty#e of #rob> !em c n be re!eg ted to fo!,!ore- n im#ort nt br nch of !e rn> ing which is on!y in # rt occu#ied with esthetic f cts- since it studies the tot ! civi!iz tion of ?fo!,-? its costumes nd customs5;

<ener !- 9 omf r tive N

nd * tion ! Liter ture 54

su#erstitions nd too!s s we!! s its rts& 1e must- howeverendorse the view th t the study of or ! !iter ture is n integr ! # rt of !iter ry scho! rshi#- for it c nnot be divorced from the study of written wor,s- nd there h s been nd sti!! is con> tinuous inter ction between or ! nd written !iter ture& 1ithout going to the e@treme of fo!,!orists such s ( ns * um nn 5 who consider !! or ! !iter ture s ?gesun,enes 2uhurgut? we c n recognize th t written u##er>c! ss !iter ture h s #rofound!y f> fected or ! !iter ture& /he incor#or tion into fo!,!ore of chiv !ric rom nce nd troub dour !yric is n indubit b!e f ct& /hough this is view which wou!d h ve shoc,ed the Rom ntic be!ievers in the cre tivity of the fo!, nd the remote nti:uity of fo!, rtneverthe!ess #o#u! r b !! ds- f iry t !es- nd !egends s we ,now them re fre:uent!y of ! te origin nd u##er>c! ss deriv tion& Yet the study of or ! !iter ture must be n im#ort nt concern of every !iter ry scho! r who w nts to underst nd the #rocesses of !iter ry deve!o#ment- the origins nd the rise of our !iter ry genres nd devices& It is unfortun te th t the study of or ! !it> er ture h s thus f r been so e@c!usive!y #reoccu#ied with the study of themes nd their migr tions from country to countryi&e&- with the r w m teri !s of modern !iter tures& 7 'f ! te- how> ever- fo!,!orists h ve incre sing!y turned their ttention to the study of # tterns- forms- nd devices- to mor#ho!ogy of !it> er ry forms- to the #rob!ems of the te!!er nd n rr tor nd the udience of t !e- nd h ve thus #re# red the w y for c!ose integr tion of their studies into gener ! conce#tion of !iter ry scho! rshi#& D /hough the study of or ! !iter ture h s its own #ecu!i r #rob!ems- those of tr nsmission nd soci ! setting- E its fund ment ! #rob!ems- without doubt- re sh red with written !iter tureC nd there is continuity between or ! nd written !iter ture which h s never been interru#ted& Scho! rs in the modern 0uro#e n !iter tures h ve neg!ected these :uestions to their own dis dv nt ge- whi!e !iter ry histori ns in the S! vic nd Sc ndin vi n countries- where fo!,!ore is sti!! H or w s ti!! recent!y H !ive- h ve been in much c!oser touch with these studies& +ut ?com# r tive !iter ture? is h rd!y the term by which to design te the study of or ! !iter ture& Another sense of ?com# r tive? !iter ture confines it to the study of re! tionshi#s between two or more !iter tures& /his is

70 /heory of Liter ture the use est b!ished by the f!ourishing schoo! of "rench com>

f r tistes he ded by "ern nd + !dens#erger nd g thered round the Revue de )tter ture comf ree& 1 /he schoo! h s es#eci !!y given ttention- sometimes mech nic !!y but some> times with consider b!e finesse- to such :uestions s the re#u> t tion nd #enetr tion- the inf!uence nd f me- of <oethe in "r nce nd 0ng! nd- of 'ssi n nd 9 r!y!e nd Schi!!er in "r nce& It h s deve!o#ed methodo!ogy which- going beyond the co!!ection of inform tion concerning reviews- tr ns! tionsnd inf!uences- considers c refu!!y the im ge- the conce#t of # rticu! r uthor t # rticu! r time- such diverse f ctors of tr nsmission s #eriodic !s- tr ns! tors- s !ons- nd tr ve!ersthe ?receiving f ctor-? the s#eci ! tmos#here nd !iter ry sit> u tion into which the foreign uthor is im#orted& In tot !- much evidence for the c!ose unity- es#eci !!y of the 1estern 0uro#e n !iter tures- h s been ccumu! ted C nd our ,now!edge of the ?foreign tr de? of !iter tures h s been imme sur b!y incre sed&

nd

+ut this conce#tion of ?com# r tive !iter ture? h s !so- one recognizes- its #ecu!i r difficu!ties& ; *o distinct system c n- it seems- emerge from the ccumu! tion of such studies& /here is no methodo!ogic ! distinction between study of ?Sh ,es#e re in "r nce? nd study of ?Sh ,es#e re in eighteenth>century 0ng! nd-? or between study of 8oeAs inf!uence on + ude! ire nd one of DrydenAs inf!uence on 8o#e& 9om# risons between !iter tures- if iso! ted from concern with the tot ! n tion ! !it> er tures- tend to restrict themse!ves to e@tern ! #rob!ems of sources nd inf!uences- re#ut tion nd f me& Such studies do not #ermit us to n !yze nd Budge n individu ! wor, of rt- or even to consider the com#!ic ted who!e of its genesisC inste dthey re m in!y devoted either to such echoes of m ster#iece s tr ns! tions nd imit tions- fre:uent!y by second>r te uthorsor to the #rehistory of m ster#iece- the migr tions nd the s#re d of its themes nd forms& /he em#h sis of ?com# r tive !iter ture? thus conceived is on e@tern !sC nd the dec!ine of ?com# r tive !iter ture? in recent dec des ref!ects the gener ! turning w y from stress on mere ?f cts-? on sources nd inf!uences& A third conce#tion obvi tes- however- !! these criticisms- by identifying ?com# r tive !iter ture? with the study of !iter ture

<ener !- 9omf r tivey

nd * tion ! Liter ture 71

in Its tot !ity- with ?wor!d>!iter ture-? with ?gener !? or ?uni> vers !? !iter ture& /here re cert in difficu!ties with these sug> gested e:u tions& /he term ?wor!d !iter ture-? tr ns! tion of <oetheAs 1e!t!her turI is #erh #s need!ess!y gr ndiose- im#!y> ing th t !iter ture shou!d be studied on !! five continents- from *ew Oe ! nd to Ice! nd& 0@isting courses in wor!d !iter ture!i,e the te@tboo,s nd h ndboo,s written for them- often su##!y us with sni##ets from f mous uthors nd gre t boo,s r nging from the Rig>Ked to 'sc r 1i!de nd encour ge n indis> crimin te sm tteringv gue- sentiment ! cosmo#o!it nism& /he #ossib!y #refer b!e term ?gener ! !iter ture? h s the dis d> v nt ge th t 8 u! K n /ieghem 10 h s tried to c #ture it for

r ther n rrow conce#tion in s#ecific contr st to ?com# r tive !iter ture&? According to him- ?gener ! !iter ture? studies those movements nd f shions of !iter ture which tr nscend n tion ! !ines& In #r ctice- however- it wou!d be difficu!t to determine be> foreh nd which movements re gener ! nd thus to dr w !ine of distinction between the #ure!y n tion ! nd the gener !& Most of K n /ieghemAs own boo,s re r ther convention ! investig > tions of com# r tive sort- studying 'ssi n in "r nce or the intern tion ! vogue of ?gr vey rd #oetry-? or re h ndboo,s of e@tern ! f cts nd interre! tionshi#s& 11 1h tever the difficu!ties into which conce#tion of univers ! !iter ry history m y run- it is im#ort nt to thin, of !iter ture s tot !ity nd to tr ce the growth nd deve!o#ment of !iter > ture without reg rd to !inguistic distinctions& /he #r ctic ! resu!t of such thin,ing wi!! be gener ! history- es#eci !!y of the 1estern tr dition& 'ne c nnot doubt the continuity between <ree, nd Rom n !iter tures- the 1estern mediev ! wor!d- nd the m in modern !iter tures B nd- without minimizing the im> #ort nce of 'rient ! inf!uences- es#eci !!y th t of the +ib!e- one must recognize c!ose unity which inc!udes !! 0uro#e- Russi the )nited St tes- nd the South Americ n !iter tures& /his ide ! w s envis ged nd- within their !imited me ns- fu!fi!!ed- by the founders of !iter ry history in the e r!y nineteenth century- such men s the Sch!ege!s- Sismondi- +outerwe,- nd ( !! m& 12 During the ! ter nineteenth century- this ide ! w s more c!ose!y defined nd brought ne rer to coherent view through the in> f!uence of evo!utionism& /he first theories of com# r tive !iter >

72 /heory of Liter ture ture- the boo,s by 2 r yev nd 8osnett- 15 were ! rge!y under the inf!uence of the socio!ogic ! conce#tions of (erbert S#encer nd drew f r too c!ose # r !!e!ism between the growth of institu> tions nd th t of !iter ture& +ut return to the ide !s nd mbi> tions of the gre t m sters of gener ! !iter ry historiogr #hy is overdue- wh tever modific tions we m y m ,e tod y in the de> t i!s of their methods nd however m#!er our sources of infor> m tion m y be& Liter ry history s synthesis- !iter ry history onG su#ern tion ! sc !e- wi!! h ve to be written g in& /he study of com# r tive !iter ture in this sense wi!! m ,e high dem nds on the !inguistic #roficiencies of our scho! rs& It s,s for widen> ing of #ers#ectivessu##ression of !oc ! nd #rovinci ! senti> ments- not e sy to chieve& Yet !iter ture is one- s rt nd hum nity re oneC nd in this conce#tion !ies the future of his> toric ! !iter ry studies& 1ithin this enormous re H in #r ctice- identic ! with !! !it> er ry history H there re- no doubt- subdivisions sometimes run> ning !ong !inguistic !ines& /here re- first of !!- the grou#s of the three m in !inguistic f mi!ies in 0uro#e H the <erm nic- the Rom nce- nd the S! vic !iter tures& /he Rom nce !iter tures h ve # rticu! r!y fre:uent!y been studied in c!ose interconnec> tion- from the d ys of +outerwe, u# to Leon rdo '!sch,iAs # r> ti !!y successfu! ttem#t to write history of them !! for the

mediev ! #eriod& 17 /he <erm nic !iter tures h ve been com> # r b!y studied- usu !!y- on!y for the e r!y Midd!e Ages- when the ne rness of gener ! /eutonic civi!iz tion c n be sti!! strong!y fe!t& 1D Des#ite the custom ry o##osition of 8o!ish scho! rs- it wou!d ##e r th t the c!ose !inguistic ffinities of the S! vic ! ngu ges- in combin tion with sh red #o#u! r tr ditions e@tending even to metric ! forms- m ,e u# b sis for common S! vic !iter ture& 1E /he history of themes nd forms- devices nd genres- is ob> vious!y n intern tion ! history& 1hi!e most of our genres de> scend from the !iter ture of <reece nd Rome- they were very consider b!y modified nd ugmented during the Midd!e Ages& 0ven the history of metrics- though c!ose!y bound u# with the individu ! !inguistic systems- is intern tion !& "urthermore- the gre t !iter ry movements nd sty!es of modern 0uro#e 3the Ren iss nce- the + ro:ue- *eo>9! ssicism- Rom nticism- Re !>

<ener !- 9omf r tive y

nd * tion ! Liter ture 75

ism- Symbo!ism6 f r e@ceed the bound ries of one n tion- even though there re signific nt n tion ! differences between the wor,ings out of these sty!es& 1= 'n the who!e- the im#ort nce of !inguistic b rriers w s :uite undu!y m gnified during the nine> teenth century& /his em#h sis w s due to the very c!ose ssoci tion between Rom ntic 3most!y !inguistic6 n tion !ism nd the rise of mod> ern org nized !iter ry history& It continues tod y through such #r ctic ! inf!uences s the virtu ! identific tion- es#eci !!y in this country- of the te ching of !iter ture nd the te ching of ! ngu ge& /he resu!t- in this country- h s been n e@tr ordin ry ! c, of cont ct between the students of 0ng!ish- <erm n- nd "rench !iter ture& 0 ch of these grou#s be rs com#!ete!y dif> ferent im#rint nd uses different methods& /hese disBunctions re in # rt- doubt!ess- un void b!e- sim#!y bec use most men !ive in but sing!e !inguistic medium C nd yet they !e d to grotes:ue conse:uences when !iter ry #rob!ems re discussed on!y with reg rd to views e@#ressed in the # rticu! r ! ngu ge nd on!y with reference to te@ts nd documents in th t ! ngu ge& /hough in cert in #rob!ems of rtistic sty!e- meter- nd even genre- the !inguistic differences between the 0uro#e n !iter tures wi!! be im#ort nt- it is c!e r th t for m ny #rob!ems of the history of ide s- inc!uding critic ! ide s- such distinctions re unten b!e B rtifici ! cross sections re dr wn through homogeneous m > teri !s- nd histories re written concerning ideo!ogic ! echoes by ch nce e@#ressed in 0ng!ish or <erm n or "rench& /he e@cessive ttention to one vern cu! r is es#eci !!y detriment ! to the study of mediev ! !iter ture- since in the Midd!e Ages L tin w s the foremost !iter ry ! ngu ge- nd 0uro#e formed very c!ose inte!!ectu ! unity& A history of !iter ture during the Midd!e Ages in 0ng! nd which neg!ects the v st mount of writings in L tin nd Ang!o>*orm n gives f !se #icture of 0ng! ndAs !it> er ry situ tion nd gener ! cu!ture&

/his recommend tion of com# r tive !iter ture does not- of course- im#!y neg!ecting the study of individu ! n tion ! !iter > tures& Indeed- it is Bust the #rob!em of ?n tion !ity? nd of the distinct contributions of the individu ! n tions to this gener ! !iter ry #rocess which shou!d be re !ized s centr !& Inste d of being studied with theoretic ! c! rity- the #rob!em h s been

77 /heory of Liter ture b!urred by n tion !istic sentiment nd r ci ! theories& /o iso! te the e@ ct contributions of 0ng!ish !iter ture to gener ! !iter turef scin ting #rob!em- might !e d to shift of #ers#ective nd n !tered ev !u tion- even of the m Bor figures& 1ithin e ch n tion ! !iter ture there rise simi! r #rob!ems of the e@ ct sh res of regions nd cities& Such n e@ gger ted theory s th t of .osef * d!er- 1; who #rofesses to be b!e to discern the tr its nd ch r cteristics of e ch <erm n tribe nd region nd its ref!ections in !iter ture- shou!d not deter us from the consider > tion of these #rob!ems- r re!y investig ted with ny comm nd of f cts nd ny coherent method& Much th t h s been written on the ro!e of *ew 0ng! nd- the Midd!e 1est- nd the South in the history of Americ n !iter ture- nd most of the writings on region !ism- mounts to no more th n the e@#ression of #ious ho#es- !oc ! #ride- nd resentment of centr !izing #owers& Any obBective n !ysis wi!! h ve to distinguish :uestions concerning the r ci ! descent of uthors nd socio!ogic ! :uestions concern> ing #rovenience nd setting from :uestions concerning the ctu ! inf!uence of the ! ndsc #e nd :uestions of !iter ry tr dition nd f shion& 8rob!ems of ?n tion !ity? become es#eci !!y com#!ic ted if we h ve to decide th t !iter tures in the s me ! ngu ge re dis> tinct n tion ! !iter tures- s Americ n nd modern Irish s> sured!y re& Such :uestion s why <o!dsmith- Sterne- nd Sherid n do not be!ong to Irish !iter ture- whi!e Ye ts nd .oyce do- needs n nswer& Are there inde#endent +e!gi n- Swiss- nd Austri n !iter turesI It is not very e sy to determine the #oint t which !iter ture written in Americ ce sed to be ?co!oni ! 0ng!ish? nd bec me n inde#endent n tion ! !iter ture& Is it the mere f ct of #o!itic ! inde#endenceI Is it the n tion ! con> sciousness of the uthors themse!vesI Is it the use of n tion ! subBect m tter nd ?!oc ! co!or?I 'r is it the rise of definite n tion ! !iter ry sty!eI 'n!y when we h ve re ched decisions on these #rob!ems sh !! we be b!e to write histories of n tion ! !iter ture which re not sim#!y geogr #hic ! or !inguistic c tegories- sh !! we be b!e to n !yze the e@ ct w y in which e ch n tion ! !iter ture enters into 0uro#e n tr dition& )nivers ! nd n tion ! !iter tures im> #!ic te e ch other& A #erv ding 0uro#e n convention is modified

<ener !y 9om# r tive-

nd * tion ! Liter ture 7D

in e ch country$ there re !so centers of r di tion in the individ> u ! countries- nd eccentric nd individu !!y gre t figures who set off one n tion ! tr dition from the other& /o be b!e to describe the e@ ct sh re of the one nd the other wou!d mount to ,now> ing much th t is worth ,nowing in the who!e of !iter ry history&

II 8re!imin ry '#er tions

9(A8/0R KI /he 'rdering> nd 0st b!ishingC$ of 0vidence

'ne of the first t s,s of scho! rshi# is the ssemb!y of its m teri !s- the c refu! undoing of the effects of time- the e@ mi> n tion s to uthorshi#- uthenticity- nd d te& 0normous cumen nd di!igence h ve gone into the so!ution of these #rob!ems B yet the !iter ry student wi!! h ve to re !ize th t these ! bors re #re!imin ry to the u!tim te t s, of scho! rshi#& 'ften the im> #ort nce of these o#er tions is # rticu! r!y gre t- since without them- critic ! n !ysis nd historic ! underst nding wou!d be ho#e!ess!y h ndic ##ed& /his is true in the c se of h !f>buried !iter ry tr dition such s th t of Ang!o>S @on !iter ture C but for the student of most modern !iter tures- concerned with the !iter ry me ning of the wor,s- the im#ort nce of these studies shou!d not be overr ted& /hey h ve either been need!ess!y ridi> cu!ed bec use of their #ed ntry or g!orified for their su##osed or re ! e@ ctitude& /he ne tness nd #erfection with which cert in #rob!ems c n be so!ved h ve !w ys ttr cted minds which enBoy order!y #rocedure nd the intric cies of m ni#u! tion- :uite # rt from ny fin ! signific nce which they m y h ve& /hese studies need to be criticized dverse!y on!y when they usur# the #! ce of other studies nd become s#eci !ty merci!ess!y im#osed on every student of !iter ture& Liter ry wor,s h ve been edited meticu!ous!y- # ss ges emended nd deb ted in the gre test de> t i! which- from !iter ry or even historic ! #oint of view- re not worth discussing t !!& 'r- if they re worth it- h ve h d on!y the ,ind of ttention the te@tu ! critic gives to boo,& Li,e other hum n ctivities- these e@ercises often become ends in themse!ves& Among these #re!imin ry ! bors one h s to distinguish two !eve!s of o#er tions$ 3 i6 the ssemb!ing nd #re# ring of te@tC nd 326 the #rob!ems of chrono!ogy- uthenticity- uthorshi#co!! bor tion- revision nd the !i,e- which h ve been fre:uent!y 74

D0 /heory of Liter ture

described s ?higher criticism-? rived from +ib!ic ! studies&

r ther unfortun te term de>

It wi!! be usefu! to distinguish the st ges in these ! bors& /here is- first- the ssemb!ing nd co!!ecting of the m teri !swhether in m nuscri#t or in #rint& In 0ng!ish !iter ry historythis wor, h s been ccom#!ished !most com#!ete!y- though in the #resent century few f ir!y im#ort nt wor,s !i,e /he +oo, of M rgery 2em#e- Medw !!As "u!gens nd Lucrece& nd 9hris> to#her Sm rtAs ReBoice m the L mb h ve been dded to our ,now!edge of the history of 0ng!ish mysticism nd th t of 0ng> !ish #oetry& 1 +ut there is- of course- no end to the discovery of #erson ! nd !eg ! documents which might i!!ustr te the !iter > ture or t !e st the !ives of 0ng!ish writers& In recent dec des the discoveries of Les!ie (otson on M r!owe or the recovery of the +oswe!! # #ers m y be :uoted s we!!>,nown inst nces& 2 In other !iter tures the #ossibi!ities of new discoveries m y be much gre ter- es#eci !!y in those where !itt!e h s been fi@ed in writing& In the fie!d of or ! !iter ture the ssemb!y of m teri !s h s its own s#eci ! #rob!ems- such s the discovery of com#etent singer or n rr tor- t ct nd s,i!! in inducing him to sing or to recite- the method of recording his recit tions by #honogr #h or by #honetic writing- nd m ny others& In finding m nuscri#t m teri !s one h s to meet #rob!ems of #ure!y #r ctic ! n turesuch s #erson ! c:u int nce with the heirs of the writer- oneAs own soci ! #restige nd fin nci ! restrictions- nd fre:uent!y some ,ind of detective s,i!!& 5 Such se rch m y re:uire very s#eci ! ,now!edge s- for e@ m#!e- in the c se of Les!ie (otson- who h d to ,now much bout 0!iz beth n !eg ! #rocedure to find his w y through the m sses of documents in the 8ub!ic Record 'ffice& Since the m Bority of students c n find their source m > teri !s in !ibr ries,now!edge of the most im#ort nt !ibr riesnd f mi!i rity with their c t !ogues s we!! s other reference boo,s- is undoubted!y- in m ny w ys- n im#ort nt e:ui#ment of !most every student of !iter ture& 7 1e m y !e ve the technic ! det i!s of c t !oguing nd bib!io> gr #hic ! descri#tion to the !ibr ri ns nd #rofession ! bib!iog> r #hersC but sometimes mere!y bib!iogr #hic ! f cts m y h ve !iter ry re!ev nce nd v !ue& /he number nd size of editions m y throw !ight on :uestions of success nd re#ut tion C the dis>

/he 'rdering

nd 0st b!ishing of 0vidence D I

tinctions between editions m y !!ow us to tr ce the st ges of the uthorAs revision nd thus throw !ight on #rob!ems of the genesis nd evo!ution of the wor, of rt& A s,i!!fu!!y edited bib!iogr #hy such s the 9+0L m #s out v st re s for rese rch C nd s#eci !> ized bib!iogr #hies such s <regAs +ib!iogr #hy of 0ng!ish Dr m - .ohnsonAs S#enser +ib!iogr #hy- M cdon !dAs Dryden +ib!iogr #hy- <riffithAs 8o#e D m y be guides to m ny #rob!ems of !iter ry history& Such bib!iogr #hies m y necessit te investi> g tions into #rinting house #r ctices- boo,se!!ersA nd #ub!ishersA historiesC nd they re:uire ,now!edge of #rintersA devices- w ter>

m r,s- ty#e fonts- com#ositorsA #r ctices- nd bindings& Some> thing !i,e !ibr ry science- or cert in!y n immense erudition on the history of boo, #roduction- is needed to decide :uestions which- by their im#!ic tions s to d te- order of editions- etc&m y be im#ort nt for !iter ry history& ?Descri#tive? bib!iog> r #hy- which uses !! the rts of co!! ting nd e@ mining of the ctu ! m ,e>u# of boo,- must thus be distinguished from ?enumer tive? bib!iogr #hy- the com#i!ing of boo, !ists which give descri#tive d t on!y sufficient for identific tion& E 'nce the #re!imin ry t s, of ssemb!y nd c t !oguing is com#!eted- the #rocess of editing begins& 0diting is often n e@treme!y com#!e@ series of ! bors- inc!usive of both inter#re> t tion nd historic ! rese rch& /here re editions which in the introductions nd notes cont in im#ort nt criticism& Indeed- n edition m y be com#!e@ of !most every ,ind of !iter ry study& 0ditions h ve #! yed very im#ort nt ro!e in the history of !iter ry studies $ they m y H to :uote recent e@ m#!e- !i,e "& *& RobinsonAs edition of 9h ucer H serve s re#ository of !e rn> ing- s h ndboo, of !! the ,now!edge bout n uthor& +ut t ,en in its centr ! me ning s the est b!ishment of the te@t of wor,- editing h s its own #rob!ems- mong which ctu ! ?te@> tu ! criticism? is high!y deve!o#ed techni:ue with !ong his> tory es#eci !!y in c! ssic ! nd +ib!ic ! scho! rshi#& = 'ne must distinguish r ther sh r#!y between the #rob!ems which rise in editing c! ssic ! or mediev ! MSS on the one h nd nd- on the other- #rinted m tter& MS m teri !s wi!! neces> sit te- first,now!edge of # !eogr #hystudy which h s est b!ished very subt!e criteri for the d ting of MSS nd h s #roduced usefu! m nu !s for the deci#hering of bbrevi tions& ;

D2 /heory of Liter ture Much h s been done to tr ce the e@ ct #rovenience of MSS to s#ecific mon steries of cert in #eriod& Kery com#!e@ :uestions of the e@ ct re! tionshi#s between these MSS m y rise& An investig tion shou!d !e d to c! ssific tion which c n be m de gr #hic !!y c!e r by the construction of #edigree& 4 In recent dec des Dom (enri Muentin nd 1& 1& <reg 10 h ve wor,ed out e! bor te techni:ues for which they c! im scientific cert intythough other scho! rs- such s +edier nd She# rd- 11 h ve r> gued th t there is no com#!ete!y obBective method of est b!ishing c! ssific tions& 1hi!e this is h rd!y the #! ce to re ch decision on such :uestion- we wou!d !e n tow rd the ! tter view& 1e wou!d conc!ude th t- in most c ses- it is dvis b!e to edit the MS which is dBudged to be ne rest the uthorAs own without ttem#ting the reconstruction of some hy#othetic ! ?origin !&? /he edition wi!!- of course- dr w u#on the resu!ts of co!! tionnd the choice of the MS itse!f wi!! be determined by study of the who!e MS tr dition& /he e@#eriences with the si@ty sur> viving MSS of 8iers 8!owm n nd the eighty>three MSS of the 9 nterbury / !es 12 !e d- we thin,- to conc!usions most!y un> f vor b!e to the ide th t there ever e@isted n uthorized re> cension or rchety#e n !ogous to the definitive edition of

modern wor,& /he #rocess of recension- i&e&- constructing stemm or #edi> gree- must be distinguished from ctu ! te@tu ! criticism nd emend tion- which wi!!- of course- be b sed on these c! ssific > tions but wi!! h ve to t ,e into consider tion other #oints of view nd criteri th n those derived mere!y from the MS tr di> tion& 15 0mend tion m y use the criterion of ?genuineness-? i&e&- deriv tion of # rticu! r word or # ss ge from the o!dest nd best 3i&e&- most uthorit tive6 MS D but it wi!! h ve to intro> duce distinct consider tions of ?correctness? such s !inguistic criteri - historic ! criteri - nd fin !!y un void b!e #sycho!ogic ! criteri & 'therwise we cou!d not e!imin te ?mech nic !? errorsmisre dings- miswritings- ssoci tions- or even conscious ch nges of the scribes& Much must be !eft- fter !!- to the !uc,y guess> wor, of the critic- to his t ste nd !inguistic fee!ing& Modern editors h ve- we thin, right!y- become more nd more re!uct nt to indu!ge in such guesses- but the re ction in f vor of the di#!o> m tic te@t seems to h ve gone too f r when the editor re#roduces

/he 'rdering

nd 0st b!ishing of 0vidence D5

!! bbrevi tions nd scrib ! errors nd !! the v g ries of the origin ! #unctu tion& /his m y be im#ort nt for other editors or sometimes for !inguists but is need!ess im#ediment for the !iter ry scho! r& 1e #!e d not for modernized te@ts but for re d> b!e te@ts which wi!! void unnecess ry guesses nd ch nges nd give re son b!e he!# by minimizing ttention to #ure!y scrib ! conventions nd h bits& /he #rob!ems of editing #rinted m teri !s re usu !!y some> wh t sim#!er th n those of editing m nuscri#ts- though in gen> er ! they re simi! r& +ut there is distinction- former!y not !w ys understood& In the c se of ne r!y !! c! ssic ! MSS- we re met with documents from very different times nd #! cescenturies remote from the origin !- nd hence re free to use most of these MSS- s e ch m y be #resumed to be derived from some u!tim te ncient uthority& In the c se of boo,s- howeverusu !!y on!y one or two editions h ve ny ,ind of inde#endent uthority& A choice h s to be m de of b sic edition- which wi!! usu !!y be either the first edition or the ! st edition su#ervised by the uthor& In some c ses- such s 1hitm nAs Le ves of <r sswhich underwent m ny successive dditions nd revisions- or 8o#eAs Dunci d- which e@ists in t !e st two wide!y divergent versions- it m y be necess ry- for critic ! edition- to #rint !! or both versions& 17 'n the who!e- modern editors re more re!uct nt to #roduce com#!ete ec!ectic te@ts- though one shou!d re !ize th t #r ctic !!y !! editions of ( m!et h ve been hybrids between the Second Mu rto nd the "o!io& 1ith 0!iz beth n #! ys- one m y h ve to come to the conc!usion th t sometimes there w s no fin ! version which c n be reconstructed& As in or ! #oetry 3e&g&- the b !! ds6- the hunt for sing!e rchety#e is futi!e& It w s !ong be> fore editors of b !! ds g ve u# the se rch for it& 8ercy nd Scott ?cont min ted? different versions free!y 3 nd even rewrote them6- whi!e the first scientific editors such s Motherwe!!

chose one version s su#erior nd origin !& "in !!y 9hi!d de> cided to #rint !! versions& 1D 0!iz beth n #! ys re#resent- in some w y- uni:ue te@tu ! #rob!ems$ their corru#tion is f r gre ter th n th t of most contem#or ry boo,s- # rt!y bec use #! ys were not considered worth much ttention in #roofre ding nd # rt!y bec use the MSS from which they were #rinted were often the much re>

D7 /heory of Liter ture vised ?fou! # #ers? of the uthor or uthors nd sometimes #rom#t co#y which cont ined #! yhouse revisions nd m r,ings& +esides- there w s s#eci ! c! ss of b d ?:u rtos? which were ## rent!y #rinted either from memori ! reconstruction or from ctorsA fr gment ry # rts or #ossib!y from #rimitive shorth nd version& In recent dec des- very much ttention h s been # id to these #rob!ems- nd the Mu rtos of Sh ,es#e re h ve been re> c! ssified fter the discoveries of 8o!! rd nd <reg& 1E 8o!! rd demonstr ted- on the b sis of #ure!y ?bib!iotic? ,now!edge- such s w term r,s nd ty#e fonts- th t cert in Mu rtos of Sh ,e> s#e reAs #! ys were #ur#ose!y nted ted though ctu !!y #rinted in 1 E14 s #re# r tion for co!!ected edition which did not m teri !ize& A c!ose study of 0!iz beth n h ndwriting- # rt!y b sed on the ssum#tion th t two # ges in the #reserved MS of #! y Sir /hom s More re in the h ndwriting of Sh ,es#e re him> se!f- 1= h s h d im#ort nt im#!ic tions for te@tu ! criticism- m ,> ing it now #ossib!e to c! ssify the !i,e!y misre dings of the 0!iz > beth n com#ositor- whi!e study of #rinting house #r ctices h s shown wh t errors re !i,e!y or #ossib!e& +ut the wide m rgin which is sti!! !eft for the individu ! editor in emending shows th t no re !!y ?obBective? method of te@tu ! criticism h s been discovered& 9ert in!y- m ny of the emend tions introduced by Dover 1i!son into his 9 mbridge edition seem s wi!d nd un> necess ry guesswor, s some #roduced by eighteenth>century editors& +ut it is interesting th t /heob !dAs bri!!i nt guesswhich- in Mrs& Muic,!yAs ccount of " !st f8s de th- ch nged the nonsensic ! ?t b!e of green fie!ds? into ? b bb!ed of green fie!ds? is su##orted by the study of 0!iz beth n h ndwriting nd s#e!!ing- i&e&- ? b b!d? cou!d h ve e si!y been mist ,en for ? t b!e&? /he convincing rguments th t the Mu rtos 3with the e@ce#> tion of few b d ones6 were most #rob b!y either #rinted from the uthorAs MS or from #rom#tboo, h ve restored uthority to the e r!ier editions nd h ve somewh t reduced the vener > tion in which the "o!io h d been he!d since the d ys of Dr& .ohnson& /he 0ng!ish te@tu ! scho! rs who- r ther mis!e d> ing!y- c !! themse!ves ?bib!iogr #hers? 3Mc2errow- <reg- 8o!> ! rd- Dover 1i!son- etc&6 h ve tried to scert in- in e ch c se-

/he 'rdering

nd 0st b!ishing of 0vidence DD

wh t the MS uthority for e ch Mu rto m y h ve been- nd h ve used these theories- on!y # rti !!y rrived t on the b sis of strict!y bib!iogr #hic ! investig tion- for e! bor te hy#otheses on the genesis- revisions- !ter tions- co!! bor tions- etc&- of Sh ,es#e reAs #! ys& /heir #reoccu# tion is on!y # rt!y with te@> tu ! criticism B es#eci !!y the wor, of Dover 1i!son more !egiti> m te!y be!ongs to ?higher criticism&? 1i!son m ,es very ! rge c! ims for the method$ ?1e c n t times cree# into the com#ositorAs s,in nd c tch g!im#ses of the MS through his eyes& /he door of Sh ,es#e reAs wor,sho# st nds B r&? 1; *o doubt- the ?bib!iogr #hers? h ve thrown some !ight on the com#osition of 0!iz beth n #! ys nd h ve suggested- nd #ossib!y #roved- m ny tr ces of revision nd !ter tion& +ut m ny of Dover 1i!sonAs hy#otheses seem f nci> fu! constructions for which evidence seems very s!ight or even com#!ete!y ! c,ing& /hus- Dover 1i!son h s constructed the genesis of /he /emfest& (e c! ims th t the !ong e@#osition scene #oints to the e@istence of n e r!ier version in which the #re>history of the #!ot h s been to!d s !oose!y constructed dr m in the sty!e of /he 1interAs / !e& +ut the s!ight incon> sistencies nd irregu! rities in !ine rr ngement- etc&- c nnot yie!d even #resum#tive evidence for such f rfetched nd need> !ess f ncies& 14 /e@tu ! criticism h s been most successfu!- but !so most un> cert in- in the c se of 0!iz beth n #! ys B but it is needed !so in m ny ## rent!y f r more we!!> uthentic ted boo,s& 8 sc ! nd <oethe- . ne Austen- nd even /ro!!o#e h ve benefited from the meticu!ous ttention of modern editors- 20 even though some of these studies h ve degener ted into mere !ists of #rint> ing house h bits nd com#ositorsA v g ries& In #re# ring n edition- one shou!d ,ee# firm!y in mind its #ur#ose nd its #resumed #ub!ic& /here wi!! be one st nd rd of editing for n udience of other te@tu ! scho! rs- who w nt to com# re the minutest differences between e@istent versionsnd nother st nd rd for the gener ! re der- who h s but mod> er te interest in v ri tions of s#e!!ing or even in the minor dif> ferences between editions& 0diting #resents other #rob!ems th n th t of est b!ishing correct te@t& 21 In co!!ected edition there rise :uestions of

DE /heory of Liter ture inc!usion nd e@c!usion- rr ngement- nnot tion- etc&- which m y v ry gre t!y from c se to c se& 8rob b!y the most usefu! edition for the scho! r is com#!ete edition in strict!y chrono> !ogic ! order- but such n ide ! m y be very difficu!t or im#os> sib!e to re ch& 9hrono!ogic ! rr ngement m y be #ure!y con> Bectur ! or m y disso!ve the rtistic grou#ing of #oems within co!!ection& /he !iter ry re der wi!! obBect to the mi@ture of

the gre t nd the trivi !- if we #rint side by side n ode of 2e tsA with Bocu! r #oem inc!uded in contem#or ry !etter& 1e wou!d w nt to #reserve the rtistic rr ngement of + ude> ! ireAs "!eurs du M i or 9onr d "erdin nd MeyerAs <edichtebut we m y h ve our doubts whether 1ordsworthAs e! bor te c! ssific tions need to be ,e#t& Yet if we were to bre , u# 1ords> worthAs own order of the #oems nd #rint them chrono!ogic !!y we wou!d run into gre t difficu!ties s to the version we h d to re#rint& It wou!d h ve to be the first version- s it wou!d f !sify the #icture of 1ordsworthAs deve!o#ment to #rint ! te revision with n e r!y d teC but obvious!y it seems w,w rd to dis> reg rd the wi!! of the #oet com#!ete!y nd to ignore the ! ter revisions- which indubit b!y were im#rovements in m ny re> s#ects& 0rnest de Se!incourt h s therefore decided to ,ee# the tr dition ! order in his new com#!ete edition of 1ordsworthAs #oems& M ny com#!ete editions- such s those of She!!ey- ignore the im#ort nt distinction between finished wor, of rt nd mere fr gment or s,etch by the #oet which he m y h ve b n> doned& /he !iter ry re#ut tions of m ny #oets h ve suffered from the overcom#!eteness of m ny current editions- inc!usive of the s!ightest occ sion ! verse or ?wor,sho#? Botting side by side with the finished #roduct& /he :uestion of nnot tion wi!! !so h ve to be decided by the #ur#ose of the edition$ 22 the K riorum Sh ,es#e re m y !egitim te!y e@ceed the te@t by the m ss of nnot tion which is su##osed to #reserve the o#inions of everybody who h s ever written on s#ecific # ss ge of Sh ,es#e re nd thus wi!! s ve the scho! r se rch through enormous bodies of #rinted m tter& /he gener ! re der wi!! need much !ess$ usu !!y on!y the in> form tion which is necess ry to com#!ete underst nding of te@t& +ut- of course- o#inions of wh t is needed m y v ry gre t!y$ some editors te!! the re der th t Mueen 0!iz beth w s

/he 'rdering

nd 0st b!ishing of 0vidence D=

8rotest nt or who D vid < rric, w s nd- t the s me timeP shir, !! re ! obscurities 3these re ctu ! c ses6& It is difficu!t to dr w the !ine g inst over nnot tion un!ess the editor is :uite cert in wh t udience nd wh t #ur#ose he h s to serve& Annot tion in the strict sense H the e@#! n tion of te@t- !in> guistic- historic !- nd the !i,e H shou!d be distinguished from gener ! comment ry- which m y sim#!y ccumu! te the m > teri !s for !iter ry or !inguistic history 3i&e&- #oint out sources# r !!e!s- imit tions by other writers6 nd form comment ry which m y be of n esthetic n ture- cont in !itt!e ess ys on s#ecific # ss ges- nd hence fu!fi!! something !i,e the function of the ntho!ogy& It m y not !w ys be e sy to dr w such ne t distinctions- yet the mi@ture of te@tu ! criticism- !iter ry history in the s#eci ! form of source study- !inguistic nd historic ! e@> #! n tion- nd esthetic comment ry in m ny editions seems dubious f shion of !iter ry scho! rshi#- Bustified on!y by the convenience of h ving !! ,inds of inform tion between two covers&

In the editing of !etters s#eci ! #rob!ems rise& Shou!d they be #rinted in fu!! even if they re the most trivi ! business notesI /he re#ut tion of writers !i,e Stevenson- MeredithArno!d nd Swinburne h s not incre sed by the #ub!ic tion of !etters which- were never me nt s wor,s of !iter ture& Shou!d we !so #rint the nswers- without which m ny corres#ondence is incom#rehensib!eI +y this #rocedure much heterogeneous m tter is intruded into the wor,s of n uthor& /hese re !! #r ctic ! :uestions which c nnot be nswered without good sense nd some consistency- much di!igence- nd fre:uent!y in> genuity nd good !uc,& +eyond the est b!ishment of the te@t- #re!imin ry rese rch wi!! h ve to sett!e such :uestions s those of chrono!ogy- u> thenticity- uthorshi#- nd revision& 9hrono!ogy is in m ny c ses sufficient!y est b!ished either by #ub!ic tion d te on the tit!e # ge of the boo, or by contem#or ry evidence of #ub!ic tion& +ut these obvious sources re often ! c,ing- for e@ m#!e- in the c se of m ny 0!iz beth n #! ys or mediev ! MS& /he 0!iz > beth n #! y m y h ve been #rinted !ong fter the first #er> form nce B the mediev ! MS m y be co#y of co#y hundreds of ye rs remote from the d te of com#osition& 0@tern ! evi>

D; /heory of Liter ture dence must be then su##!emented by evidence from the te@t itse!f- !!usions to contem#or ry events- or to other d te b!e sources& /his intern ! evidence #ointing to some e@tern ! event wi!! est b!ish on!y the initi ! d te fter which th t # rt of the boo, w s written& / ,e- for inst nce- #ure!y intern ! evidence such s c n be derived from study of metric ! st tistics in the ttem#t to est b!ish the order of Sh ,es#e reAs #! ys& It c n est b!ish on!y re! tive chrono!ogy within wide m rgin of error& 25 /hough it is s fe to ssume th t the number of rhymes in Sh ,es#e reAs #! ys decre ses from LoveAs L bourAs Lost 3which h s most6 to /he 1interAs / !e 3which h s none6- we c nnot conc!ude th t /he 1interAs / !e is necess ri!y ! ter th n /he /ern>#est 3 which h s two rhymes6& As the criteri such s number of rhymesfeminine endings- run>on !ines- etc&- do not yie!d e@ ct!y the s me resu!ts- no fi@ed nd regu! r corre! tion between chrono!> ogy nd metric ! t b!es c n be est b!ished& In iso! tion from other evidence- the t b!es c n be inter#reted :uite different!y& An eighteenth>century critic- . mes (urdis- 27 for e@ m#!ethought th t Sh ,es#e re #rogressed from the irregu! r verse of /he 1interAs / !e to the regu! r verse of /he 9omedy of 0rrors& (oweverBudicious combin tion of !! these ty#es of evidence 3e@tern !- intern !>e@tern !- nd intern !6 h s !ed to chrono!ogy of Sh ,es#e reAs #! ys which is- without doubtbro d!y true& St tistic ! methods- m in!y s to the occurrence nd fre:uency of cert in words- h ve been !so used for the est b!ishment of re! tive chrono!ogy of 8! toAs di !ogues- by Lewis 9 m#be!! nd es#eci !!y by 1incenty Lutos! ws,i- who

c !!s his method ?sty!ometry&? 2D If we h ve to consider und ted MSS- chrono!ogic ! difficu!> ties m y mu!ti#!y nd even become inso!ub!e& 1e m y h ve to resort to study of the evo!ution of n uthorAs h ndwriting& 1e m y h ve to #uzz!e over st m#s or fr n,s on !etters- e@ m> ine the c !end r- nd tr ce very c refu!!y the e@ ct migr tions of the uthor- since these m y give c!ue to the d ting& 9hrono> !ogic ! :uestions re often very im#ort nt to the !iter ry his> tori n$ without their being sett!ed- he cou!d not tr ce the r> tistic deve!o#ment of Sh ,es#e re or of 9h ucer- to t ,e e@ m#!es where the d ting is entire!y due to the efforts of

/he 'rdering

nd 0st b!ishing of 0vidence D4

modern rese rch& M !one nd /yrwhitt in the ! te eighteenth century ! id the ground- but since then controversy on det i!s h s never ce sed& Muestions of uthenticity nd ttribution m y be even more im#ort nt- nd their so!ution m y re:uire e! bor te sty!istic nd historic ! investig tions& 2E 1e re cert in of the uthorshi# of most wor,s in modern !iter ture& +ut there is ! rge #seudon> ymous nd nonymous !iter ture which sometimes yie!ds its secret- even if th t secret is nothing e!se th n n me un sso> ci ted with ny biogr #hic ! inform tion nd hence no more i!!umin ting th n the #seudonym or nonym itse!f& 1ith m ny uthors the :uestion of c non of their wor, rises& /he eighteenth century discovered th t ! rge # rt of wh t h d been inc!uded in #rinted editions of 9h ucerAs wor, 3such s /he /est ment of 9rese!d nd /he "!ower nd the Le f6 c nnot be 9h ucerAs uthentic wor,& 0ven tod y the c non of Sh ,es#e reAs wor, is f r from sett!ed& /he #endu!um seems to h ve swung to the other e@treme from the time when August 1i!he!m Sch!ege! rgued with str nge confidence th t !! the #ocry#h re Sh ,es#e reAs genuine wor,& 2= Recent!y.& M& Robertson h s been the most outst nding #ro#onent of the ?disintegr tion of Sh ,es#e re-? view which wou!d !e ve Sh ,es#e re with !itt!e more th n the uthorshi# of few scenes in the best>,nown #! ys& According to this schoo! of thoughteven .u!ius 9 es r nd /he Merch nt of Kenice re su##osed to be nothing but hotch#otch of # ss ges by M r!owe- <reene8ee!e- 2yd- nd sever ! other #! ywrights of the time& 2; Robert> sonAs method consists ! rge!y in tr cing !itt!e verb ! t gs- dis> covering inconsistencies nd !iter ry # r !!e!s& /he method is e@treme!y uncert in nd wi!!fu!& It seems b sed on f !se s> sum#tion nd vicious circ!e$ we ,now wh t is Sh ,es#e reAs wor, from cert in contem#or ry testimony 3the inc!usion in the "o!io- the entries under his n me in the St tionerAs Registeretc&6 C but Robertson- by n rbitr ry ct of esthetic Budgmentse!ects on!y cert in #ur#!e # ss ges s Sh ,es#e reAs nd denies his uthorshi# of nything th t f !!s be!ow th t st nd rd or th t shows simi! rities to the #r ctice of contem#or ry dr m > tists& Yet there is no re son why Sh ,es#e re cou!d not h ve

written #oor!y or c re!ess!y or why he cou!d not h ve written

E0 /heory of Liter ture in v rious sty!es imit ting his contem#or ries& 'n the other h nd- the o!der #remise th t every word in the "o!io is Sh ,e> s#e reAs c nnot be u#he!d in its entirety& *o who!!y definitive conc!usion c n be re ched on some of these #oints- since 0!iz beth n dr m w s commun ! rt in which c!ose co!! bor tion w s very re ! #r ctice& /he indi> vidu ! uthors were fre:uent!y sc rce!y differenti te by their sty!es& /wo uthors might we!! themse!ves h ve been un b!e to distinguish between their sh res& 9o!! bor tion sometimes #oses !most ho#e!ess t s,s to the !iter ry detective& 24 0ven in the c se of +e umont nd "!etcher- in which we h ve the dv nt ge of h ving wor, definite!y on!y by "!etcher written fter the de th of +e umont- the division between their sh res is not est b> !ished beyond controversyC nd the c se is com#!ete!y !ost with /he RevengerAs /r gedy - which h s been ssigned to 1ebster/ourneur- Midd!eton- nd M rston !tern tive!y or in v rious combin tions& 50 Simi! r difficu!ties rise in ttem#ts to scert in uthorshi# where- in the bsence of e@tern ! evidencedefinite tr dition ! m nner nd uniform sty!e m ,e detection e@treme!y difficu!t& 0@ m#!es re bund nt in the troub dours- or in eighteenth> century # m#h!eteers 3who wi!! ever est b!ish the c non of DefoeAs writingsI6- not to s#e , of nonymous contributions to #eriodic !s& In m ny c ses- however- some me sure of success c n be chieved even here& Investig tion of the records of #ub> !ishing houses- or m r,ed fi!es of #eriodic !s m y une rth new e@tern ! evidenceC nd s,i!!fu! study of connecting !in,s between rtic!es of uthors who re#e t nd :uote themse!ves 3such s <o!dsmith6 m y yie!d conc!usions of high degree of cer> t inty& 51 <& )dny Yu!est tistici n nd ctu ry- h s used very com#!e@ m them tic ! methods to study the voc bu! ry of writers !i,e /hom s 2em#is in order to est b!ish the common uthorshi# of sever ! m nuscri#ts& 52 Sty!istic methods- if # > tient!y deve!o#ed- c n su##!y evidence which- though f !!ing short of com#!ete cert inty- m ,es identific tion high!y #rob b!e& In the history of !iter ture- the :uestion of the uthenticity of forgeries or #ious fr uds h s #! yed n im#ort nt ro!e nd h s given v !u b!e im#etus to further investig tions& /hus the controversy bout 'ssi n stimu! ted the study of < e!ic fo!,

/he 'rdering

nd 0st b!ishing of 0vidence E 1

#oetry- the controversy round 9h tterton !ed to n intensified study of 0ng!ish mediev ! history nd !iter ture- nd the Ire> ! nd "orgeries of Sh ,es#e re #! ys nd documents !ed to de> b tes bout Sh ,es#e re nd the history of the 0!iz beth n

st ge& 55 Discussing 9h tterton- /hom s 1 rton- /hom s /yr> whitt- nd 0dmond M !one brought forth historic ! nd !it> er ry rguments to show the Row!ey 8oems to be modern f bri> c tions& /wo gener tions ! ter 1& 1& S,e t- who h d m de system tic study of Midd!e 0ng!ish gr mm r- #ointed to the vio! tions of e!ement ry gr mm tic ! conventions which shou!d h ve betr yed the forgery much more :uic,!y nd com#!ete!y& 0dmond M !one demo!ished the c!umsy forgeries of the Ire> ! ndsC but even they- !i,e 9h tterton nd 'ssi n- h d bon fide defenders 3such s 9h !mersm n of consider b!e !e rning6 who were not without merit in the history of the Sh ,es#e re n rese rch& /he mere sus#icion of forgery h s !so forced scho! rs to but> tress the rguments for the tr dition ! d ting nd scri#tion nd thus to go beyond cce#t nce of tr dition to #ositive rguments$ for e@ m#!e- in the c se of (roswith - the <erm n nun of the tenth century whose #! ys were sometimes su##osed to h ve been forged by 9onr d 9e!tes- the <erm n fifteenth>century hum nist- or the Russi n S!ovo o fo!,u Igoreve- which is scribed usu !!y to the twe!fth century but h s even recent!y been rgued to be forgery of the ! te eighteenth century& 57 In +ohemi - the :uestion of the forgeries of two su##osed!y mediev ! MSS- the Oe!end hor nd 2rd!ove dvur MSS- w s hot #o!itic ! issue s ! te s the 1;;0AsC nd the #ub!ic re#ut > tion of the future 8resident of 9zechos!ov ,i - /hom s M s ry,- w s # rt!y m de in these contests nd rguments which beg n with !inguistics but widened into n issue of scien> tific truthfu!ness versus rom ntic se!f>de!usion& 5D In some of these :uestions of uthenticity nd uthorshi#- very e! bor te #rob!ems of !eg ! evidence m y be invo!vedC nd !! ,inds of !e rning such s # !eogr #hy- bib!iogr #hy- !inguisticsnd history m y h ve to be invo,ed& Among recent e@#osuresnothing h s been ne ter th n the conviction of /& .& 1ise of the forgery of some eighty>si@ nineteenth>century # m#h!ets$ the detective wor,- by 9 rter nd 8o!! rd- 5E invo!ved w term r,s-

E2 /heory of Liter ture #rinting house t ctics such s in,ing #rocedures- use of cert in ,inds of # #er nd !etter fonts- nd the !i,e& 3/he direct !iter ry> be rings of m ny of these :uestions is- however- on!y s!ight $ the forgeries of Mr& 1ise- who never invented te@t- concern r ther the boo, co!!ector&6 'ne must never forget th t the est b!ishment of different d te of uthorshi# does not dis#ose of the ctu ! :uestion of criticism& 9h ttertonAs #oems re neither worse nor better for h ving been written in the eighteenth century#oint which is fre:uent!y forgotten by those who in their mor ! indign tion #unish with contem#t nd ob!ivion the wor, #roved to be ! ter #roduction& /he :uestions discussed in this ch #ter re #r ctic !!y the

on!y :uestions to which the e@istent te@tboo,s of methods nd m nu !s such s those of Morize nd Rud!er re devoted- nd they re !most the on!y methods in which Americ n gr du te schoo!s #rovide ny ,ind of system tic tr ining& Sti!!- wh tever their im#ort nce- it must be recognized th t these ty#es of study on!y ! y the found tions for n ctu ! n !ysis nd inter#ret > tion s we!! s c us ! e@#! n tion of !iter ture& /hey re Bustified by the uses to which their resu!ts re #ut&

I!! /he 0@trinsic A##ro ch to the Study of Liter ture

Introduction /he most wides#re d nd f!ourishing methods of studying !it> er ture concern themse!ves with its setting- its environment- its e@tern ! c uses& /hese e@trinsic methods re not !imited to study of the # st but re e:u !!y ##!ic b!e to #resent>d y !it> er ture& (ence- the term ?historic !? shou!d #ro#er!y be re> served for th t study of !iter ture which concentr tes on its ch nge in time nd is thus centr !!y #reoccu#ied with the #rob> !em of history& /hough the ?e@trinsic? study m y mere!y t> tem#t to inter#ret !iter ture in the !ight of its soci ! conte@t nd its ntecedents- in most c ses it becomes ?c us !? e@#! n tion#rofessing to ccount for !iter ture- to e@#! in it- nd fin !!y to reduce it to its origins 3the ?f !! cy of origins?6& *obody c n deny th t much !ight h s been thrown on !iter ture by #ro#er ,now!edge of the conditions under which it h s been #roducedN the e@egetic ! v !ue of such study seems indubit b!e& Yet it is c!e r th t c us ! study c n never dis#ose of #rob!ems of descri#> tion- n !ysis- nd ev !u tion of n obBect such s wor, of !it> er ry rt& 9 use nd effect re incommensur te $ the concrete re> su!t of these e@trinsic c uses H the wor, of rt H is !w ys un> #redict b!e& A!! history- !! environment ! f ctors- c n be rgued to sh #e wor, of rt& +ut the ctu ! #rob!ems begin when we ev !u tecom# re- nd iso! te the individu ! f ctors which re su##osed to determine the wor, of rt& Most students try to iso! te s#e> cific series of hum n ctions nd cre tions nd to scribe to th t !one determining inf!uence on the wor, of !iter ture& /hus one grou# considers !iter ture m in!y the #roduct of n indi> vidu ! cre tor nd conc!udes hence th t !iter ture shou!d be in> vestig ted m in!y through biogr #hy nd the #sycho!ogy of the uthor& A second grou# !oo,s for the m in determining f ctors of !iter ry cre tion in the institution ! !ife of m n H in economicEs

EE /heory of Liter ture soci !- nd #o!itic ! conditionsN nother re! ted grou# see,s for the c us ! e@#! n tion of !iter ture ! rge!y in such other co!!ec> tive cre tions of the hum n mind s the history of ide s- of theo!ogy- nd the other rts& "in !!y- there is grou# of stu> dents who see, to e@#! in !iter ture in terms of the Oeitgeistsome :uintessenti ! s#irit of the time- some inte!!ectu ! tmos> #here or ?c!im te? of o#inion- some unit ry force bstr cted ! rge!y from the ch r cteristics of the other rts& /hese dvoc tes of the e@trinsic ##ro ch v ry in the rigidity with which they ##!y deterministic c us ! methods to their study nd hence in the c! ims they m ,e for the success of their method& /hose who be!ieve in soci ! c us tion re usu !!y the most deterministic& /his r dic !ism c n be e@#! ined by their #hi!oso#hic ! ffi!i tions with nineteenth>century #ositivism nd scienceC but one must not forget th t the ide !istic dherents of <eistesgeschichte- #hi!oso#hic !!y ffi!i ted with (ege!i nism or other forms of Rom ntic thought- re !so e@treme determinists nd even f t !ists in sense& M ny students who use these methods wi!! m ,e much more modest c! ims& /hey wi!! see, to est b!ish on!y some degree of re! tionshi# between the wor, of rt nd its settings nd nte> cedents- nd they wi!! ssume th t some degree of i!!umin tion fo!!ows from such ,now!edge- though the #recise re!ev nce of these re! tionshi#s m y esc #e them !together& /hese more modest #ro#onents seem wiser- for sure!y c us ! e@#! n tion is very overr ted method in the study of !iter ture- nd s sure!y it never c n dis#ose of the critic ! #rob!ems of n !ysis nd ev !u tion& Among the different c use>governed methods- n e@#! n tion of the wor, of rt in terms of the tot ! setting seems #refer b!e- since the reduction of !iter ture to the effect of sing!e c use is m nifest!y im#ossib!e& 1ithout endorsing the s#ecific conce#tions of <erm n <eistesgeschic,te- we recognize th t such e@#! n tion by synthesis of !! the f ctors obvi tes most im#ort nt criticism g inst the other current methods& 1h t fo!!ows is n ttem#t to weigh the im#ort nce of these different f ctors nd to criticize the rr y of methods from the #oint of view of their re!ev nce to study which cou!d be c !!ed centr !!y !iter ry or ?ergocentric&?

9(A8/0R KII Liter ture nd +iogr #hy

/he most obvious c use of wor, of rt is its cre tor- the uthor C nd hence n e@#! n tion in terms of the #erson !ity nd the !ife of the writer h s been one of the o!dest nd best> est b!ished methods of !iter ry study& +iogr #hy c n be Budged in re! tion to the !ight it throws on the ctu ! #roduction of #oetry B but we c n- of course- defend it nd Bustify it s study of the m n of genius- of his mor !-

inte!!ectu !- nd emotion ! deve!o#ment- which h s its own in> trinsic interest C nd fin !!y- we c n thin, of biogr #hy s fford> ing m teri !s for system tic study of the #sycho!ogy of the #oet nd of the #oetic #rocess& /hese three #oints of view shou!d be c refu!!y distinguished& "or our conce#tion of ?!iter ry scho! rshi#? on!y the first thesisth t biogr #hy e@#! ins nd i!!umin tes the ctu ! #roduct of #oetry- is direct!y re!ev nt& /he second #oint of view- which dvoc tes the intrinsic interest of biogr #hy- shifts the center of ttention to hum n #erson !ity& /he third considers biog> r #hy s m teri ! for science or future science- the #sycho!ogy of rtistic cre tion& +iogr #hy is n ncient !iter ry genre& "irst of !! H chrono> !ogic !!y nd !ogic !!y H it is # rt of historiogr #hy& +iogr #hy m ,es no methodo!ogic ! distinction between st tesm ngen> er !- n rchitect! wyer- nd m n who #! ys no #ub!ic ro!e& And 9o!eridgeAs view th t ny !ife- however insignific nt- wou!dif truthfu!!y to!d- be of interest is sound enough& 1 In the view of biogr #her- the #oet is sim#!y nother m n whose mor ! nd inte!!ectu ! deve!o#ment- e@tern ! c reer nd emotion ! !ifec n be reconstructed nd c n be ev !u ted by reference to st nd> rds- usu !!y dr wn from some ethic ! system or code of m n> ners& (is writings m y ##e r s mere f cts of #ub!ic tions- s events !i,e those in the !ife of ny ctive m n& So viewed- the E=

E; /heory of Liter ture #rob!ems of biogr #her re sim#!y those of histori n& (e h s to inter#ret his documents- !etters- ccounts by eye>witnessesreminiscences- utobiogr #hic ! st tements- nd to decide :ues> tions of genuineness- trustworthiness of witnesses- nd the !i,e& In the ctu ! writing of biogr #hy he encounters #rob!ems of chrono!ogic ! #resent tion- of se!ection- of discretion or fr n,> ness& /he r ther e@tensive wor, which h s been done on biog> r #hy s genre de !s with such :uestions- :uestions in no w y s#ecific !!y !iter ry& 2 A historic ! s,etch of the !ives of 0ng!ish #oets m y suggest the different ty#es of biogr #hy nd the chief #rob!ems of the biogr #hers& 5 At !e st in 0ng! nd- biogr #hy h s been one of the e r!iest nd cert in!y one of the most #ersistent forms of !iter ry study& Le! nd nd + !e com#i!ed biogr #hic ! nd bib!iogr #hic ! c t > !ogues of uthors in the si@teenth century- nd co!!ection of !ives w s the st nd rd form of 0ng!ish !iter ry history !ong before .ohnsonAs Lives of the 8oets nd down to Mor!eyAs 0ng> !ish Men of Letters& In the seventeenth century- 1 !ton wrote the !ives of Donne nd (erbert- tre ting these #oets s An> g!ic n s ints& In the eighteenth century- diverse ty#es of !iter ry biogr #hy bec me est b!ished& +oswe!!As .ohnson is the most f mous e@ m#!e of !iter ry #ortr iture which tries- by n ccumu! tion of necdotes- to recre te mor ! nd inte!!ectu !

#erson !ity& A different ty#e of biogr #hy is best re#resented by 0dmond M !oneAs Life of Dry den 31;006- the scho! r!y c> cumu! tion- verific tion- nd e@ min tion of documents which yie!d series of e@tern ! f cts& It w s not ti!! the nineteenth century th t ttem#ts were first m de to write the biogr #hy of n uthor g inst his soci ! nd !iter ry b c,ground& 1i!!i m <odwinAs much # dded Life of 9h ucer 31;056- ScottAs Dry den 31;0; H f ctu !!y derived from M !one6- nd * th n Dr ,eAs Sh ,es#e re 31;1=6 re e r!y e@ m#!es& /he ty#e doubt!ess cu!> min tes in M ssonAs Life of Mi!ton 31 ;D4>;06wor, which m n ges to inc!ude !most the who!e of the #o!itic ! nd soci ! history of the timeC but m ny Kictori n Life nd /imes is simi! r in intent even though it m y not e:u ! M ssonAs #er> form nce in bu!, or e@tr v g nce& A new ty#e rises on!y when conscious ttem#ts tr ce the ethic ! evo!ution nd integr tion of re m de to writer& DowdenAs

Liter ture

nd +iogr fhy E4

Life of Sh ,es#e re 31;=D6 is one e r!y ttem#t out of scoreof which DowdenAs own She!!ey 31;;E6 nd "roudeAs 9 r!y!e seem much more successfu! e@ m#!es& /he ethic ! biogr #hy e si!y # sses into the #sycho!ogic ! or even #sychi tric ! nd #sycho n !ytic ! study of the #erson !ity of the #oet& Such tr nsition occurred when Kictori n st nd rds of ethics seemed to become in de:u te nd when ttention beg n to turn to the resu!ts of medic ! #sycho!ogy& Since the success of Lytton Str cheyAs bri!!i nt biogr #hies- this ? n !ysis? h s been done fre:uent!y in debun,ing s#irit C but it c n be done- of coursein com# ssion te tone of #o!ogy or from n ttitude of sim#!e scientific det chment& 9 r#enterAs boo, on She!!ey- 2rutchAs biogr #hy of 8oe- nd K n 1yc, +roo,sA 'rde ! of M r, /w in re e@ m#!es of n ##ro ch whose v !idity c n sc rce!y be de> nied- however doubtfu! we m y fee! bout the individu ! boo,swhich indu!ge too fre:uent!y in the reduction of the com#!e@ to the sim#!e& (owever- in our conte@t two :uestions of !iter ry biogr #hy re cruci !& (ow f r is the biogr #her Bustified in using the evi> dence of the wor,s themse!ves for his #ur#osesI (ow f r re the resu!ts of !iter ry biogr #hy re!ev nt nd im#ort nt for n underst nding of the wor,s themse!vesI An ffirm tive nswer to both :uestions is usu !!y given& /o the first :uestion it is ssumed by #r ctic !!y !! biogr #hers who re s#ecific !!y t> tr cted to #oets- for #oets ##e r to offer bund nt evidence us b!e in the writing of biogr #hy- evidence which wi!! be bsent- or !most bsent- in the c se of m ny f r more inf!uenti ! historic ! #erson ges& +ut is this o#timism BustifiedI 1e must distinguish two ges of m n- two #ossib!e so!utions& "or most e r!y !iter ture we h ve no #riv te documents on which biogr #her c n dr w& 1e h ve on!y series of #ub!ic documents- birth registers- m rri ge certific tes- ! wsuitsthe !i,e- nd then the evidence of the wor,s& 1e c n- for

nd

e@ m#!e- tr ce Sh ,es#e reAs movements very rough!y- nd we ,now something of his fin ncesC but we h ve bso!ute!y noth> ing in the form of !etters- di ries- reminiscences- e@ce#t few necdotes of doubtfu! uthenticity& /he v st effort which h s been e@#ended u#on the study of Sh ,es#e reAs !ife h s yie!ded on!y few resu!ts of !iter ry #rofit& /hey re chief!y f cts of

=0 /heory of Liter ture chrono!ogy nd i!!ustr tions of the soci ! st tus nd the ssoci > tions of Sh ,es#e re& (ence those who h ve tried to construct n ctu ! biogr #hy of Sh ,es#e re- of his ethic ! nd emotion ! deve!o#ment- h ve either rrived- if they went bout it in scientific s#irit- s Miss S#urgeon ttem#ted in her study of Sh ,es#e reAs im gery- t mere !ist of trivi !ities- or if they used the #! ys > nd sonnets rec,!ess!y- h ve constructed biogr #h> ic ! rom nces !i,e those of <eorg +r ndes or "r n, ( rris& 7 /he who!e ssum#tion behind these ttem#ts 3which beg n#rob b!y- with few hints in ( z!itt nd Sch!ege!- e! bor ted first- r ther c utious!y- by Dowden6 is :uite mist ,en& 'ne c n> not- from fiction ! st tements- es#eci !!y those m de in #! ysdr w ny v !id inference s to the biogr #hy of writer& 'ne m y gr ve!y doubt even the usu ! view th t Sh ,es#e re # ssed through #eriod of de#ression- in which he wrote his tr gedies nd his bitter comedies- to chieve some serenity of reso!ution in /he / em>#est& It is not se!f>evident th t writer needs to be in tr gic mood to write tr gedies or th t he writes comedies when he fee!s #!e sed with !ife& /here is sim#!y no #roof for the sor> rows of Sh ,es#e re& D (e c nnot be m de res#onsib!e for the views of /imon or M cbeth on !ife- Bust s he c nnot be con> sidered to ho!d the views of Do!! /e rsheet or I go& /here is no re son to be!ieve th t 8ros#ero s#e ,s !i,e Sh ,es#e re$ uthors c nnot be ssigned the ide s- fee!ings- views- virtuesnd vices of their heroes& And this is true not on!y of dr m tic ch r cters or ch r cters in nove! but !so of the % of the !yric ! #oem& /he re! tion between the #riv te !ife nd the wor, is not sim#!e re! tion of c use nd effect& 8ro#onents of the biogr #hic ! method wi!!- however- obBect to these contentions& 9onditions- they wi!! s y- h ve ch nged since the time of Sh ,es#e re& +iogr #hic ! evidence h s- for m ny #oets- become bund nt- bec use the #oets h ve become se!f>conscious- h ve thought of themse!ves s !iving in the eyes of #osterity 3!i,e Mi!ton- 8o#e- <oethe- 1ordsworth- or +yron6- nd h ve !eft m ny utobiogr #hic ! st tements s we!! s ttr cted much contem#or ry ttention& /he biogr #hic ! ##ro ch now seems e sy- for we c n chec, !ife nd wor, g inst e ch other& Indeed- the ##ro ch is even invited nd dem nded by the #oet- es#eci !!y the Rom ntic #oet- who

Liter ture writes

nd +iogr fhy = 1 nd his innermost fee!ings or even- !i,e

bout himse!f

+yron- c rries the ?# ge nt of his b!eeding he rt? round 0u> ro#e& /hese #oets s#o,e of themse!ves not on!y in #riv te !et> ters- di ries- nd utobiogr #hies- but !so in their most form ! #ronouncements& 1ordsworthAs 8re!ude is n utobiogr #hy dec! red!y& It seems difficu!t not to t ,e these #ronouncementssometimes not different in content or even in tone from their #riv te corres#ondence- t their f ce v !ue without inter#reting #oetry in the terms of the #oet- who s w it himse!f- in <oetheAs we!!>,nown #hr se- s ?fr gments of gre t confession&? 1e shou!d cert in!y distinguish two ty#es of #oets- the ob> Bective nd the subBective$ those who- !i,e 2e ts nd /& S& 0!iotstress the #oetAs ?neg tive c # bi!ity-? his o#enness to the wor!dthe ob!iter tion of his concrete #erson !ity- nd the o##osite ty#e of the #oet- who ims t dis#! ying his #erson !ity- w nts to dr w se!f>#ortr it- to confess- to e@#ress himse!f& E "or !ong stretches of history we ,now on!y the first ty#e$ the wor,s in which the e!ement of #erson ! e@#ression is very we ,- even though the esthetic v !ue m y be gre t& /he It !i n nove!!echiv !ric rom nces- the sonnets of the Ren iss nce- 0!iz beth n dr m - n tur !istic nove!s- most fo!, #oetry- m y serve s !it> er ry e@ m#!es& +ut- even with the obBective #oet- the distinction between #erson ! st tement of n utobiogr #hic ! n ture nd the use of the very s me motif in wor, of rt shou!d not nd c nnot be withdr wn& A wor, of rt forms unity on :uite different #! ne- with :uite different re! tion to re !ity- th n boo, of memoirsdi ry- or !etter& 'n!y by #erversion of the bio> gr #hic ! method cou!d the most intim te nd fre:uent!y the most c su ! documents of n uthorAs !ife become the centr ! study whi!e the ctu ! #oems were inter#reted in the !ight of the documents nd rr nged ccording to sc !e entire!y se# r te from or even contr dictory to th t #rovided by ny critic ! Budg> ment of the #oems& /hus +r ndes s!ights M cbeth s uninter> esting bec use it is !e st re! ted to wh t he conceives to be Sh ,es#e reAs #erson !ityN thus- 2ingsmi!! com#! ins of Arno!dAs Sohr b nd Rustum& = 0ven when wor, of rt cont ins e!ements which c n be sure!y identified s biogr #hic !- these e!ements wi!! be so re>

=2 /heory of Liter ture rr nged nd tr nsformed in wor, th t they !ose !! their s#ecific !!y #erson ! me ning nd become sim#!y concrete hum n m teri !- integr ! e!ements of wor,& R mon "ern ndez h s rgued this very convincing!y in connection with Stendh !& <& 1& Meyer h s shown how much the #rofessed!y utobio> gr #hic ! 8re!ude differs from 1ordsworthAs ctu ! !ife during the #rocess the #oem #ur#orts to describe& s /he who!e view th t rt is se!f>e@#ression #ure nd sim#!ethe tr nscri#t of #erson ! fee!ings nd e@#eriences- is demon> str b!y f !se& 0ven when there is c!ose re! tionshi# between

the wor, of rt nd the !ife of n uthor- this must never be construed s me ning th t the wor, of rt is mere co#y of !ife& /he biogr #hic ! ##ro ch forgets th t wor, of rt is not sim#!y the embodiment of e@#erience but !w ys the ! test wor, of rt in series of such wor,sC it is dr m nove!#oem ?determined-? so f r s it is determined t !!- by !iter ry tr > dition nd convention& /he biogr #hic ! ##ro ch ctu !!y ob> scures #ro#er com#rehension of the !iter ry #rocess- since it bre ,s u# the order of !iter ry tr dition to substitute the !ife cyc!e of n individu !& /he biogr #hic ! ##ro ch ignores !so :uite sim#!e #sycho!ogic ! f cts& A wor, of rt m y r ther em> body the ?dre m? of n uthor th n his ctu ! !ife- or it m y be the ?m s,-? the ? nti>se!f? behind which his re ! #erson is hiding- or it m y be #icture of the !ife from which the uthor w nts to esc #e& "urthermore- we must not forget th t the rtist m y ?e@#erience? !ife different!y in terms of his rt$ ctu ! e@> #eriences re seen with view to their use in !iter ture nd come to him !re dy # rti !!y sh #ed by rtistic tr ditions nd #re> conce#tions& 4 1e must conc!ude th t the biogr #hic ! inter#ret tion nd use of every wor, of rt needs c refu! scrutiny nd e@ min tion in e ch c se- since the wor, of rt is not document for biog> r #hy& 1e must serious!y :uestion Miss 1 deAs Life of /r > herne y which t ,es every st tement of his #oems s !iter ! bio> gr #hic ! truth- or the m ny boo,s bout the !ives of the +rontes which sim#!y !ift who!e # ss ges from . ne 0yre or Ki!!ette& /here is /he Life nd 0 ger De th of 0mi!y +ronte by Kir> gini Moore- who thin,s th t 0mi!y must h ve e@#erienced the # ssions of (e thc!iffB nd there re others who h ve rgued

Liter ture

nd +iogr fhy . 5

th t wom n cou!d not h ve written 1uthering (eights nd th t the brother- 8 tric,- must h ve been the re ! uthor& 10 /his is the ty#e of rgument which h s !ed #eo#!e to rgue th t Sh ,es#e re must h ve visited It !y- must h ve been ! wyerso!dierte cherf rmer& 0!!en /erry g ve the crushing re#!y to !! this when she rgued th t- by the s me criteri Sh ,es#e re must h ve been wom n& +ut- it wi!! be s id- such inst nces of #retentious fo!!y do not dis#ose of the #rob!em of #erson !ity in !iter ture& 1e re d D nte or <oethe or /o!stoy nd ,now th t there is #erson behind the wor,& /here is n indubit b!e #hysiognomic ! simi> ! rity between the writings of one uthor& /he :uestion might be s,ed- however- whether it wou!d not be better to distinguish sh r#!y between the em#iric ! #erson nd the wor,- which c n be c !!ed ?#erson !? on!y in met #horic ! sense& /here is :u !ity which we m y c !! ?Mi!tonic? or ?2e tsi n? in the wor, of their uthors& +ut this :u !ity c n be determined on the b sis of the wor,s themse!ves- whi!e it m y not be scert in b!e u#on #ure!y biogr #hic ! evidence& 1e ,now wh t is ?Kirgi!i n? or ?Sh ,es#e ri n? without h ving ny re !!y definite biogr #hic ! ,now!edge of the two gre t #oets&

Sti!!- there re connecting !in,s- # r !!e!isms- ob!i:ue resem> b! nces- to#sy>turvy mirrors& /he #oetAs wor, m y be m s,dr m tized convention !iz tion- but it is fre:uent!y conven> tion !iz tion of his own e@#eriences- his own !ife& If used with sense of these distinctions- there is use in biogr #hic ! study& "irst- no doubt- it h s e@egetic ! v !ue$ it m y e@#! in gre t m ny !!usions or even words in n uthorAs wor,& /he bio> gr #hic ! fr mewor, wi!! !so he!# us in studying the most ob> vious of !! strict!y deve!o#ment ! #rob!ems in the history of !iter ture H the growth- m turing- nd #ossib!e dec!ine of n uthorAs rt& +iogr #hy !so ccumu! tes the m teri !s for other :uestions of !iter ry history such s the re ding of the #oet- his #erson ! ssoci tions with !iter ry men- his tr ve!s- the ! nd> sc #e nd cities he s w nd !ived in$ !! of them :uestions which m y throw !ight on !iter ry history- i&e&- the tr dition in which the #oet w s #! ced- the inf!uences by which he w s sh #ed- the m teri !s on which he drew& 1h tever the im#ort nce of biogr #hy in these res#ects- how>

=7 /heory of Liter ture ever- it seems d ngerous to scribe to it ny re ! critic ! im#or> t nce& *o biogr #hic ! evidence c n ch nge or inf!uence critic ! ev !u tion& /he fre:uent!y dduced criterion of ?sincerity? is thorough!y f !se if it Budges !iter ture in terms of biogr #hic ! truthfu!ness- corres#ondence to the uthorAs e@#erience or fee!> ings s they re ttested by outside evidence& +yronAs ?" re /hee 1e!! & & &? is neither worse nor better #oem bec use it dr m tizes the #oetAs ctu ! re! tions with his wife- nor ?is it #ity-? s 8 u! 0!mer More thin,s- th t the MS shows no tr ces of the te rs which- ccording to /hom s MooreAs Memor nd fe!! on it& 11 /he #oem e@ists C the te rs shed or unshed- the #er> son ! emotions- re gone nd c nnot be reconstructed- nor need they be&

9(A8/0R KIII Liter ture nd 8sycho!ogy

+y ?#sycho!ogy of !iter ture-? we m y me n the #sycho!ogic ! study of the writer- s ty#e nd s individu !- or the study of the cre tive #rocess- or the study of the #sycho!ogic ! ty#es nd ! ws #resent within wor,s of !iter ture- or- fin !!y- the effects of !iter ture u#on its re ders 3 udience #sycho!ogy6& /he fourth we sh !! consider under ?Liter ture nd Society?C the other three sh !! here be discussed in turn& 8rob b!y on!y the third be!ongs- in the strictest sense- to !iter ry study& /he first two subdivisions of the #sycho!ogy of rt$ though- t times- they m y serve s eng ging #ed gogic ##ro ches to the study of !it> er ture- we shou!d dis vow ny ttem#t to ev !u te !iter ry wor,s in terms of their origins 3the genetic f !! cy6&

re

/he n ture of !iter ry genius h s !w ys ttr cted s#ecu! tionnd it w s- s e r!y s the <ree,s- conceived of s re! ted to ?m dness? 3to be g!ossed s the r nge from neuroticism to #sy> chosis6& /he #oet is the ?#ossessed?$ he is un!i,e other men- t once !ess nd moreC nd the unconscious out of which he s#e ,s is fe!t to be t once sub> nd su#err tion !& Another e r!y nd #ersistent conce#tion is th t of the #oetAs ?gift? s com#ens tory$ the Muse too, w y the sight of DemodocosA eyes but ?g ve him the !ove!y gift of song? 3in the 'dyssey6- s the b!inded /iresi s is given #ro#hetic vision& ( ndic # nd endowment re not !w ys- of course- so direct!y corre! tive B nd the m ! dy or deformity m y be #sycho!ogic ! or soci ! inste d of #hysic !& 8o#e w s hunchb c, nd dw rfC +yron h d c!ub>footC 8roust w s n sthm tic neurotic of # rt!y .ewish descentC 2e ts w s shorter th n other menC /hom s 1o!fe- much t !!er& /he difficu!ty with the theory is its very e se& After the event- ny success c n be ttributed to com#ens tory motiv tion- for everyone h s !i bi!ities which m y serve him s s#urs& Dubious- cert in!y- is the wides#re d =D

= E /heory of Liter ture view th t neuroticism H nd ?com#ens tion? H differenti te rtists from scientists nd other ?contem#! tives? $ the obvious distinc> tion is th t writers often document their own c ses- turning their m ! dies into their them tic m teri !& 1 /he b sic :uestions re these$ If the writer is neurotic- does his neurosis #rovide the themes of his wor, or on!y its motiv > tionI If the ! tter- then the writer is not to be differenti ted from other contem#! tives& /he other :uestion is$ If the writer is neu> rotic in his themes 3 s 2 f, cert in!y is6- how is it th t his wor, is inte!!igib!e to his re dersI /he writer must be doing f r more th n #utting down c se history& (e must either be de !> ing with n rchety# ! # ttern 3 s does Dostoevs,y- in /he +rothers 2 r m zov6 or with ?neurotic #erson !ity? # ttern wides#re d in our time& "reudAs view of the writer is not :uite ste dy& Li,e m ny of his 0uro#e n co!!e gues- not b!y .ung nd R n,- he w s m n of high gener ! cu!ture- with the educ ted Austri nAs res#ect for the c! ssics nd c! ssic ! <erm n !iter ture& /hen- too- he dis> covered in !iter ture m ny insights ntici# ting nd corrobor t> ing his own H in Dostoevs,yAs /he +rothers 2 r m zov- in ( m!et- in DiderotAs *e#hew of R me u- in <oethe& +ut he !so thought of the uthor s n obdur te neurotic who- by his cre tive wor,- ,e#t himse!f from cr c,u# but !so from ny re ! cure& ?/he rtist-? s ys "reud- ?is origin !!y m n who turns from re !ity bec use he c nnot come to terms with the dem nd for the renunci tion of instinctu ! s tisf ction s it is first m de- nd who then in #h nt sy>!ife !!ows fu!! #! y to his

erotic nd mbitious wishes& +ut he finds w y of return from this wor!d of #h nt sy b c, to re !ityC with his s#eci ! gifts- he mou!ds his #h nt sies into new ,ind of re !ity- nd men con> cede them Bustific tion s v !u b!e ref!ections of ctu ! !ife& /hus by cert in # th he ctu !!y becomes the hero- ,ingcre tor- f vorite he desired to be- without the circuitous # th of cre ting re ! !ter tions in the outer wor!d&? /he #oet- th t isis d ydre mer who is soci !!y v !id ted& Inste d of !tering his ch r cter- he #er#etu tes nd #ub!ishes his #h nt sies& 2 Such n ccount #resum b!y dis#oses of the #hi!oso#her nd the ?#ure scientist? !ong with the rtist- nd is- therefore,ind of #ositivist ?reduction? of contem#! tive ctivity to n

Liter ture

nd 8sycho!ogy ==

observing nd n ming inste d of cting& It sc rce!y does Bustice to the indirect or ob!i:ue effect of contem#! tive wor,- to the ? !ter tions in the outer wor!d? effected by the re ders of nov> e!ists nd #hi!oso#hers& It !so f i!s to recognize th t cre tion is itse!f mode of wor, in the outer wor!d C th t- whi!e the d y> dre mer is content to dre m of writing his dre ms- one who is ctu !!y writing is eng ged in n ct of e@tern !iz tion nd of dBustment to society& Most writers h ve dr wn b c, from subscri#tion to orthodo@ "reudi nism or from com#!eting H wh t some h ve begun H their #sycho n !ytic tre tment& Most of them h ve not w nted to be ?cured? or ? dBusted-? either thin,ing they wou!d ce se to write if they were dBusted- or th t the dBustment #ro#osed w s to norm !ity or soci ! environment which they reBected s #hi!istine or bourgeois& /hus Auden h s sserted th t rtists shou!d be s neurotic s they c n endure C nd m ny h ve greed with such revisionist "reudi ns s (orney- "romm- nd 2 rdiner- th t "reudAs conce#tions of neurosis nd norm !itydr wn from turn>of>the>century Kienn - need to be corrected by M r@ nd the nthro#o!ogists& 5 /he theory of rt s neurosis r ises the :uestion of im gin > tion in re! tion to be!ief& Is the nove!ist n !ogous not on!y to the rom ntic chi!d who ?te!!s stories? H i&e&- reconstructs his e@#erience ti!! it conforms to his #!e sure nd credit- but !so to the m n who suffers from h !!ucin tions- confounding the wor!d of re !ity with the #h nt sy wor!d of his ho#es nd fe rsI Some nove!ists 3e&g&- Dic,ens6 h ve s#o,en of vivid!y seeing nd he ring their ch r cters- nd- g in- of the ch r cters s t ,ing over the contro! of the story- sh #ing it to n end different from the nove!istAs #re!imin ry design& *one of the inst nces cited by #sycho!ogists seem to be r out the ch rge of h !!ucin tion C some nove!ists m y- however- h ve the c # city- common mong chi!> dren- but r re there fter- of eidetic im gery 3neither fter> im ges nor memory>im ges yet #erce#tu !- sensory- in ch r> cter6& In the Budgment of 0rich . ensch- this c # city is sym#> tom tic of the rtistAs s#eci ! integr tion of #erce#tu ! nd con> ce#tu !& (e ret ins- nd h s deve!o#ed- n rch ic tr it of the

r ce$ he fee!s

nd even sees his thoughts& 7 ssigned to the !iter ry m n H more

Another tr it sometimes

=; /heory of Liter ture s#ecific !!y- the #oet H is syn esthesi - or the !in,ing together of sensory #erce#tions out of two or more senses- most common!yhe ring nd sight Q udition co!oree$ e&g&- the trum#et s sc r!et6& As #hysio!ogic ! tr it- it is ## rent!y- !i,e red>green co!or b!indnesssurviv ! from n e r!ier com# r tive!y undifferen> ti ted sensorium& Much more fre:uent!y- however- syn esthesi is !iter ry techni:ueform of met #horic ! tr ns! tion- the sty!ized e@#ression of met #hysic !> esthetic ttitude tow rds !ife& (istoric !!y- this ttitude nd sty!e re ch r cteristic of the + ro:ue nd the Rom ntic #eriods nd corres#onding!y dist ste> fu! to r tion !ist #eriods in se rch of the ?c!e r nd distinct? r ther th n ?corres#ondences-? n !ogies- nd unific tions& D Since his e r!iest critic ! writing- /& S& 0!iot h s urged n inc!usive view of the #oet s rec #itu! ting H or- better- #reserv> ing int ct H his str t of the r ce>history- of ,ee#ing his commu> nic tion o#en with his own chi!dhood nd th t of the r ce whi!e re ching forw rd into the future$ ?/he rtist-? he wrote in 14 1;?is more #rimitive- s we!! s more civi!ized- th n his contem> #or ries& & & &? In 1452- he recurs to this conce#tion- s#e ,ing # rticu! r!y of the ? uditory im gin tion? but !so of the #oetAs visu ! im gery- nd es#eci !!y his recurrent im ges- which ?m y h ve symbo!ic v !ue- but of wh t we c nnot te!!- for they h ve come to re#resent the de#ths of fee!ing into which we c nnot #eer&? 0!iot cites with ##rov ! the wor, of 9 i!!iet nd +ede on the re! tion of the Symbo!ist Movement to the #rimitive #syche- summ rizing$ ?the #re>!ogic ! ment !ity #ersists in civi> !ized m n- but becomes v i! b!e on!y to or through the #oet&? < In these # ss ges it is not difficu!t to discover the inf!uence of 9 r! .ung nd rest tement of the .ungi n thesis th t bene th the individu ! ?unconscious? H the b!oc,ed>off residue of our # st- # rticu! r!y our chi!dhood nd inf ncy H !ies the ?co!!ective unconscious? H the b!oc,ed>off memory of our r ci ! # st- even of our #re>hum nity& .ung h s n e! bor te #sycho!ogic ! ty#o!ogy- ccording to which ?e@tr vert? nd ?introvert? subdivide the four ty#es b sed u#on the domin nce res#ective!y of thin,ing- fee!ingintuition- sens tion& (e does not- s one might h ve su##osedssign !! writers to the intuitive>introverted c tegory- or- more gener !!y- to the c tegory of the introvert& As further gu rd

Liter ture

nd 8sycho!ogy =4

g inst sim#!ific tion- he rem r,s th t some writers reve ! their ty#e in their cre tive wor,- whi!e others reve ! their nti>ty#e-

their com#!ement& = (omo scriftor- it shou!d be conceded- is not sing!e ty#e& If we devise rom ntic b!end of 9o!eridge- She!!ey- + ude! irend 8oe- we must #resent!y remember R cine- Mi!ton- nd <oethe- or . ne Austen nd Anthony /ro!!o#e& 1e m y begin by differenti ting !yric #oets- nd Rom ntic #oets- from dr > m tic nd e#ic #oets nd their # rti ! e:uiv !ents- the nove!ists& 'ne of the <erm n ty#o!ogists- 2retschmer- se# r tes the #oets 3who re !e#tosom tic nd inc!ine to schizo#hreni 6 from the nove!ists 3who re #y,nic of #hysic ! structure nd m nic> de#ressive or ?cyc!oid? of tem#er ment6& /here is cert in!y ty#o!ogic ! # ir of the ?#ossessed-? i&e&- the utom tic or obses> sive or #ro#hetic #oet- nd the ?m ,er-? the writer who is #ri> m ri!y tr ined- s,i!!fu!- res#onsib!e cr ftsm n& /his distinction seems # rt!y historic !$ the ?#ossessed? is the #rimitive #oetthe sh m n B then the Rom ntic- the 0@#ressionist- the Surre !> ist- we s y& /he #rofession ! #oets- tr ined in the b rdic schoo!s of Ire! nd nd Ice! nd- the #oets of the Ren iss nce nd neo> c! ssicism- re ?m ,ers&? +ut of course these ty#es must be understood s not mutu !!y e@c!usive but #o! r C nd in the in> st nces of gre t writers H inc!uding Mi!ton- 8oe- . mes- nd 0!iot s we!! s Sh ,es#e re nd Dostoevs,y H we h ve to thin, of the writer s both ?m ,er? nd ?#ossessed-? s combining n obsessive!y he!d vision of !ife with conscious- #recise c re for the #resent tion of th t vision& ; 8erh #s the most inf!uenti ! of modern #o! rities is *ietzscheAs in /he +irth of /r gedy 31;=26- th t between A#o!!o nd Dionysus- the two rt>deities of the <ree,s- nd the two ,inds nd #rocesses of rt which they re#resent$ the rts of scu!#ture nd of music B the #sycho!ogic ! st tes of the dre m nd of ecst tic inebri tion& /hese corres#ond ##ro@im te!y to the c! s> sic ! ?m ,er? nd the rom ntic ?#ossessed? 3or foet v tes6& /hough he does not vow it- the "rench #sycho!ogist Ribot must owe to *ietzsche the b sis for his own division of !iter ry rtists between the two chief ty#es of im gin tion& /he former of these- the ?#! stic-? ch r cterizes the sh r# visu !izer who is #rim ri!y incited by observ tion of the outside wor!d- by #er>

;0 /heory of Liter ture ce#tion- whi!e the ?diff!uent? 3the uditory nd symbo!ic6 is th t of the symbo!ist #oet or the writer of Rom ntic t !es 3/iec,(offm nn- 8oe6- who st rts from his own emotions nd fee!ings#roBecting them through rhythms nd im ges unified by the com#u!sion of his Stimmung& It is doubt!ess from Ribot th t 0!iot st rts in his contr st of D nteAs ?visu ! im gin tion? nd Mi!tonAs ? uditory&? 'ne more s#ecimen m y be offered- th t of L& Rusucon> tem#or ry Rum ni n scho! r- who distinguishes three b sic ty#es of rtist$ the ?ty#e sym# thi:ue? 3conceived of s g ys#ont neous- bird>!i,e in its cre tivity6- the ?ty#e detnoni :ue

n rchi:ue? nd the ?ty#e demoni :ue e:ui!ibre&? /he e@ m> #!es re not !w ys fortun te C but there is gener ! suggestive> ness to the thesis nd ntithesis of ?sym# thetic? nd ? n rchic? with synthesizing gre test ty#e in which the strugg!e with the d emon h s ended in trium#h- n e:ui!ibrium of tensions& Rusu cites <oethe s the e@ m#!e of this gre tness C but we sh !! h ve to ssign it !! our gre test n mes H D nte- Sh ,es#e re- + !z cDic,ens- /o!stoy- nd Dostoevs,y& 4 /he ?cre tive #rocess? shou!d cover the entire se:uence from the subconscious origins of !iter ry wor, to those ! st revisions which- with some writers- re the most genuine!y cre tive # rt of the who!e& /here is distinction to be m de between the ment ! struc> ture of #oet nd the com#osition of #oem- between im#res> sion nd e@#ression& 9roce h s not won the ssent of writers nd critics to his reduction of both to esthetic intuitionC indeedsomething !i,e the contr ry reduction h s #! usib!y been rgued by 9& S& Lewis& +ut ny ttem#t to du !ize the # ir s ?0r!ebnis? nd ?Dichtung-? fter the f shion of Di!they- !so f i!s to s t> isfy& /he # inter sees s # interC the # inting is the c! rific > tion nd com#!etion of his seeing& /he #oet is m ,er of #oemsC but the m tter of his #oems is the who!e of his #erci#ient !ife& 1ith the rtist- in ny medium- every im#ression is sh #ed by his rt C he ccumu! tes no incho te e@#erience& 10 ?Ins#ir tion-? the tr dition ! n me for the unconscious f ctor in cre tion- is c! ssic !!y ssoci ted with the Muses- the d ugh> ters of memory- nd in 9hristi n thought with the (o!y S#irit& +y definition- the ins#ired st te of sh m n- #ro#het- or #oet-

Liter ture

nd 8sycho!ogy ; 1

differs from his ordin ry st te& In #rimitive societies the sh m n m y vo!unt ri!y be b!e to #ut himse!f into tr nce- or he m y invo!unt ri!y be ?#ossessed? by some ncestr ! or totemic s#irit> contro!& In modern times- ins#ir tion is fe!t to h ve the essenti ! m r,s of suddenness 3!i,e conversion6 nd im#erson !ity$ the wor, seems written through one& 11 M y not ins#ir tion be inducedI 9re tive h bits there ssur> ed!y re- s we!! s stimu! nts nd ritu !s& A!coho!- o#ium- nd other drugs du!! the conscious mind- the overcritic ! ?censor-? nd re!e se the ctivity of the subconscious& 9o!eridge nd De Muincey m de more gr ndiose c! im H th t through o#iumwho!e new wor!d of e@#erience w s o#ened u# for !iter ry tre tment C but in the !ight of modern c!inic ! re#orts it ##e rs th t the unusu ! e!ements in the wor, of such #oets derive from their neurotic #syches nd not from the s#ecific effect of the drug& Miss 0!iz beth Schneider h s shown th t De MuinceyAs ?!iter ry Ao#ium dre ms-A so inf!uenti ! on ! ter writing- ctu !!y differ !itt!e- s ve in e! bor teness- from n entry m de in his di ry in 1 ;05 before his use of o#ium beg n& & & &? 12

As the m ntic #oets of #rimitive communities re t ught methods of #utting themse!ves into st tes conducive to ?#osses> sion? nd s- by s#iritu ! disci#!ines of the 0 st- the re!igious re dvised to use set #! ces nd times for #r yer- nd s#eci ! ?eB cu! tions? or m ntr s- so writers of the modern wor!d !e rnor thin, they !e rn- ritu !s for inducing the cre tive st te& Schi!!er ,e#t rotten ##!es in his wor,>des,C + !z c wrote dressed in the robes of mon,& M ny writers thin, ?hori> zont !!y-? nd even write in bed H writers s different s 8roust nd M r, /w in& Some re:uire si!ence nd so!itude C but others #refer to write in the midst of the f mi!y or the com# ny t c fe& /here re inst nces- which ttr ct ttention s sens tion !of uthors who wor, through the night nd s!ee# during the d y& 8rob b!y this devotion to the night 3time of contem#! > tion- the dre m- the subconscious6 is the chief Rom ntic tr di> tionC but there is- we must rememberriv ! Rom ntic tr di> tion- the 1ordsworthi n- which e@ !ts the e r!y morning 3the freshness of chi!dhood6& Some uthors ssert th t they c n write on!y t cert in se sons- s did Mi!ton- who he!d th t his #oetic vein never f!owed h ##i!y but from the utumn ! e:uino@ to the

;2 /heory of Liter ture vern !& Dr& .ohnson- who found !! such theories dist stefu!be!ieved th t m n might write t ny time if he wou!d set himse!f dogged!y to it $ he himse!f wrote confessed!y under eco> nomic com#u!sion& +ut one c n su##ose th t these seeming!y c #ricious ritu !s h ve in common th t- by ssoci tion nd h bitthey f ci!it te system tic #roduction& 15 Does the mode of tr nscri#tion h ve ny demonstr b!e effect on the !iter ry sty!eI Does it m tter whether one writes first dr ught with #en nd in, or com#oses direct!y on the ty#e> writerI (emingw y thin,s th t the ty#ewriter ?so!idifies oneAs sentences before they re re dy to #rint-? hence m ,es revision s n integr ! # rt of writing difficu!t B others su##ose the in> strument h s m de for overf!uent or Bourn !istic sty!e& *o em> #iric ! investig tion h s been m de& As for dict tion- it h s been used by uthors of very v rious :u !ity nd s#irit& Mi!ton dic> t ted to n m nuensis verses of 8 r dise Lost !re dy com> #osed in his he d& More interesting- however- re the inst nces of Scott- <oethe in his o!d ge- nd (enry . mes in his- in which- though the structure h s been thought out in dv ncethe verb ! te@ture is e@tem#orized& In the c se of . mes- t !e stit seems #ossib!e to m ,e some c us ! connection between dic> t tion nd the ?! ter m nner-? which- in its own com#!e@!y e!o> :uent w y- is or ! nd even convers tion !& 17 'f the cre tive #rocess itse!f- not much h s been s id t the degree of gener !iz tion #rofit b!e to !iter ry theory& 1e h ve the individu ! c se histories of # rticu! r uthorsC but these of course wi!! be uthors from com# r tive!y recent times on!ynd uthors given to thin,ing nd writing n !ytic !!y bout their rt 3 uthors !i,e <oethe nd Schi!!er- "! ubert- . mes0!iot nd K !ery6 C nd then we h ve the !ong>dist nce gener>

!iz tions m de by #sycho!ogists concerning such to#ics s origi> n !ity- invention- im gin tion- finding the common denomin tor between scientific- #hi!oso#hic !- nd esthetic cre tion& Any modern tre tment of the cre tive #rocess wi!! chief!y con> cern the re! tive # rts #! yed by the unconscious nd the con> scious mind& It wou!d be e sy to contr st !iter ry #eriods$ to distinguish rom ntic nd e@#ressionistic #eriods which e@ !t the unconscious from c! ssic ! nd re !istic #eriods which stress in> te!!igence- revision- communic tion& +ut such contr st m y

Liter ture

nd 8sycho!ogy ;5

re di!y be e@ gger ted$ the critic ! theories of c! ssicism nd rom nticism differ more vio!ent!y th n the cre tive #r ctice of their best writers& /he uthors most given to discussing their rt wish n tur !!y to discuss their conscious nd technic ! #rocedures- for which they m y c! im credit- r ther th n their ?given-? the une!ected e@#erience which is their m tter or their mirror or their #rism& /here re obvious re sons why se!f>conscious rtists s#e , s though their rt were im#erson !- s though they chose their themes either by editori ! com#u!sion or s gr tuitous esthetic #rob!em& /he most f mous document on the to#ic- 8oeAs ?8hi> !oso#hy of 9om#osition-? #rofesses to e@#! in by wh t methodo> !ogic ! str tegies- #roceeding from wh t initi ! esthetic @iomshis ?R ven? w s constructed& /o defend his v nity g inst the ch rge th t his horror t !es were !iter ry imit tions- 8oe wrote th t their horrors were not of <erm ny but of the sou!C yet th t they were of his own sou! he cou!d not dmit$ he #rofessed to be !iter ry engineer- s,i!!ed t m ni#u! ting the sou!s of others& In 8oe- the division is terrifying!y com#!ete between the unconscious- which #rovides the obsessive themes of de!iriumtorture- nd de th- nd the conscious- which !iter ri!y deve!o#s them& 1D 1ere we to set u# tests for the discovery of !iter ry t !entthey wou!d doubt!ess be of two sorts$ one- th t for #oets in the modern sense- wou!d concern itse!f with words nd their com> bin tion- with im ge nd met #hor- with !in, ges sem ntic nd #honetic 3i&e&- rhyme- sson nce- !!iter tion6 C the ! tter- for n rr tive writers 3nove!ists nd dr m tists6 wou!d concern itse!f with ch r cteriz tion nd #!ot>structure& /he !iter ry m n is s#eci !ist in ssoci tion 3?wit?6- disso> ci tion 3?Budgment?6- recombin tion 3m ,ing new who!e out of e!ements se# r te!y e@#erienced6& (e uses words s his me> dium& As chi!d- he m y co!!ect words s other chi!dren co!> !ect do!!s- st m#s- or #ets& "or the #oet- the word is not #ri> m ri!y ?sign-? tr ns# rent counter- but ?symbo!-? v !u b!e for itse!f s we!! s in its c # city of re#resent tive C it m y even be n ?obBect? or ?thing-? de r for its sound or !oo,& Some nov> e!ists m y use words s signs 3Scott- 9oo#er- Dreiser6- in which c se they m y be re d to dv nt ge tr ns! ted into nother I n>

;7 /heory of Liter ture gu ge- or remembered s mythic structureC #oets norm !!y usR words ?symbo!ic !!y&? 1E /he tr dition ! #hr se- the ? ssoci tion of ide s-? is n in> ccur te n me& +eyond the ssoci tive !in, ge of word with word 3m r,ed in some #oets6 there is the ssoci tion of the obBects to which our ment ! ?ide s? refer& /he chief c tegories of such ssoci tion re contiguity in time nd #! ce- nd simi! rity or dissimi! rity& /he nove!ist o#er tes #rim ri!y- #erh #s- in terms of the former B the #oet- in terms of the ! tter 3which we m y e:u te with met #hor6 C but H es#eci !!y in recent !iter ture H the contr st must not be m de too strong& In his Ro d to J n du - Lowes reconstructs with the cumen of bri!!i nt detective the #rocess of ssoci tion by which the v st!y nd curious!y re d 9o!eridge moved from one :uot tion or !!usion to nother& As for theory- however- he is soon con> tent$ few #ure!y figur tive terms serve him to describe the cre tive #rocess& (e s#e ,s of the ?hoo,ed toms? or 3in the #hr se of (enry . mes6 of im ges nd ide s s dro##ing for time ?into the dee# we!! of unconscious cerebr tion-? to emerge h ving undergone 3in the f vorite :uot tion of scho! rs6 ?se >ch nge&? 1hen 9o!eridgeAs recondite re ding re ##e rswe sometimes get ?m r:uetry? or ?mos ic-? sometimes ?mir c!e&? Lowes form !!y c,now!edges th t ? t the zenith of its #ower the cre tive energy is both conscious nd unconscious & & & contro!!ing conscious!y the throng of im ges which in the reservoir Sthe ?we!!? of the unconsciousT h ve undergone un> conscious met mor#hosis? B but he sc rce!y ttends to or ttem#ts to define the re !!y #ur#osive nd constructive in the cre tive #rocess& 1= In the n rr tive writer- we thin, of his cre tion of ch r cters nd his ?invention? of stories& Since the Rom ntic #eriod- both h ve undoubted!y been conceived of too sim#!y s either ?origin !? or co#ied from re ! #eo#!e 3 view re d b c, !so into the !iter ture of the # st6 or #! gi rism& Yet even in the most ?origin !? nove!ists !i,e Dic,ens- ch r cter ty#es nd n r> r tive techni:ues re chief!y tr dition !- dr wn from the #rofes> sion !- the institution ! !iter ry stoc,& !s /he cre tion of ch r cters m y be su##osed to b!end- in v ry> ing degrees- inherited !iter ry ty#es- #ersons observed- nd the

Liter ture

nd 8sycho!ogy ;D

se!f& /he re !ist- we might s y- chief!y observes beh vior or ?em# thizes-? whi!e the Rom ntic writer ?#roBects?C yet it is to be doubted th t mere observ tion c n suffice for !ife>!i,e ch r cteriz tion& " ust- Me#histo#he!es- 1erther- nd 1i!he!m

Meister re !!- s ys one #sycho!ogist- ?#roBections into fiction of v rious s#ects of <oetheAs own n ture&? /he nove!istAs #o> tenti ! se!ves- inc!uding those se!ves which re viewed s evi!re !! #otenti ! ferson e& ?'ne m nAs mood is nother m nAs ch r cter&? Dostoevs,yAs four brothers 2 r m zov re !! s#ects of Dostoevs,y& *or shou!d we su##ose th t nove!ist is neces> s ri!y !imited to observ tion in his heroines& ?M d me +ov rycAest moi? s ys "! ubert& 'n!y se!ves recognized from within s #otenti ! c n become ?!iving ch r cters-? not ?f! t? but ?round&? 1h tever ch r cters nove!ist h s succeeded with must be # rts of himse!f- since on!y from himse!f- nd not e@ nihi!oy cou!d he give them !ife& 14 1h t ,ind of re! tion h ve these ?!iving ch r cters? to the nove!istAs ctu ! se!fI /he more numerous nd se# r te his ch r> cters- the !ess definite his own ?#erson !ity-? it wou!d seem& Sh ,es#e re dis ##e rs into his #! ysC neither in them- nor in necdote- do we get ny sense of sh r#!y defined nd indi> vidu ted ch r cter com# r b!e to th t of +en .onson& /he ch r> cter of the #oet- 2e ts once wrote- is to h ve no se!f$ ?it is everything nd nothing& &&& It h s s much de!ight in con> ceiving n ! go s n Imogen& &&& A 8oet is the most un> #oetic ! of ny thing in e@istence- bec use he h s no Identity H he is continu !!y informing nd fi!!ing some other body&? 20 A!! these theories we h ve discussed be!ong ctu !!y to the #sycho!ogy of the writer& /he #rocesses of his cre tion re the !egitim te obBect of the #sycho!ogistsA investig tive curiosity& /hey c n c! ssify the #oet ccording to #hysio!ogic ! nd #sy> cho!ogic ! ty#esC they c n describe his ment ! i!!sC they m y even e@#!ore his subconscious mind& /he evidence of the #sy> cho!ogist m y come from un!iter ry documents or it m y be dr wn from the wor,s themse!ves& In the ! tter c se- it needs to be chec,ed with the document ry evidence- to be c refu!!y inter#reted& 9 n #sycho!ogy- in its turn- be used to inter#ret nd ev !u te the !iter ry wor,s themse!vesI 8sycho!ogy obvious!y c n i!!umi>

;E /heory of Liter ture n te the cre tive #rocess& As we h ve seen- ttention h s been given to the v rying methods of com#osition- to the h bits of uthors in revising nd rewriting& /here h s been study of the genesis of wor,s$ the e r!y st ges- the dr fts- the reBected re d> ings& Yet the critic ! re!ev nce of much of this inform tiones#eci !!y the m ny necdotes bout writersA h bits- is sure!y overr ted& A study of revisions- corrections- nd the !i,e h s more which is !iter ri!y #rofit b!e- since- we!! used- it m y he!# us #erceive critic !!y re!ev nt fissures- inconsistencies- turningsdistortions in wor, of rt& An !yzing how 8roust com#osed his cyc!ic nove!- "eui!!er t i!!umin tes the ! ter vo!umes- en > b!ing us to distinguish sever ! ! yers in their te@t& A study of v ri nts seems to #ermit g!im#ses into n uthorAs wor,sho#& 21 Yet if we e@ mine dr fts- reBections- e@c!usions- nd cuts more

sober!y- we conc!ude them not- fin !!y- necess ry to n under> st nding of the finished wor, or to Budgment u#on it& /heir interest is th t of ny !tern tive- i&e&- they m y set into re!ief the :u !ities of the fin ! te@t& +ut the s me end m y very we!! be chieved by devising for ourse!ves !tern tives- whether or not they h ve ctu !!y # ssed through the uthorAs mind& 2e tsA verses in the ?'de to the *ighting !e?$ /he s me SvoiceT th t oft>times h th 9h rmed m gic c sements o#ening on the fo m 'f #eri!ous se s- in f ery ! nds for!ornm y g in something from our ,nowing th t 2e ts considered ?ruth!ess se s? nd even ?,ee!!ess se s&? +ut the st tus of ?ruth!ess? or ?,ee!!ess-? by ch nce #reserved- does not essen> ti !!y differ from ?d ngerous-? ?em#ty-? ?b rren-? ?shi#!ess-? ?crue!-? or ny other dBective the critic might invo,e& /hey do not be!ong to the wor, of rtC nor do these genetic :uestions dis#ense with the n !ysis nd ev !u tion of the ctu ! wor,& 22 /here rem ins the :uestion of ?#sycho!ogy? in the wor,s themse!ves& 9h r cters in #! ys nd nove!s re Budged by us to be ?#sycho!ogic !!y? true& Situ tions re #r ised nd #!ots cce#ted bec use of this s me :u !ity& Sometimes#sycho> !ogic ! theory- he!d either conscious!y or dim!y by n uthorseems to fit figure or situ tion& /hus Li!y 9 m#be!! h s rgued th t ( m!et fits the ty#e of ?s nguine m nAs suffering

Liter ture

nd 8sycho!ogy ;=

from me! ncho!y dust? ,nown to the 0!iz beth ns from their #sycho!ogic ! theories& In !i,e f shion 'sc r 9 m#be!! h s tried to show th t . :ues- in As You Li,e It- is c se of ?unn tur ! me! ncho!y #roduced by dustion of #h!egm&? 1 !ter Sh ndy cou!d be shown to suffer from the dise se of !inguistic ssoci > tionism described in Loc,e& Stendh !As hero .u!ien Sore! is de> scribed in terms of the #sycho!ogy of Destutt de /r cy- nd the different ,inds of !ove re! tionshi# re obvious!y c! ssified c> cording to Stendh !As own boo, De ! y Amour& Rodion R s,o!> ni,ovAs motives nd fee!ings re n !yzed in w y which sug> gests some ,now!edge of c!inic ! #sycho!ogy& 8roust cert in!y h s who!e #sycho!ogic ! theory of memory- im#ort nt even for the org niz tion of his wor,& "reudi n #sycho n !ysis is used :uite conscious!y by nove!ists such s 9onr d Ai,en or 1 !do "r n,& 25 /he :uestion m y be r ised- of course- whether the uthor h s re !!y succeeded in incor#or ting #sycho!ogy into his figures nd their re! tionshi#s& Mere st tements of his ,now!edge or theories wou!d not count& /hey wou!d be ?m tter? or ?content-? !i,e ny other ty#e of inform tion to be found in !iter turee&g&- f cts from n vig tion- stronomy- or history& In some c sesthe reference to contem#or ry #sycho!ogy m y be doubted or minimized& /he ttem#ts to fit ( m!et or . :ues into some scheme of 0!iz beth n #sycho!ogy seem mist ,en- bec use 0!iz beth n #sycho!ogy w s contr dictory- confusing- nd con>

fused- nd ( m!et nd . :ues re more th n ty#es& /hough R s,o!ni,ov nd Sore! fit cert in #sycho!ogic ! theories- they do so on!y incom#!ete!y nd intermittent!y& Sore! sometimes be> h ves in most me!odr m tic m nner& R s,o!ni,ovAs initi ! crime is in de:u te!y motiv ted& /hese boo,s re not #rim ri!y #sycho!ogic ! studies or e@#ositions of theories but dr m s or me!odr m s- where stri,ing situ tions re more im#ort nt th n re !istic #sycho!ogic ! motiv tion& If one e@ mines ?stre m of consciousness? nove!s- one soon discovers th t there is no ?re !? re#roduction of the ctu ! ment ! #rocesses of the subBect- th t the stre m of consciousness is r ther device of dr m tizing the mind- of m ,ing us w re concrete!y wh t +enBy- the idiot in " u!,nerAs /he Sound nd the "ury- is !i,e- or wh t Mrs&

;; /heory oB Liter ture +!oom is !i,e& +ut there is !itt!e th t seems scientific or even ?re !istic? bout the device& 27 0ven if we ssume th t n uthor succeeds in m ,ing his fig> ures beh ve with ?#sycho!ogic ! truth-? we m y we!! r ise the :uestion whether such ?truth? is n rtistic v !ue& Much gre t rt continuous!y vio! tes st nd rds of #sycho!ogy- either con> tem#or ry with it or subse:uent& It wor,s with im#rob b!e situ > tions- with f nt stic motifs& Li,e the dem nd for soci ! re !ism#sycho!ogic ! truth is n tur !istic st nd rd without univers ! v !idity& In some c ses- to be sure- #sycho!ogic ! insight seems to enh nce rtistic v !ue& In such c ses- it corrobor tes im#ort nt rtistic v !ues- those of com#!e@ity nd coherence& +ut such in> sight c n be re ched by other me ns th n theoretic ! ,now!> edge of #sycho!ogy& In the sense of conscious nd system tic theory of the mind nd its wor,ings- #sycho!ogy is unnecess ry to rt nd not in itse!f of rtistic v !ue& 2D "or some conscious rtists- #sycho!ogy m y h ve tightened their sense of re !ity- sh r#ened their #owers of observ tion or !!owed them to f !! into hitherto undiscovered # tterns& +utin itse!f- #sycho!ogy is on!y #re# r tory to the ct of cre tion C nd in the wor, itse!f- #sycho!ogic ! truth is n rtistic v !ue on!y if it enh nces coherence nd com#!e@ity H if- in short- it is rt&

9(A8/0R IJ Liter ture nd Society

Liter ture is soci ! institution- using s its medium ! ngu gesoci ! cre tion& Such tr dition ! !iter ry devices s symbo!ism nd meter re soci ! in their very n ture& /hey re conventions nd norms which cou!d h ve risen on!y in society& +ut- fur> thermore- !iter ture ?imit tes? ?!ife? 5 nd ?!ife? is- in ! rge me suresoci ! re !ity- even though the n tur ! wor!d nd the inner or subBective wor!d of the individu ! h ve !so been

obBects of !iter ry ?imit tion&? /he #oet himse!f is member of society- #ossessed of s#ecific soci ! st tus$ he receives some degree of soci ! recognition nd rew rdN he ddresses n udi> ence- however hy#othetic !& Indeed- !iter ture h s usu !!y risen in c!ose connection with # rticu! r soci ! institutionsN nd in #rimitive society we m y even be un b!e to distinguish #oetry from ritu !- m gic- wor,- or #! y& Liter ture h s !so soci ! function- or ?use-? which c nnot be #ure!y individu !& /hus ! rge m Bority of the :uestions r ised by !iter ry study re- t !e st u!tim te!y or by im#!ic tion- soci ! :uestions$ :uestions of tr dition nd convention- norms nd genres- symbo!s nd myths& 1ith /om rs- one c n formu! te$ ?0sthetic institutions re not b sed u#on soci ! institutions$ they re not even # rt of soci ! institutions$ they re soci ! institutions of one ty#e nd inti> m te!y interconnected with those others&? @ )su !!y- however- the in:uiry concerning ?!iter ture nd so> ciety? is #ut more n rrow!y nd e@tern !!y& Muestions re s,ed bout the re! tions of !iter ture to given soci ! situ tion- to n economic- soci !- nd #o!itic ! system& Attem#ts re m de to describe nd define the inf!uence of society on !iter ture nd to #rescribe nd Budge the #osition of !iter ture in society& /his socio!ogic ! ##ro ch to !iter ture is # rticu! r!y cu!tiv ted by those who #rofess s#ecific soci ! #hi!oso#hy& M r@ist critics not on!y study these re! tions between !iter ture nd society- but ;4

40 /heory of Liter ture !so h ve their c!e r!y defined conce#tion of wh t these re! tions shou!d be- both in our #resent society nd in future ?c! ss!ess? society& /hey #r ctice ev !u tive- ?Budici !? criticism- b sed on non>!iter ry #o!itic !- nd ethic ! criteri & /hey te!! us not on!y wh t were nd re the soci ! re! tions nd im#!ic tions of n uthorAs wor, but wh t they shou!d h ve been or ought to be& 2 /hey re not on!y students of !iter ture nd society but #ro#hets of the future- monitors- #ro# g ndistsC nd they h ve difficu!ty in ,ee#ing these two functions se# r te& /he re! tion between !iter ture nd society is usu !!y discussed by st rting with the #hr se- derived from De +on !d- th t ?!iter ture is n e@#ression of society&? +ut wh t does this @iom me nI If it ssumes th t !iter ture- t ny given time- mirrors the current soci ! situ tion ?correct!y-? it is f !se C it is common> #! ce- trite- nd v gue if it me ns on!y th t !iter ture de#icts some s#ects of soci ! re !ity& 5 /o s y th t !iter ture mirrors or e@#resses !ife is even more mbiguous& A writer inevit b!y e@> #resses his e@#erience nd tot ! conce#tion of !ife C but it wou!d be m nifest!y untrue to s y th t he e@#resses the who!e of !ife H or even the who!e !ife of given time H com#!ete!y nd e@h us> tive!y& It is s#ecific ev !u tive criterion to s y th t n uthor shou!d e@#ress the !ife of his own time fu!!y- th t he shou!d be ?re#resent tive? of his ge nd society& +esides- of coursethe terms ?fu!!y? nd ?re#resent tive? re:uire much inter#re>

t tion$ in most soci ! criticism they seem to me n th t n uthor shou!d be w re of s#ecific soci ! situ tions- e&g&- of the #!ight of the #ro!et ri t- or even th t he shou!d sh re s#ecific ttitude nd ideo!ogy of the critic& +ut it seems best to #ost#one the #rob!em of ev !u tive criti> cism ti!! we h ve diseng ged the ctu ! re! tions between !it> er ture nd society& /hese descri#tive 3 s distinct from norm > tive6 re! tions dmit of r ther re dy c! ssific tion& "irst- there is the socio!ogy of the writer nd the #rofession nd institutions of !iter ture- the who!e :uestion of the economic b sis of !iter ry #roduction- the soci ! #rovenience nd st tus of the writer- his soci ! ideo!ogy- which m y find e@#ression in e@tr !iter ry #ronouncements nd ctivities& /hen there is the #rob!em of the soci ! content- the im#!ic tions nd soci ! #ur> #ose of the wor,s of !iter ture themse!ves& L st!y- there re the

Liter ture

nd Society 4 1

#rob!ems of the udience nd the ctu ! soci ! inf!uence of !it> er ture& /he :uestion how f r !iter ture is ctu !!y determined by or de#endent on its soci ! setting- on soci ! ch nge nd de> ve!o#ment- is one which- in one w y or nother- wi!! enter into !! the three divisions of our #rob!em$ the socio!ogy of the writer- the soci ! content of the wor,s themse!ves- nd the in> f!uence of !iter ture on society& 1e sh !! h ve to decide wh t is me nt by de#endence or c us tion C nd u!tim te!y we sh !! r> rive t the #rob!em of cu!tur ! integr tion nd s#ecific !!y t how our own cu!ture is integr ted& Since every writer is member of society- he c n be studied s soci ! being& /hough his biogr #hy is the m in source- such study c n e si!y widen into one of the who!e mi!ieu from which he c me nd in which he !ived& It wi!! be #ossib!e to c> cumu! te inform tion bout the soci ! #rovenience- the f mi!y b c,ground- the economic #osition of writers& 1e c n show wh t w s the e@ ct sh re of ristocr ts- bourgeois- nd #ro!et ri ns in the history of !iter tureC for e@ m#!e- we c n demonstr te the #redomin nt sh re which the chi!dren of the #rofession ! nd commerci ! c! sses t ,e in the #roduction of Americ n !iter > ture& 7 St tistics c n est b!ish th t- in modern 0uro#e- !iter ture recruited its #r ctitioners ! rge!y from the midd!e c! sses- since ristocr cy w s #reoccu#ied with the #ursuit of g!ory or !eisure whi!e the !ower c! sses h d !itt!e o##ortunity for educ tion& In 0ng! nd- this gener !iz tion ho!ds good on!y with ! rge reser> v tions& /he sons of #e s nts nd wor,men ##e r infre:uent!y in o!der 0ng!ish !iter ture$ e@ce#tions such s +urns nd 9 r> !y!e re # rt!y e@#!ic b!e by reference to the democr tic Scottish schoo! system& /he ro!e of the ristocr cy in 0ng!ish !iter ture w s uncommon!y gre t H # rt!y bec use it w s !ess cut off from the #rofession ! c! sses th n in other countries- where there w s no #rimogeniture& +ut- with few e@ce#tions- !! modern Rus> si n writers before <onch rov nd 9he,hov were ristocr tic in origin& 0ven Dostoevs,y w s technic !!y nob!em n- though his

f therdoctor in Moscow (os#it ! for the 8oor! nd nd serfs on!y ! te in his !ife&

c:uired

It is e sy enough to co!!ect such d t but h rder to inter#ret them& Does soci ! #rovenience #rescribe soci ! ideo!ogy nd !!egi nceI /he c ses of She!!ey- 9 r!y!e- nd /o!stoy re ob>

42 /heory of Liter ture vious e@ m#!es of such ?tre son? to oneAs c! ss& 'utside of Russi most 9ommunist writers re not #ro!et ri n in origin& Soviet nd other M r@ist critics h ve c rried out e@tensive investig tions to scert in #recise!y both the e@ ct soci ! #rovenience nd the soci ! !!egi nce of Russi n writers& /hus 8& *& S ,u!in b ses his tre t> ment of recent Russi n !iter ture on c refu! distinctions between the res#ective !iter tures of the #e s nts- the sm !! bourgeoisiethe democr tic inte!!igentsi - the dec! sse inte!!igentsi - the bourgeoisie- the ristocr cy- nd the revo!ution ry #ro!et ri t& D In the study of o!der !iter ture- Russi n scho! rs ttem#t e! b> or te distinctions between the m ny grou#s nd sub>grou#s of the Russi n ristocr cy to whom 8ush,in nd <ogo!- /urgenev nd /o!stoy m y be shown to h ve be!onged by virtue of their inherited we !th nd e r!y ssoci tions& E +ut it is difficu!t to #rove th t 8ush,in re#resented the interests of the im#overished ! nded nobi!ity nd <ogo! those of the ),r ini n sm !! ! nd> ho!der C such conc!usion is indeed dis#roved by the gener ! ideo!ogy of their wor,s nd by the ##e ! the wor,s h ve m de beyond the confines of grou#c! ss- nd time& = /he soci ! origins of writer #! y on!y minor # rt in the :uestions r ised by his soci ! st tus- !!egi nce- nd ideo!ogyC for writers- it is c!e r- h ve often #ut themse!ves t the service of nother c! ss& Most 9ourt #oetry w s written by men whothough born in !ower est te- do#ted the ideo!ogy nd t ste of their # trons& /he soci ! !!egi nce- ttitude- nd ideo!ogy of writer c n be studied not on!y in his writings but !so- fre:uent!y- in biogr #h> ic ! e@tr >!iter ry documents& /he writer h s been citizen- h s #ronounced on :uestions of soci ! nd #o!itic ! im#ort nce- h s t ,en # rt in the issues of his time& Much wor, h s been done u#on #o!itic ! nd soci ! views of individu ! writersC nd in recent times more nd more ttention h s been devoted to the economic im#!ic tions of these views& /hus L& 9& 2nights- rguing th t +en .onsonAs economic ttitude w s #rofound!y mediev !- shows how- !i,e sever ! of his fe!!ow> dr m tists- he s tirized the rising c! ss of usurers- mono#o!istss#ecu! tors- nd ?undert ,ers&? s M ny wor,s of !iter ture H e&g&the ?histories? of Sh ,es#e re nd SwiftAs <u!!iverAs /r ve!s H h ve been reinter#reted in c!ose re! tion to the #o!itic ! conte@t

Liter ture

nd Society 45

of the time& 4 8ronouncements- decisions- nd ctivities shou!d never be confused with the ctu ! soci ! im#!ic tions of writerAs wor,s& + !z c is stri,ing e@ m#!e of the #ossib!e division B forthough his #rofessed sym# thies were !! with the o!d order- the ristocr cy- nd the 9hurch- his instinct nd im gin tion were f r more eng ged by the c:uisitive ty#e- the s#ecu! tor- the new strong m n of the bourgeoisie& /here m y be consider b!e dif> ference between theory nd #r ctice- between #rofession of f ith nd cre tive bi!ity& /hese #rob!ems of soci ! origins- !!egi nce- nd ideo!ogy wi!!if system tized- !e d to socio!ogy of the writer s ty#e- or s ty#e t # rticu! r time nd #! ce& 10 1e c n distinguish be> tween writers ccording to their degree of integr tion into the soci ! #rocess& It is very c!ose in #o#u! r !iter ture- but m y re ch the e@tremes of dissoci tion- of ?soci ! dist nce-? in +o> hemi nism- with the foete m udit nd the free cre tive genius& 'n the who!e- in modern times- nd in the 1est- the !iter ry m n seems to h ve !essened his c! ss ties& /here h s risen n ?inte!!igentsi -? com# r tive!y inde#endent in>between c! ss of #rofession !s& It wi!! be the t s, of !iter ry socio!ogy to tr ce its e@ ct soci ! st tus- its degree of de#endence on the ru!ing c! ss- the e@ ct economic sources of its su##ort- the #restige of the writer in e ch society& /he gener ! out!ines of this history re !re dy f ir!y c!e r& In #o#u! r or ! !iter ture- we c n study the ro!e of the singer or n rr tor who wi!! de#end c!ose!y on the f vor of his #ub!ic$ the b rd in ncient <reece- the sco# in /eutonic nti:uity- the #ro> fession ! fo!,>t !e te!!er in the 'rient nd Russi & In the ncient <ree, city st te- the tr gedi ns nd such com#osers of dithyr mbs nd hymns s 8ind r h d their s#eci !- semire!igious #ositionone s!ow!y becoming more secu! rized- s we c n see when we com# re 0uri#ides with Aeschy!us& Among the 9ourts of the Rom n 0m#ire- we must thin, of Kirgi!- (or ce- nd 'vid s de#endent on the bounty nd good wi!! of their 9 es r nd M ecen s& In the Midd!e Ages- there re the mon, in his ce!!- the troub dour nd MinnesAdnger t the 9ourt or b ronAs c st!e- the v gr nt scho! rs on the ro ds& /he writer is either c!er, or scho! r- or he is singer- n entert inerminstre!& +ut even

47 /heory of Liter ture ,ings !i,e 1ences! us II of +ohemi or . mes I of Scot! nd re now #oets H m teurs- di!ett ntes& In the <erm n Meisters ngrtis ns re org nized in #oetic gui!ds- burghers who #r ctice #oetry s cr ft& 1ith the Ren iss nce there rose com# r > tive!y un tt ched grou# of writers- the (um nists- who w n> dered sometimes from country to country nd offered their services to different # trons& 8etr rch is the first modern foet ! ure tuSy #ossessed of gr ndiose conce#tion of his missionwhi!e Aretino is the #rototy#e of the !iter ry Bourn !ist- !iving

on b! c,m i!- fe red r ther th n honored

nd res#ected&

In the ! rge- the ! ter history is the tr nsition from su##ort by nob!e or ignob!e # trons to th t fforded by #ub!ishers cting s #redictive gents of the re ding #ub!ic& /he system of risto> cr tic # tron ge w s not- however- univers !& /he 9hurch ndsoon- the the ter su##orted s#eci ! ty#es of !iter ture& In 0ng> ! nd- the # tron ge system ## rent!y beg n to f i! e r!y in the eighteenth century& "or time- !iter ture- de#rived of its e r!ier benef ctors nd not yet fu!!y su##orted by the re ding #ub!icw s economic !!y worse off& /he e r!y !ife of Dr& .ohnson in <rub Street nd his defi nce of Lord 9hesterfie!d symbo!ize these ch nges& Yet gener tion e r!ier- 8o#e w s b!e to m ss for> tune from his tr ns! tion of (omer- ! vish!y subscribed by nobi!> ity nd university men& /he gre t fin nci ! rew rds- however- c me on!y in the nine> teenth century- when Scott nd +yron wie!ded n enormous inf!uence u#on t ste nd #ub!ic o#inion& Ko!t ire nd <oethe h d v st!y incre sed the #restige nd inde#endence of the writer on the 9ontinent& /he growth of the re ding #ub!ic- the founding of the gre t reviews !i,e the 0dinburgh nd the Mu rter!y - m de !iter ture more nd more the !most inde#endent ?institution? which 8ros#er de + r nte- writing in 1;22- c! imed it to h ve been in the eighteenth century& 11 As Ash!ey /horndi,e urged- the ?outst nding ch r cteristic of the #rinted m tter of the nineteenth century is not its vu!> g riz tion- or its mediocrity- but r ther its s#eci !iz tion& /his #rinted m tter is no !onger ddressed to uniform or homo> geneous #ub!ic$ it is divided u# mong m ny #ub!ics nd conse> :uent!y divided by m ny subBects- interests- nd #ur#oses&? 12 In "iction nd the Re ding 8ub!ic- which might we!! be considered

Liter ture

nd Society 4D

homi!y on /horndi,eAs te@t- Mrs& M& D& Le vis 15 #oints out th t the eighteenth>century #e s nt who !e rned to re d h d to re d wh t the gentry nd the university men re d C th t the nine> teenth century re ders- on the other h nd- re #ro#er!y s#o,en of not s ?the #ub!ic? but s ?#ub!ics&? 'ur own time ,nows sti!! further mu!ti#!ic tions in #ub!ishing !ists nd m g zine r c,s$ there e@ist boo,s for 4>10>ye r o!ds- boo,s for boys of high schoo! ge- boo,s for those who ?!ive !one? B tr de Bourn !s- house or> g ns- Sund y Schoo! wee,!ies- 1esterns- true>story rom nces& 8ub!ishers- m g zines- nd writers !! s#eci !ize& /hus study of the economic b sis of !iter ture nd of the soci ! st tus of the writer is ine@tric b!y bound u# with study of the udience he ddresses nd u#on which he is de#endent fin n> ci !!y& 17 0ven the ristocr tic # tron is n udience nd fre> :uent!y n e@ cting udience- re:uiring not on!y #erson ! du! > tion but !so conformity to the conventions of his c! ss& In even e r!ier society- in the grou# where fo!, #oetry f!ourishes- the de#endence of the uthor on the udience is even gre ter$ his

wor, wi!! not be tr nsmitted un!ess it #!e ses immedi te!y& /he ro!e of the udience in the the ter is- t !e st- s t ngib!e& /here h ve been even ttem#ts to tr ce the ch nges in Sh ,es#e reAs #eriods nd sty!e to the ch nge in the udience between the o#en> ir <!obe- on the South + n,- with its mi@ed udiencend +! c,fri rsc!osed h !! fre:uented by the higher c! sses& It becomes h rder to tr ce the s#ecific re! tion between uthor nd #ub!ic t ! ter time when the re ding #ub!ic r #id!y e@> # nds- becomes dis#ersed nd heterogeneous- nd when the re! > tionshi#s of uthor nd #ub!ic grow more indirect nd ob!i:ue& /he number of intermedi ries between writers nd the #ub!ic incre ses& 1e c n study the ro!e of such soci ! institutions nd ssoci tions s the s !on- the c fe- the c!ub- the c demy- nd the university& 1e c n tr ce the history of reviews nd m g zines s we!! s of #ub!ishing houses& /he critic becomes n im#ort nt midd!em n C grou# of connoisseurs- bib!io#hi!es- nd co!!ectors m y su##ort cert in ,inds of !iter ture C nd the ssoci tions of !iter ry men themse!ves m y he!# to cre te s#eci ! #ub!ic of writers or wou!d>be writers& In Americ es#eci !!y- women- whoccording to Keb!en #rovide vic rious !eisure nd consum#tion

PE /heory of Liter ture of the rts for the tired businessm n- h ve become min nts of !iter ry t ste& ctive deter>

Sti!!- the o!d # tterns h ve not been com#!ete!y re#! ced& A!! modern governments su##ort nd foster !iter ture in v rious degrees C nd # tron ge me ns- of course- contro! nd su#er> vision& 1D /o overr te the conscious inf!uence of the tot !it ri n st te during the ! st dec des wou!d be difficu!t& It h s been both neg tive H in su##ression- boo,>burning- censorshi#- si!encingnd re#rim nding- nd #ositive H in the encour gement of ?b!ood nd soi!? region !ism or Soviet ?soci !ist re !ism&? /he f ct th t the st te h s been unsuccessfu! in cre ting !iter ture whichconforming to ideo!ogic ! s#ecific tions- is sti!! gre t rt- c nnot refute the view th t government regu! tion of !iter ture is effec> tive in offering the #ossibi!ities of cre tion to those who identify themse!ves vo!unt ri!y or re!uct nt!y with the offici ! #rescri#> tions& /hus- in Soviet Russi - !iter ture is- t !e st- in theory g in becoming commun ! rt nd the rtist h s g in been integr ted into society& /he gr #h of boo,As success- surviv !- nd recrudescence- or writerAs re#ut tion nd f me is- m in!ysoci ! #henomenon& In # rt it be!ongs- of course- to !iter ry ?history-? since f me nd re#ut tion re me sured by the ctu ! inf!uence of writer on other writers- his gener ! #ower of tr nsforming nd ch nging the !iter ry tr dition& In # rt- re#ut tion is m tter of critic ! res#onse$ ti!! now- it h s been tr ced chief!y on the b sis of more or !ess form ! #ronouncements ssumed to be re#resent tive of #eriodAs ?gener ! re der&? (ence- whi!e the who!e :uestion of the ?whir!igig of t ste? is ?soci !-? it c n be #ut on more defi> nite!y socio!ogic ! b sis$ det i!ed wor, c n investig te the ctu ! concord nce between wor, nd the s#ecific #ub!ic which h s

m de its success C evidence c n be so!d&

ccumu! ted on editions- co#ies

/he str tific tion of every society is ref!ected in the str tific > tion of its t ste& 1hi!e the norms of the u##er c! sses usu !!y descend to the !ower- the movement is sometimes reversed$ in> terest in fo!,!ore nd #rimitive rt is c se in #oint& /here is no necess ry concurrence between #o!itic ! nd soci ! dv ncement nd esthetic$ !e dershi# in !iter ture h d # ssed to the bour> geoisie !ong before #o!itic ! su#rem cy& Soci ! str tific tion m y

Liter ture

nd Society 4=

be interfered with nd even brog ted in :uestions of t ste by differences of ge nd se@- by s#ecific grou#s nd ssoci tions& " shion is !so n im#ort nt #henomenon in modern !iter turefor in com#etitive f!uid society- the norms of the u##er c! sses:uic,!y imit ted- re in const nt need of re#! cement& 9ert in!ythe #resent r #id ch nges of t ste seem to ref!ect the r #id soci ! ch nges of the ! st dec des nd the gener ! !oose re! tion between rtist nd udience& /he modern writerAs iso! tion from society- i!!ustr ted by <rub Street- +ohemi - <reenwich Ki!! ge- the Americ n e@> # tri te- invites socio!ogic ! study& A Russi n soci !ist- <eorgi 8!e,h nov- be!ieves th t the doctrine of ? rt for rtAs s ,e? de> ve!o#s when rtists fee! ?ho#e!ess contr diction between their ims nd the ims of the society to which they be!ong& Artists must be very hosti!e to their society nd they must see no ho#e of ch nging it&? 1E In his Socio!ogy of Liter ry / ste- Levin L& Schiic,ing h s s,etched out some of these #rob!ems B e!sewherehe h s studied in det i! the ro!e of the f mi!y nd women s n udience in the eighteenth century& 1= /hough much evidence h s been ccumu! ted- we!!>subst n> ti ted conc!usions h ve r re!y been dr wn concerning the e@ ct re! tions between the #roduction of !iter ture nd its economic found tions- or even concerning the e@ ct inf!uence of the #ub!ic on writer& /he re! tionshi# is obvious!y not one of mere de> #endence or of # ssive com#!i nce with the #rescri#tions of # tron or #ub!ic& 1riters m y succeed in cre ting their own s#e> ci ! #ub!ic C indeed- s 9o!eridge ,new- every new writer h s to cre te the t ste which wi!! enBoy him& /he writer is not on!y inf!uenced by society$ he inf!uences it& Art not mere!y re#roduces Life but !so sh #es it& 8eo#!e m y mode! their !ives u#on the # tterns of fiction ! heroes nd heroines& /hey h ve m de !ove- committed crimes nd suicide ccording to the boo,- be it <oetheAs Sorrows of 1erther or Dum sA Mus,eteers& +ut c n we #recise!y define the inf!uence of boo, on its re dersI 1i!! it ever be #ossib!e to describe the inf!uence of s tireI Did Addison re !!y ch nge the m nners of his society or Dic,ens incite reforms of debtorsA #risons- boysA schoo!s- nd #oorhousesI 1S 1 s Mrs& Stowe re !!y the ?!itt!e wom n who m de the gre t w r?I ( s <one with the 1ind

4; /heory of Liter ture ch nged *orthern re dersA ttitudes tow rd Mrs& StoweAs w rI (ow h ve (emingw y nd " u!,ner ffected their re dersI (ow gre t w s the inf!uence of !iter ture on the rise of modern n tion !ismI 9ert in!y the historic ! nove!s of 1 !ter Scott in Scot! nd- of (enry, Sien,iewicz in 8o! nd- of A!ois .ir se, in 9zechos!ov ,i - h ve done something very definite to incre se n tion ! #ride nd common memory of historic ! events& 1e c n hy#othesize H #! usib!y- no doubt H th t the young re more direct!y nd #owerfu!!y inf!uenced by their re ding th n the o!d- th t ine@#erienced re ders t ,e !iter ture more n ive!y s tr nscri#t r ther th n inter#ret tion of !ife- th t those whose boo,s re few t ,e them in more utter seriousness th n do wide nd #rofession ! re ders& 9 n we dv nce beyond such conBectureI 9 n we m ,e use of :uestionn ires nd ny other mode of socio!ogic ! en:uiryI *o e@ ct obBectivity is obt in b!efor the ttem#t t c se histories wi!! de#end u#on the memories nd the n !ytic #owers of the interrog ted- nd their testimonies wi!! need codific tion nd ev !u tion by f !!ib!e mind& +ut the :uestion- ?(ow does !iter ture ffect its udienceI? is n em> #iric ! one- to be nswered- if t !!- by the ##e ! to e@#erienceC nd- since we re thin,ing of !iter ture in the bro dest sense- nd society in the bro dest- the ##e ! must be m de to the e@#eri> ence not of the connoisseur !one but to th t of the hum n r ce& 1e h ve sc rce!y begun to study such :uestions& 14 Much the most common ##ro ch to the re! tions of !iter ture nd society is the study of wor,s of !iter ture s soci ! documentss ssumed #ictures of soci ! re !ity& *or c n it be doubted th t some ,ind of soci ! #icture c n be bstr cted from !iter ture& Indeed- this h s been one of the e r!iest uses to which !iter ture h s been #ut by system tic students& /hom s 1 rton- the first re ! histori n of 0ng!ish #oetry- rgued th t !iter ture h s the ?#ecu!i r merit of f ithfu!!y recording the fe tures of the timesnd of #reserving the most #ictures:ue nd e@#ressive re#resen> t tion of m nners? B 20 nd to him nd m ny of his nti:u ri n successors- !iter ture w s #rim ri!y tre sury of costumes nd customssource boo, for the history of civi!iz tion- es#eci !!y of chiv !ry nd its dec!ine& As for modern re ders- m ny of them derive their chief im#ressions of foreign societies from the re d>

Liter ture

nd Society 44 nd < !sworthy- from + !z c

ing of nove!s- from Sinc! ir Lewis nd /urgenev&

)sed s soci ! document- !iter ture c n be m de to yie!d the out!ines of soci ! history& 9h ucer nd L ng! nd #reserve two views of fourteenth>century society& /he 8ro!ogue to the 9 nterbury / !es w s e r!y seen to offer n !most com#!ete

survey of soci ! ty#es& Sh ,es#e re- in the Merry 1ives of 1indsor- +en .onson in sever ! #! ys- nd /hom s De!oney seem to te!! us something bout the 0!iz beth n midd!e c! ss& Addison- "ie!ding- nd Smo!!ett de#ict the new bourgeoisie of the eighteenth century D . ne Austen- the country gentry nd country # rsons e r!y in the nineteenth century C nd /ro!!o#e/h c,er y- nd Dic,ens- the Kictori n wor!d& At the turn of the century- < !sworthy shows us the 0ng!ish u##er midd!e c! sses C 1e!!s- the !ower midd!e c! sses C +ennett- the #rovinci ! towns& A simi! r series of soci ! #ictures cou!d be ssemb!ed for Americ n !ife from the nove!s of Mrs& Stowe nd (owe!!s to those of " rre!! nd Steinbec,& /he !ife of #ost>Restor tion 8 ris nd "r nce seems #reserved in the hundreds of ch r cters moving through the # ges of + !z cAs (um n 9omedyC nd 8roust tr ced in end!ess det i! the soci ! str tific tions of the de> c ying "rench ristocr cy& /he Russi of the nineteenth>century ! ndowners ##e rs in the nove!s of /urgenev nd /o!stoy D we h ve g!im#ses of the merch nt nd the inte!!ectu ! in 9he,hovAs stories nd #! ys nd of co!!ectivized f rmers in Sho!o,hov& 0@ m#!es cou!d be mu!ti#!ied indefinite!y& 'ne c n ssemb!e nd e@#osit the ?wor!d? of e ch- the # rt e ch gives to !ove nd m rri ge- to business- to the #rofessions- its de!ine tion of c!ergymen- whether stu#id or c!ever- s int!y or hy#ocritic ! B or one c n s#eci !ize u#on . ne AustenAs n v ! men- 8roustAs rri> vistes y (owe!!sA m rried women& /his ,ind of s#eci !iz tion wi!! offer us monogr #hs on the ?Re! tion between L nd!ord nd /en nt in *ineteenth>9entury Americ n "iction-? ?/he S i!or in 0ng!ish "iction nd Dr m -? or ?Irish Americ ns in /wentieth>9entury "iction&? +ut such studies seem of !itt!e v !ue so !ong s they t ,e it for gr nted th t !iter ture is sim#!y mirror of !ifere#roductionnd thus- obvious!ysoci ! document& Such studies m ,e sense on!y if we ,now the rtistic method of the nove!ist studied- c n

1 00 /heory of Liter ture s y H not mere!y in gener ! terms- but concrete!y H in wh t re! > tion the #icture st nds to the soci ! re !ity& Is it re !istic by inten> tionI 'r is it- t cert in #oints- s tire- c ric ture- or rom ntic ide !iz tionI In n dmir b!y c!e rhe ded study of Aristocr cy nd the Midd!e 9! sses in <erm ny - 2ohn>+r mstedt right!y c utions us$ ?on!y #erson who h s ,now!edge of the structure of society from other sources th n #ure!y !iter ry ones is b!e to find out if- nd how f r- cert in soci ! ty#es nd their beh vior re re#roduced in the nove!& & & & 1h t is #ure f ncy- wh t re !istic observ tion- nd wh t on!y n e@#ression of the desires of the uthor must be se# r ted in e ch c se in subt!e m n> ner&? 21 )sing M @ 1eberAs conce#tion of ide ! ?soci ! ty#es-? the s me scho! r studies such soci ! #henomen s c! ss h tredthe beh vior of the # rvenu- snobbery- nd the ttitude tow rd the .ewsC nd he rgues th t such #henomen re not so much

obBective f cts nd beh vior # tterns s they re com#!e@ tti> tudes- thus f r much better i!!ustr ted in fiction th n e!sewhere& Students of soci ! ttitudes nd s#ir tions c n use !iter ry m te> ri !- if they ,now how to inter#ret it #ro#er!y& Indeed- for o!der #eriods- they wi!! be forced to use !iter ry or t !e st semi!iter ry m teri ! for w nt of evidence from the socio!ogists of the time$ writers on #o!itics- economics- nd gener ! #ub!ic :uestions& (eroes nd heroines of fiction- vi!! ins nd dventuresses- f> ford interesting indic tions of such soci ! ttitudes& 22 Such studies const nt!y !e d into the history of ethic ! nd re!igious ide s& 1e ,now the mediev ! st tus of the tr itor nd the mediev ! ttitude tow rds usury- which- !ingering on into the Ren iss nce- gives us Shy!oc, nd- ! ter- Mo!iereAs LAAv re& /o which ?de d!y sin? h ve ! ter centuries chief!y ssigned the vi!! inC nd is his vi!> ! iny conceived of in terms of #erson ! or soci ! mor !ityI Is hefor e@ m#!e- rtist t r #e or embezz!er of widowsA bondsI /he c! ssic c se is th t of Restor tion 0ng!ish comedy& 1 s it sim#!y re !m of cuc,o!domf iry! nd of du!teries nd moc, m rri ges s L mb be!ievedI 'r w s it- s M c u! y wou!d h ve us be!ievef ithfu! #icture of dec dent- frivo!ous- nd brut ! ristocr cyI 25 'r shou!d we not r ther- reBecting both !tern > tives- see wh t # rticu! r soci ! grou# cre ted this rt for wh t udienceI And shou!d we not see whether it w s n tur !istic or sty!ized rtI Shou!d we not be mindfu! of s tire nd irony-

Liter ture

nd Society 1 01

se!f>ridicu!e nd f nt syI Li,e !! !iter ture- these #! ys re not sim#!y documents C they re #! ys with stoc, figures- stoc, situ > tions- with st ge m rri ges nd st ge conditions of m rri ge sett!ements& 0& 0& Sto!! conc!udes his m ny rguments on these m tters$ ?0vident!y this is not Are ! society-A not f ithfu! #icture even of the Af shion b!e !ifeA$ evident!y it is not 0ng! ndeven Aunder the Stu rts-A whether since or before the Revo!ution or the <re t Rebe!!ion&? 27 Sti!!- the s !ut ry em#h sis u#on con> vention nd tr dition to be found in writing !i,e Sto!!As c nnot com#!ete!y disch rge the re! tions between !iter ture nd society& 0ven the most bstruse !!egory- the most unre ! # stor !- the most outr geous f rce c n- #ro#er!y interrog ted- te!! us some> thing of the society of time& Liter ture occurs on!y in soci ! conte@t- s # rt of cu!turein mi!ieu& / ineAs f mous tri d of r ce- mi!ieu- nd moment h sin #r ctice- !ed to n e@c!usive study of the mi!ieu& R ce is n un> ,nown fi@ed integr ! with which / ine o#er tes very !oose!y- nd moment c n be disso!ved into the conce#t of mi!ieu& A difference of time me ns sim#!y different setting- but the ctu ! :uestion of n !ysis rises on!y if we try to bre , u# the term ?mi!ieu&? /he most immedi te setting of wor, of !iter ture- we sh !! then recognize- is its !inguistic nd !iter ry tr dition- nd this tr > dition in turn is encom# ssed by gener ! cu!tur ! ?c!im te&? 'n!y f r !ess direct!y c n !iter ture be connected with concrete economic #o!itic ! nd soci ! situ tions& 'f course there re inter>

re! tionshi#s between !! s#heres of hum n ctivities& 0ventu !!y we c n est b!ish some connection between the modes of #roduc> tion nd !iter ture- since n economic system usu !!y im#!ies some system of #ower nd must contro! the forms of f mi!y !ife& And the f mi!y #! ys n im#ort nt ro!e in educ tion- in the con> ce#ts of se@u !ity nd !ove- in the who!e convention nd tr dition of hum n sentiment& /hus it is #ossib!e to !in, even !yric #oetry with !ove conventions- re!igious #reconce#tions- nd conce#tions of n ture& +ut these re! tionshi#s m y be devious nd ob!i:ue& It seems im#ossib!e- however- to cce#t view constituting ny # rticu! r hum n ctivity the ?st rter? of !! the otherswhether it be the theory of / ine- who reduces !! cre tivity to mysterious bio!ogic ! f ctor- ?r ce-? or th t of (ege! nd the (ege!i ns- who consider ?s#irit? the on!y moving force in his>

102 /heory of Liter ture tory- or th t of the M r@ists- who derive everything from the mode of #roduction& *o r dic ! techno!ogic ! ch nges too, #! ce in the m ny centuries between the e r!y Midd!e Ages nd the rise of 9 #it !ism- whi!e cu!tur ! !ife- nd !iter ture in # rticu! r- underwent most #rofound tr nsform tions& *or does !iter ture !w ys show- t !e st immedi te!y- much w reness of n e#ochAs techno!ogic ! ch nges$ the Industri ! Revo!ution #enetr ted 0ng!ish nove!s on!y in the forties of the nineteenth century 3with Mrs& < s,e!!- 2ings!ey- nd 9h r!otte +ronte6!ong fter its sym#toms were #! in!y visib!e to economists nd soci ! thin,ers& /he soci ! situ tion- one shou!d dmit- seems to determine the #ossibi!ity of the re !iz tion of cert in esthetic v !ues- but not the v !ues themse!ves& 1e c n determine in gener ! out!ines wh t rt forms re #ossib!e in given society nd which re im> #ossib!e- but it is not #ossib!e to #redict th t these rt forms wi!! ctu !!y come into e@istence& M ny M r@ists H nd not M r@ists on!y H ttem#t f r too crude short cuts from economics to !iter > ture& "or e@ m#!e- .ohn M yn rd 2eynes- not n un!iter ry #erson- h s scribed the e@istence of Sh ,es#e re to the f ct th t ?we were Bust in fin nci ! #osition to fford Sh ,es#e re t the moment when he #resented himse!f& <re t writers f!ourished in the tmos#here of buoy ncy- e@hi! r tion- nd the freedom of economic c res fe!t by the governing c! ss- which is engendered by #rofit inf! tions&? 2D +ut #rofit inf! tions did not e!icit gre t #oets e!sewhere H for inst nce- during the boom of the twenties in the )nited St tes H nor is this view of the o#timistic Sh ,e> s#e re :uite beyond dis#ute& *o more he!#fu! is the o##osite formu! - devised by Russi n M r@ist$ ?Sh ,es#e reAs tr gic out!oo, on the wor!d w s conse:uenti ! u#on his being the dr m tic e@#ression of the feud ! ristocr cy- which in 0!iz > bethAs d y h d !ost their former domin nt #osition&? 2E Such con> tr dictory Budgments- tt ched to v gue c tegories !i,e o#timism nd #essimism- f i! to de ! concrete!y with either the scert in> b!e soci ! content of Sh ,es#e reAs #! ys- his #rofessed o#inions on #o!itic ! :uestions 3obvious from the chronic!e #! ys6- or his

soci ! st tus

writer&

'ne must be c refu!- however- not to dismiss the economic ##ro ch to !iter ture by me ns of such :uot tions& M r@ him>

Liter ture

nd Society 1 05

se!f- though on occ sion he m de some f ncifu! Budgments- in gener ! cute!y #erceived the ob!i:ueness of the re! tionshi# between !iter ture nd society& In the 9riti:ue of 8o!itic ! 0con> omy- he dmits th t ?cert in #eriods of highest deve!o#ment of rt st nd in no direct connection with the gener ! deve!o#ment of society- nor with the m teri ! b sis nd the s,e!eton structure of its org niz tion& 1itness the e@ m#!e of the <ree,s s com> # red with the modern n tions or even Sh ,es#e re&? 2/ (e !so understood th t the modern division of ! bor !e ds to definite contr diction between the three f ctors 3?moments? in his (ege!> i n termino!ogy6 of the soci ! #rocess H ?#roductive forces-? ?soci ! re! tions-? nd ?consciousness&? (e e@#ected- in m nner which sc rce!y seems to void the )to#i n- th t in the future c! ss!ess society these divisions of ! bor wou!d g in dis ##e rth t the rtist wou!d g in be integr ted into society& (e thought it #ossib!e th t everybody cou!d be n e@ce!!ent- even n origin !# inter& ?In communist society there re no # inters- but t most men who- mong other things- !so # int&? 2S /he ?vu!g r M r@ist? te!!s us th t this or th t writer w s bourgeois who voiced re ction ry or #rogressive o#inions bout 9hurch nd St te& /here is curious contr diction between this vowed determinism which ssumes th t ?consciousness? must fo!!ow ?e@istence-? th t bourgeois c nnot he!# being one- nd the usu ! ethic ! Budgment which condemns him for these very o#inions& In Russi - one notes- writers of bourgeois origin who h ve Boined the #ro!et ri t h ve const nt!y been subBected to sus#icions of their sincerity- nd every rtistic or civic f i!ing h s been scribed to their c! ss origin& Yet if #rogress- in the M r@ist sense- !e ds direct!y from feud !ism vi bourgeois c #it !ism to the ?dict torshi# of the #ro!et ri t-? it wou!d be !ogic ! nd con> sistent for M r@ist to #r ise the ?#rogressives? t ny time& (e shou!d #r ise the bourgeois when- in the e r!y st ges of c #i> t !ism- he fought the surviving feud !ism& +ut fre:uent!y M r@> ists criticize writers from twentieth>century #oint of view- or!i,e Smirnov nd <rib- M r@ists very critic ! of ?vu!g r socio!> ogy-? rescue the bourgeois writer by recognition of his univers ! hum nity& /hus Smirnov comes to the conc!usion th t Sh ,e> s#e re w s the ?hum nist ideo!ogist of the bourgeoisie- the e@> #onent of the #rogr m dv nced by them when- in the n me of

1 07 /heory of Liter ture hum nity- they first ch !!enged the feud ! order&? 24 +ut the con> ce#t of hum nism- of the univers !ity of rt- surrenders the cen> tr ! doctrine of M r@ism- which is essenti !!y re! tivistic&

M r@ist criticism is t its best when it e@#oses the im#!ied- or ! tent- soci ! im#!ic tions of writerAs wor,& In this res#ect it is techni:ue of inter#ret tion # r !!e! to those founded u#on the insights of "reud- or of *ietzsche- or of 8 reto- or to the Sche!er>M nnheim ?socio!ogy of ,now!edge&? A!! these inte!> !ectu !s re sus#icious of the inte!!ect- the #rofessed doctrine- the mere st tement& /he centr ! distinction is th t *ietzscheAs nd "reudAs methods re #sycho!ogic !- whi!e 8 retoAs n !ysis of ?residues? nd ?deriv tives? nd the Sche!er>M nnheim tech> ni:ue of the n !ysis of ?ideo!ogy? re socio!ogic !& /he ?socio!ogy of ,now!edge-? s i!!ustr ted in the writings of M @ Sche!er- M @ 1eber- nd 2 r! M nnheim- h s been wor,ed out in det i! nd h s some definite dv nt ges over its riv !s& 50 It not on!y dr ws ttention to the #resu##ositions nd im#!ic > tions of given ideo!ogic ! #osition- but it !so stresses the hidden ssum#tions nd bi ses of the investig tor himse!f& It is thus se!f> critic ! nd se!f>conscious- even to the e@treme of morbidity& It is !so !ess #rone th n either M r@ism or #sycho n !ysis to iso! te one sing!e f ctor s the so!e determin nt of ch nge& 1h tever their f i!ure t iso! ting the re!igious f ctor- the studies of M @ 1eber in the socio!ogy of re!igion re v !u b!e for their ttem#t to describe the inf!uence of ideo!ogic ! f ctors on economic be> h vior nd institutionsH for e r!ier em#h sis h d been entire!y u#on the economic inf!uence on ideo!ogy& 51 A simi! r investig > tion of the inf!uences of !iter ture on soci ! ch nge wou!d be very we!come- though it wou!d run into n !ogous difficu!ties& It seems s h rd to iso! te the strict!y !iter ry f ctor s the re!igious f ctor nd to nswer the :uestion whether the inf!uence is due to the # rticu! r f ctor itse!f- or to other forces for which the f ctor is mere ?shrine? or ?ch nne!&? ;2 /he ?socio!ogy of ,now!edge? suffers- however- from its e@ces> sive historicismC it h s come to u!tim te!y s,e#tic ! conc!usions des#ite its thesis th t ?obBectivity? c n be chieved by synthe> sizing- nd thus neutr !izing- the conf!icting #ers#ectives& It suf> fers !so- in ##!ic tion to !iter ture- from its in bi!ity to connect ?content? with ?form&? Li,e M r@ism- #reoccu#ied with n ir>

Liter ture

nd Society 10D

r tion !istic e@#! n tion- it is un b!e to #rovide r tion ! found > tion for esthetics nd hence criticism nd ev !u tion& /his is- of course- true of !! e@trinsic ##ro ches to !iter ture& *o c us ! study c n do theoretic ! Bustice to the n !ysis- descri#tion- nd ev !u tion of !iter ry wor,& +ut the #rob!em of ?!iter ture nd society? c n obvious!y be #ut in different terms- those of symbo!ic or me ningfu! re! > tions$ of consistency- h rmony- coherence- congruence- struc> tur ! identity- sty!istic n !ogy- or with wh tever term we w nt to design te the integr tion of cu!ture nd the interre! tionshi# mong the different ctivities of men& Soro,in- who h s n !yzed the v rious #ossibi!ities c!e r!y- 55 h s conc!uded th t the degree

of integr tion v ries from society to society& M r@ism never nswers the :uestion of the degree of de> #endence of !iter ture on society& (ence m ny of the b sic #rob> !ems h ve sc rce!y begun to be studied& 'cc sion !!y- for e@> m#!e- one sees rguments for the soci ! determin tion of genress in the c se of the bourgeois origin of the nove!- or even the det i!s of their ttitudes nd forms- s in 0& +& +urgumAs not very convincing view th t tr gicomedy ?resu!ts from the im# ct of midd!e c! ss seriousness u#on ristocr tic frivo!ity&? 57 Are there definite soci ! determin nts of such bro d !iter ry sty!e s Rom nticism- which- though ssoci ted with the bourgeoisie- w s nti>bourgeois in its ideo!ogy- t !e st in <erm ny- from its very beginningI 5D /hough some ,ind of de#endence of !iter ry ide> o!ogies nd themes on soci ! circumst nces seems obvious- the soci ! origins of forms nd sty!es- genres nd ctu ! !iter ry norms h ve r re!y been est b!ished& 5E It h s been ttem#ted most concrete!y in studies of the soci ! origins of !iter ture$ in +ucherAs one>sided theory of the rise of #oetry from ! bor rhythms C in the m ny studies by nthro#o!o> gists of the m gic ro!e of e r!y rtC in <eorge /homsonAs very !e rned ttem#t to bring <ree, tr gedy into concrete re! tions with cu!t nd ritu !s nd with definite democr tic soci ! revo!u> tion t the time of Aeschy!usC in 9hristo#her 9 udwe!!As some> wh t n ive ttem#t to study the sources of #oetry in trib ! emo> tions nd in the bourgeois ?i!!usion? of individu ! freedom& 5= 'n!y if the soci ! determin tion of forms cou!d be shown con> c!usive!y cou!d the :uestion be r ised whether soci ! ttitudes

1 0E /heory of Liter ture c nnot become ?constitutive? nd enter wor, of rt s effective # rts of its rtistic v !ue& 'ne c n rgue th t ?soci ! truth-? whi!e not- s such- n rtistic v !ue- corrobor tes such rtistic v !ues s com#!e@ity nd coherence& +ut it need not be so& /here is gre t !iter ture which h s !itt!e or no soci ! re!ev nce B soci ! !iter ture is on!y one ,ind of !iter ture nd is not centr ! in the theory of !iter ture un!ess one ho!ds the view th t !iter ture is #rim ri!y n ?imit tion? of !ife s it is nd of soci ! !ife in # rticu! r& +ut !iter ture is no substitute for socio!ogy or #o!itics& It h s its own Bustific tion nd im&

9(A8/0R J Liter ture nd Ide s s n > sum> !iz >

/he re! tion between !iter ture nd ide s c n be conceived in very diverse w ys& "re:uent!y !iter ture is thought of form of #hi!oso#hy- s ?ide s? wr ##ed in formC nd it is !yzed to yie!d ?!e ding ide s&? Students re encour ged to m rize nd to bstr ct wor,s of rt in terms of such gener

tions& Much o!der scho! rshi# h s #ushed this method to bsurd e@tremes B one thin,s es#eci !!y of such <erm n Sh ,es#e re scho! rs s )!rici- who formu! ted the centr ! ide of the Mer> ch nt of Kenice s ?summum Bus summ inBuri &? @ /hough to> d y most scho! rs h ve become w ry of such overinte!!ectu !iz > tion- there re sti!! discussions which tre t !iter ture s though it were #hi!oso#hic ! tr ct& /he o##osite view is to deny ny #hi!oso#hic ! re!ev nce to !iter ture& In !ecture on 8hi!oso#hy nd 8oetry - <eorge +o s h s st ted this view :uite b!unt!y$ ?Ide s in #oetry re usu !!y st !e nd f !se- nd no one o!der th n si@teen wou!d find it worth his whi!e to re d #oetry mere!y for wh t it s ys&? 2 According to /& S& 0!iot- neither ?Sh ,es#e re nor D nte did ny re ! thin,> ing&? 5 'ne m y gr nt +o s th t the inte!!ectu ! content of most #oetry 3 nd he seems to be thin,ing chief!y of !yric ! #oetry6 is usu !!y much e@ gger ted& If we n !yze m ny f mous #oems dmired for their #hi!oso#hy- we fre:uent!y discover mere com> mon#! ces concerning m nAs mort !ity or the uncert inty of f te& /he or cu! r s yings of Kictori n #oets such s +rowning- which h ve struc, m ny re ders s reve! tory- often turn out mere #ort b!e versions of #rimev ! truths& 7 0ven if we seem to be b!e to c rry w y some gener ! #ro#osition such s 2e tsA ?+e uty is /ruth- /ruth +e uty-? we re !eft to m ,e wh t we c n of these conversib!e #ro#ositions- un!ess we see them s the con> c!usion of #oem which h s to do with i!!ustr ting the #er> m nence of rt nd the im#erm nence of hum n emotions nd 10=

io; /heory oB Liter ture n tur ! be uty& /he reduction of wor, of rt to doctrin ! st tement H or- even worse- the iso! tion of # ss ges H is dis> strous to underst nding the uni:ueness of wor,$ it disinte> gr tes its structure nd im#oses !ien criteri of v !ue& /o be sure- !iter ture c n be tre ted s document in the his> tory of ide s nd #hi!oso#hy- for !iter ry history # r !!e!s nd ref!ects inte!!ectu ! history& "re:uent!y either e@#!icit st tements or !!usions show the !!egi nce of #oet to s#ecific #hi!oso#hyor est b!ish th t he h s h d some direct c:u int nce with #hi> !oso#hies once we!!>,nown or t !e st th t he is w re of their gener ! ssum#tions& In recent dec deswho!e grou# of Americ n scho! rs h ve devoted themse!ves to study of these :uestions- c !!ing their method the ?(istory of Ide s-? somewh t mis!e ding term for the s#ecific- !imited method deve!o#ed nd dvoc ted by A& '& LoveBoy& D LoveBoy h s bri!!i nt!y demonstr ted its effectiveness in boo, on /he <re t 9h in oB +eing which tr ces the ide of sc !e of n ture from 8! to to Sche!!ing- #ursuing the ide through !! modes of thought$ #hi!oso#hy in the strict sensescientific thought- theo!ogy- nd H s#ecific !!y H !iter ture& /he method differs from history of #hi!oso#hy in two res#ects& Love>

Boy !imits the study of the history of #hi!oso#hy to the gre t thin,ers nd conceives of his own ?history of ide s? s inc!usive !so of sm !! thin,ers- inc!uding the #oets- conceived s deriv > tive from the thin,ers& (e further distinguishes th t the history of #hi!oso#hy studies the gre t systems- whi!e the history of ide s tr ces unit ide s- i&e&- bre ,s u# the systems of #hi!oso#hers into their com#onent # rts- studying individu ! motifs& /he # rticu! r de!imin tions m de by LoveBoy- whi!e #er> fect!y defensib!e s the b sis of n individu ! study !i,e /he <re t 9h in of +eing- f i! to be gener !!y convincing& /he his> tory of #hi!oso#hic ! conce#ts be!ongs #ro#er!y enough to the history of #hi!oso#hy nd w s so inc!uded by (ege! nd 1inde!> b nd !ong go& 'f course it is s one>sided to study unit ide s to the e@c!usion of systems s it wou!d be to restrict !iter ry history to the history of versific tion or diction or im gery- neg!ecting the study of those coherent who!es- s#ecific wor,s of rt& ?(is> tory of Ide s? is sim#!y s#ecific ##ro ch to the gener ! history of thought- using !iter ture on!y s document nd i!!ustr tion&

Liter ture

nd Ide s 1 04

/his ssum#tion is obvious when LoveBoy c !!s ide s in seri> ous ref!ective !iter ture in gre t # rt ?#hi!oso#hic ! ide s in di!ution&? E *one the !ess- the ?(istory of Ide s? must be we!comed by !iter ry students- nd not mere!y for the indirect !ight better com#rehension of #hi!oso#hic ! history must throw on !iter ture& LoveBoy As method re cts g inst the e@cessive inte!!ectu !ism of most histori ns of thought& It recognizes th t thought- or t !e st the choice between systems of thought- is fre:uent!y determined by ssum#tions- by more or !ess unconscious ment ! h bits C th t #eo#!e re inf!uenced in their do#tion of ide s by their sus> ce#tibi!ity to diverse ,inds of met #hysic ! # thos C nd th t ide s re fre:uent!y ,ey words- #ious #hr ses- which must be studied sem ntic !!y& Leo S#itzer- who h s dis ##roved of m ny fe > tures of LoveBoyAs ?(istory of Ide s-? h s himse!f given e@ce!> !ent e@ m#!es of how to combine inte!!ectu ! nd sem ntic his> tory in studies tr cing such words s ?mi!ieu-? ? mbi nce-? nd ?Stimmung? through !! their ssoci tions nd r mific tions in history& = "in !!y- LoveBoyAs scheme h s one most ttr ctive fe > ture& It e@#!icit!y ignores the division of !iter ry nd historic ! studies by n tion !ities nd ! ngu ges& /he v !ue for the e@egesis of #oetic te@t of ,now!edge of the history of #hi!oso#hy nd of gener ! thought c n sc rce!y be overr ted& +esides- !iter ry history H es#eci !!y when occu#ied with such writers s 8 sc !- 0merson- *ietzsche H h s const nt!y to tre t #rob!ems of inte!!ectu ! history& Indeed- the history of criticism is sim#!y # rt of the history of esthetic thought H t !e st- if it is tre ted in itse!f- without reference to the cre tive wor, contem#or ry with it& 1ithout doubt- 0ng!ish !iter ture c n be shown to ref!ect the

history of #hi!oso#hy& Ren iss nce 8! tonism #erv des 0!iz > beth n #oetry$ S#enser wrote four hymns describing the *eo> 8! tonic scent from m tter to (e ven!y +e uty- nd in the " erie Mueene- decides the dis#ute between Mut bi!ity nd * > ture in f vor of n etern !- unch nge b!e order& In M r!owe we he r reverber tions of the contem#or ry It !i n te theism nd s,e#ticism& 0ven in Sh ,es#e re- there re m ny tr ces of Ren iss nce 8! tonism- e&g&- in the f mous s#eech of )!ysses in /roi!us- together with echoes of Mont igne nd t gs from

no /heory of Liter ture Stoicism& 1e c n tr ce DonneAs study of the " thers nd the Schoo!men s we!! s the im# ct of the new science u#on his sensibi!ity& Mi!ton himse!f evo!ved high!y #erson ! theo!ogy nd cosmogony- which- ccording to one inter#ret tion- combine m teri !istic nd 8! tonic e!ements nd dr w both on 'rient ! thought nd on the doctrines of such contem#or ry sects s the mort !ists& Dryden h s written #hi!oso#hic ! #oetry which e@#ounds the theo!ogic ! nd #o!itic ! controversies of the time nd cert in!y demonstr tes his w reness of fideism- modern science- s,e#ti> cism- nd deism& /homson c n be described s the e@#ounder of system combining *ewtoni nism nd Sh ftesbury& 8o#eAs 0ss y on M n bounds in #hi!oso#hic ! echoesC nd <r y versi> fied Loc,eAs theories in L tin he@ meters& L urence Sterne w s n enthusi stic dmirer of Loc,e nd used his ide s of ssoci tion nd dur tion- often for comic #ur#oses- throughout /ristr m> Sh ndy& Among the gre t Rom ntic #oets- 9o!eridge w s himse!f technic ! #hi!oso#her of gre t mbition nd some st nding& (e w s det i!ed student of 2 nt nd Sche!!ing nd e@#ounded their views- even though not !w ys critic !!y& /hrough 9o!e> ridge- whose own #oetry seems !itt!e ffected by his system tic #hi!oso#hy- m ny <erm n or gener !!y *eo>8! tonic ide s en> tered or re>entered the tr dition of 0ng!ish #oetry& /here re tr ces of 2 nt in 1ordsworth- nd it h s been shown th t he w s c!ose student of the #sycho!ogist ( rt!ey& She!!ey t first w s dee#!y inf!uenced by the "rench eighteenth>century #hi!osofihes nd their 0ng!ish disci#!e <odwin- but ! ter ssimi! ted ide s derived from S#inoz - +er,e!ey- nd 8! to& /he Kictori n controversy between science nd re!igion finds we!!>,nown e@#ression in /ennyson nd +rowning& Swinburne nd ( rdy ref!ect the #essimistic theism of the time- whi!e (o#,ins shows the effect of his study of Duns Scotus& <eorge 0!iot tr ns! ted "euerb ch nd Str uss- Sh w re d S mue! +ut> !er nd *ietzsche& Most recent writers h ve re d "reud or re d bout him& .oyce ,new not on!y "reud nd .ung but Kico- <ior> d no +runo- nd- of course- /hom s A:uin sC Ye ts w s dee#!y immersed in theoso#hy- mysticism- nd even +er,e!ey& In other !iter tures- studies of such #rob!ems h ve been #os>

Liter ture

nd Ide s i!!

sib!y even more bund nt& *umber!ess re the inter#ret tions of D nteAs theo!ogy& In "r nce- M& <i!son h s ##!ied his !e rning in mediev ! #hi!oso#hy to the e@egesis of # ss ges in R be! is nd 8 sc !& ; 8 u! ( z rd h s written s,i!!fu!!y on the 9risis of 0uro#e n 9onsciousness tow rd the end of the seventeenth cen> tury- tr cing the s#re d of the ide s of the 0n!ightenment ndin new wor,- their est b!ishment throughout 0uro#e& 4 In <er> m ny- studies bound on Schi!!erAs 2 nti nism- <oetheAs con> t cts with 8!otinus nd S#inoz - 2!eistAs with 2 nt- (ebbe!As with (ege!- nd such to#ics& In <erm ny- indeed- the co!! bor > tion between #hi!oso#hy nd !iter ture w s fre:uent!y e@treme!y c!ose- es#eci !!y during the Rom ntic #eriod- when "ichteSche!!ing- nd (ege! !ived with the #oets nd when even s #ure #oet s (o!der!in thought it incumbent u#on him to s#ecu! te system tic !!y on :uestions of e#istemo!ogy nd met > #hysics& In Russi - Dostoevs,y nd /o!stoy h ve been tre ted fre:uent!y sim#!y s #hi!oso#hers nd re!igious thin,ers- nd even 8ush,in h s been m de to yie!d n e!usive wisdom& 10 At the time of the Symbo!ist movementwho!e schoo! of ?met > #hysic ! critics? rose in Russi - inter#reting !iter ture in terms of their own #hi!oso#hic ! #ositions& Roz nov- Merezh,ovs,yShestov- +erd yev- Ko!yns,y- nd Ky ches! v Iv nov !! wrote on Dostoevs,y or round him- 11 sometimes using him mere!y s te@t for #re ching their own doctrine- sometimes reducing him to system nd- r re!y- thin,ing of him s tr gic nove!ist& +ut t the end- or better t the beginning- of such studies some :uestions must be r ised which re not !w ys nswered c!e r!y& (ow f r do mere echoes of #hi!oso#hersA thought in the #oetAs wor, define the view of n uthor- es#eci !!y dr m tic uthor !i,e Sh ,es#e reI (ow c!e r!y nd system tic !!y were #hi!oso#hic ! views he!d by #oets nd other writersI IsnAt it fre> :uent!y n n chronism of the worst sort to ssume th t writer in o!der centuries he!d #erson ! #hi!oso#hy- fe!t even the de> m nd for it- or !ived mong #eo#!e who wou!d encour ge ny #erson ! # ttern of o#inions or be interested in itI Do not !iter> ry histori ns fre:uent!y gross!y overr te- even mong recent uthors- the coherence- c! rity- nd sco#e of their #hi!oso#hic ! convictionsI 0ven if we thin, of uthors who were high!y se!f>conscious or

112 /heory of Liter ture even- s in few inst nces- s#ecu! tive #hi!oso#hers themse!ves nd wrote #oetry which cou!d be c !!ed ?#hi!oso#hic !-? we sh !! sti!! h ve to s, such :uestions s these$ Is #oetry better bec use it is more #hi!oso#hic !I 9 n #oetry be Budged ccording to the v !ue of the #hi!oso#hy which it do#ts or ccording to the de> gree of insight which it shows into the #hi!oso#hy it do#tsI 'r

c n it be Budged by criteri of #hi!oso#hic ! origin !ity- by the de> gree with which it modified tr dition ! thoughtI /& S& 0!iot h s #referred D nte to Sh ,es#e re bec use the #hi!oso#hy of D nte seemed to him sounder th n th t of Sh ,es#e re& A <erm n #hi!oso#her- (erm nn <!oc,ner- h s rgued th t #oetry nd #hi!oso#hy h ve never been f rther # rt th n in D nte bec use D nte too, over finished system without ch nging it& 12 /he true co!! bor tion between #hi!oso#hy nd #oetry occurred when there were #oets>thin,ers !i,e 0m#edoc!es in the #re>Socr tic ge of <reece- or during the Ren iss nce when "icino or <ior> d no +runo wrote #oetry nd #hi!oso#hy- #oetic #hi!oso#hy nd #hi!oso#hic ! #oetry- nd ! ter in <erm ny- when <oethe w s both #oet nd n origin ! #hi!oso#her& +ut re #hi!oso#hic ! st nd rds of this sort criteri of !iter ry criticismI Is 8o#eAs 0ss y on M n to be condemned bec use it shows consider b!e ec!ecticism in its sources nd consistency on!y # ss ge by # ss ge- whi!e the tot ! is ridd!ed with over> !! inco> herenciesI Does the f ct th t we c n show She!!ey to h ve #ro> gressed- t cert in time of his !ife- from the crude m teri !ism of <odwin to some sort of 8! tonic ide !ism- m ,e him better #oet or worseI 9 n the im#ression th t She!!eyAs #oetry is v gue- monotonous- nd boring- which seems to be the e@#erience of new gener tion of re ders- be refuted by showing th t- #ro#> er!y inter#reted- his #hi!oso#hy m de sense in its time- or th t this or th t # ss ge is not me ning!ess but !!udes to contem#o> r ry scientific or #seudo>scientific conce#tionsI 15 A!! these criteri re sure!y b sed on the inte!!ectu !ist misunderst nding- on confusion of the functions of #hi!oso#hy nd rt- on misunder> st nding of the w y ide s ctu !!y enter into !iter ture& /hese obBections to the e@cessive inte!!ectu !ism of the #hi!> oso#hic ! ##ro ch h ve been t ,en ccount of in some methods deve!o#ed es#eci !!y in <erm ny& Rudo!f )nger h s most c!e r!y defended n ##ro ch which- though not system tic !!y e@>

Liter ture

nd Ide s 1 1 5

#!oited before- h d !ong been used& 17 (e right!y rgues th t !it> er ture is not #hi!oso#hic ! ,now!edge tr ns! ted into im gery nd verse- but th t !iter ture e@#resses gener ! ttitude tow rd !ife- th t #oets usu !!y nswer- unsystem tic !!y- :uestions which re !so themes of #hi!oso#hy but th t the #oetic mode of n> swering differs in different ges nd situ tions& )nger c! ssifies these ?#rob!ems? in the fo!!owing r ther rbitr ry m nner$ the #rob!em of f te- by which he me ns the re! tion of freedom nd necessity- s#irit nd n ture C the re!igious ?#rob!em-? inc!uding the inter#ret tion of 9hrist- the ttitude tow rd sin nd s !v > tionN the #rob!em of n ture- which wou!d inc!ude such :uestions s the fee!ings for n ture- but !so :uestions of myth nd m gic& Another grou# of #rob!ems )nger c !!s the #rob!em of m n& It concerns :uestions of the conce#t of m n- but !so of m nAs re! tion to de th- m nAs conce#t of !oveC nd fin !!y there is grou# of #rob!ems of society- f mi!y- nd st te& /he ttitude of the writers is to be studied in re! tion to these #rob!ems- nd

in some c ses- boo,s h ve been #roduced which try to tr ce the history of these #rob!ems in terms of n ssumed imm nent de> ve!o#ment& 1 !ter Rehm h s written ! rge boo, on the #rob> !em of de th in <erm n #oetry- 8 u! 2!uc,hohn on the conce#> tion of !ove in the eighteenth century nd the Rom ntic ge& 1D In other ! ngu ges- there is simi! r wor,& M rio 8r zAs Ro> m ntic Agony cou!d be described s boo, bout the #rob!em of se@ nd de th s its It !i n tit!e /he "!eshy De th- nd the Devi! 1E suggests& 9& S& LewisA A!!egory of Love- besides being genre history of !!egory- cont ins much bout ch nging tti> tudes tow rd !ove nd m rri ge- nd /heodore S#encer h s written boo, on De th nd 0!iz beth n /r gedy which tr ces in its introductory # rt the mediev ! conce#tion of de th in con> tr st to Ren iss nce conce#tions& 1= /o give on!y one e@ m#!e$ m n in the Midd!e Ages fe red sudden de th most- s it #re> c!uded #re# r tion nd re#ent nce- whi!e Mont igne begins to thin, th t :uic, de th is best& (e h s !ost the 9hristi n view th t de th is the im of !ife& (& *& " irchi!d h s ttem#ted to tr ce re!igious trends in 0ng!ish eighteenth>century #oetry by c! ssifying writers ccording to the he t of their re!igious emo> tions& 1; In "r nce- Abbe +remondAs vo!uminous (istory of

117 /heory of Liter ture "rench Re!igious Sentiment in the Seventeenth 9entury dr ws much of its m teri ! from !iter tureN nd Mong!ond nd /r > h rd h ve written very fine studies of sentiment !ism- the #re> rom ntic fee!ing for n ture- nd the curious sensibi!ity dis#! yed by the "rench Revo!ution ries& 14 If one surveys )ngerAs !ist- one must recognize th t some of the #rob!ems he enumer tes re sim#!y #hi!oso#hic !- ideo!ogic ! #rob!ems for which the #oet h s been on!y- in SidneyAs #hr sethe ?right #o#u! r #hi!oso#her-? whi!e other #rob!ems be!ong r ther to history of sensibi!ity nd sentiment th n to history of thought& Sometimes the ideo!ogic ! interming!es with the #ure!y emotion !& In his ttitude to n ture m n is #rofound!y in> f!uenced by cosmo!ogic ! nd re!igious s#ecu! tions but !so di> rect!y by esthetic consider tions- !iter ry conventions- nd #os> sib!y even #hysio!ogic ! ch nges in his m nner of seeing& 20 L nd> sc #e fee!ing- though !so determined by tr ve!ers- # inters- nd g rden designers- h s been #rofound!y inf!uenced by #oets such s Mi!ton or /homson nd writers !i,e Rus,in& A history of sentiment wi!! m ,e consider b!e difficu!ties- since sentiment is e!usive nd- t the s me time- uniform& /he <er> m ns h ve cert in!y e@ gger ted the ch nges in hum n ttitudes nd h ve constructed schemes of their deve!o#ment which re sus#icious!y ne t& Sti!!- there is !itt!e doubt th t sentiment ch ngesP h s t the very !e st its conventions nd f shions& + !z c musing!y comments on M& (u!otAs frivo!ous eighteenth>cen> tury ttitude to !ove s different from th t of M d me M rneffewho h s the new Restor tion conventions of the #oor feeb!e wom n- the ?sister of ch rity&? 21 /he torrents of te rs of the

eighteenth>century re der nd writer re common#! ce of !it> er ry history& <e!!ert<erm n #oet of inte!!ectu ! nd soci ! st nding- cried over the # rting of <r ndison nd 9!ementine ti!! his h nd,erchief- his boo,- his t b!e- nd even the f!oor got wet- nd bo sted of it in !etterN 22 nd even Dr& .ohnson- not renowned for softhe rtedness- indu!ged in te rs nd sentiment ! effusions f r more unrestr ined!y th n our contem#or ries- t !e st those of the inte!!ectu ! c! sses& 25 In the study of the individu ! writer- )ngerAs !ess inte!!ectu !> ist #oint of view !so h s its dv nt ges- since it tries to define

Liter ture

nd Ide s 1 1 D

!ess t ngib!y- !ess overt!y formu! ted ttitudes nd ide s& It is !ess in d nger of iso! ting nd reducing the contents of wor, of rt to mere #rose st tementmere formu! & /he study of these ttitudes h s !ed some <erm n #hi!os> o#hers to s#ecu! te bout the #ossibi!ity of reducing them to few ty#es of 1 e!t nsch uungU term which is used wide!y enough to inc!ude both #hi!oso#hic ! ide s nd emotion ! tti> tudes& /he most we!!>,nown ttem#t is th t of Di!they- who in his #r ctice s !iter ry histori n h s const nt!y stressed the dif> ference between n ide nd n e@#erience 30r!ebnis6& (e finds three m in ty#es in the history of thought$ 2i #ositivism- which derives from Democritus nd Lucretius nd inc!udes (obbesthe "rench encyc!o#edists- nd modern m teri !ists nd #ositiv> istsC obBective ide !ism- which inc!udes (er c!itus- S#inoz Leibniz- Sche!!ing- (ege! C nd du !istic ide !ism- or ?Ide !ism of "reedom-? which inc!udes 8! to- the 9hristi n theo!ogi ns2 nt- nd "ichte& /he first grou# e@#! ins the s#iritu ! by the #hysic ! wor!d- the second sees re !ity s the e@#ression of n intern ! re !ity nd does not recognize conf!ict between being nd v !ue- the third ssumes the inde#endence of s#irit g inst n ture& Di!they then ssoci tes s#ecific uthors with these ty#es$ + !z c nd Stendh ! be!ong to the first ty#eC <oethe to the sec> ondC Schi!!er to the third& /his is c! ssific tion not b sed mere!y on conscious dherence nd #ronouncements- but deducib!e- it is su##osed- from even the most uninte!!ectu ! rt& /he ty#es re !so ssoci ted with gener ! #sycho!ogic ! ttitudes$ thus re !ism with #redomin nce of the inte!!ect- obBective ide !ism with the #redomin nce of fee!ing- the du !istic ide !ism with the #redomin nce of wi!!& (erm nn *oh! h s tried to show th t the ty#es re !so #> #!ic b!e to # inting nd music& 2D Rembr ndt nd Rubens be!ong to the obBective ide !ists- the # ntheistsC # inters !i,e Ke! s:uez nd ( !s to the re !istsC Miche! nge!o to the subBective ide !ists& +er!ioz be!ongs to ty#e I- Schubert to ty#e II- +eethoven to ty#e III& /he rgument from # inting nd music is im#ort nt- since it im#!ies th t these ty#es c n e@ist !so in !iter ture without ny overt!y inte!!ectu ! content& )nger h s tried to show th t the differences wi!! ho!d good even of sm !! !yric ! #oems by

1 1 E /heory of Liter ture Mori,e- 9& "& Meyer nd Li!iencron C 2E he nd *oh! tried to show th t 1e!t nsch uung c n be discovered mere!y from sty!e or- t !e st- from scenes in nove! with no direct inte!!ectu ! con> tent& (ere the theory ch nges into theory of fund ment ! rtistic sty!es& 1 !ze! h s ttem#ted to !in, it with the 8rinci#!es of Art (istory of 1o!ff!in nd simi! r ty#o!ogies& 2= /he interest of these s#ecu! tions is consider b!e- nd m ny v ri tions of the theory here e@#ounded h ve been invented in <erm ny& /hey h ve !so been ##!ied to the history of !iter > ture& 1 !ze!- for e@ m#!e- sees- in nineteenth>century <erm ny nd- #resum b!y- 0uro#e n !iter turec!e r evo!ution from ty#e II 3<oetheAs nd the Rom nticsA obBective ide !ism6through ty#e I 3re !ism6- which #rogressive!y becomes conscious of the #henomen !ity of the wor!d in im#ressionism- to sub> Bective- du !istic ide !ism re#resented by e@#ressionism- the re#> resent tive of ty#e III& 1 !ze!As scheme does not mere!y st te th t there w s this ch nge but th t this ch nge is somehow inter> !oc,ing nd !ogic !& 8 ntheism t cert in st ge !e ds to n tur !> ism- nd n tur !ism !e ds to im#ressionism- nd the subBectivity of im#ressionism fin !!y merges into new ide !ism& /he scheme is di !ectic ! nd u!tim te!y (ege!i n& A sober view of these s#ecu! tions wi!! be s,e#tic ! of the ne tness of these schemes& It wi!! doubt the s credness of the number three& )nger himse!f- for e@ m#!e- distinguishes two ty#es of obBective ide !ism$ h rmonious ty#e- re#resented by <oethe- nd di !ectic !- in +oehme- Sche!!ing- nd (ege! > y nd simi! r obBections cou!d be voiced g inst the ty#es of ?#osi> tivism-? which seems to cover mu!titude of fre:uent!y high!y divergent #oints of view& +ut !ess im#ort nt th n such obBections g inst the det i!s of the c! ssific tion re the doubts which must rise bout the who!e ssum#tion behind the undert ,ing& A!! ty#o!ogy of this sort !e ds on!y to rough c! ssific tion of !! !it> er ture under three- or t the most five or si@- he dings& /he concrete individu !ity of the #oets nd their wor,s is ignored or minimized& "rom !iter ry #oint of view- !itt!e seems to be chieved by c! ssifying such diverse #oets s +! ,e- 1ordsworthnd She!!ey s ?obBective ide !ists&? /here seems !itt!e #oint in reducing the history of #oetry to the #ermut tions of three or

Liter ture

nd Ide s 1 1 =

more ty#es of 1 e!t nsch uung& "in !!y- the #osition im#!ies r dic ! nd e@cessive re! tivism& /he ssum#tion must be th t these three ty#es re of e:u ! v !ue nd th t the #oet c nnot but choose one of them on the b sis of his tem#er ment or some fund ment !!y irr tion !- mere!y given ttitude tow rd the wor!d& /he im#!ic tion is th t there re on!y so m ny ty#es nd th t every #oet is n i!!ustr tion of one of these ty#es& /he who!e theory- of course- is b sed on gener ! #hi!oso#hy of history

which ssumes c!ose nd necess ry re! tion between #hi!oso#hy nd rt not on!y in the individu ! but in #eriod nd in history& 1e re !ed to discussion of the ssum#tions of <eistesge> schichte& <eistesgeschichte m y be used wide!y s n !tern tive term for inte!!ectu ! history- for the history of ide s in LoveBoyAs sense C nd it h s the dv nt ge of being !ess inte!!ectu !ized term th n the 0ng!ish& <eist is wide term which wi!! inc!ude the #rob> !ems described s be!onging ! rge!y to the history of sentiment& <eist h s- however- !ess desir b!e ssoci tions with the who!e conce#tion of n obBective ?s#irit&? +ut <eistesgeschichte is usu !!y understood in <erm ny in n even more s#eci ! sense$ it ssumes th t e ch #eriod h s its ?time s#irit? nd ims to ?recon> struct the s#irit of time from the different obBectiv tions of n ge H from its re!igion down to its costumes& 1e !oo, for the tot !ity behind the obBects nd e@#! in !! f cts by this s#irit of the time&? 2; It ssumes very tight coherence of !! cu!tur ! nd other ctivities of m ncom#!ete # r !!e!ism of the rts nd sciences& /he method goes b c, to suggestions m de by the Sch!ege!s nd h s h d its most we!!>,nown s we!! s most e@tr v g nt e@> #onent in S#eng!er& +ut it h s !so c demic #r ctitioners who re !iter ry histori ns by #rofession nd who h ve used the method ! rge!y with !iter ry m teri !s& Its #r ctice v ries from f ir!y sober di !ectici ns !i,e 2orff 3who tr ces the history of <erm n !iter ture between 1=D0 nd 1;50 in terms of di !ectic ! move> ment from r tion !ity to irr tion !ity to their (ege!i n synthesis6 to f nt stic- :uibb!ing- #seudo>mystic !- verb !istic #roductions by 9ys rz- Deutschbein- Stef ns,y- nd Meissner& 24 /he method is ! rge!y method of n !ogy$ neg tive n !ogy- in so f r s it tends to em#h size the differences between given ge nd to

1 1 ; /heory of Liter ture forget the !i,enesses- nd #ositive n !ogy- in so f r s it tends to em#h size the !i,enesses mong the h ##enings or #roductions of # rticu! r #eriod nd to forget the differences& /he Ro> m ntic nd the + ro:ue #eriods h ve #roved to be # rticu! r!y h ##y hunting grounds for such e@ercises of ingenuity& A good e@ m#!e is MeissnerAs Die geisteswissensch Bt!ichen <rund! gen des eng!ischen Liter turb roc,s 314576- which de> fines the s#irit of the ge s conf!ict of ntithetic tendencies #ursues this formu! re!ent!ess!y through !! hum n ctivities from techno!ogy to e@#!or tion- from tr ve!ing to re!igion& /he m teri ! is ne t!y ordered into such c tegories s e@# nsion nd concentr tion- m crocosmos nd microcosmos- sin nd s !v tionf ith nd re son- bso!utism nd democr cy- ? tectonics? nd ?tectonics&? +y such univers ! n !ogizing- Meissner rrives t the trium#h nt conc!usion th t the + ro:ue ge showed conf!ictcontr diction- nd tension throughout its m nifest tions& /here were ctive men interested in con:uering n ture nd #r ising w r B there were # ssion te co!!ectors- tr ve!ers- dventurers >-

nd

but there were !so contem#! tive men who sought out so!itude or founded secret societies& Some #eo#!e were f scin ted by the new stronomy- whi!e others- the di rists- n !yzed #erson ! st tes of mind or drew the individu ! fe tures of men !i,e the # inters of #ortr its& /here were some who be!ieved in the divine right of ,ings nd others who be!ieved in n e:u !it ri n de> mocr cy& 0verything e@em#!ifies thus the #rinci#!e either of con> centr tion or of e@# nsion& If we w nt concentr tion in !iter turewe re #resented with the #! in sty!e of #rose #romoted by the Roy ! Society fter the Restor tion& If we w nt e@# nsion- we re shown the !ong invo!ved sentences of Mi!ton or Sir /hom s +rowne& Li,e his fe!!ow wor,ers- Meissner never s,s the ob> vious but fund ment ! :uestion whether the s me scheme of contr ries cou!d not be e@tr cted from !most ny other ge& *or does he r ise the :uestion whether we cou!d not im#ose com> #!ete!y different scheme of contr ries on the seventeenth centurynd even on the b sis of the s me :uot tions- dr wn from his wide re ding& Simi! r!y- 2orffAs ! rge boo,s reduce !! nd everything to the thesis- ?r tion !ism-? the ntithesis- ?irr tion !ism-? nd their synthesis- ?Rom nticism&? R tion !ism :uic,!y ssumes in 2orff

Liter ture

nd Ide s 1 1 4

!so form ! me ning- ?9! ssicism-? nd irr tion !ism the me n> ing of the !oose Storm nd Stress form- whi!e <erm n Rom nti> cism is #ressed into service s the synthesis& /here re m ny boo,s in <erm n which wor, with such contr ries$ 9 ssirerAs much more sober "reiheit und "orm- 9ys rzAs tortuous 0rf h> rung und Idee& 50 1ith some <erm n writers these ideo!ogic ! ty#es re either c!ose!y connected or sim#!y sh de off into r ci ! ty#es $ the <erm n- or t !e st the /euton- is the m n of fee!ingwhi!e the L tin is the m n of re son C or g in the ty#es m y be b sic !!y #sycho!ogic !- !i,e the usu ! contr st between the d e> monic nd the r tion !& "in !!y- the ideo!ogic ! ty#es re s id to be interch nge b!e with sty!istic conce#ts$ they merge with 9! ssicism nd Rom nticism- the + ro:ue nd the <othic- nd h ve given rise to n enormous !iter ture in which ethno!ogy#sycho!ogy- ideo!ogy- nd rt history re #resented in n ine@> tric b!e mi@ture nd confusion& +ut the who!e ssum#tion of com#!ete integr tion of timeof r ce- of wor, of rt is o#en to serious :uestion& /he # r !> !e!ism of the rts c n be cce#ted on!y with ! rge reserv tions& /he # r !!e!ism between #hi!oso#hy nd #oetry is even more o#en to doubt& 1e need on!y to thin, of 0ng!ish Rom ntic #oetry which f!ourished during time when 0ng!ish nd Scot> tish #hi!oso#hy were com#!ete!y domin ted by common sense #hi!oso#hy nd uti!it ri nism& 0ven t times when #hi!oso#hy seems to be in c!ose cont ct with !iter ture- the ctu ! integr tion is f r !ess cert in th n it is ssumed by <erm n <eistesgeschichte& /he <erm n Rom ntic movement is studied most!y in the !ight of the #hi!oso#hy deve!o#ed by men !i,e "ichte or Sche!!ing#rofession ! #hi!oso#hers- nd by writers !i,e "riedrich Sch!ege!

nd *ov !is- border!ine c ses whose ctu ! rtistic #roductions were neither of centr ! im#ort nce nor rtistic !!y very success> fu!& /he gre test #oets or dr m tists or nove!ists of the <erm n Rom ntic movement h d fre:uent!y on!y tenuous re! tionshi#s with contem#or ry #hi!oso#hy 3 s w s the c se with 0& /& A& (offm nn nd 0ichendorfftr dition ! 9 tho!ic6 or evo!ved #hi!oso#hic ! #oint of view inimic ! to the Rom ntic #hi!os> o#hers f r e@ce!!ence- s did .e n 8 u! Richter- who tt c,ed "ichte- or 2!eist- who fe!t crushed by 2 nt& /he strong integr > tion between #hi!oso#hy nd !iter ture- even during the <erm n

120 /heory of Liter ture Rom ntic movement- c n be chieved on!y by rguing from fr g> ments nd theoretic ! dis:uisitions of *ov !is nd "riedrich Sch!ege!- vowed!y "ichteAs disci#!es- whose s#ecu! tions- fre> :uent!y un#ub!ished in their time- h d !itt!e to do with the #ro> duction of concrete wor,s of !iter ture& /he genuine rtistic chievements of *ov !is 3such s some #oems6 re sc rce!y re> ! ted to the "r gmente& /he c!ose integr tion between #hi!oso#hy nd !iter ture is fre> :uent!y dece#tive- nd rguments in its f vor re overr ted be> c use they re b sed on study of !iter ry ideo!ogy- #rofessions of intentions- nd #rogr ms which- necess ri!y borrowing from e@isting esthetic formu! tions- m y sust in on!y remote re! > tionshi# to the ctu ! #r ctice of the rtists& /his s,e#ticism bout the c!ose integr tion of #hi!oso#hy nd !iter ture does not- of course- deny the e@istence of m ny re! tionshi#s nd even the !i,e!ihood of cert in # r !!e!ism reinforced by the common soci ! b c,ground of time- nd hence by common inf!uences e@erted on !iter ture nd #hi!oso#hy& +ut- even here- the s> sum#tion of common soci ! b c,ground m y re !!y be dece#> tive& 8hi!oso#hy h s fre:uent!y been cu!tiv ted by s#eci ! c! ss which m y be very different from the #r ctitioners of #oetryboth in soci ! ffi!i tions nd #rovenience& 8hi!oso#hy- much more th n !iter ture- h s been identified with the 9hurch nd the Ac demy& It h s- !i,e !! the other ctivities of m n,ind- its own history- its own di !ectics$ its f ctions nd movements re not- it seems to us- so c!ose!y re! ted to !iter ry movements s it is ssumed by m ny #r ctitioners of <eistesgesch,hte& /he e@#! n tion of !iter ry ch nge in terms of ?time s#irit? seems #ositive!y vicious when this s#irit becomes mythic ! in> tegr ! nd bso!ute- inste d of being- t the most#ointer to difficu!t nd obscure #rob!em& <erm n <eistesgesch,hte h s usu !!y mere!y succeeded in tr nsferring criteri from one series 3either one of the rts or #hi!oso#hy6 to the who!e of cu!tur ! ctivity nd h s then ch r cterized the time nd in it every indi> vidu ! wor, of !iter ture in terms of such v gue contr ries s 9! ssicism nd Rom nticism or R tion !ism nd Irr tion !ism& /he conce#tion of the ?time s#irit? h s !so fre:uent!y dis strous conse:uences for conce#tion of the continuity of 1estern civi!iz tion$ the individu ! ges re conceived s f r too sh r#!y

Liter ture

nd Ide s 1 2 1

distinct nd discontinuous- nd the revo!utions which they show re conceived of s so r dic ! th t the <eisteswissensch ft!er ends not on!y in com#!ete historic ! re! tivism 3one ge is s good s nother6 but !so in f !se conce#tion of individu !ity nd origin !ity which obscures the b sic const nts in hum n n > ture- civi!iz tion- nd the rts& In S#eng!er we rrive t the ide of c!osed cu!tur ! cyc!es deve!o#ing with f t ! necessity$ se!f> enc!osed- though mysterious!y # r !!e!& Anti:uity does not con> tinue into the Midd!e Ages- the continuity of 1estern !iter ry evo!ution is com#!ete!y obscured- denied- or forgotten& /hese f nt stic c rd # ! ces shou!d not- of course- obscure the re ! #rob!em of gener ! history of m n,ind or- t !e st- of 1estern civi!iz tion& 1e re on!y convinced th t the so!utions offered by the usu ! <eistesgeschichte- with its e@cessive re!i nce on contr ries nd n !ogies- its uncritic ! #resu##osition of the sees w !ter tions of sty!es nd Den,formen- nd its be!ief in com#!ete integr tion of !! ctivities of m n- h ve been #rem ture nd- fre:uent!y- imm ture& Inste d of s#ecu! ting on such ! rge>sc !e #rob!ems of the #hi!oso#hy of history nd the u!tim te integr ! of civi!iz tionthe !iter ry student shou!d turn his ttention to the concrete #rob!em not yet so!ved or even de:u te!y discussed $ the :uestion of how ide s ctu !!y enter into !iter ture& It is obvious!y not :uestion of ide s in wor, of !iter ture s !ong s these ide s rem in mere r w m teri !- mere inform tion& /he :uestion rises on!y when nd if these ide s re ctu !!y incor#or ted into the very te@ture of the wor, of rt- when they become ?constitu> tive-? in short- when they ce se to be ide s in the ordin ry sense of conce#ts nd become symbo!s- or even myths& /here is the ! rge #rovince of did ctic #oetry in which ide s re mere!y st ted- re #rovided with meter or with some embe!!ishments of met #hor or !!egory& /here is the nove! of ide s such s <eorge S ndAs or <eorge 0!iotAs where we get discussions of ?#rob!ems-? soci !- mor !- or #hi!oso#hic !& 'n higher !eve! of integr tion there is nove! !i,e Me!vi!!eAs Moby Dic, where the who!e c> tion conveys some mythic me ning- or #oem !i,e +ridgesA /est ment of +e uty which in intention t !e st is #erv ded by sing!e #hi!oso#hic ! met #hor& And there is Dostoevs,y- in whose nove!s the dr m of ide s is cted out in concrete terms of

122 /heory of Liter ture ch r cters nd events& In the +rothers 2 r m zov- the four brothers re but c rriers- symbo!s who re#resent n ideo!ogic ! deb te which is- t the s me time#erson ! dr m & /he ideo> !ogic ! conc!usion is integr ! to the #erson ! c t stro#hes of the m in figures& +ut re these #hi!oso#hic ! nove!s nd #oems- such s <oetheAs

" ust or Dostoevs,yAs +rothers - su#erior wor,s of rt bec use of their #hi!oso#hic ! im#ortI Must not we r ther conc!ude th t ?#hi!oso#hic ! truth? s such h s no rtistic v !ue Bust s we rgued th t #sycho!ogic ! or soci ! truth h s no rtistic v !ue s suchI 8hi!oso#hy- ideo!ogic ! content- in it #ro#er conte@t- seems to enh nce rtistic v !ue bec use it corrobor tes sever ! im#ort nt rtistic v !ues$ those of com#!e@ity nd coherence& A theoretic ! insight m y incre se the rtistAs de#th of #enetr tion nd sco#e of re ch& +ut it need not be so& /he rtist wi!! be h m#ered by too much ideo!ogy if it rem ins un ssimi! ted& 9roce h s rgued th t the Divine 9omedy consists of # ss ges of #oetry !tern t> ing with # ss ges of rhymed theo!ogy nd #seudo>science& 51 /he second # rt of " ust indubit b!y suffers from overinte!!ec> tu !iz tion- is const nt!y on the verge of overt !!egory B nd in Dostoevs,y we fre:uent!y fee! the discre# ncy between the r> tistic success nd the weight of thought& Oossim - Dostoevs,yAs s#o,esm n- is !ess vivid!y re !ized ch r cter th n Iv n 2 r m > zov& 'n !ower !eve!- /hom s M nnAs M gic Mount in i!> !ustr tes the s me contr diction$ the e r!y # rts- with their evo> c tion of the s n torium wor!d- re rtistic !!y su#erior to the ! ter # rts of ! rge #hi!oso#hic ! #retensions& Sometimes- in the history of !iter ture- however- there re c ses- confessed!y r rewhen ide s inc ndesce- when figures nd scenes not mere!y re#> resent but ctu !!y embody ide s- when some identific tion of #hi!oso#hy nd rt seems to t ,e #! ce& Im ge becomes conce#t nd conce#t im ge& +ut re these necess ri!y the summits of rts m ny #hi!oso#hic !!y inc!ined critics ssume them to beI 9roce seems right rguing- in discussion of the second # rt of " ust- th t ?when #oetry becomes su#erior in this m nner- th t is to s y- su#erior to itse!f- it !oses r n, s #oetry- nd shou!d be termed r ther inferior- n me!y w nting in #oetry&? 52 At !e st- it shou!d be gr nted th t #hi!oso#hic ! #oetry- however integr tedis on!y one ,ind of #oetry- nd th t its #osition is not necess ri!y

Liter ture

nd Ide s 125

centr ! in !iter ture un!ess one ho!ds to theory of #oetry which is reve! tory- essenti !!y mystic !& 8oetry is not substitute>#hi> !oso#hy B it h s its own Bustific tion nd im& 8oetry of ide s is !i,e other #oetry- not to be Budged by the v !ue of the m teri ! but by its degree of integr tion nd rtistic intensity&

9(A8/0R JI Liter ture nd the 'ther Arts

/he re! tionshi#s of !iter ture with the fine rts nd music re high!y v rious nd com#!e@& Sometimes #oetry h s dr wn ins#ir tion from # intings or scu!#ture or music& Li,e n tur ! obBects nd #ersons- other wor,s of rt m y become the themes of #oetry& /h t #oets h ve described #ieces of scu!#ture- # intingor even music #resents no # rticu! r theoretic ! #rob!em& S#en> ser- it h s been suggested- drew some of his descri#tions from

t #estries nd # ge nts D the # intings of 9! ude Lorr in nd S !v tore Ros inf!uenced eighteenth>century ! ndsc #e #oetry B 2e ts derived det i!s of his ?'de on <reci n )rn? from s#e> cific #icture of 9! ude Lorr in& 1 Ste#hen A& L rr bee h s con> sidered !! the !!usions nd tre tments of <ree, scu!#ture to be found in 0ng!ish #oetry& 2 A!bert /hib udet h s shown th t M !! rmeAs ?LAA#res>midi dAun f une? w s ins#ired by # int> ing of +oucher in the London * tion ! < !!ery& 5 8oets- es#e> ci !!y nineteenth>century #oets !i,e (ugo- < utier- the 8 rn s> siens- nd /iec,- h ve written #oems on definite #ictures& 8oetsof course- h ve h d their theories bout # inting nd their #ref> erences mong # inters- which c n be studied nd more or !ess re! ted to their theories bout !iter ture nd their !iter ry t stes& (ere is wide re for investig tion- on!y # rti !!y tr versed in recent dec des& 7 In its turn- obvious!y- !iter ture c n become the theme of # inting or of music- es#eci !!y voc ! s !iter ture- es#eci !!y the !yric co!! bor ted with music& In nd #rogr m music- Bust

nd the dr m - h s intim te!y re

n incre sing number- there

studies of mediev ! c ro!s or 0!iz beth n !yric ! #oetry which stress the c!ose there h s "ritz S @!127 ##e red ssoci tion of the music ! setting& D In rt history

who!e grou# of scho! rs 30rwin 8 nofs,ynd symbo!ic

nd others6 who study the conce#tu !

Liter ture

nd the 'ther Arts 12D !so

me nings of wor,s of rt 3?Icono!ogy?6 nd fre:uent!y their !iter ry re! tions nd ins#ir tions&

+eyond these obvious :uestions of sources nd inf!uences- in> s#ir tion- nd co>o#er tion- there rises more im#ort nt #rob> !em$ !iter ture h s sometimes definite!y ttem#ted to chieve the effects of # inting H to become word # inting- or h s tried to chieve the effects of music H to turn into music& At times- #oetry h s even w nted to be scu!#tures:ue& A critic m y- s did Lessing in his L o,oon nd Irving + bbitt in his *ew L o,odn y de#!ore this confusion of genres C but one c nnot deny th t the rts h ve tried to borrow effects from e ch other nd th t they h ve beenin consider b!e me sure- successfu! in chieving these effects& 'ne c n- of course- deny the #ossibi!ity of the !iter ! met mor> #hosis of #oetry into scu!#ture- # inting- or music& /he term ?scu!#tures:ue-? ##!ied to #oetry- even to th t of L ndor or < utier or (eredi - is mere!y v gue met #hor- me ning th t the #oetry conveys n im#ression somehow simi! r to the effects of <ree, scu!#ture $ coo!ness- induced by white m rb!e or #! ster

c sts- sti!!ness- re#ose- sh r# out!ines- c! rity& +ut we must recog> nize th t coo!ness in #oetry is something very different from the t ctu ! sens tion of m rb!e- or the im gin tive reconstruction of th t #erce#tion from whiteness C th t sti!!ness in #oetry is some> thing very different from sti!!ness in scu!#ture& 1hen 9o!!insA ?'de to 0vening? is c !!ed ?scu!#tured #oem? nothing is s id th t im#!ies ny re ! re! tionshi# with scu!#ture& = /he on!y n !yz b!e obBectivities re the s!ow- so!emn meter nd the dic> tion- which is str nge enough to com#e! ttention to individu ! words nd hence to enforce s!ow # ce in re ding& +ut one c n h rd!y deny the success of the (or ti n formu! ut fictur foesis& D /hough the mount of visu !iz tion in the re ding of #oetry is !i,e!y to be overr ted- there were ges nd there were #oets who did m ,e the re der visu !ize& Lessing m y h ve been right in criticizing the enumer tive descri#tion of fe> m !e be uty in Ariosto s visu !!y ineffective 3though not neces> s ri!y #oetic !!y ineffective6- but the eighteenth>century ddicts of the #ictures:ue c nnot be e si!y dismissed C nd modern !iter > ture from 9h te ubri nd to 8roust h s given us m ny descri#> tions t !e st suggesting the effects of # inting nd inciting us to visu !ize scenes in terms fre:uent!y evoc tive of contem#or ry

12E /heory of Liter ture # intings& /hough it m y be doubted whether the #oet c n re !!y suggest the effects of # inting to hy#othetic ! re ders tot !!y ig> nor nt of # inting- it is c!e r th t- within our gener ! cu!tur ! tr dition- writers did suggest the emb!em- the ! ndsc #e # inting of the eighteenth century- the im#ressionistic effects of 1hist!er nd the !i,e& 1hether #oetry c n chieve the effects of music seems more doubtfu!- though it is wide!y he!d view th t it c n& ?Music !> ity? in verse- c!ose!y n !yzed- turns out to be something entire!y different from ?me!ody? in music$ it me ns n rr ngement of #honetic # tterns- n void nce of ccumu! tions of conson ntsor sim#!y the #resence of cert in rhythmic ! effects& 1ith such rom ntic #oets s /iec, nd- ! ter- Ker! ine- the ttem#ts to chieve music ! effects re ! rge!y ttem#ts to su##ress the me ning structure of verse- to void !ogic ! constructions- to stress connot tions r ther th n denot tions& Yet b!urred out!inesv gueness of me ning- nd i!!ogic !ity re not- in !iter ! sense?music !? t !!& Liter ry imit tions of music ! structures !i,e !eitmotiv- the son t or sym#honic form seem to be more con> crete C but it is h rd to see why re#etitive motifs or cert in con> tr sting nd b ! ncing of moods- though by vowed intention imit tive of music ! com#osition- re not essenti !!y the f mi!i r !iter ry devices of recurrence- contr st- nd the !i,e which re common to !! the rts& 4 In the com# r tive!y r re inst nces where #oetry suggests definite music ! sounds- Ker! ineAs ?Les s ng!onts !ongs des vio!ons? or 8oeAs ?+e!!s-? the effect of the timbre of n instrument or the very gener !ized c! ng of be!!s is chieved by me ns which re not much beyond ordin ry onom t> o#oei &

8oems h ve been- of course- written with the intention th t music shou!d be dded- e&g&- m ny 0!iz beth n irs nd !! !ibrettos for o#er & In r re inst nces- #oets nd com#osers h ve been one nd the s me D but it seems h rd to #rove th t the com> #osition of music nd words w s ever simu!t neous #rocess& 0ven 1 gner sometimes wrote his ?dr m s? ye rs before they were set to music C nd- no doubt- m ny !yrics were com#osed to fit re dy me!odies& +ut the re! tion between music nd re !!y gre t #oetry seems r ther tenuous when we thin, of the evidence fforded by even the most successfu! settings into music ! terms&

Liter ture

nd the 'ther Arts 12=

8oems of c!ose>,nit- high!y integr ted structure do not !end themse!ves to music ! setting- whi!e mediocre or #oor #oetry!i,e much of the e r!y (eine or 1i!he!m Mii!!er- h s #rovided the te@t for the finest songs of Schubert nd Schum nn& If the #oetry is of high !iter ry v !ue- the setting fre:uent!y distorts or obscures its # tterns com#!ete!y- even when the music h s v !ue in its own right& 'ne need not cite such e@ m#!es s the !ot of Sh ,es#e reAs 'the!!o in KerdiAs o#er - for ne r!y !! the settings of the 8s !ms or of the #oems of <oethe offer de:u te #roof of the contention& 9o!! bor tion between #oetry nd music e@> ists- to be sure B but the highest #oetry does not tend tow rds music- nd the gre test music st nds in no need of words& /he # r !!e!s between the fine rts nd !iter ture usu !!y mount to the ssertion th t this #icture nd th t #oem induce the s me mood in me $ for e@ m#!e- th t I fee! !ight>he rted nd g y in he ring minuet of Moz rt- seeing ! ndsc #e by 1 t> te u- nd re ding n An creontic #oem& +ut this is the ,ind of # r !!e!ism which is of !itt!e worth for #ur#oses of #recise n !ysis$ Boy induced by #iece of music is not Boy in gener ! or even Boy of # rticu! r sh de- but is n emotion c!ose!y fo!!ow> ing nd thus tied to the # ttern of the music& 1e e@#erience emotions which h ve on!y gener ! tone in common with those of re ! !ife- nd even if we define these emotions s c!ose!y s we c n- we re sti!! :uite removed from the s#ecific obBect which induced them& 8 r !!e!s between the rts which rem in inside the individu ! re ctions of re der or s#ect tor nd re content with describing some emotion ! simi! rity of our re ctions to two rts wi!!- therefore- never !end themse!ves to verific tion nd thus to co>o#er tive dv nce in our ,now!edge& Another common ##ro ch is the intentions nd theories of the rtists& *o doubt- we c n show th t there re some simi! r> ities in the theories nd formu! s behind the different rts- in the *eo>9! ssic ! or the Rom ntic movements- nd we c n find !so #rofessions of intentions of the individu ! rtists in the dif> ferent rts which sound identic ! or simi! r& +ut ?9! ssicism? in music must me n something very different from its use in !iter> ture for the sim#!e re son th t no re ! c! ssic ! music 3with the e@ce#tion of few fr gments6 w s ,nown nd cou!d thus sh #e the evo!ution of music s !iter ture w s ctu !!y sh #ed by the

12; /heory of Liter ture #rece#ts nd #r ctice of nti:uity& Li,ewise # inting- before the e@c v tion of the frescoes in 8om#eii nd (ercu! neum- c n sc rce!y be described s inf!uenced by c! ssic ! # inting in s#ite of the fre:uent reference to c! ssic ! theories nd <ree, # inters !i,e A#e!!es nd some remote #ictori ! tr ditions which must h ve descended from nti:uity through the Midd!e Ages& Scu!#> ture nd rchitecture- however- were to n e@tent f r e@ceeding the other rts- inc!uding !iter ture- determined by c! ssic ! mod> e!s nd their deriv tives& /hus theories nd conscious intentions me n something very different in the v rious rts nd s y !itt!e or nothing bout the concrete resu!ts of n rtistAs ctivity$ his wor, nd its s#ecific content nd form& (ow indecisive for s#ecific e@egesis the ##ro ch through the uthorAs intention m y be- c n best be observed in the r re c ses when rtist nd #oet re identic !& "or e@ m#!ecom# rison of the #oetry nd the # intings of +! ,e- or of Rossetti- wi!! show th t the ch r cter H not mere!y the technic ! :u !ity H of their # inting nd #oetry is very different- even divergent& A gro> tes:ue !itt!e nim ! is su##osed to i!!ustr te ?/igerV /igerV +urning bright&? 1& M& /h c,er y i!!ustr ted K nity " ir- but his smir,y c ric ture of +ec,y Sh r# h s h rd!y nything to do with the com#!e@ ch r cter in the nove!& In structure nd :u !ity there is !itt!e com# rison between Miche! nge!oAs Sonnets nd his scu!#ture nd # intings- though we c n find the s me *eo> 8! tonic ide s in !! nd m y discover some #sycho!ogic ! simi> ! rities& 10 /his shows th t the ?medium? of wor, of rt 3 n un> fortun te :uestion>begging term6 is not mere!y technic ! ob> st c!e to be overcome by the rtist in order to e@#ress his #er> son !ity- but f ctor #reformed by tr dition nd h ving #ow> erfu! determining ch r cter which sh #es nd modifies the #> #ro ch nd e@#ression of the individu ! rtist& /he rtist does not conceive in gener ! ment ! terms but in terms of concrete m teri ! C nd the concrete medium h s its own history- fre> :uent!y very different from th t of ny other medium& More v !u b!e th n the ##ro ch through the rtistAs inten> tions nd theories is com# rison of the rts on the b sis of their common soci ! nd cu!tur ! b c,ground& 9ert in!y it is #ossib!e to describe the common tem#or !- !oc !- or soci ! nourishing soi! of the rts nd !iter ture nd thus to #oint to common inf!uences

Liter ture

nd the 'ther Arts 124

wor,ing on them& M ny # r !!e!s between the rts re #ossib!e on!y bec use they ignore the utter!y different soci ! b c,ground to which the individu ! wor, of rt ##e !ed or from which it seems to be derived& /he soci ! c! sses either cre ting or de> m nding cert in ty#e of rt m y be :uite different t ny one time or #! ce& 9ert in!y the <othic c thedr !s h ve different

soci ! b c,ground from the "rench e#icC nd scu!#ture fre> :uent!y ##e !s to nd is # id for by very different udience from the nove!& .ust s f !! cious s the ssum#tion of common soci ! b c,ground of the rts t given time nd #! ce is the usu ! ssum#tion th t the inte!!ectu ! b c,ground is necess ri!y identic ! nd effective in !! the rts& It seems h z rdous to in> ter#ret # inting in the !ight of contem#or ry #hi!oso#hy$ to mention on!y one e@ m#!e- 2 ro!y /o!n i J1 h s ttem#ted to inter#ret the #ictures of the e!der +rueghe! in evidence of # ntheistic monism # r !!e!ing 9us nus or 8 r ce!sus nd n> tici# ting S#inoz nd <oethe& 0ven more d ngerous is n ?e@> #! n tion? of the rts in terms of ?time s#irit-? s #r cticed by <erm n < eistes geschichte y movement which we h ve criticized in different conte@t& 12 /he genuine # r !!e!isms which fo!!ow from the identic ! or simi! r soci ! or inte!!ectu ! b c,ground sc rce!y ever h ve been n !yzed in concrete terms& 1e h ve no studies which wou!d concrete!y show how- for e@ m#!e- !! the rts in given time or setting e@# nd or n rrow their fie!d over the obBects of ?n ture-? or how the norms of rt re tied to s#ecific soci ! c! sses nd thus subBect to uniform ch nges- or how esthetic v !ues ch nge with soci ! revo!utions& (ere is wide fie!d for investig tion which h s been sc rce!y touched- yet #romises con> crete resu!ts for the com# rison of the rts& 'f course- on!y simi! r inf!uences on the evo!ution of the different rts c n be #roved by this method- not ny necess ry # r !!e!ism& 'bvious!y- the most centr ! ##ro ch to com# rison of the rts is b sed on n n !ysis of the ctu ! obBects of rt- nd thus of their structur ! re! tionshi#s& /here wi!! never be #ro#er history of n rt- not to s#e , of com# r tive history of the rts- un!ess we concentr te on n n !ysis of the wor,s them> se!ves nd re!eg te to the b c,ground studies in the #sycho!ogy of the re der nd the s#ect tor or the uthor nd the rtist s

150 /heory of Liter ture we!! s studies in the cu!tur ! nd soci ! b c,ground- however i!!umin ting they m y be from their own #oint of view& )nfor> tun te!y hitherto we h ve h d sc rce!y ny too!s for such com> # rison between the rts& (ere very difficu!t :uestion rises$ 1h t re the common nd the com# r b!e e!ements of the rtsI 1e see no !ight in theory !i,e 9roceAs- which concentr tes !! esthetic #rob!ems on the ct of intuition- mysterious!y identi> fied with e@#ression& 9roce sserts the non>e@istence of modes of e@#ression nd condemns ? ny ttem#t t n esthetic c! ssific > tion of the rts s bsurd? nd thus fortiori reBects !! distinc> tion between genres or ty#es& 15 *or is much g ined for our #rob!em by .ohn DeweyAs insistence- in his Art s 0@#erience 314576- th t there is common subst nce mong the rts be> c use there re ?gener ! conditions without which n e@#erience is not #ossib!e&? 17 *o doubt- there is common denomin tor in the ct of !! rtistic cre tion or- for th t m tter- in !! hum n cre tion- ctivity- nd e@#erience& +ut these re so!utions which

do not he!# us in com# ring the rts& More concrete!y- /heodore Meyer <reene defines the com# r b!e e!ements of the rts s com#!e@ity- integr tion- nd rhythm- nd he rgues e!o:uent!ys .ohn Dewey h d done before him- for the ##!ic bi!ity of the term ?rhythm? to the #! stic rts& 1D It seems- however- im#os> sib!e to overcome the #rofound distinction between the rhythm of #iece of music nd the rhythm of co!onn de- where neither the order nor the tem#o is im#osed by the structure of the wor, itse!f& 9om#!e@ity nd integr tion re mere!y other terms for ?v riety? nd ?unity? nd thus of on!y very !imited use& "ew concrete ttem#ts to rrive t such common denomin tors mong the rts on structur ! b sis h ve gone ny further& <& D& +ir,hof"( rv rd m them tici n- in boo, on Aesthetic Me sure- 1E h s with ## rent success tried to find common m them tic ! b sis for sim#!e rt forms nd music nd he h s inc!uded study of the ?music !ity? of verse which is !so de> fined in m them tic ! e:u tions nd coefficients& +ut the #rob!em of eu#hony in verse c nnot be so!ved in iso! tion from me ningnd +ir,hof8s high gr des for #oems by 0dg r A!! n 8oe seem to confirm such n ssum#tion& (is ingenious ttem#t- if cce#ted- wou!d tend r ther to widen the gu!f between the essen> ti !!y ?!iter ry? :u !ities of #oetry nd the other rts which

Liter ture

nd the 'ther Arts 1 5 1

sh re much more fu!!y in ? esthetic me sure? th n !iter ture& /he #rob!em of the # r !!e!ism of the rts e r!y suggested the ##!ic tion to !iter ture of sty!e>conce#ts rrived t in the history of the rts& In the eighteenth century- innumer b!e com> # risons were m de between the structure of S#enserAs " erie Mueene nd the g!orious disorder of <othic c thedr !& 1= In /he Dec!ine of the 1est- n !ogizing !! the rts of cu!tureS#eng!er s#e ,s of the ?visib!e ch mber music of the bent fur> niture- the mirror rooms- # stor !s nd #orce! in grou#s of the eighteenth century-? mentions the ?/iti n sty!e of the m d> rig !-? nd refers to the ? !!egro feroce of "r nz ( !s nd the nd nte con moto of K n Dyc,&? 1; In <erm ny this mode of n !ogizing the rts h s incited co#ious writing on the <othic m n nd the s#irit of the + ro:ue- h s !ed to the !iter ry use of the terms ?Rococo? nd ?+iedermeier&? In the #eriodiz tion of !iter ture- the c!e r!y wor,ed>out se:uence of rt sty!es of <othic- Ren iss nce- + ro:ue- Rococo- Rom nticism- +ieder> meier- Re !ism- Im#ressionism- 0@#ressionism h s im#ressed !iter ry histori ns nd h s im#osed itse!f !so on !iter ture& /he sty!es n med re grou#ed into two m in grou#s- #resenting fun> d ment !!y the contr st between the 9! ssic ! nd the Rom ntic $ <othic- the + ro:ue- Rom nticism- 0@#ressionism ##e r on one !ine D the Ren iss nce- *eo>9! ssicism- Re !ism on the other& Rococo- +iedermeier- c n be inter#reted s ! te dec dent- f!orid v ri tions of the #receding sty!es H res#ective!y + ro:ue nd Rom nticism& "re:uent!y the # r !!e!isms re #ressed very h rd B nd it is e sy to #ic, out bsurdities from the writings of even the most re#ut b!e scho! rs who h ve indu!ged in the method& 14

/he most concrete ttem#t to tr nsfer the c tegories of rt history to !iter ture is 's, r 1 !ze!As ##!ic tion of 1o!ff!inAs criteri & In his 8rinci#!es of Art (istory- 20 1o!min distin> guished- on #ure!y structur ! grounds- between Ren iss nce nd + ro:ue rt& (e constructed scheme of contr ries ##!ic b!e to ny ,ind of #icture- #iece of scu!#ture- or s#ecimen of rchitec> ture in the #eriod& Ren iss nce rt- he he!d- is ?!ine r-? whi!e + ro:ue rt is ?# inter!y&? ?Line r? suggests th t the out!ines of figures nd obBects re dr wn c!e r!y- whi!e ?# inter!y? me ns th t !ight nd co!or- which b!ur the out!ines of obBects- re them>

152 /heory of Liter ture se!ves the #rinci#!es of com#osition& Ren iss nce # inting nd scu!#ture use ?c!osed? formsymmetric !- b ! nced grou#> ing of figures or surf ces- whi!e + ro:ue #refers n ?o#en? formn unsymmetric ! com#osition which #uts em#h sis on corner of #icture r ther th n its center- or even #oints beyond the fr me of the #icture& Ren iss nce #ictures re ?f! t? or- t !e stcom#osed on different recessive #! nes- whi!e + ro:ue #ictures re ?dee#? or seem to !e d the eye into dist nt nd indistinct b c,ground& Ren iss nce #ictures re ?mu!ti#!e? in the sense of h ving c!e r!y distinct # rtsC + ro:ue wor,s re ?unified-? high!y integr ted- c!ose!y ,nit& Ren iss nce wor,s of rt re ?c!e r-? whi!e + ro:ue wor,s re re! tive!y ?unc!e r-? b!urredindistinct& 1o!ff!in demonstr ted his conc!usions by n dmir b!y sensi> tive n !ysis of concrete wor,s of rt nd suggested the neces> sity of the #rogression from the Ren iss nce to the + ro:ue& 9ert in!y their se:uence c nnot be inverted& 1o!ff!in offers no c us ! e@#! n tion of the #rocess- e@ce#t th t he suggests ch nge in the ?m nner of seeing-? #rocess which- howeverh rd!y c n be thought of s #ure!y #hysio!ogic !& /his viewwith its stress on ch nges in the ?m nner of seeing-? on the #ure!y structur !- com#osition ! ch nges- goes b c, to the theo> ries of "ied!er nd (i!debr nd concerning #ure visibi!ity- nd is u!tim te!y derived from Oimmerm nn- n (erb rti n esthe> tici n& 21 +ut 1o!ff!in himse!f- es#eci !!y in ! ter #ronounce> ments- 22 recognized the !imit tions of his method nd by no me ns thought th t his history of forms h d e@h usted !! the #rob!ems of rt history& 0ven e r!y he dmitted ?#erson !? nd ?!oc !? sty!es nd s w th t his ty#es cou!d be found e!sewhere th n in the si@teenth nd seventeenth centuries- though in !ess c!e r!y defined form& In 14 1 E- fresh from the re ding of the 8rinci#!es of Art (is> tory- 1 !ze! ttem#ted to tr nsfer 1o!ff!inAs c tegories to !it> er ture& 25 Studying the com#osition of Sh ,es#e reAs #! ys- he c me to the conc!usion th t Sh ,es#e re be!ongs to the + ro:uesince his #! ys re not bui!t in the symmetric ! m nner found by 1o!ff!in in #ictures of the Ren iss nce& /he number of minor ch r cters- their unsymmetric ! grou#ing- the v rying em#h sis on different cts of the #! y$ !! these ch r cteristics re su##osed

Liter ture

nd the 'ther Arts 155

to show th t Sh ,es#e reAs techni:ue is the s me s th t of + ro:ue rt- whi!e 9ornei!!e nd R cine- who com#osed their tr gedies round one centr ! figure nd distributed the em#h sis mong the cts ccording to tr dition ! Aristote!i n # tternre ssigned to the Ren iss nce ty#e& In !itt!e boo,- 1echse!> seitige 0rhe!!ung der 2iinste- nd in m ny ! ter writings- 27 1 !ze! tried to e! bor te nd Bustify this tr nsfer- t first r ther modest!y nd then with incre sing!y e@tr v g nt c! ims& Some of 1o!ff!inAs c tegories c n c!e r!y nd r ther e si!y be reformu! ted in !iter ry terms& /here is n obvious o##osition between n rt which #refers c!e r out!ines nd distinct # rts nd n rt with !ooser com#osition nd b!urred out!ines& "ritz StrichAs ttem#t to describe the o##osition between <erm n 9! ssicism nd Rom nticism by ##!ying 1o!ff!inAs c tegories devised for the Ren iss nce nd + ro:ue shows th t these c te> gories- !iber !!y inter#reted- c n rest te the o!d o##ositions be> tween the #erfect 9! ssic ! #oem nd the unfinished- fr g> ment ry- or b!urred Rom ntic #oetry& 2D +ut we re then !eft with on!y one set of contr ries for !! the history of !iter ture& 0ven reformu! ted in strict!y !iter ry terms- 1o!ff!inAs c tegories he!# us mere!y to rr nge wor,s of rt into two c tegories whichwhen e@ mined in det i!- mount on!y to the o!d distinction be> tween c! ssic nd rom ntic- severe nd !oose structure- #! stic nd #ictures:ue rt $ du !ism which w s ,nown to the Sch!ege!s nd to Sche!!ing nd 9o!eridge nd w s rrived t by them through ideo!ogic ! nd !iter ry rguments& 1o!ff!inAs one set of contr ries m n ges to grou# !! 9! ssic ! nd #seudo>9! ssic ! rt together- on the one h nd- nd on the other to combine very divergent movements such s the <othic- the + ro:ue- nd Rom nticism& /his theory ##e rs to obscure the undoubted nd e@treme!y im#ort nt continuity between the Ren iss nce nd + ro:ue- Bust s its ##!ic tion to <erm n !iter ture by Strich m ,es n rtifici ! contr st between the #seudo>9! ssic ! st ge in the deve!o#ment of Schi!!er nd <oethe nd the Rom ntic movement of the e r!y nineteenth century- whi!e it must !e ve the ?Storm nd Stress? une@#! ined nd incom#rehensib!e& Ac> tu !!y- <erm n !iter ture t the turn of the eighteenth nd nineteenth centuries forms com# r tive unity which it seems bsurd to bre , u# into n irreconci! b!e ntithesis& /hus-

157 /heory of Liter ture 1o!ff!inAs theory m y he!# us in c! ssifying wor,s of rt nd est b!ishing or r ther confirming the o!d ction>re ction- con> vention>revo!t- or sees w ty#e of du !istic evo!ution ry schemewhich- however- confronted with the re !ity of the com#!e@ #rocess of !iter ture- f !!s f r short of co#ing with the high!y diversified # ttern of the ctu ! deve!o#ment&

/he tr nsfer of 1o!ff!inAs # irs of conce#ts !so !e ves one im#ort nt #rob!em com#!ete!y unso!ved& 1e c nnot e@#! in in ny w y the undoubted f ct th t the rts did not evo!ve with the s me s#eed t the s me time& Liter ture seems sometimes to !inger behind the rts$ for inst nce- we c n sc rce!y s#e , of n 0ng!ish !iter ture when the gre t 0ng!ish c thedr !s were being bui!t& At other times music ! gs behind !iter ture nd the other rts$ for inst nce- we c nnot s#e , of ?Rom ntic? music before 1;00- whi!e much Rom ntic #oetry #receded th t d te& 1e h ve difficu!ty in ccounting for the f ct th t there w s ?#ictures:ue? #oetry t !e st si@ty ye rs before the #ictures:ue inv ded rchi> tecture 2E or for the f ct- mentioned by +urc,h rdt- 2= th t *enci - the descri#tion of #e s nt !ife by Lorenzo M gnifico#receded by some eighty ye rs the first genre #ictures of . co#o + ss no nd his schoo!& 0ven if these few e@ m#!es were wrong!y chosen nd cou!d be refuted- they r ise :uestion which c nnot be nswered by n over>sim#!e theory ccording to which!et us s y- music is !w ys ! gging by gener tion fter #oetry& 2; 'bvious!y corre! tion with soci ! f ctors shou!d be ttem#tednd these f ctors wi!! v ry in every sing!e inst nce& 1e re fin !!y confronted with the #rob!em th t cert in times or n tions were e@treme!y #roductive on!y in one or two rtswhi!e either com#!ete!y b rren or mere!y imit tive nd deriv tive in others& /he f!owering of 0!iz beth n !iter ture- which w s not ccom# nied by ny com# r b!e f!owering of the fine rts- is c se in #oint C nd !itt!e is g ined by s#ecu! tions to the effect th t the ?n tion ! sou!-? in some w y- concentr ted on one rt or th ts 0mi!e Legouis #hr ses it in his (istory of 0ng!ish Liter ture?S#enser wou!d h ve become /iti n or Keronese h d he been born in It !y or Rubens or Rembr ndt in the *ether! nds&? 24 In the c se of 0ng!ish !iter ture it is e sy to suggest th t 8uri> t nism w s res#onsib!e for the neg!ect of the fine rts- but th t is sc rce!y enough to ccount for the differences between the #ro>

Liter ture

nd the 'ther Arts 15D

ductivity in very secu! r !iter ture nd the com# r tive b rren> ness in # inting& +ut !! this !e ds us f r fie!d into concrete his> toric ! :uestions& /he v rious rts H the #! stic rts- !iter ture- nd music H h ve e ch their individu ! evo!ution- with different tem#o nd dif> ferent intern ! structure of e!ements& *o doubt they re in con> st nt re! tionshi# with e ch other- but these re! tionshi#s re not inf!uences which st rt from one #oint nd determine the evo!u> tion of the other rts C they h ve to be conceived r ther s com> #!e@ scheme of di !ectic ! re! tionshi#s which wor, both w ysfrom one rt to nother nd vice vers - nd m y be com#!ete!y tr nsformed within the rt which they h ve entered& It is not sim#!e ff ir of ?time s#irit? determining nd #erme ting e ch nd every rt& 1e must conceive of the sum tot ! of m nAs cu!> tur ! ctivities s of who!e system of se!f>evo!ving series- e ch h ving its own set of norms which re not necess ri!y identic ! with those of the neighboring series& /he t s, of rt histori ns in

the widest sense- inc!uding histori ns of !iter ture nd of musicis to evo!ve descri#tive set of terms in e ch rt- b sed on the s#ecific ch r cteristics of e ch rt& /hus #oetry tod y needs new #oeticstechni:ue of n !ysis which c nnot be rrived t by sim#!e tr nsfer or d #t tion of terms from the fine rts& 'n!y when we h ve evo!ved successfu! system of terms for the n !> ysis of !iter ry wor,s of rt c n we de!imit !iter ry #eriods- not s met #hysic ! entities domin ted by ?time s#irit&? ( ving est b!ished such out!ines of strict!y !iter ry evo!ution- we then c n s, the :uestion whether this evo!ution is- in some w ysimi! r to the simi! r!y est b!ished evo!ution of the other rts& /he nswer wi!! be- s we c n see- not f! t ?yes? or ?no&? It wi!! t ,e the form of n intric te # ttern of coincidences nd di> vergences r ther th n # r !!e! !ines&

IK /he Intrinsic Study of Liter ture

9(A8/0R JII /he An !ysis of the Liter ry 1or, of Art /he n tur ! nd sensib!e st rting #oint for wor, in !iter ry scho! rshi# is the inter#ret tion nd n !ysis of the wor,s of !iter ture themse!ves& After !!- on!y the wor,s themse!ves Bustify !! our interest in the !ife of n uthor- in his soci ! en> vironment nd the who!e #rocess of !iter ture& +ut- curious!y enough- !iter ry history h s been so #reoccu#ied with the setting of wor, of !iter ture th t its ttem#ts t n n !ysis of the wor,s themse!ves h ve been s!ight in com# rison with the enormous efforts e@#ended on the study of environment& Some re sons for this overem#h sis on the conditioning circumst nces r ther th n on the wor,s themse!ves re not f r to see,& Modern !iter ry history rose in c!ose connection with the Rom ntic movementwhich cou!d subvert the critic ! system of *eo>9! ssicism on!y with the re! tivist rgument th t different times re:uired dif> ferent st nd rds& /hus the em#h sis shifted from the !iter ture itse!f to its historic ! b c,ground- which w s used to Bustify the new v !ues scribed to o!d !iter ture& In the nineteenth centurye@#! n tion by c uses bec me the gre t w tchword- ! rge!y in n ende vor to emu! te the methods of the n tur ! sciences& +esidesthe bre ,down of the o!d ?#oetics-? which occurred with the shift of interest to the individu ! ?t ste? of the re derstrengthened the conviction th t rt- being fund ment !!y irr > tion !- shou!d be !eft to ? ##reci tion&? Sir Sidney Lee- in his in ugur ! !ecture- mere!y summed u# the theory of most c demic !iter ry scho! rshi# when he s id$ ?In !iter ry history we see, the e@tern ! circumst nces H #o!itic !- soci !- economic H in which !iter ture is #roduced&? @ /he resu!t of ! c, of c! rity on :uestions of #oetics h s been the stonishing he!#!essness of most scho! rs when confronted with the t s, of ctu !!y n > !yzing nd ev !u ting wor, of rt&

In recent ye rs 154

he !thy re ction h s t ,en #! ce which recog>

170 /heory of Liter ture nizes th t the study of !iter ture shou!d- first nd foremost- con> centr te on the ctu ! wor,s of rt themse!ves& /he o!d methods of c! ssic ! rhetoric- #oetics- or metrics re nd must be reviewed nd rest ted in modern terms& *ew methods b sed on survey of the wider r nge of forms in modern !iter ture re being intro> duced& In "r nce the method of e@#!ic tion de te@tes- 2 in <er> m ny the form ! n !yses b sed on # r !!e!s with the history of fine rts- cu!tiv ted by 's, r 1 !ze!- 5 nd es#eci !!y the bri!!i nt movement of the Russi n form !ists nd their 9zech nd 8o!ish fo!!owers 7 h ve brought new stimu!i to the study of the !iter ry wor,- which we re on!y beginning to see #ro#er!y nd to n !yze de:u te!y& In 0ng! nd some of the fo!!owers of I& A& Rich rds h ve # id c!ose ttention to the te@t of #oetry D nd !so in this country grou# of critics h ve m de study of the wor, of rt the center of their interest& E Sever ! studies of the dr m = which stress its difference from !ife nd comb t the confusion between dr m tic nd em#iric ! re !ity #oint in the s me direction& Simi> ! r!y- m ny studies of the nove! ; re not content to consider it mere!y in terms of its re! tions to the soci ! structure but try to n !yze its rtistic methods H its #oints of view- its n rr tive tech> ni:ue& /he Russi n "orm !ists most vigorous!y obBected to the o!d dichotomy of ?content versus form-? which cuts wor, of rt into two h !ves$ crude content nd su#erim#osed- #ure!y e@> tern ! form& 4 9!e r!y- the esthetic effect of wor, of rt does not reside in wh t is common!y c !!ed its content& /here re few wor,s of rt which re not ridicu!ous or me ning!ess in syno#sis 3which c n be Bustified on!y s #ed gogic ! device6& 10 +ut distinction between form s the f ctor esthetic !!y ctive nd content esthetic !!y indifferent meets with insu#er b!e diffi> cu!ties& At first sight the bound ry !ine m y seem f ir!y definite& If we underst nd by content the ide s nd emotions conveyed in wor, of !iter ture- the form wou!d inc!ude !! !inguistic e!e> ments by which contents re e@#ressed& +ut if we e@ mine this distinction more c!ose!y- we see th t content im#!ies some e!e> ments of form$ e&g&- the events to!d in nove! re # rts of the content- whi!e the w y in which they re rr nged into ?#!ot? is # rt of the form& Dissoci ted from this w y of rr ngement they h ve no rtistic effect wh tsoever& /he common remedy #ro>

/he An !ysts of the Liter ry 1or, of Art 171 #osed nd wide!y used by <erm ns- i&e&- the introduction of the term ?inner form-? which origin !!y d tes b c, to 8!otinus nd Sh ftesbury- is mere!y com#!ic ting m tters- s the bound ry

!ine between inner nd outer form rem ins com#!ete!y obscure& It must sim#!y be dmitted th t the m nner in which events re rr nged in #!ot is # rt of the form& /hings become even more dis strous for the tr dition ! conce#ts when we re !ize th t even in the ! ngu ge- common!y considered # rt of the form- it is necess ry to distinguish between words in themse!ves- estheti> c !!y indifferent- nd the m nner in which individu ! words m ,e u# units of sound nd me ning- esthetic !!y effective& It wou!d be better to rechristen !! the esthetic !!y indifferent e!ements ?m teri !s-? whi!e the m nner in which they c:uire esthetic effic cy m y be sty!ed ?structure&? /his distinction is by no me ns sim#!e ren ming of the o!d # ir- content nd form& It cuts right cross the o!d bound ry !ines& ?M teri !s? inc!ude e!ements former!y considered # rt of the content- nd # rts for> mer!y considered form !& ?Structure? is conce#t inc!uding both content nd form so f r s they re org nized for esthetic #ur> #oses& /he wor, of rt is- then- considered s who!e system of signs- or structure of signs- serving s#ecific esthetic #ur#ose& (ow- more concrete!y- c n we envis ge n n !ysis of this structureI 1h t is me nt by this tot !ity- nd how c n it be n !yzedI 1h t is me nt by s ying th t n n !ysis is wrong or mist ,enI /his r ises n e@treme!y difficu!t e#istemo!ogic ! :ues> tion- th t of the ?mode of e@istence? or the ?onto!ogic ! situs? of !iter ry wor, of rt 3which- for brevityAs s ,e- we sh !! c !! ?#oem? in wh t fo!!ows6& 11 1h t is the ?re !? #oemC where shou!d we !oo, for itC how does it e@istI A correct nswer to these :uestions must so!ve sever ! critic ! #rob!ems nd o#en w y to the #ro#er n !ysis of wor, of !iter ture& /o the :uestion wh t nd where is #oem- or r ther !iter ry wor, of rt in gener !- sever ! tr dition ! nswers h ve been given which must be criticized nd e!imin ted before we c n t> tem#t n nswer of our own& 'ne of the most common nd o!dest nswers is the view th t #oem is n ? rtif ct-? n obBect of the s me n ture s #iece of scu!#ture or # inting& /hus the wor, of rt is considered identic ! with the b! c, !ines of in, on white # #er or # rchment or- if we thin, of + by!oni n #oem- with

172 /heory of Liter ture the grooves in the bric,& 'bvious!y this nswer is :uite uns tis> f ctory& /here is- first of !!- the huge or ! ?!iter ture&? /here re #oems or stories which h ve never been fi@ed in writing nd sti!! continue to e@ist& /hus the !ines in b! c, in, re mere!y method of recording #oem which must be conceived s e@isting e!sewhere& If we destroy the writing or even !! co#ies of #rinted boo, we sti!! m y not destroy the #oem- s it might be #reserved in or ! tr dition or in the memory of m n !i,e M c u! y- who bo sted of ,nowing 8 r dise Lost nd 8i!grimAs 8rogress by he rt& 'n the other h nd- if we destroy # inting or #iece of scu!#ture or bui!ding- we destroy it com#!ete!ythough we m y #reserve descri#tions or records in nother me> dium nd might even try to reconstruct wh t h s been !ost& +ut we sh !! !w ys cre te different wor, of rt 3however simi! r6-

whi!e the mere destruction of the co#y of boo, or even of its co#ies m y not touch the wor, of rt t !!&

!!

/h t the writing on the # #er is not the ?re !? #oem c n be demonstr ted !so by nother rgument& /he #rinted # ge con> t ins gre t m ny e!ements which re e@tr neous to the #oem$ the size of the ty#e- the sort of ty#e used 3rom n- it !ic6- the size of the # ge- nd m ny other f ctors& If we shou!d t ,e seri> ous!y the view th t #oem is n rtif ct- we wou!d h ve to come to the conc!usion th t every sing!e co#y is different wor, of rt& /here wou!d be no friori re son why co#ies in different edi> tions shou!d be co#ies of the s me boo,& +esides- not every #rint> ing is considered by us- the re derscorrect #rinting of #oem& /he very f ct th t we re b!e to correct #rinterAs errors in te@t which we might not h ve re d before or- in some r re c sesrestore the genuine me ning of the te@t shows th t we do not consider the #rinted !ines s the genuine #oem& /hus we h ve shown th t the #oem 3or ny !iter ry wor, of rt6 c n e@ist out> side its #rinted version nd th t the #rinted rtif ct cont ins m ny e!ements which we !! must consider s not inc!uded in the genuine #oem& Sti!!- this neg tive conc!usion shou!d not b!ind us to the enormous #r ctic ! im#ort nce- since the invention of writing nd #rinting- of our methods of recording #oetry& /here is no doubt th t much !iter ture h s been !ost nd thus com#!ete!y destroyed bec use its written records h ve dis ##e red nd the theoretic !!y

/he An !ysis of the Liter ry 1or, of Art 175 #ossib!e me ns of or ! tr dition h ve f i!ed or h ve been inter> ru#ted& 1riting nd es#eci !!y #rinting h ve m de #ossib!e the continuity of !iter ry tr dition nd must h ve done much to in> cre se the unity nd integrity of wor,s of rt& +esides- t !e st in cert in #eriods of the history of #oetry- the gr #hic #icture h s become # rt of some finished wor,s of rt& In 9hinese #oetry- s 0rnest "eno!!os h s shown- the #ic> tori ! ideogr ms form # rt of the tot ! me ning of the #oems& +ut !so in the 1estern tr dition there re the gr #hic #oems of the <ree, Antho!ogy- the ?A!t r? or the ?9hurch>f!oor? of <eorge (erbert- nd simi! r #oems of the Met #hysic !s which c n be # r !!e!ed on the 9ontinent in S# nish <ongorism- It !i n M rinism- in <erm n + ro:ue #oetry- nd e!sewhere& A!so modern #oetry in Americ 3e& e& cummings6- in <erm ny 3Arno (o!z6- in "r nce 3A#o!!in ire6- nd e!sewhere h s used gr #hic devices !i,e unusu ! !ine rr ngements or even begin> nings t the bottom of the # ge- different co!ors of #rinting- etc& 12 In the nove! /ristr m Sh ndy- Sterne used- s f r b c, s the eighteenth century- b! n, nd m rb!ed # ges& A!! such devices re integr ! # rts of these # rticu! r wor,s of rt& /hough we ,now th t m Bority of #oetry is inde#endent of them- they c n> not nd shou!d not be ignored in those c ses& +esides- the ro!e of #rint in #oetry is by no me ns confined to

such com# r tive!y r re e@tr v g nz s C the !ine>ends of versesthe grou#ing into st nz s- the # r gr #hs of #rose # ss ges- eye> rhymes or #uns which re com#rehensib!e on!y through s#e!!ingnd m ny simi! r devices must be considered integr ! f ctors of !iter ry wor,s of rt& A #ure!y or ! theory tends to e@c!ude !! consider tions of such devices- but they c nnot be ignored in ny com#!ete n !ysis of m ny wor,s of !iter ry rt& /heir e@istence mere!y #roves th t #rint h s become very im#ort nt for the #r c> tice of #oetry in modern times- th t #oetry is written for the eye s we!! s for the e r& /hough the use of gr #hic devices is not indis#ens b!e- they re f r more fre:uent in !iter ture th n in music- where the #rinted score is in #osition simi! r to the #rinted # ge in #oetry& In music such uses re r re- though by no me ns non>e@istent& /here re m ny curious o#tic ! devices 3co!ors- etc&6 in It !i n m drig ! scores of the si@teenth century& /he su##osed!y ?#ure? com#oser ( nde! wrote chorus s#e ,>

177 /heory of Liter ture ing of the Red Se f!ood where the ?w ter stood !i,e w !!-? nd the notes on the #rinted # ge of music form firm rows of even!y s# ced dots suggesting #h ! n@ or w !!& 15 1e h ve st rted with theory which #rob b!y h s not m ny serious dherents tod y& /he second nswer to our :uestion #uts the essence of !iter ry wor, of rt into the se:uence of sounds uttered by s#e ,er or re der of #oetry& /his is wide!y cce#ted so!ution f vored es#eci !!y by reciters& +ut the nswer is e:u !!y uns tisf ctory& 0very re ding !oud or reciting of #oem is mere!y #erform nce of #oem nd not the #oem itse!f& It is on e@ ct!y the s me !eve! s the #erform nce of #iece of music by musici n& /here is H to fo!!ow the !ine of our #revious rgu> ment H huge written !iter ture which m y never be sounded t !!& /o deny this- we h ve to subscribe to some such bsurd theory s th t of some beh viorists th t !! si!ent re ding is c> com# nied by movements of the voc ! cords& Actu !!y- !! e@> #erience shows th t- un!ess we re !most i!!iter te or re strug> g!ing with the re ding of foreign ! ngu ge or w nt to rticu> ! te the sound whis#ering!y on #ur#ose- we usu !!y re d ?g!ob> !!y-? th t is- we gr s# #rinted words s who!es without bre ,ing them u# into se:uences of #honemes nd thus do not #ronounce them even si!ent!y& In re ding :uic,!y we h ve no time even to rticu! te the sounds with our voc ! cords& /o ssume besides th t #oem e@ists in the re ding !oud !e ds to the bsurd conse> :uence th t #oem is non>e@istent when it is not sounded nd th t it is recre ted fresh by every re ding& Moreover- we cou!d not show how wor, !i,e (omerAs I!i d y or /o!stoyAs 1 r nd 8e ce- e@ists s unity- s it c n never be re d !oud !! in one sitting& +ut most im#ort nt!y- every re ding of #oem is more th n the genuine #oem$ e ch #erform nce cont ins e!ements which re e@tr neous to the #oem nd individu ! idiosyncr sies of #ro> nunci tion- #itch- tem#o- nd distribution of stress H e!ements which re either determined by the #erson !ity of the s#e ,er or

re sym#toms nd Moreover- the re ments but !w ys in the te@t of # ss ge is re d-

me ns of his inter#ret tion of the #oem& ding of #oem not on!y dds individu ! e!e> re#resents on!y se!ection of f ctors im#!icit #oem$ the #itch of the voice- the s#eed in which the distribution nd intensity of the stresses- these

/he An !ysis of the Liter ry 1or, of Art 17D m y be either right or wrong- nd even when right- m y sti!! re#resent on!y one version of re ding #oem& 1e must c,now!> edge the #ossibi!ity of sever ! re dings of #oem$ re dings which we either consider wrong re dings- if we fee! them to be distortions of the true me ning of the #oem- or re dings which we h ve to consider s correct nd dmissib!e- but sti!! m y not consider ide !& /he re ding of the #oem is not the #oem itse!f- for we c n correct the #erform nce ment !!y& 0ven if we he r recit tion which we c,now!edge to be e@ce!!ent or #erfect- we c nnot #re> c!ude the #ossibi!ity th t somebody e!se- or even the s me reciter t nother time- m y give very different rendering which wou!d bring out other e!ements of the #oem e:u !!y we!!& /he n !ogy to music ! #erform nce is g in he!#fu!$ the #erform nce of sym#hony even by /osc nini is not the sym#hony itse!f- for it is inevit b!y co!ored by the individu !ity of the #erformers nd dds concrete det i!s of tem#o- rub to- timbre- etc&- which m y be ch nged in ne@t #erform nce- though it wou!d be im#ossib!e to deny th t the s me sym#hony h s been #erformed for the second time& /hus we h ve shown th t the #oem c n e@ist outside its sounded #erform nce- nd th t the sounded #erform nce con> t ins m ny e!ements which we must consider s not inc!uded in the #oem& Sti!!- in some !iter ry wor,s of rt 3es#eci !!y in !yric ! #oetry6 the voc ! side of #oetry m y be n im#ort nt f ctor of the gen> er ! structure& Attention c n be dr wn to it by v rious me ns !i,e meter- # tterns of vowe! or conson nt se:uences- !!iter tionsson nce- rhyme- etc& /his f ct e@#! ins H or r ther he!#s to e@> #! in H the in de:u cy of much tr ns! ting of !yric ! #oetry- since these #otenti ! sound># tterns c nnot be tr nsferred into nother !inguistic system- though s,i!!fu! tr ns! tor m y ##ro@im te their gener ! effect in his own ! ngu ge& /here is- however- n enormous !iter ture which is re! tive!y inde#endent of sound> # tterns- s c n be shown by the historic ! effects of m ny wor,s in even #edestri n tr ns! tions& Sound m y be n im#ort nt f c> tor in the structure of #oem- but the nswer th t #oem is se:uence of sounds is s uns tisf ctory s the so!ution which #uts f ith in the #rint on the # ge& /he third- very common nswer to our :uestion s ys th t

17E /heory of Liter ture

#oem is the e@#erience of the re der& A #oem- it is rgued- is nothing outside the ment ! #rocesses of individu ! re ders nd is thus identic ! with the ment ! st te or #rocess which we e@#eri> ence in re ding or !istening to #oem& Ag in- this ?#sycho> !ogic !? so!ution seems uns tisf ctory& It is true- of course- th t #oem c n be ,nown on!y through individu ! e@#eriences- but it is not identic ! with such n individu ! e@#erience& 0very indi> vidu ! e@#erience of #oem cont ins something idiosyncr tic nd #ure!y individu !& It is co!ored by our mood nd our indi> vidu ! #re# r tion& /he educ tion- the #erson !ity of every re der- the gener ! cu!tur ! c!im te of time- the re!igious or #hi!oso#hic ! or #ure!y technic ! #reconce#tions of every re der wi!! dd something inst nt neous nd e@tr neous to every re d> ing of #oem& /wo re dings t different times by the s me indi> vidu ! m y v ry consider b!y either bec use he h s m tured ment !!y or bec use he is we ,ened by moment ry circumst nces such s f tigue- worry- or distr ction& 0very e@#erience of #oem thus both !e ves out something or dds something indi> vidu !& /he e@#erience wi!! never be commensur te with the #oem$ even good re der wi!! discover new det i!s in #oems which he h d not e@#erienced during #revious re dings- nd it is need!ess to #oint out how distorted or sh !!ow m y be the re ding of !ess tr ined or untr ined re der& /he view th t the ment ! e@#erience of re der is the #oem itse!f !e ds to the bsurd conc!usion th t #oem is non>e@istent un!ess e@#erienced nd th t it is recre ted in every e@#erience& /here thus wou!d not be one Divine 9omedy but s m ny Divine 9omedies s there re nd were nd wi!! be re ders& 1e end in com#!ete s,e#ticism nd n rchy nd rrive t the vicious m @im of De gustibus non est disfut ndum& If we shou!d t ,e this view serious!y- it wou!d be im#ossib!e to e@#! in why one e@#erience of #oem by one re der shou!d be better th n the e@#erience of ny other re der nd why it is #ossib!e to correct the inter#ret > tion of nother re der& It wou!d me n the definite end of !! te ching of !iter ture which ims t enh ncing the underst nding nd ##reci tion of te@t& /he writings of I& A& Rich rdses#eci !!y his boo, on 8r ctic ! 9riticism>- h ve shown how much c n be done in n !yzing the individu ! idiosyncr sies of re ders nd how much good te cher c n chieve in rectifying f !se #>

/he An !ysis of the Liter ry 1or, of Art 17= #ro ches& 9urious!y enough- Rich rds- who const nt!y criticizes the e@#eriences of his #u#i!s- ho!ds to n e@treme #sycho!ogic ! theory which is in f! t contr diction to his e@ce!!ent critic ! #r c> tice& /he ide th t #oetry is su##osed to order our im#u!ses nd the conc!usion th t the v !ue of #oetry is in some sort of #sychic ! ther #y !e d him fin !!y to the dmission th t this go ! m y be ccom#!ished by b d s we!! s good #oem- by c r#et#otgesture s we!! s by son t & 17 /hus the su##osed # ttern in our mind is not definite!y re! ted to the #oem which c used it& /he #sycho!ogy of the re der- however interesting in itse!f or usefu! for #ed gogic ! #ur#oses- wi!! !w ys rem in outside

the obBect of !iter ry study H the concrete wor, of rt H nd is un b!e to de ! with the :uestion of the structure nd v !ue of the wor, of rt& 8sycho!ogic ! theories must be theories of effect nd m y !e d in e@treme c ses to such criteri of the v !ue of #oetry s th t #ro#osed by A& 0& (ousm n in !ecture- /he * me nd * ture of 8oetry 314556- where he te!!s us- one ho#es with his tongue in his chee,- th t good #oetry c n be recog> nized by the thri!! down our s#ine& /his is on the s me !eve! s eighteenth>century theories which me sured the :u !ity of tr gedy by the mount of te rs shed by the udience or the movie scoutAs conce#tion of the :u !ity of comedy on the b sis of the number of ! ughs he h s counted in the udience& /hus n rchys,e#ticismcom#!ete confusion of v !ues is the resu!t of every #sycho!ogic ! theory- s it must be unre! ted either to the struc> ture or the :u !ity of #oem& /he #sycho!ogic ! theory is on!y very s!ight!y im#roved by I& A& Rich rds when he defines #oem s the ?e@#erience of the right ,ind of re der&? 1D 'bvious!y the who!e #rob!em is shifted to the conce#tion of the right re der H nd the me ning of th t dBective& +ut even ssuming n ide ! condition of mood in re der of the finest b c,ground nd the best tr ining- the defini> tion rem ins uns tisf ctory- s it is o#en to !! the criticism we h ve m de of the #sycho!ogic ! method& It #uts the essence of the #oem into moment ry e@#erience which even the right ,ind of re der cou!d not re#e t unch nged& It wi!! !w ys f !! short of the fu!! me ning of #oem t ny given inst nce nd wi!! !w ys dd inevit b!e #erson ! e!ements to the re ding& A fourth nswer h s been suggested to obvi te this difficu!ty&

17; /heory of Liter ture /he #oem- we he r- is the e@#erience of the uthor& 'n!y in # renthesis- we m y dismiss the view th t the #oem is the e@> #erience of the uthor t ny time of his !ife fter the cre tion of his wor,- when he rere ds it& (e then h s obvious!y become sim> #!y re der of his wor, nd is !i b!e to errors nd misinter#ret > tions of his own wor, !most s much s ny other re der& M ny inst nces of g! ring misinter#ret tions by n uthor of his own wor, cou!d be co!!ected$ the o!d necdote bout +rowning #ro> fessing not to underst nd his own #oem h s #rob b!y its e!ement of truth& It h ##ens to !! of us th t we misinter#ret or do not fu!!y underst nd wh t we h ve written some time go& /hus the suggested nswer must refer to the e@#erience of the uthor dur> ing the time of cre tion& +y ?e@#erience of the uthor? we might me n- however- two different things$ the conscious e@#eriencethe intentions which the uthor w nted to embody in his wor,or the tot ! conscious nd unconscious e@#erience during the #ro> !onged time of cre tion& /he view th t the genuine #oem is to be found in the intentions of n uthor is wides#re d even though it is not !w ys e@#!icit!y st ted& 1E It Bustifies much historic ! re> se rch nd is t the bottom of m ny rguments in f vor of s#e> cific inter#ret tions& (owever- for most wor,s of rt we h ve no evidence to reconstruct the intentions of the uthor e@ce#t the

finished wor, itse!f& 0ven if we re in #ossession of contem#or ry evidence in the form of n e@#!icit #rofession of intentions- such #rofession need not be binding on modern observer& ?Inten> tions? of the uthor re !w ys ?r tion !iz tions-? comment ries which cert in!y must be t ,en into ccount but !so must be criticized in the !ight of the finished wor, of rt& /he ?inten> tions? of n uthor m y go f r beyond the finished wor, of rt$ they m y be mere!y #ronouncements of #! ns nd ide !s- whi!e the #erform nce m y be either f r be!ow or f r side the m r,& If we cou!d h ve interviewed Sh ,es#e re he #rob b!y wou!d h ve e@#ressed his intentions in writing ( m!et in w y which we shou!d find most uns tisf ctory& 1e wou!d sti!! :uite right!y insist on finding me nings in ( m!et 3 nd not mere!y inventing them6 which were #rob b!y f r from c!e r!y formu! ted in Sh ,es#e reAs conscious mind& Artists m y be strong!y inf!uenced by contem#or ry critic ! situ tion nd by contem#or ry critic ! formu! e whi!e giving

/he An !ysis of the Liter ry 1or, of Art 174 e@#ression to their intentions- but the critic ! formu! e them> se!ves might be :uite in de:u te to ch r cterize their ctu ! rtistic chievement& /he + ro:ue ge is n obvious c se in #ointsince sur#rising!y new rtistic #r ctice found !itt!e e@#ression either in the #ronouncements of the rtists or the comments of the critics& A scu!#tor such s +ernini cou!d !ecture to the 8 ris Ac demy e@#ounding the view th t his own #r ctice w s in strict conformity to th t of the ncients nd D nie! Ad m 8o##e!> m nn- the rchitect of th t high!y rococo bui!ding in Dresden c !!ed the Owinger- wrote who!e # m#h!et in order to demon> str te the strict greement of his cre tion with the #urest #rin> ci#!es of Kitruvius& 1= /he met #hysic ! #oets h d on!y few :uite in de:u te critic ! formu! e 3!i,e ?strong !ines?6 which sc rce!y touch the ctu ! nove!ty of their #r ctice C nd mediev ! rtists fre:uent!y h d #ure!y re!igious or did ctic ?intentions? which do not even begin to give e@#ression to the rtistic #rinci#!es of their #r ctice& Divergence between conscious intention nd ctu ! #erform nce is common #henomenon in the history of !iter > ture- Oo! sincere!y be!ieved in his scientific theory of the e@#eri> ment ! nove!- but ctu !!y #roduced high!y me!odr m tic nd symbo!ic nove!s& <ogo! thought of himse!f s soci ! reformers ?geogr #her? of Russi - whi!e- in #r ctice- he #roduced nove!s nd stories fu!! of f nt stic nd grotes:ue cre tures of his im gin tion& It is sim#!y im#ossib!e to re!y on the study of the intentions of n uthor- s they might not even re#resent re> !i b!e comment ry on his wor,- nd t their best re not more th n such comment ry& /here c n be no obBections g inst the study of ?intention-? if we me n by it mere!y study of the integr ! wor, of rt directed tow rds the tot ! me ning& 1; +ut this use of the term ?intention? is different nd somewh t mis> !e ding& +ut !so the !tern tive suggestion H th t the genuine #oem is in the tot ! e@#erience- conscious nd unconscious- during the

time of the cre tion H is very uns tisf ctory& In #r ctice- this con> c!usion h s the serious dis dv nt ge of #utting the #rob!em into com#!ete!y in ccessib!e nd #ure!y hy#othetic ! @ which we h ve no me ns of reconstructing or even of e@#!oring& +eyond this insurmount b!e #r ctic ! difficu!ty- the so!ution is !so un> s tisf ctory bec use it #uts the e@istence of the #oem into sub>

1D0 /heory of Liter ture Bective e@#erience which !re dy is thing of the # st& /he e@> #eriences of the uthor during cre tion ce sed #recise!y when the #oem h d begun to e@ist& If this conce#tion were right- we shou!d never be b!e to come into direct cont ct with the wor, of rt itse!f- but h ve const nt!y to m ,e the ssum#tion th t our e@> #eriences in re ding the #oem re in some w y identic ! with the !ong># st e@#eriences of the uthor& 0& M& /i!!y rd in his boo, on Mi!ton h s tried to use the ide th t 8 r dise Lost is bout the st te of the uthor when he wrote it- nd cou!d not- in !ong nd fre:uent!y irre!ev nt e@ch nge of rguments with 9& S& Lewis- c,now!edge th t 8 r dise Lost is- first of !!- bout S t n nd Ad m nd 0ve nd hundreds nd thous nds of different ide s- re#resent tions- nd conce#ts- Gr ther th n bout Mi!tonAs st te of mind during cre tion& 14 /h t the who!e content of the #oem w s once in cont ct with the conscious nd subconscious mind of Mi!ton is #erfect!y trueC but this st te of mind is in> ccessib!e nd might h ve been fi!!ed- in those # rticu! r moments- with mi!!ions of e@#eriences of which we c nnot find tr ce in the #oem itse!f& / ,en !iter !!y- this who!e so!ution must !e d to bsurd s#ecu! tions bout the e@ ct dur tion of the st te of mind of the cre tor nd its e@ ct content- which might inc!ude tooth che t the moment of cre tion& 20 /he who!e #sycho!ogic ! ##ro ch through st tes of mind- whether of the re der or the !istener- the s#e ,er or the uthor- r ises more #rob!ems th n it c n #ossib!y so!ve& A better w y is obvious!y in the direction of defining the wor, of rt in terms of soci ! nd co!!ective e@#erience& /here re two #ossibi!ities of so!ution- which- however- sti!! f !! short of so!v> ing our #rob!em s tisf ctori!y& 1e m y s y th t the wor, of rt is the sum of !! # st nd #ossib!e e@#eriences of the #oem$ so> !ution which !e ves us with n infinity of irre!ev nt individu ! e@#eriences- b d nd f !se re dings- nd #erversions& In short- it mere!y gives us the nswer th t the #oem is in the st te of mind of its re der- mu!ti#!ied by infinity& Another nswer so!ves the :uestion by st ting th t the genuine #oem is the e@#erience com> mon to !! the e@#eriences of the #oem& 21 +ut this nswer wou!d obvious!y reduce the wor, of rt to the common denomin tor of !! these e@#eriences& /his denomin tor must be the !owest com> mon denomin tor- the most sh !!ow- most su#erfici ! nd trivi !

/he An !ysis of the Liter ry 1or, of Art 1 D 1 e@#erience& /his so!ution- besides its #r ctic ! difficu!ties- wou!d

com#!ete!y im#overish the tot ! me ning of

wor, of

rt&

An nswer to our :uestion in terms of individu ! or soci ! #sycho!ogy c nnot be found& A #oem- we h ve to conc!ude- is not n individu ! e@#erience or sum of e@#eriences- but on!y #otenti ! c use of e@#eriences& Definition in terms of st tes of mind f i!s bec use it c nnot ccount for the norm tive ch r cter of the genuine #oem- for the sim#!e f ct th t it might be e@> #erienced correct!y or incorrect!y& In every individu ! e@#erience on!y sm !! # rt c n be considered s de:u te to the true #oem& /hus- the re ! #oem must be conceived s structure of normsre !ized on!y # rti !!y in the ctu ! e@#erience of its m ny re ders& 0very sing!e e@#erience 3re ding- reciting- nd so forth6 is on!y n ttem#t H more or !ess successfu! nd com#!ete H to gr s# this set of norms or st nd rds& /he term ?norms? s used here shou!d not- of course- be con> fused with norms which re either c! ssic ! or rom ntic- ethic ! or #o!itic !& /he norms we h ve in mind re im#!icit norms which h ve to be e@tr cted from every individu ! e@#erience of wor, of rt nd together m ,e u# the genuine wor, of rt s who!e& It is true th t if we com# re wor,s of rt mong themse!vessimi! rities or differences between these norms wi!! be scer> t ined- nd from the simi! rities themse!ves it ought to be #os> sib!e to #roceed to c! ssific tion of wor,s of rt ccording to the ty#e of norms they embody& 1e m y fin !!y rrive t theories of genres nd u!tim te!y t theories of !iter ture in gener !& /o deny this s it h s been denied by those who- with some Busti> fic tion- stress the uni:ueness of every wor, of rt- seems to #ush the conce#tion of individu !ity so f r th t every wor, of rt wou!d become com#!ete!y iso! ted from tr dition nd thus fin !!y both incommunic b!e nd incom#rehensib!e& Assuming th t we h ve to st rt with the n !ysis of n individu ! wor, of rt- we sti!! c n sc rce!y deny th t there must be some !in,s- some simi! rities- some common e!ements or f ctors which wou!d #> #ro@im te two or more given wor,s of rt nd thus wou!d o#en the door to tr nsition from the n !ysis of one individu ! wor, of rt to ty#e such s <ree, tr gedy nd hence to tr gedy in gener !- to !iter ture in gener !- nd fin !!y to some !!>inc!usive structure common to !! rts&

1D2 /heory of Liter ture +ut this is further #rob!em& 1e- however- h ve sti!! to de> cide where nd how these norms e@ist& A c!oser n !ysis of wor, of rt wi!! show th t it is best to thin, of it s not mere!y one system of norms but r ther of system which is m de u# of sev> er ! str t - e ch im#!ying its own subordin te grou#& /he 8o!ish #hi!oso#her- Rom n Ing rden- in n ingenious high!y technic ! n !ysis of the !iter ry wor, of rt- 22 h s em#!oyed the methods of (usser!As ?8henomeno!ogy? to rrive t such distinctions of str t & 1e need not fo!!ow him in every det i! to see th t his gener ! distinctions re sound nd usefu!$ there is- first- the sound>str tum which is not- of course- to be confused with the ctu ! sounding of the words- s our #receding rgument must

h ve shown& Sti!!- this # ttern is indis#ens b!e- s on!y on the b sis of sounds c n the second str tum rise$ the units of me n> ing& 0very sing!e word wi!! h ve its me ning- wi!! combine into units in the conte@t- into synt gm s nd sentence # tterns& 'ut of this synt ctic structure rises third str tum- th t of the obBects re#resented- the ?wor!d? of nove!ist- the ch r cters- the setting& Ing rden dds two other str t which m y not h ve to be distinguished s se# r b!e& /he str tum of the ?wor!d? is seen from # rticu! r view#oint- which is not necess ri!y st ted but is im#!ied& An event #resented in !iter ture c n be- for e@ m#!e#resented s ?seen? or s ?he rd?$ even the s me event- for e@> m#!e- the b nging of doorC ch r cter c n be seen in its ?inner? or ?outer? ch r cteristic tr its& And fin !!y- Ing rden s#e ,s of str tum of ?met #hysic ! :u !ities? 3the sub!ime- the tr gic- the terrib!e- the ho!y6 of which rt c n give us contem#! > tion& /his str tum is not indis#ens b!e- nd m y be missing in some wor,s of !iter ture& 8ossib!y the two ! st str t c n be in> c!uded in the ?wor!d-? in the re !m of re#resented obBects& +ut they !so suggest very re ! #rob!ems in the n !ysis of !iter ture& /he ?#oint of view? h s- t !e st in the nove!- received consid> er b!e ttention since (enry . mes nd since Lubboc,As more system tic e@#osition of the . mesi n theory nd #r ctice& /he str tum of ?met #hysic ! :u !ities? !!ows Ing rden to reintro> duce :uestions of the ?#hi!oso#hic ! me ning? of wor,s of rt without the ris, of the usu ! inte!!ectu !ist errors& It is usefu! to i!!ustr te the conce#tion by the # r !!e! which c n be dr wn from !inguistics& Linguists such s the <enev

/he An !ysis of the Liter ry 1or, of Art 1D5 Schoo! nd the 8r gue Linguistic 9irc!e c refu!!y distinguish be> tween ! ngue nd # ro!e- 25 the system of ! ngu ge nd the indi> vidu ! s#eech> ctC nd this distinction corres#onds to th t be> tween the individu ! e@#erience of the #oem nd the #oem s such& /he system of ! ngu ge is co!!ection of conventions nd norms whose wor,ings nd re! tions we c n observe nd describe s h ving fund ment ! coherence nd identity in s#ite of very different- im#erfect- or incom#!ete #ronouncements of individu ! s#e ,ers& In this res#ect t !e st!iter ry wor, of rt is in e@ ct!y the s me #osition s system of ! ngu ge& 1e s indi> vidu !s sh !! never re !ize it com#!ete!y- for we sh !! never use our own ! ngu ge com#!ete!y nd #erfect!y& /he very s me sit> u tion is ctu !!y e@hibited in every sing!e ct of cognition& 1e sh !! never ,now n obBect in !! its :u !ities- but sti!! we c n sc rce!y deny the identity of obBects even though we m y see them from different #ers#ectives& 1e !w ys gr s# some ?struc> ture of determin tion? in the obBect which m ,es the ct of cognition not n ct of rbitr ry invention or subBective distinc> tion but the recognition of some norms im#osed on us by re !ity& Simi! r!y- the structure of wor, of rt h s the ch r cter of ?duty which I h ve to re !ize&? I sh !! !w ys re !ize it im> #erfect!y- but in s#ite of some incom#!etenesscert in ?struc> ture of determin tion? rem ins- Bust s in ny other obBect of ,now!edge& 27

Modern !inguists h ve n !yzed the #otenti ! sounds s #ho> nemes B they c n !so n !yze mor#hemes nd synt gm s& /he sentence- for inst nce- c n be described not mere!y s n d hoc utter nce but s synt ctic # ttern& 'utside of #honemicsmodern function ! !inguistics is sti!! com# r tive!y undeve!o#edC but the #rob!ems- though difficu!t- re not inso!ub!e or com> #!ete!y new$ they re r ther rest tements of the mor#ho!ogic ! nd synt ctic ! :uestions s they were discussed in o!der gr m> m rs& /he n !ysis of !iter ry wor, of rt encounters # r !!e! #rob!ems in units of me ning nd their s#ecific org niz tion for esthetic #ur#oses& Such #rob!ems s those of #oetic sem nticsdiction- nd im gery re reintroduced in new nd more c refu! st tement& )nits of me ning- sentences- nd sentence structures refer to obBects- construct im gin tive re !ities such s ! ndsc #esinteriors- ch r cters- ctions- or ide s& /hese !so c n be n !yzed

1D7 /heory of Liter ture in w y which does not confuse them with em#iric ! re !ity nd does not ignore the f ct th t they inhere in !inguistic structures& A ch r cter in nove! grows on!y out of the units of me ningis m de of the sentences either #ronounced by the figure or #ronounced bout it& It h s n indetermin te structure in com> # rison with bio!ogic ! #erson who h s his coherent # st& 2D /hese distinctions of str t h ve the dv nt ge of su#erseding the tr dition !- mis!e ding distinction between content nd form& /he content wi!! re ##e r in c!ose cont ct with the !inguistic substr tum- in which it is im#!ied nd on which it is de#endent& +ut this conce#tion of the !iter ry wor, of rt s str tified system of norms sti!! !e ves undetermined the ctu ! mode of e@istence of this system& /o de ! with this m tter #ro#er!y we shou!d h ve to sett!e such controversies s those of nomin !ism versus re !ism- ment !ism versus beh viorism H in short- !! the chief #rob!ems of e#istemo!ogy& "or our #ur#oses- however- it wi!! be sufficient to void two o##osites- e@treme 8! tonism nd e@treme nomin !ism& /here is no need to hy#ost tize or ?reify? this system of norms- to m ,e it sort of rchety# ! ide #resid> ing over time!ess re !m of essences& /he !iter ry wor, of rt h s not the s me onto!ogic ! st tus s the ide of tri ng!e- or of number- or :u !ity !i,e ?redness&? )n!i,e such ?subsis> tences-? the !iter ry wor, of rt is- first of !!- cre ted t cert in #oint in time nd- second!y- is subBect to ch nge nd even to com> #!ete destruction& In this res#ect it r ther resemb!es the system of ! ngu ge- though the e@ ct moment of cre tion or de th is #rob> b!y much !ess c!e r!y defin b!e in the c se of ! ngu ge th n in th t of the !iter ry wor, of rt- usu !!y n individu ! cre tion& 'n the other h nd- one shou!d recognize th t n e@treme nomin !ism which reBects the conce#t of ?system of ! ngu ge? nd thus of wor, of rt in our sense- or dmits it on!y s usefu! fiction or ?scientific descri#tion-? misses the who!e #rob> !em nd the #oint t issue& /he n rrow ssum#tions of beh vior> ism define nything to be ?mystic !? or ?met #hysic !? which does not conform to very !imited conce#tion of em#iric ! re !>

ity& Yet to c !! the #honeme ?fiction-? or the system of ! n> gu ge mere!y ?scientific descri#tion of s#eech> cts-? is to ignore the #rob!em of truth& 2E 1e recognize norms nd devi tions from norms nd do not mere!y devise some #ure!y verb ! de>

/he An !ysis of the Liter ry 1or, of Art 1DD scri#tions& /he who!e beh viorist #oint oL view is- in this res#ectb sed on b d theory of bstr ction& *umbers or norms re wh t they re- whether we construct them or not& 9ert in!y I #erform the counting- I #erform the re dingC but number #resent tion or recognition of norm is not the s me s the number or norm itse!f& /he #ronouncement of the sound h is not the #honeme h& 1e recognize structure of norms within re !ity nd do not sim#!y invent verb ! constructs& /he obBection th t we h ve ccess to these norms on!y through individu ! cts of cognitionnd th t we c nnot get out of these cts or beyond them- is on!y ## rent!y im#ressive& It is the obBection which h s been m de to 2 ntAs criticism of our cognition- nd it c n be refuted with the 2 nti n rguments& It is true we re ourse!ves !i b!e to misunderst ndings nd ! c, of com#rehension of these norms- but this does not me n th t the critic ssumes su#erhum n ro!e of criticizing our com> #rehension from the outside or th t he #retends to gr s# the #erfect who!e of the system of norms in some ct of inte!!ectu ! intuition& R ther- we criticize # rt of our ,now!edge in the !ight of the higher st nd rd set by nother # rt& 1e re not su#> #osed to #ut ourse!ves into the #osition of m n who- in order to test his vision- tries to !oo, t his own eyes- but into the #osition of m n who com# res the obBects he sees c!e r!y with those he sees on!y dim!y- m ,es then gener !iz tions s to the ,inds of obBects which f !! into the two c! sses- nd e@#! ins the difference by some theory of vision which t ,es ccount of dist nce- !ightnd so forth& An !ogous!y- we c n distinguish between right nd wrong re dings of #oem- or between recognition or distortion of the norms im#!icit in wor, of rt- by cts of com# rison- by study of different f !se or incom#!ete re !iz tions& 1e c n study the ctu ! wor,ings- re! tions- nd combin tions of these normsBust s the #honeme c n be studied& /he !iter ry wor, of rt is neither n em#iric ! f ct- in the sense of being st te of mind of ny given individu ! or of ny grou# of individu !s- nor is it n ide ! ch nge!ess obBect such s tri ng!e& /he wor, of rt m y become n obBect of e@#erienceC it is- we dmit- ccessib!e on!y through individu ! e@#erience- but it is not identic ! with ny e@#erience& It differs from ide ! obBects such s numbers #recise!y

1DE /heory of Liter ture bec use it is on!y ccessib!e through the em#iric ! # rt of its structure- the sound>system- whi!e tri ng!e or number c n be

intuited direct!y& It !so differs from ide ! obBects in one im#or> t nt res#ect& It h s something which c n be c !!ed ?!ife&? It rises t cert in #oint of time- ch nges in the course of historynd m y #erish& A wor, of rt is ?time!ess? on!y in the sense th tif #reserved- it h s some fund ment ! structure of identity since its cre tion- but it is ?historic !? too& It h s deve!o#ment which c n be described& /his deve!o#ment is nothing but the series of concretiz tions of given wor, of rt in the course of history which we m y- to cert in e@tent- reconstruct from the re#orts of critics nd re ders bout their e@#eriences nd Budgments nd the effect of given wor, of rt on other wor,s& 'ur conscious> ness of e r!ier concretiz tions 3re dings- criticisms- misinter#re> t tions6 wi!! ffect our own e@#erience$ e r!ier re dings m y educ te us to dee#er underst nding or m y c use vio!ent re ction g inst the #rev !ent inter#ret tions of the # st& A!! this shows the im#ort nce of the history of criticism or- in !inguisticsof historic ! gr mm r- nd !e ds to difficu!t :uestions bout the n ture nd !imits of individu !ity& (ow f r c n wor, of rt be s id to be ch nged nd sti!! rem in identic !I /he I!i d sti!! ?e@ists?C th t is- it c n become g in nd g in effective nd is thus different from historic ! #henomenon !i,e the b tt!e of 1 ter!oo which is definite!y # st- though its course m y be re> constructed nd its effects m y be fe!t even tod y& In wh t sense c n we- however- s#e , of n identity between the I!i d s the contem#or ry <ree,s he rd or re d it nd the I!i d we now re dI 0ven ssuming th t we ,now the identic ! te@t- our ctu ! e@#erience must be different& 1e c nnot contr st its ! ngu ge with the everyd y ! ngu ge of <reece- nd c nnot therefore fee! the devi tions from co!!o:ui ! ! ngu ge on which much of the #oetic effect must de#end& 1e re un b!e to underst nd m ny verb ! mbiguities which re n essenti ! # rt of every #oetAs me ning& 'bvious!y it re:uires in ddition some im gin tive ef> fort- which c n h ve on!y very # rti ! success- to thin, ourse!ves b c, into the <ree, be!ief in gods- or the <ree, sc !e of mor ! v !ues& Sti!!- it cou!d be sc rce!y denied th t there is subst nti ! identity of ?structure? which h s rem ined the s me throughout the ges& /his structure- however- is dyn mic$ it ch nges through>

/he An !ysis of the Liter ry 1or, of Art 1 D= out the #rocess of history whi!e # ssing through the minds of its re ders- critics- nd fe!!ow rtists& 2= /hus the system of norms is growing nd ch nging nd wi!! rem in- in some sense- !w ys incom#!ete!y nd im#erfect!y re !ized& +ut this dyn mic conce#> tion does not me n mere subBectivism nd re! tivism& A!! the dif> ferent #oints of view re by no me ns e:u !!y right& It wi!! !w ys be #ossib!e to determine which #oint of view gr s#s the subBect most thorough!y nd dee#!y& A hier rchy of view#ointscriticism of the gr s# of norms- is im#!ied in the conce#t of the de:u cy of inter#ret tion& A!! re! tivism is u!tim te!y defe ted by the recognition th t ?the Abso!ute is in the re! tive- though not fin !!y nd fu!!y in it&? 2; /he wor, of rt- then- ##e rs s n obBect of ,now!edge sui generis which h s s#eci ! onto!ogic ! st tus& It is neither re !

3!i,e st tue6 nor ment ! 3!i,e the e@#erience of !ight or # in6 nor ide ! 3!i,e tri ng!e6& It is system of norms of ide ! con> ce#ts which re intersubBective& /hey must be ssumed to e@ist in co!!ective ideo!ogy- ch nging with it- ccessib!e on!y through individu ! ment ! e@#eriences b sed on the sound>structure of its sentences& 1e h ve not discussed the :uestion of rtistic v !ues& +ut the #receding e@ min tion shou!d h ve shown th t there is no struc> ture outside norms nd v !ues& 1e c nnot com#rehend nd n !yze ny wor, of rt without reference to v !ues& /he very f ct th t I recognize cert in structure s ?wor, of rt? im> #!ies Budgment of v !ue& /he error of #ure #henomeno!ogy is in the ssum#tion th t such dissoci tion is #ossib!e- th t v !ues re su#erim#osed on structure- ?inhere? on or in structures& /his error of n !ysis viti tes the #enetr ting boo, of Rom n Ing r> den- who tries to n !yze the wor, of rt without reference to v !ues& /he root of the m tter !ies- of course- in the #henomeno!> ogistAs ssum#tion of n etern !- non>tem#or ! order of ?es> sences? to which the em#iric ! individu !iz tions re dded on!y ! ter& +y ssuming n bso!ute sc !e of v !ues we necess ri!y !ose cont ct with the re! tivity of individu ! Budgments& A frozen Abso!ute f ces v !ue!ess f!u@ of individu ! Budgments& /he unsound thesis of bso!utism nd the e:u !!y unsound ntithesis of re! tivism must be su#erseded nd h rmonized in new synthesis which m ,es the sc !e of v !ues itse!f dyn mic-

1D; /heory of Liter ture but does not surrender it s such& ?8ers#ectivism-? s we h ve termed such conce#tion- 24 does not me n n n rchy of v !uesg!orific tion of individu ! c #rice- but #rocess of getting to ,now the obBect from different #oints of view which m y be defined nd criticized in their turn& Structure- sign- nd v !ue form three s#ects of the very s me #rob!em nd c nnot be rti> fici !!y iso! ted&

9(A8/0R JIII 0u#hony- Rhythmnd Meter

0very wor, of !iter ry rt is- first of !!series of sounds out of which rises the me ning& In some !iter ry wor,s- this str tum of sounds is minimized in its im#ort nce B nd it becomes- so to s#e ,- di #h nous- s in most nove!s& +ut even there the #honetic str tum is necess ry #recondition of the me ning& /he distinc> tion between nove! by Dreiser nd #oem !i,e 8oeAs ?/he +e!!s? is in this res#ect on!y :u ntit tive nd f i!s to Bustify the setting>u# of two contr sting ,inds of !iter ture- fiction nd #oetry& In m ny wor,s of rt- inc!uding- of course- #rose- the sound>str tum ttr cts ttention nd thus constitutes n integr ! # rt of the esthetic effect& /his is true of much orn te #rose nd

of !! verse- which- by definition- is gu geAs sound>system&

n org niz tion of

! n>

In n !yzing these sound>effects- we h ve to be r in mind two #rinci#!es- im#ort nt but fre:uent!y ignored& 1e must- initi !!ydistinguish between #erform nce nd # ttern of sound& /he re ding !oud of !iter ry wor, of rt is #erform ncere !iz tion of # ttern which dds something individu ! nd #erson ! nd- on the other h nd- m y distort or even entire!y ignore the # ttern& (ence re ! science of rhythmics nd metrics c nnot be b sed on!y on the study of individu ! recit !s& A second common ssum#tion- th t sound shou!d be n !yzed in com#!ete divorce from me ning- is !so f !se& It fo!!ows from our gener ! conce#tion of the integrity of ny wor, of rt th t such divorce is f !se B but it fo!!ows !so from the demonstr tion th t mere sound in itse!f c n h ve no or !itt!e esthetic effect& /here is no ?music !? verse without some gener ! conce#tion of its me ning or t !e st its emotion ! tone& 0ven !istening to foreign ! n> gu ge which we do not underst nd t !!- we do not he r #ure sound but im#ose our #honetic h bits on it s we!! s he r- of course- the me ningfu! inton tion given to it by the s#e ,er or iS4

1E0 /heory of Liter ture re der& sim#!e studied ccount str tum In #oetry- #ure sound is either fiction or n e@treme!y nd e!ement ry series of re! tionshi#s such s those in +ir,hof8s Aesthetic Me sureP which c nnot #ossib!y for the v riety nd im#ort nce #ossessed by the sound> when seen s integr ! to the tot ! ch r cter of #oem&

1e must first distinguish between two very different s#ects of the #rob!em$ the inherent nd the re! tion ! e!ements of sound& +y the former- we me n the #ecu!i r individu !ity of the sound or o- or % or >#- inde#endent of :u ntity- since there c n> not be more or !ess or f& Inherent distinctions in :u !ity re the b sis for the effects which re usu !!y c !!ed ?music !ity? or ?eu#hony&? Re! tion ! distinctions- on the other h nd- re those which m y become the b sis of rhythm nd meter$ the #itch- the dur tion of the sounds- the stress- the fre:uency of recurrence!! e!ements #ermitting :u ntit tive distinctions& 8itch is higher or !ower- dur tion shorter or !onger- stress stronger or we ,erfre:uency of recurrence gre ter or sm !!er& /his f ir!y e!ement ry distinction is im#ort nt- for it iso! tes who!e grou# of !inguistic #henomen $ those which the Russi ns h ve c !!ed ?orchestr > tion? 3instrumentov, 6 in order to stress the f ct th t the sound> :u !ity is here the e!ement which is being m ni#u! ted nd e@> #!oited by the writer& /he term ?music !ity? 3or ?me!ody?6 of verse shou!d be dro##ed s mis!e ding& /he #henomen we re identifying re not # r !!e! to music ! ?me!ody? t !!$ me!ody in music is- of course- determined by #itch nd hence is v gue!y # r !!e! to inton tion in ! ngu ge& /here re ctu !!y consider> b!e differences between the inton tion !ine of s#o,en sentencewith its w vering- :uic,!y ch nging #itches- nd music ! me!>

ody with its fi@ed #itches nd definite interv !s& 2 *or is the term ?eu#hony? :uite sufficient since- under ?orchestr tion-? ?c > co#hony? needs to be considered in #oets !i,e +rowning or (o#> ,ins who im t de!iber te!y h rsh- e@#ressive sound>effects& Among the devices of ?orchestr tion? we h ve to distinguish between sound># tterns- re#etition of identic ! or ssoci ted sound>:u !ities- nd the use of e@#ressive sounds- of sound> imit tion& Sound># tterns h ve been studied by the Russi n form !ists with # rticu! r ingenuityC in 0ng!ish- 1& .& + te h s recent!y n !yzed the e! bor te sound>figures in the verse of 2e ts- who himse!f r ther curious!y theorized bout his #r ctice& 5

0ufhony- Rhythm -

nd Meter 1E1

'si# +ri, 7 h s c! ssified the #ossib!e sound>figures ccording to the number of re#e ted sounds- the number of re#etitions- the order in which the sounds fo!!ow e ch other in the re#e ted grou#s- nd the #osition of the sounds in the rhythmic ! units& /his ! st nd most usefu! c! ssific tion needs further division& 'ne c n distinguish re#etitions of sounds c!ose!y #! ced within sing!e verse- of sounds which occur in the beginning of one grou# nd t the end of nother- or t the end of one !ine nd the begin> ning of the ne@t- or t the beginning of !ines- or sim#!y in fin ! #osition& /he ne@t to ! st grou# is # r !!e! to the sty!istic figure of n #hor & /he ! st wi!! inc!ude such common #henomenon s rhyme& According to this c! ssific tion- rhyme ##e rs s on!y one e@ m#!e of sound>re#etition nd shou!d not be studied to the e@c!usion of such n !ogous #henomen s !!iter tion nd s> son nce& 1e shou!d not forget th t these sound>figures wi!! v ry in their effect from ! ngu ge to ! ngu ge- th t e ch ! ngu ge h s its own system of #honemes nd hence of o##ositions nd # r !!e!s of vowe!s or ffinities of conson nts- nd fin !!y- th t even such sound>effects re sc rce!y divorce b!e from the gen> er ! me ning>tone of #oem or !ine& /he Rom ntic nd Sym> bo!istic ttem#t to identify #oetry with song nd music is !itt!e more th n met #hor- since #oetry c nnot com#ete with music in the v riety- c! rity- nd # tterning of #ure sounds& D Me ningsconte@t- nd ?tone? re needed to turn !inguistic sounds into rtistic f cts& /his c n be demonstr ted c!e r!y through study of rhyme& Rhyme is n e@treme!y com#!e@ #henomenon& It h s its mere eu#honious function s re#etition 3or ne r>re#etition6 of sounds& /he rhyming of vowe!s is- s (enry L nz h s shown in his 8hysic ! + sis of Rime- R determined by recurrence of their overtones& +ut- though this sound>side m y be b sic- it is ob> vious!y on!y one s#ect of rhyme& Aesthetic !!y f r more im> #ort nt is its metric ! function sign !ing the conc!usion of !ine of verse- or s the org nizer- sometimes the so!e org nizer- of st nz ic # tterns& +ut- most im#ort nt!y- rhyme h s me ning nd is thus dee#!y invo!ved in the who!e ch r cter of wor, of #oetry& 1ords re brought together by rhyme- !in,ed u# or

contr sted& Sever !

s#ects of this sem ntic function of rhyme

1 E2 /heory of Liter ture c n be distinguished& 1e m y s, wh t is the sem ntic function of the sy!! b!es which rhyme- whether rhyme is in the suffi@ 3ch r cter$ register6- in the roots 3drin,$ thin,6- or in both 3# ssion$ f shion6& 1e m y s, from wh t sem ntic s#here rhyme>words re se!ected$ whether- for e@ m#!e- they be!ong to one or sever ! !inguistic c tegories 3# rts of s#eech- different c ses6 or grou#s of obBects& 1e might w nt to ,now wh t is the sem ntic re! tion between the words !in,ed by rhyme- whether they be!ong to the s me sem ntic conte@t s do m ny of the com> mon doub!es 3he rt$ # rt- te rs$ fe rs6 or whether they sur#rise #recise!y by the ssoci tion nd Bu@t #osition of com#!ete!y di> vergent sem ntic s#heres& In bri!!i nt # #er = 1& 2& 1ims tt h s studied these effects in 8o#e nd +yron- who im t the shoc, of confronting ?Mueens? nd ?screens-? ?e!o#e? nd ?8o#e-? or ?m hog ny? nd ?#hi!ogyny&? "in !!y one c n dis> tinguish the degree to which rhyme is im#!ic ted in the tot ! conte@t of #oem- how f r rhyme>words seem mere fi!!ers ort the o##osite e@treme- whether we cou!d conBecture the me n> ing of #oem or st nz on!y from its rhyme>words& Rhymes m y constitute the s,e!eton of st nz or they m y be minimized so much th t one sc rce!y notices their #resence 3 s in +rown> ingAs ?L st Duchess?6& Rhyme c n be studied- s (& 9& 1y!d h s done- ; s !inguistic evidence for the history of #ronunci tion 38o#e rhymed ?Boin? nd ?shine?6 C but for !iter ry #ur#oses we must be r in mind th t st nd rds of ?e@ ctness? h ve v ried consider b!y with dif> ferent #oetic schoo!s nd- of course- in different n tions& In 0ng!ish- where m scu!ine rhyme #rev i!s- feminine rhymes h ve usu !!y bur!es:ue or comic effects- whi!e in Mediev ! L tin- in It !i n or 8o!ish- feminine rhymes wi!! be ob!ig tory in the most serious conte@ts& In 0ng!ish- we h ve the s#eci ! #rob!em of the eye>rhyme- the rhyming of homonyms which is form of #un> ning- the wide diversity of st nd rd #ronunci tions in different ges nd #! ces- the idiosyncr sies of individu ! #oets- !! #rob> !ems which h ve hitherto been sc rce!y r ised& /here is nothing in 0ng!ish to com# re with Ki,tor Ohirmuns,yAs boo, on rhyme- 4 which c! ssifies the effects of rhyme in even gre ter de> t i! th n this s,etch nd gives its history in Russi nd in the m in 0uro#e n countries&

0ufhony y Rhythm y

nd Meter 1E5

"rom these sound># tterns where the re#etition of vowe! or conson nt>:u !ity 3 s in !!iter tion6 is decisive- we must dis> tinguish the different #rob!em of sound>imit tion& Sound>imit > tion h s ttr cted gre t de ! of ttention- both bec use some of the most we!!>,nown virtuoso # ss ges in #oetry im t such imit tion nd bec use the #rob!em is c!ose!y connected with the

o!der mystic ! conce#tion which ssumes th t sound must in some w y corres#ond with things signified& It is sufficient to thin, of some # ss ges in 8o#e or Southey or to remember how the seventeenth century thought of ctu !!y intoning the music of the universe 3e&g&- ( rsdorfer in <erm ny 10 6& /he view th t word ?correct!y? re#resents the thing or ction h s been gen> er !!y b ndoned$ modern !inguistics is inc!ined to gr nt- t the mosts#eci ! c! ss of words- c !!ed ?onom to#oeic-? which rein some res#ects- outside the usu ! sound>system of ! ngu ge nd which definite!y ttem#t to imit te he rd sounds 3cuc,oobuzz- b ng- mi w6& It c n be e si!y shown th t identic ! sound> combin tions m y h ve com#!ete!y different me nings in dif> ferent ! ngu ges 3e&g&- Roc, in <erm n me ns ?B c,et-? in 0ng!ish! rge stone C ro, in Russi n me ns ?f te-? in 9zech?ye r?6 5 or th t cert in sounds in n ture re very different!y re#resented in different ! ngu ges 3e&g&- ?ring-? sonner- t utenzvonit6& It c n be shown- s .ohn 9rowe R nsom h s musing!y done- th t the sound>effect of !ine !i,e ?the murmuring of in> numer b!e bees? is re !!y de#endent on the me ning& If we m ,e on!y s!ight #honetic ch nge to ?murdering of innumer b!e beeves? we destroy the imit tive effect com#!ete!y& Sti!!- it seems th t the #rob!em h s been undu!y minimized by modern !inguists nd is too e si!y dismissed by modern critics !i,e Rich rds nd R nsom& 11 'ne must distinguish between three different degrees& "irst there is the ctu ! imit tion of #hysic ! sounds- which is undeni b!y successfu! in c ses !i,e ?cuc,oo-? though it m y- of course- v ry ccording to the !inguistic system of s#e ,er& Such sound>imit tion must be differenti ted from e! bor te sound># inting- the re#roduction of n tur ! sounds through s#eech>sounds in conte@t where words- in themse!ves :uite devoid of onom to#oeic effects- wi!! be dr wn into sound # ttern !i,e ?innumer b!e? in the :uot tion from /ennyson or m ny words in # ss ges in (omer nd Kirgi!& "in !!y- there is

1E7 /heory of Liter ture the im#ort nt !eve! of sound>symbo!ism or sound>met #horwhich in e ch ! ngu ge h s its est b!ished conventions nd # t> terns& M urice <r mmont h s m de the most e! bor te nd in> genious study of "rench verse 12 in reg rd to e@#ressiveness& (e h s c! ssified !! "rench conson nts nd vowe!s nd studied their e@#ressive effects in different #oets& 9!e r vowe!s- for e@ m#!ec n e@#ress sm !!ness- r #idity- e! n- gr ce- nd the !i,e& 1hi!e the study of <r mmont is o#en to the ch rge of mere subBectivity- there is sti!!- within given !inguistic system- some> thing !i,e ?#hysiognomy? of wordssound>symbo!ism f r more #erv sive th n mere onom to#oei & /here is no doubt th t syn esthetic combin tions nd ssoci tions #erme te !! ! n> gu ges nd th t these corres#ondences h ve been- :uite right!ye@#!oited nd e! bor ted by the #oets& A #oem such s Rimb udAs we!!>,nown ?Les Koye!!es-? which gives one>to>one re! tion> shi# between individu ! vowe!s nd co!ors- though b sed on wides#re d tr dition- 15 m y be #ure!y wi!fu! C but the fund men>

t ! ssoci tions between high vowe!s 3e nd i6 nd thin- :uic,c!e r- nd bright obBects nd- g in- between !ow vowe!s 30 nd u6 nd c!umsy- s!ow- du!!- nd d r, obBects c n be #roved by coustic e@#eriments& 17 /he wor, of 9 r! Stum#f nd 1o!fg ng 2oh!er shows !so th t conson nts c n be divided into d r, 3! bi !s nd ve! rs6 nd bright 3dent !s nd # ! t !s6& /hese re by no me ns mere met #hors but ssoci tions b sed on in> dubit b!e simi! rities between sound nd co!or observ b!e es#e> ci !!y in the structure of the res#ective systems& 1D /here re the gener ! !inguistic #rob!em of ?sound nd me ning? 1E nd the se# r te #rob!em of its e@#!oit tion nd org niz tion in wor, of !iter ture& /he ! st- es#eci !!y- h s been studied on!y very in de:u te!y& Rhythm nd meter #resent #rob!ems distinct from these of ?orchestr tion&? /hey h ve been studied very wide!y- nd huge !iter ture h s grown u# round them& /he #rob!em of rhythm is- of course- by no me ns s#ecific to !iter ture or even to ! ngu ge& /here re the rhythms of n ture nd wor,- the rhythms of !ight>sign !s- the rhythms of music- nd- in r ther met #horic ! sense- the rhythms in the #! stic rts& Rhythm is !so gener ! !inguistic #henomenon& 1e need not discuss the hundred nd one theories bout its ctu ! n ture& 1= "or our #ur>

0u>#hony- Rhythm-

nd Meter 1ED

#oses- it is sufficient to distinguish between theories re:uiring ?#eriodicity? s the sine :u non of rhythm nd theories whichconceiving of rhythm more wide!y- inc!ude in it even non> recurrent configur tions of movements& /he first view definite!y identifies rhythm with meter- nd thus m y re:uire the reBection of the conce#t of ?#rose rhythm? s contr diction or mere met #hor& 1; /he other nd wider view is strong!y su##orted by the rese rches of Sievers into individu ! s#eech rhythms nd wide v riety of music ! #henomen - inc!uding #! insong nd much e@otic music which- without #eriodicity- re sti!! rhyth> mic !& So conceived- rhythm !!ows us to study individu ! s#eech nd the rhythm of !! #rose& It c n e si!y be shown th t !! #rose h s some ,ind of rhythm- th t even the most #ros ic sentence c n be sc nned- th t is- subdivided into grou#s of !ongs nd shortsstressed nd unstressed sy!! b!es& Much w s m de of this f ct even in the eighteenth century by writer- .oshu Stee!eC 14 nd there is ! rge !iter ture tod y n !yzing # ges of #rose& Rhythm is c!ose!y ssoci ted with ?me!ody-? the !ine of inton > tion determined by the se:uence of #itchesC nd the term is fre> :uent!y used so bro d!y s to inc!ude both rhythm nd me!ody& /he f mous <erm n #hi!o!ogist 0du rd Sievers #rofessed to distinguish #erson ! rhythmic ! nd inton tion ! # tterns- nd 'ttm r Rutz h s ssoci ted these with s#ecific #hysio!ogic ! ty#es of bodi!y #osture nd bre thing& 20 /hough ttem#ts h ve been m de to ##!y these rese rches to strict!y !iter ry #ur#osesto est b!ish corre! tion between !iter ry sty!es nd the ty#es of Rutz- 21 these :uestions seem to us most!y outside the re !m of !iter ry scho! rshi#&

1e enter the re !m of !iter ry scho! rshi# when we h ve to e@#! in the n ture of #rose rhythm- the #ecu!i rity nd use of rhythmic ! #rose- the #rose of cert in # ss ges in the 0ng!ish +ib!e- in Sir /hom s +rowne- nd Rus,in or De Muincey- where rhythm nd sometimes me!ody force themse!ves even on the un> ttentive re der& /he e@ ct n ture of the rtistic #rose rhythm h s c used very consider b!e difficu!ty& 'ne we!!>,nown boo,1& M& 8 ttersonAs Rhythm of 8rose- 22 tried to ccount for it by system of e! bor te synco# tion& <eorge S intsburyAs very fu!! (istory of 0ng!ish 8rose Rhythm 25 const nt!y insists th t #rose rhythm is b sed on ?v riety-? but !e ves its ctu ! n ture com>

1 EE /heory of Liter ture #!ete!y undefined& If S intsburyAs ?e@#! n tion? were correct there wou!d be- of course- no rhythm t !!& +ut S intsbury doubt!ess w s on!y stressing the d nger of #rose rhythmAs f !!ing into e@ ct metric ! # tterns& /od y- t !e st- we fee! the fre:uent b! n, verse in Dic,ens s w,w rd nd sentiment ! devi tion& 'ther investig tors of #rose rhythm study on!y one r ther distinct s#ect- ?c dence-? the conc!uding rhythm of sentences in the tr dition of L tin or toric ! #rose for which L tin h d e@> ct # tterns with s#ecific n mes& ?9 dence-? es#eci !!y in inter> rog tory nd e@c! m tory sentences- is # rt!y !so :uestion of me!ody& /he modern re der h s difficu!ty in fee!ing the e! b> or te # tterns of the L tin cursus when imit ted in 0ng!ishsince 0ng!ish !ongs nd shorts re not fi@ed with the s me con> vention ! rigidity s in the L tin system C but it h s been shown th t effects n !ogous to the L tin were wide!y ttem#ted nd occ sion !!y chieved- es#eci !!y in the seventeenth century& 27 In gener !- the rtistic rhythm of #rose is best ##ro ched by ,ee#ing c!e r!y in mind th t it h s to be distinguished both from the gener ! rhythm of #rose nd from verse& /he rtistic rhythm of #rose c n be described s n org niz tion of ordin ry s#eech rhythms& It differs from ordin ry #rose by gre ter regu! rity of stress distribution- which- however- must not re ch n #> # rent isochronism 3th t isregu! rity of time interv !s be> tween rhythmic ! ccents6& In n ordin ry sentence there re usu !!y consider b!e differences of intensity nd #itch- whi!e in rhythmic ! #rose there is m r,ed tendency tow rd !eve!ing of stress nd #itch differences& An !yzing # ss ges from 8ush> ,inAs ?Mueen of S# des-? +oris /om shevs,y- one of the fore> most Russi n students of these :uestions- h s shown by st tistic ! methods 2D th t the beginnings nd ends of sentences tend tow rd gre ter rhythmic ! regu! rity th n do the centers& /he gener ! im#ression of regu! rity nd #eriodicity is usu !!y strengthened by #honetic nd synt ctic ! devices$ by sound>figures- by # r !!e! c! uses- ntithetic b ! ncings where the who!e structure of me n> ing strong!y su##orts the rhythmic ! # ttern& /here re !! ,inds of gr d tions from !most non>rhythmic ! #rose$ from cho##ed sentences fu!! of ccumu! ted stresses to rhythmic ! #rose #> #ro ching the regu! rity of verse& /he m in tr nsition ! form

0u#hony- Rhythm-

nd Meter 1E= s

tow rd verse is c !!ed verset by the "rench nd occurs in the 0ng!ish 8s !ms nd in such writers who im t +ib!ic ! effects 'ssi n or 9! ude!& 0very other ccented sy!! b!e in the verset is stressed more strong!y- nd thus grou#s of two stresses re cre ted simi! r to the grou#s in di#odic verse&

1e need not enter into det i!ed n !ysis of these devices& /hey c!e r!y h ve !ong history which h s been most #ro> found!y inf!uenced by L tin or toric ! #rose& 2E In 0ng!ish !iter > ture- rhythmic ! #rose c!im @es in the seventeenth century with writers !i,e Sir /hom s +rowne or .eremy / y!or& It gives w y to more sim#!e co!!o:ui ! diction in the eighteenth centuryeven if new ?gr nd sty!e? H the sty!e of .ohnson- <ibbon- nd +ur,e H rose tow rd the end of the century& 2= It w s v rious!y revived in the nineteenth century by De Muincey nd Rus,in0merson nd Me!vi!!e- nd g in- though on different #rin> ci#!es- by <ertrude Stein nd . mes .oyce& In <erm ny- there is the rhythmic ! #rose of *ietzsche C in Russi - there re f mous # ss ges in <ogo! nd /urgenev nd- more recent!y- the ?orn > ment !? #rose of Andrey +ye!y& /he rtistic v !ue of rhythmic ! #rose is sti!! deb ted nd deb t b!e& In ccord nce with the modern #reference for #urity in the rts nd genres- most modern re ders #refer their #oetry #oetic nd their #rose #ros ic& Rhythmic ! #rose seems to be fe!t s mi@ed form- s neither #rose nor verse& +ut this is #rob b!y critic ! #reBudice of our time& A defense of rhythmic ! #rose wou!d #resum b!y be the s me s defense of verse& )sed we!! it forces us into fu!!er w reness of the te@t C it underscores C it ties together B it bui!ds u# gr d tions- suggests # r !!e!isms C it org nizes s#eechN nd org niz tion is rt& 8rosody- or metrics- is subBect which h s ttr cted n enor> mous mount of ! bor through the centuries& /od y- it might be su##osed- we need do !itt!e more th n survey new metric ! s#eci> mens nd e@tend such studies to the new techni:ues of recent #oetry& Actu !!y- the very found tions nd m in criteri of metrics re sti!! uncert in - nd there is n stonishing mount of !oose thin,ing nd confused or shifting termino!ogy even in st nd rd tre tises& S intsburyAs (istory of 0ng!ish 8rosodywhich in its sc !e h s never been sur# ssed or e:u !ed- rests on com#!ete!y undefined nd v gue theoretic ! found tions& In his

1 E; /heory of Liter ture str nge em#iricism- S intsbury is even #roud of his refus ! to define or even to describe his terms& (e s#e ,s- for inst nce- of !ongs nd shorts- but c nnot m ,e u# his mind whether his term refers to distinctions in dur tion or stress& 2; In his Study of 8oetry- +!iss 8erry s#e ,s confused!y nd confusing!y of the ?weight? of words- ?the re! tive !oudness or #itch- by which

their me ning or im#ort nce is indic ted&? 24 Simi! r misconce#> tions nd e:uivoc tions cou!d be e si!y :uoted from m ny other st nd rd boo,s& 0ven when correct distinctions re m de- they m y be disguised under com#!ete!y contr dictory termino!ogy& /hus /& S& 'mondAs e! bor te history of 0ng!ish metric ! theories nd 8 !!ister + r, sA usefu! survey of recent theories 50 must be we!comed s ttem#ts to str ighten out these confusions though their conc!usions su##ort n unw rr nted s,e#ticism& 'ne must mu!ti#!y these distinctions m ny times when we con> sider the enormous v riety of metric ! theories on the 9ontinentes#eci !!y in "r nce- <erm ny- nd Russi & "or our #ur#oses it wi!! be best to distinguish on!y the m in ty#es of metric ! theories without getting invo!ved in the finer differences or in mi@ed ty#es& /he o!dest ty#e c n be c !!ed ?gr #hic? #rosody nd is derived from Ren iss nce h ndboo,s& It wor,s with gr #hic signs of !ongs nd shorts- which in 0ng!ish usu !!y re me nt to re#resent the stressed nd unstressed sy!> ! b!es& <r #hic #rosodists usu !!y ttem#t to dr w u# metric ! schemes or # tterns which the #oet is ssumed to observe e@ ct!y& 1e !! h ve !e rned their termino!ogy in schoo!- h ve he rd of i mbs- trochees- n # ests- nd s#ondees& /hese terms re sti!! the most wide!y understood nd the most usefu! for ordin ry descri#tions nd discussions of metric ! # tterns& Yet the insuf> ficiency of the who!e system is tod y wide!y recognized& It is obvious th t the theory # ys no ttention to ctu ! sound nd th t its usu ! dogm tism is com#!ete!y mist ,en& 0verybody tod y underst nds th t verse wou!d be the du!!est of monotones if it re !!y fu!fi!!ed the gr #hic # tterns e@ ct!y& /he theory !ingers most!y in c! ssrooms nd e!ement ry te@tboo,s& It h s- howeverits merits& It concentr tes fr n,!y on metric ! # tterns nd ig> nores the minuti e nd #erson ! idiosyncr sies of the #erformerdifficu!ty which m ny modern systems h ve been un b!e to void& <r #hic metrics ,nows th t meter is not mere!y m tter

0ufhony y Rhythm-

nd Meter 1E4 s

of sound- th t there is metric ! # ttern which is thought of im#!ied or under!ying the ctu ! #oem&

/he second ty#e is the ?music !? theory- b sed on the ssum#> tion- correct s f r s it goes- th t meter in #oetry is n !ogous to rhythm in music nd thus best re#resented by music ! not tion& An e r!y st nd rd e@#osition in 0ng!ish is Sidney L nierAs Science of 0ng!ish Kerse 3 1 ;;06 D but the theory h s been refined u#on nd modified by recent investig tors& 51 In Americ - t !e st mong te chers of 0ng!ish- it seems the cce#ted theory& Accord> ing to this system- e ch sy!! b!e is ssigned music ! note- of un> design ted height& /he !ength of the note is determined r ther rbitr ri!y by ssigning h !f>note to !ong sy!! b!e:u rter> note to semi>short sy!! b!e- n eighth>note to short sy!! b!end so on& Me sures re counted from one ccented sy!! b!e to nother B nd the s#eed of re ding is indic ted r ther v gue!y by choosing either W or W- or in r re c ses W me sures& 1ith such system it is #ossib!e to rrive t the not tion of ny 0ng!ish

te@t- e&g&-

n ordin ry 0ng!ish #ent meter !ine !i,e 8o#eAs

Lo N the foor Indi n whose untutored mind c n be written out !C&CCVBCChCC!@ C&XB? fyihemr in>)>m whse mYtuU>tmR mini According to this theory- the distinction of i mb nd trochee wi!! be com#!ete!y reinter#reted- the i mb being mere!y ch r cter> ized by n n crusis- which is considered e@tr metric ! or counted with the #receding !ine& 0ven the most com#!e@ meters c n be written out in such not tion by Budicious introduction of rests nd the h nd!ing of !ongs nd shorts& 55 /he theory h s the merit of strong!y stressing the tendency of verse tow rd subBective!y fe!t isochronism- the w ys in which we s!ow down or s#eed u#- !engthen or shorten the re ding of words- introduce # uses to e:u !ize me sures& /he not tion wi!! be most successfu! with ?sing b!e? verse- but it seems high!y in> s W thus

1=0 /heory of Liter ture de:u te in de !ing with co!!o:ui ! or or toric ! ty#es of verse nd is usu !!y he!#!ess when it h s to de ! with free verse or ny verse which is not isochronic& Some #ro#ounders of the theory sim#!y deny th t free verse is verse& 57 Music ! theorists c n h nd!e b !! d meter s ?di#odic-? or even doub!e com#ound me sures successfu!!y- 5D nd c n ccount for some metric ! #henomen by the introduction of the term ?synco# tion&? In +rowningAs verses /he gr y se nd the !ong b! c, ! nd And the ye!!ow h !f>moon ! rge nd !ow ?se ? nd ?b! c,? in the first !ine nd ?h !f? in the second c n be noted s synco# ted& /he merits of the music ! theory re obvious$ it did much to defe t the usu ! schoo!room dogm tismC nd it !!owed the h nd!ing nd not tion of meters un#rovided for in te@tboo,s- e&g&- some of the com#!e@ meters of SwinburneMeredith- or +rowning& +ut the theory h s serious deficiencies$ it gives free reign to rbitr ry individu ! re dingsC it !eve!s out distinctions between #oets nd schoo!s of #oetry by reducing !! verse to few ty#es of monotonous be ts& It seems to invite or im#!y ch nt>!i,e or ! #erform nce of !! #oetry& And the iso> chronism it est b!ishes is !itt!e more th n subBectivesystem of sound nd rest sections #erceived s e:u !ized when com# red with e ch other& A third metric ! theory- coustic metrics- is tod y wide!y res#ected& It is b sed on obBective investig tions- fre:uent!y em> #!oying scientific instruments such s the osci!!ogr #h- which !!ows the recording nd even #hotogr #hing of the ctu !

events in the re ding of #oetry& /he techni:ues of scientific sound>investig tion were ##!ied to metrics by Sievers nd S r n in <erm ny- by Kerrier- who used most!y 0ng!ish m teri !s- in "r nce- nd- in Americ - by 0& 1& Scri#ture& 50 A brief st tement of some b sic resu!ts c n be found in 1i!bur L& Schr mmAs Affro ches to Science of 0ng!ish KerseI 1 Acoustic ! metrics h s c!e r!y est b!ished the distinct e!ements constituent of meter& /od y- therefore- there is no e@cuse for confusing #itch- !oud> ness- timbre nd time- since these c n be shown to corres#ond to the #hysic !- me sur b!e f ctors of fre:uency- m#!itude- formnd dur tion of the sound>w ves emitted by the s#e ,er& 1e c n

0u#hony y Rhythm-

nd Meter 1=1

#hotogr #h or dr w the findings of the #hysic ! instruments so c!e r!y th t we c n study every minute det i! of the ctu ! events of ny recit tion& /he osci!!ogr #h wi!! show us with wh t !oud> ness- nd wh t time- with wh t ch nges of #itchgiven re der recited this or th t !ine of #oetry& /he first !ine of 8 r dise Lost wi!! ##e r s figure simi! r to the vio!ent osci!! tions on seismogr #h during n e rth:u ,e& 5; /his is indubit b!y n chievement B nd m ny scientific !!y inc!ined #eo#!e 3 mong whom- of course- re m ny Americ ns6 conc!ude th t we c nnot go beyond these findings& Yet ! bor tory metrics obvious!y ig> nores- nd h s to ignore- me ning $ thus it is conc!uded th t there is no such thing s sy!! b!e- since there is continuum of voice C th t there is no such thing s word- since its !imits c nnot #> #e r on the osci!!ogr #hN nd th t there is even no me!ody in the strict sense- since #itch- c rried on!y by the vowe!s nd few con> son nts- is const nt!y interru#ted by noises& Acoustic metrics !so shows th t there is no strict isochronism- since the ctu ! dur tion of me sures v ries consider b!y& /here re no fi@ed ?!ongs nd shorts-? t !e st in 0ng!ish- for ?short? sy!! b!e m y be #hysic !!y !onger th n ?!ong?N nd there re even no obBective distinctions of stress- for ?stressed? sy!! b!e m y be ctu !!y #ronounced with !ess intensity th n n unstressed one& +ut whi!e one m y c,now!edge the usefu!ness of these resu!tsthe very found tions of this ?science? re o#en to gr ve obBec> tions which gre t!y minimize its v !ues for !iter ry students& /he who!e ssum#tion th t the findings of the osci!!ogr #h re direct!y re!ev nt to the study of metrics is mist ,en& /he time of verse>! ngu ge is time of e@#ect tion& 54 1e e@#ect fter cert in time rhythmic ! sign !- but this #eriodicity need not be e@ ct nor need the sign ! be ctu !!y strong so !ong s we fee! it to be strong& Music ! metrics is indubit b!y correct in s ying th t !! these distinctions of time nd stress s we!! s #itch re on!y re! tive nd subBective& +ut coustic nd music ! metrics sh re one common defect or- r ther- !imit tion$ they re!y e@> c!usive!y on sound- on sing!e or m ny #erform nces of reciters& /he resu!ts of coustic nd music ! metrics re conc!usive on!y for this or th t # rticu! r recit tion& /hey ignore the f ct th t reciter m y or m y not recite correct!y- th t he m y dd e!ements or m y distort or com#!ete!y disreg rd the # ttern&

1=2 /heory of Liter ture A !ine !i,e Si!ent u#on >#e , in D rien

c n be re d by im#osing the metric ! # ttern$ ?Si!ent u#on #e , in D rien? C or it m y be re d s #rose$ ?Si!ent u#on #e ,

in D rien? B or it m y be re d in v rious w ys reconci!ing the metric ! # ttern sh !!nd the #rose rhythm& In he ring ?si!ent? we

s 0ng!ish s#e ,ers- fee! the vio!ence done to ?n tur !?

s#eechC in he ring ?si!ent? we sti!! sh !! fee! the ?c rry>over? of the metric ! # ttern from the #receding !ines& /he com#romise of ?hovering ccent? m y be nywhere between the two e@> tremes C but in !! c ses- wh tever the re ding- the s#ecific #er> form nce of reciter wi!! be irre!ev nt to n n !ysis of the #rosodic situ tion- which consists #recise!y in the tension- the ?counter#oint-? between the metric ! # ttern nd the #rose rhythm& /he # ttern of verse is in ccessib!e nd incom#rehensib!e to mere!y coustic or music ! methods& /he me ning of verse sim#!y c nnot be ignored in theory of metrics& 'ne of the best music ! metrists- <eorge R& Stew rt- formu! tes- for e@> m#!e- th t ?verse c n e@ist without me ning-? th t since ?meter is essenti !!y inde#endent of me ning- we m y with #ro#riety ttem#t to re#roduce the metric ! structure of ny # rticu! r !ine entire!y # rt from its me ning&? 70 Kerrier nd S r n h ve formu! ted the dogm th t we must t ,e the view#oint of foreigner who !istens to the verse without underst nding the ! ngu ge& 71 +ut this conce#tion- which in #r ctice is :uite un> ten b!e nd is ctu !!y deserted by Stew rt- 72 must resu!t in dis> strous conse:uences for ny !iter ry study of metrics& If we ignore me ning- we give u# the conce#t of word nd #hr se nd thus give u# the #ossibi!ity of n !yzing the differences between the verse of different uthors& 0ng!ish verse is ! rge!y deter> mined by the counter#oint between the im#osed #hr sing- the rhythmic ! im#u!se- nd the ctu ! s#eech rhythm conditioned by #hr s ! divisions& +ut the #hr s ! division c n be scert ined on!y u#on f mi!i rity with the me ning of the verse&

0u#hony- Rhythm-

nd Meter 1=5

/he Russi n form !ists 75 h ve therefore tried to #ut metrics on n entire!y new b sis& /he term ?foot? seems to them in de> :u te- since there is much verse without ?feet&? Isochronismthough subBective!y ##!ic b!e to much verse- is !so !imited to # rticu! r ty#es nd- furthermore- is not ccessib!e to obBective

investig tion& A!! these theories- they rgue- wrong!y define the fund ment ! unit of #oetic rhythm& If we see verse mere!y s segments grou#ed round some stressed sy!! b!e 3or !ong sy!> ! b!e- in :u ntit tive systems6- we sh !! be un b!e to deny th t the s me grou#ings- nd even the s me order of grou#ings- c n be found in ty#es of !inguistic #ronouncements not describ b!e s #oetry& /he fund ment ! unity of rhythm is- then- not the foot but the who!e !ineconc!usion which fo!!ows from the gener ! <est !t theory which the Russi ns embr ce& "eet h ve no inde> #endent e@istence B they e@ist on!y in re! tion to the who!e verse& 0 ch stress h s its own #ecu!i rities ccording to its #osition in the verse- th t is- whether it is the first- the second- or the thirdetc&- foot& /he org nizing unity in verse v ries in different ! n> gu ges nd metric ! systems& It m y be ?me!ody-? th t is- the se:uence of #itches which- in cert in free verse- m y be the on!y m r, distinguishing it from #rose& 77 If we do not ,now from the conte@t- or the rr ngement of #rint which serves s sign !- th t # ss ge of free verse is verse- we cou!d re d it s #rose nd indeed not distinguish it from #rose& Yet it c n be re d s verse nd- s such- wi!! be re d different!y- i&e&- with different inton > tion& /his inton tion- they show in gre t det i!- is !w ys two> # rt- or di#odicC nd if we e!imin te it- verse ce ses to be versebecoming mere!y rhythmic ! #rose& In the study of ordin ry metric ! verse- the Russi ns ##!y st tistic ! methods to the re! tion between the # ttern nd the s#eech rhythm& Kerse is conceived s n e! bor te contr #unt ! # ttern between the su#erim#osed meter nd the ordin ry rhythm of s#eech- for- s they stri,ing!y s y- verse is ?org nized vio!ence? committed on everyd y ! ngu ge& /hey distinguish ?rhythmic ! im#u!se? from # ttern& 8 ttern is st tic- gr #hic& ?Rhythmic ! im#u!se? is dyn mic- #rogressive& 1e ntici# te the sign !s which re to fo!!ow& 1e org nize not on!y the time but !! the other e!ements of the wor, of rt& Rhythmic ! im>

1=7 /heory of Liter ture #u!se- so conceived- inf!uences the choice of words- the synt ctic ! structure- nd hence the gener ! me ning of verse& /he st tistic ! method used is very sim#!e& In e ch #oem or section of #oem to be n !yzed- one counts the #ercent ge of c ses in which e ch sy!! b!e c rries stress& If- in #ent meter !ine- the verse shou!d be bso!ute!y regu! r- the st tistics wou!d show zero #ercent ge on the first sy!! b!e- ioo #er cent on the second- zero on the third- ioo on the fourth- etc& /his cou!d be shown gr #hic !!y by dr wing one !ine for the number of sy!> ! b!es nd nother- vertic !!y o##osed to it- for the #ercent ges& Kerse of such regu! rity- is of course- infre:uent- for the sim#!e re son th t it is e@treme!y monotonous& Most verse shows counter#oint between # ttern nd ctu ! fu!fi!!ment- e&g&- in b! n, verse the number of c ses of ccents on the first sy!! b!e m y be r ther highwe!!>,nown #henomenon described either s the ?troch ic foot-? or ?hovering? ccent- or ?substitution&? In di gr m- the gr #h m y ##e r f! ttened out very consider>

b!y C but if it is sti!! #ent meter nd intended s such- the gr #h wi!! #reserve some gener ! tendency tow rd cu!min tion #oints on sy!! b!es 2- 7- E- nd ;& /his st tistic ! method is- of course- no end in itse!f& +ut it h s the dv nt ge of t ,ing ccount of the who!e #oem nd thus reve !ing tendencies which m y not be c!e r!y m r,ed in few !ines& It h s the further dv nt ge of e@hibiting t g! nce the differences between schoo!s of #oetry nd uthors& In Russi n- the method wor,s es#eci !!y we!!- since e ch word h s on!y sing!e ccent 3subsidi ry ccents re not stresses but m tters of bre thing6 - whi!e in 0ng!ish good st tis> tics wou!d be f ir!y com#!e@- t ,ing into ccount the second ry ccent nd the m ny enc!itic nd #roc!itic words& <re t stress is ! id by Russi n metrists on the f ct th t different schoo!s nd different uthors fu!fi!! ide ! # tterns different!yth t e ch schoo! or sometimes uthor h s its own metric ! normnd th t it is unf ir nd f !se to Budge schoo!s nd uthors in the !ight of ny one # rticu! r dogm & /he history of versific tion ##e rs s const nt conf!ict between different norms- nd one e@treme is very !i,e!y to be re#! ced by nother& /he Russi ns !so stress- most usefu!!y- the v st differences between !inguistic systems of versific tion& /he usu ! c! ssific tion of verse systems into sy!! bic- ccentu !- nd :u ntit tive is not on!y insufficient

0ufhony- Rhythm-

nd Meter 1=D

but even mis!e ding& "or inst nce- in Serbo>9ro t nd "innish e#ic verse- !! three #rinci#!es H sy!! bism- :u ntity- nd ccent H #! y their # rt& Modern rese rch h s shown th t the su##osed!y #ure!y :u ntit tive L tin #rosody w s- in #r ctice- consider b!y modified by ttention to ccent nd to the !imits of words& 7D L ngu ges v ry ccording to the e!ement which is the b sis of its rhythm& 0ng!ish is obvious!y determined by stress- whi!e :u ntity- in 0ng!ish- is subordin ted to ccent- nd the word !imits !so #! y n im#ort nt rhythmic ! function& /he rhyth> mic ! difference between !ine m de out of monosy!! b!es nd one entire!y m de out of #o!ysy!! bic words is stri,ing& In 9zechthe word !imit is the b sis of rhythm- which is !w ys ccom> # nied by ob!ig tory stress- whi!e :u ntity ##e rs s mere!y n o#tion ! diversifying e!ement& In 9hinese- #itch is the m in b sis of rhythm- whi!e in ncient <ree,- :u ntity w s the org nizing #rinci#!e- with #itch nd the !imits of words s o#tion ! diversi> fying e!ements& 1ithin the history of s#ecific ! ngu ge- though systems of versific tion m y h ve been re#! ced by other systems- we shou!d not s#e , of ?#rogress? or condemn the o!der systems s mere c!umsy doggere!- mere ##ro@im tions to the ! ter est b!ished systems& In Russi n!ong #eriod w s domin ted by sy!! bismin 9zech- by :u ntit tive #rosody& /he study of the history of 0ng!ish versific tion from 9h ucer to Surrey cou!d be revo!u> tionized were it re !ized th t #oets such s Lydg te- ( wes- nd S,e!ton did not write im#erfect verse but fo!!owed conventions of their own& 7E 0ven re soned defense of the much>ridicu!ed

ttem#t to introduce :u ntit tive meter into 0ng!ish by men of such distinction s Sidney- S#enser- nd < brie! ( rvey cou!d be ttem#ted& /heir bortive movement w s t !e st historic !!y im> #ort nt for the bre ,ing down of the sy!! bic rigidity of much e r!ier 0ng!ish verse& It is !so #ossib!e to ttem#t com# r tive history of metrics& /he f mous "rench !inguist- Antoine Mei!!et- in his Les 'ri> gines indoeurofeennes des metres grecs- com# red ncient <ree, nd Kedic meters for the #ur#ose of reconstructing the Indo> 0uro#e n metric ! systemC 7/ nd Rom n . ,obson h s shown th t the Yugos! v e#ic verse is very c!ose to this ncient # ttern which combines sy!! bic !ine with curious!y rigid :u ntit tive

1=E /heory of Liter ture c! use& 7; It is #ossib!e to distinguish nd to tr ce the history of different ty#es of fo!,!ore verse& /he e#ic recit tive nd the ?me!odic? verse used in the !yric must be sh r#!y differenti ted& In every ! ngu ge- e#ic verse seems to be f r more conserv tivewhi!e song verse- which is most c!ose!y ssoci ted with ! n> gu geAs #honetic fe tures- is !i b!e to f r gre ter n tion ! diver> sity& 0ven for modern verse- it is im#ort nt to ,ee# in mind the distinctions between or toric !- convers tion !- nd ?me!odic? verse- distinctions ignored by most 0ng!ish metrists- who- under inf!uence of the music ! theory- re #reoccu#ied with song verse& 74 In v !u b!e study of nineteenth>century Russi n !yric ! verse- D0 +oris 0i,henb um h s ttem#ted to n !yze the ro!e of inton tion in ?me!odic-? ?sing b!e? verse& (e shows stri,ing!y how the Russi n rom ntic !yric h s e@#!oited tri#odic me suresinton tion schemes such s e@c! m tory nd interrog tory sen> tences- nd synt ctic ! # tterns such s # r !!e!ism C but- in our o#inion- he h s not est b!ished his centr ! thesis of the forming #ower of inton tion in ?sing b!e? verse& D1 1e m y be doubtfu! bout good m ny fe tures of the Rus> si n theories- but one c nnot deny th t they h ve found w y out of the im# sse of the ! bor tory on the one h nd- nd the mere subBectivism of the music ! metrists on the other& Much is sti!! obscure nd controversi ! C but metrics h s tod y restored the necess ry cont ct with !inguistics nd with !iter ry sem ntics& Sound nd meter- we see- must be studied s e!ements of the tot !ity of wor, of rt- not in iso! tion from me ning&

9(A8/0R JIK Sty!e nd Sty!istics

L ngu ge is :uite !iter !!y the m teri ! of the !iter ry rtist& 0very !iter ry wor,- one cou!d s y- is mere!y se!ection from given ! ngu ge- Bust s wor, of scu!#ture h s been described s

b!oc, of m rb!e with some #ieces chi##ed off& In his !itt!e boo, 0ng!ish 8oetry nd the 0ng!ish L ngu ge- "& 1& + teson h s rgued th t !iter ture is # rt of the gener ! history of ! ngu ge nd is com#!ete!y de#endent on it& ?My thesis is th t the geAs im#rint in #oem is not to be tr ced to the #oet but to the ! n> gu ge& /he re ! history of #oetry is- I be!ieve- the history of the ch nges in the ,ind of ! ngu ge in which successive #oems h ve been written& And it is these ch nges of ! ngu ge on!y th t re due to the #ressure of soci ! nd inte!!ectu ! tendencies&? @ + te> son m ,es out good c se for this c!ose de#endence of #oetic ! history on !inguistic history& 9ert in!y the evo!ution of 0ng!ish #oetry # r !!e!s t !e st the !oose buoy ncy of the 0!iz beth n s#eech- the t med c! rity of the eighteenth century- nd the v gue diffuseness of Kictori n 0ng!ish& Linguistic theories cer> t in!y #! y n im#ort nt # rt in the history of #oetry- e&g&(obbesi n r tion !ism- with its stress on denot tion- c! rity- nd scientific #recision- h s inf!uenced 0ng!ish #oetry #rofound!y though often devious!y& 'ne c n rgue- with 2 r! Koss!er- th t the ?!iter ry history of cert in #eriods wou!d g in by n n !ysis of the !inguistic mi!ieu t !e st s much s by the usu ! n !yses of #o!itic !- soci !nd re!igious tendencies or the country nd c!im te&? 2 0s#e> ci !!y in #eriods nd countries where sever ! !inguistic conven> tions re strugg!ing for domin tion- the uses- ttitudes- nd !!egi nces of #oet m y be im#ort nt not on!y for the deve!o#> ment of the !inguistic system but for n underst nding of his own rt& In It !y- the ?! ngu ge :uestion? c n sc rce!y be ignored by !iter ry histori ns& Koss!er h s #ut his study of !iter ture to con> 1==

1=; /heory of Liter ture st nt good us ge in his "r n,re,hs 2u!tur im S#iege! seiner Sfr chentwic,!ungC nd in Russi - Ki,tor Kinogr dov h s c re> fu!!y n !yzed 8ush,inAs use of the different e!ements in the cur> rent Russi n ! ngu ge$ the 9hurch S! vic- the #o#u! r s#eechthe < !!icisms nd /eutonisms& 5 Yet sure!y + tesonAs c se is overst ted- nd the view th t #oetry # ssive!y ref!ects !inguistic ch nges is im#ossib!e to cce#t& /he re! tion between ! ngu ge nd !iter ture is- s we must never forgetdi !ectic ! re! tion $ !iter ture h s #rofound!y in> f!uenced the deve!o#ment of ! ngu ge& *either modern "rench nor modern 0ng!ish wou!d be the ! ngu ge it is without its neo> c! ssic ! !iter ture- Bust s modern <erm n wou!d not be itse!f ! c,ing the inf!uence of Luther- <oethe- nd the Rom ntics& *or is the iso! tion of !iter ture from direct inte!!ectu ! or soci ! inf!uences ten b!e& 0ighteenth>century #oetry w s !im#id nd c!e r bec use the ! ngu ge h d become !im#id nd c!e rrgues + teson- so th t the #oets- whether r tion !ists or notmust use the re dy>m de instrument& +ut +! ,e nd 9hristo#her Sm rt show how men #ossessed by n irr tion ! or nti>r tion !

view of the wor!d c n tr nsform #oetic diction or revert to e r!ier #h se of it&

Indeed- the mere f ct th t it is #ossib!e to write not on!y history of ide s but history !so of genres- metric ! # tternsnd themes- which wi!! inc!ude !iter tures of sever ! ! ngu gesdemonstr tes th t !iter ture c nnot be com#!ete!y de#endent on ! ngu ge& 'bvious!y- one must !so dr w distinction between #oetry on the one h nd nd the nove! nd the dr m on the other& "& 1& + teson h s #rim ri!y #oetry in mindB nd it is h rd to deny th t- when c!ose!y org nized- #oetry is intim te!y sso> ci ted with the sound nd me ning of ! ngu ge& /he re sons re more or !ess evident& Meter org nizes the sound>ch r cter of ! ngu ge& It regu! rizes the rhythm of #rose##ro@im ting it to isochronism- nd thus sim#!ifying the re! > tion between sy!! bic !engths& It s!ows u# the tem#o- #ro!onging vowe!s- in order to e@hibit their overtones or tone co!or 3timbre6& It sim#!ifies nd regu! rizes inton tion- the me!ody of s#eech& 7 /he inf!uence of meter is- then- to ctu !ize words$ to #oint them nd to direct ttention to their sound& In good #oetry- the re! > tions between words re very strong!y em#h sized&

Sty!e

nd Sty!istics 1=4

/he me ning of #oetry is conte@tu !$ word c rries with it not on!y its diction ry me ning but n ur of synonyms nd homo> nyms& 1ords not on!y h ve me ning but evo,e the me nings of words re! ted either in sound- or in sense- or in deriv tion H or even words which re contr sted or e@c!uded& L ngu ge study thus becomes e@tr ordin ri!y im#ort nt for the student of #oetry& +ut by ! ngu ge study we me n- of course#ursuits usu !!y ignored or s!ighted by #rofession ! !inguists& (istoric ! ccidence or historic ! #hono!ogy wi!! !itt!e concern most students of !iter ture& S ve for the r re :uestions of #ro> nunci tion needed in the history of meter nd rhyme- the modern student of !iter ture wi!! not h ve much use for historic ! ccidence or #hono!ogy- or even e@#eriment ! #honetics& +ut he wi!! need !inguistics of s#ecific ,ind H first of !!- !e@ico!ogythe study of me ning nd its ch nges& If he h s to h ve #ro#er gr s# of the me ning of m ny o!der words- the student of o!der 0ng!ish #oetry c n sc rce!y m n ge without the '0D& 0ven etymo!ogy wi!! he!# him if he is to underst nd the L tinized voc bu! ry of Mi!ton or the high!y /eutonic word form tions of (o#,ins& /he im#ort nce of !inguistic study is not- of course- confined to the underst nding of sing!e words or #hr ses& Liter ture is re! ted to !! s#ects of ! ngu ge& A wor, of rt is- firstsystem of sounds- hence se!ection from the sound>system of given ! ngu ge& 'ur discussion of eu#hony- rhythm- nd meter h s shown the im#ort nce of !inguistic consider tions for m ny of these #rob!ems& 8honemics seems indis#ens b!e for com# r tive

metrics

nd

#ro#er

n !ysis of sound># tterns&

"or !iter ry #ur#oses- the #honetic !eve! of ! ngu ge c n> not- of course- be iso! ted from its me ning& And- on the other h nd- the structure of me ning is itse!f men b!e to !inguistic n !ysis& 1e c n write the gr mm r of !iter ry wor, of rt or ny grou# of wor,s beginning with #hono!ogy nd ccidencegoing on to voc bu! ry 3b rb risms- #rovinci !isms- rch ismsneo!ogisms6- nd rising to synt @ 3e&g&- inversion- ntithesis# r !!e!isms6& /here re two #oints of view from which it is #ossib!e to study the ! ngu ge of !iter ture& 1e m y use the !iter ry wor, on!y

nd

1;0 /heory of Liter ture s document in !inguistic history& "or e@ m#!e- the 'w! nd the *ighting !e nd Sir < w in nd the <reen 2night c n i!> !ustr te the ch r cteristics of cert in Midd!e 0ng!ish di !ects& /here is rich m teri ! for the history of the 0ng!ish ! ngu ge in writers !i,e S,e!ton- * she- nd +en .onson$ recent Swedish wor,- by A& (& 2ing- uses +en .onsonAs 8oet ster for c refu! n !ysis of soci ! nd c! ss di !ects of the time& "r nz h s done very thorough Sh ,es#e re gr mm ti,& L z re S ine n h s written two vo!umes on the ! ngu ge of R be! is& D In these studies- however- !iter ry wor,s re used s sources nd docu> ments for other #ur#oses- those of !inguistic science& +ut !inguistic study becomes !iter ry on!y when it serves the study of !iter ture- when it ims t investig ting the esthetic effects of ! ngu ge H in short- when it becomes sty!istics 3 t !e st- in one sense of this term6& E Sty!istics- of course- c nnot be #ursued successfu!!y without thorough grounding in gener ! !inguistics- since #recise!y one of its centr ! concerns is the contr st of the ! ngu ge system of !iter ry wor, of rt with the gener ! us ge of the time& 1ithout ,now!edge of wh t is common s#eech- even un!iter ry s#eechnd wh t re the different soci ! ! ngu ges of time- sty!istics c n sc rce!y tr nscend im#ressionism& /he ssum#tion th t- es#e> ci !!y for # st #eriods- we ,now the distinction between common s#eech nd rtistic devi tion is- regrett b!y- :uite unfounded& Much c!oser study must be given to the diverse!y str tified s#eech of remote times before we sh !! #ossess the #ro#er b c,> ground for Budgment of the diction of n uthor or of !iter ry movement& In #r ctice- we sim#!y ##!y- instinctive!y- the st nd rds we derive from our #resent>d y us ge& +ut such st nd rds m y be ! rge!y mis!e ding& In the re ding of much o!der #oetry- we need shut out our modern !inguistic consciousness& 1e must for> get the modern me ning even in such !ines s /ennysonAs And this is we!! /o h ve d me indoors- who trims us u# And ,ee#s us tightI

+ut if we dmit the necessity of historic ! reconstruction in such obvious c ses- c n we sti#u! te its #ossibi!ity in !! c sesI 9 n we

Sty!e

nd Sty!istics 1 ; 1

ever !e rn Ang!o>S @on or Midd!e 0ng!ish- not to s#e , of ncient <ree,- we!! enough to forget our own current ! ngu geI And if we cou!d- re we necess ri!y better critics by constituting ourse!ves !inguistic contem#or ries of the uthorI 9ou!d not the retention of the modern ssoci tion in verses !i,e M rve!!As My veget b!e !ove wou!d grow K ster th n em>fires nd more s!ow ; be defended s n enrichment of its me ningsI Louis /eeter comments$ ?/he grotes:ue conce#tion of n erotic c bb ge out> ! sting the #yr mids nd oversh dowing them seems the resu!t of studied rtistry& 1e m y be sure- however- th t M rve!! him> se!f h d no such #recise effect in mind& /o the seventeenth cen> tury- veget b!e me nt veget tive- nd the #oet #rob b!y w s using it in the sense of the !ife>giving #rinci#!e& (e cou!d sc rce!y h ve h d in mind the truc,>g rden connot tion th t it be rs tod y&? 4 'ne m y s,- with /eeter- whether it is desir b!e to get rid of the modern connot tion nd whether- t !e st- in e@treme c ses- it is #ossib!e& 1e re g in t the :uestion of his> toric ! ?reconstructionism-? its #ossibi!ity nd desir bi!ity& /here h ve been ttem#ts- !i,e th t of 9h r!es + !!y- 10 to m ,e sty!istics mere subdivision of !inguistics 5 but sty!isticswhether n inde#endent science or not- h s its own very definite #rob!ems& Some of these- it wou!d seem- be!ong to !! or #r c> tic !!y !! hum n s#eech& Sty!istics- conceived in this wide senseinvestig tes !! devices which im t some s#ecific e@#ressive end nd thus embr ces f r more th n !iter ture or even rhetoric& A!! devices for securing em#h sis or e@#!icitness c n be c! ssed under sty!istics$ met #hors- which #erme te !! ! ngu ges- even of the most #rimitive ty#eC !! rhetoric ! figuresC synt ctic ! # tterns& *e r!y every !inguistic utter nce c n be studied from the #oint of view of its e@#ressive v !ue& It seems im#ossib!e to ignore this #rob!em s the ?beh vioristic? schoo! of !inguistics in Americ very conscious!y does& In tr dition h #h z rd intensifying re#etition! sty!istics- these :uestions re usu !!y nswered in nd rbitr ry f shion& "igures re dichotomized into or minimizing& /he intensifying figures- such s ccumu! tion- hy#erbo!e- nd c!im @- h ve been s>

1 ;2 /heory of Liter ture soci ted with the ?sub!ime? sty!e- described in some det i! in the f mous 8eri hy#sous y scribed to Longinus& In connection with (omer- nd then with Sh ,es#e re- Mi!ton- nd D nte- the

?gr nd sty!e? h s been discussed by M tthew Arno!d nd S ints> bury- who e! bor te!y confounded #sycho!ogic ! #rob!ems with #rob!ems of !iter ry ev !u tion& 11 It seems im#ossib!e- however- to #rove th t s#ecific figures nd devices must- under !! circumst nces- h ve s#ecific effects or ?e@#ressive v !ues&? In the +ib!e nd in chronic!es- the co>ordi> n te sentence constructions 3? nd & & & nd & & & nd?6 h ve !eisure!y effect of n rr tion C yet in rom ntic #oemseries of ? nds? m y be ste#s in st ir of bre th!ess!y e@cited :uestions& A hy#erbo!e m y be tr gic or # thetic- but it m y !so be gro> tes:ue nd comic& +esides- cert in figures or synt ctic fe tures recur so fre:uent!y- nd in so m ny different conte@ts- th t they c nnot h ve s#ecific e@#ressive me ning& 'ne notices th t 9icero uses !itotes or fr eteritio sever ! times in few # ges C one counts so m ny hundred b ! nces in the R mb!ers of .ohnson& +oth #r ctices suggest #! y with words- disreg rd of me ning& 12 +ut whi!e the tomistic view of one>to>one re! tion between figure nd s#ecific ?e@#ressive v !ue? must be b ndoned- the est b!ishment of s#ecific re! tion between sty!istic tr its nd effects is not im#ossib!e& 'ne w y is to show th t cert in figures recur g in nd g in- combined with other recurrent figures- in # ss ges with cert in me ning>tone$ sub!ime- comic- gr cefu!- or n ive& 'ne c n rgue- s 1& 2& 1ims tt does- th t mere re#eti> tion of device does not m ,e it me ning!ess& ?Sentence># tterns recur- !i,e dec!ensions nd conBug tions C but they re sti!! e@> #ressive forms&? 15 'ne need not be content- fter the m nner of c! ssic ! nti:uity- with c! ssifying sty!es s high nd !ow- Asi tic nd Attic- nd the !i,e C one c n thin, out com#!e@ schemes such s those #ro#ounded in 1i!he!m SchneiderAs Ausdruc,swerte der deutschen Sfr che 314516& According to the re! tions of words to the obBect- sty!es re divisib!e into conce#tu ! nd sen> suous- succinct nd !ong>winded- or minimizing nd e@ gger t> ing- decisive nd v gue- :uiet nd e@cited- !ow nd high- sim#!e nd decor ted B ccording to the re! tions mong the words- into tense nd ! @- #! stic nd music !- smooth nd rough- co!or!ess nd co!orfu! 5 ccording to the re! tions of words to the tot ! sys>

Sty!e

nd Sty!istics 1;5

tern of the ! ngu ge- into s#o,en nd written- c!iche nd indi> vidu ! C nd- ccording to the re! tion of the words to the uthorinto obBective nd subBective& 17 /hese c! ssific tions c n be #> #!ied to #r ctic !!y !! !inguistic utter nces C but obvious!y most of the evidence is dr wn from wor,s of !iter ture nd directed to n n !ysis of !iter ry sty!e& /hus conceived- sty!istics seems to h ve found the right me n between the o!d disBointed study of figures b sed on the c! ssific tions of rhetoric nd the more gr ndiose but !ess concrete s#ecu! tions on #eriod sty!es 3the <othic or + ro:ue6& Much of this wor,- unfortun te!y- h s been ins#ired either by n rrow!y #rescri#tive #ur#oses H which m ,e sty!istics the recom> mend tion of cert in ?midd!e? sty!e of e@#osition- with its

ide !s of #recision nd c! rity- nd #resent!y #ed gogic disci#!ine H or by n tion !istic e@ !t tion of s#ecific ! ngu ge& /he <erm ns re es#eci !!y gui!ty of f ncifu! gener !iz tions on the differences between the m in 0uro#e n ! ngu ges& 0ven #rominent scho! rs !i,e 1echss!er- Koss!er- nd Deutschbein 1D indu!ge in conBectures not re !!y verifi b!e nd rush to conc!u> sions bout n tion ! #sycho!ogy& /his is not to deny the e@istence of #rob!em$ the ?beh vioristic? #oint of view th t !! ! ngu ges re e:u ! seems m nifest!y bsurd if we com# re ! ngu ge without deve!o#ed !iter ture with one of the gre t 0uro#e n ! ngu ges& /he gre t 0uro#e n ! ngu ges differ wide!y in syn> t ctic ! # tterns- ?idioms-? nd other conventions- s ny tr ns> ! tor h s discovered& "or cert in #ur#oses- 0ng!ish or "rench or <erm n seems !ess fit th n one of its riv !s& +ut the differences re undoubted!y due to soci !- historic !- nd !iter ry inf!uences which- though describ b!e- h ve not yet been described fu!!y enough to w rr nt reduction to b sic n tion ! #sycho!ogies& A ?com# r tive? sty!istics seems science of the dist nt future& A #ure!y !iter ry nd esthetic use of sty!istics !imits it to the study of wor, of rt or grou# of wor,s which re to be de> scribed in terms of their esthetic function nd me ning& 'n!y if this esthetic interest is centr ! wi!! sty!istics be # rt of !iter ry scho! rshi#C nd it wi!! be n im#ort nt # rt bec use on!y sty!istic methods c n define the s#ecific ch r cteristics of !iter ry wor,& /here re two #ossib!e methods of ##ro ching such sty!istic n !ysis $ the first is to #roceed by system tic n !ysis of

1;7 /heory of Liter ture its !inguistic system nd to inter#ret its fe tures- in terms of the esthetic #ur#ose of the wor,- s ?tot ! me ning&? Sty!e then ##e rs s the individu ! !inguistic system of wor,- or grou# of wor,s& A second- not contr dictory- ##ro ch is to study the sum of individu ! tr its by which this system differs from com> # r b!e systems& /he method here is th t of contr st$ we observe the devi tions nd distortions from norm ! us ge- nd try to discover their esthetic #ur#ose& In ordin ry communic tive s#eech- no ttention is dr wn to the sound of words- or to word order 3which- in 0ng!ish t !e st- wi!! norm !!y # ss from ctor to ction6- or to sentence structure 3which wi!! be enumer tiveco>ordin te6& A first ste# in sty!istic n !ysis wi!! be to observe such devi tions s the re#etitions of sound- the inversion of word order- the construction of invo!ved hier rchies of c! uses- !! of which must serve some esthetic function such s em#h sis or e@#!icitness or their o##osites H the esthetic !!y Bustified b!urring of distinctions or obscurity& 1ith some wor,s nd some uthors- such t s, wi!! be com> # r tive!y e sy& /he sound>schemes nd simi!es dr wn from the besti ries in Ly!yAs 0u#hues re unmist , b!e& 1E S#enser- whoccording to .onson- wrote ?no ! ngu ge-? uses n e si!y n > !yz b!e set of rch isms- neo!ogisms- nd #rovinci !isms& 1= Mi!>

ton not on!y uses L tinized voc bu! ry- in which 0ng!ish words h ve the sense of their rchety#es- but !so h s his own ch r c> teristic sentence structures& /he diction of <er rd M n!ey (o#> ,ins is ch r cterized by its S @on nd di !ect ! words- its studied void nce of the L tin voc bu! ry- #rom#ted by theory nd b c,ed by movement of !inguistic /eutonizers- nd its #ecu!i r word form tions nd com#ounds& 1; It is not difficu!t to n !yze the sty!e of such #ronounced!y ?m nnered? uthors s 9 r!y!eMeredith- 8 ter- or (enry . mes- or even of uthors whothough of !itt!e rtistic im#ort nce- cu!tiv ted their idiosyn> cr sies& In m ny other c ses- however- it wi!! be f r more difficu!t to iso! te nd define the sty!istic ch r cteristics of n uthor& A de!i> c te e r nd subt!e observ tion re needed to discern recurrent tr it- es#eci !!y in writers who- !i,e m ny 0!iz beth n dr m tists or eighteenth>century ess yists- use uniform sty!e& 'ne must be s,e#tic ! of such c! ims s .& M& RobertsonAs th t cert in words

Sty!e

nd Sty!istics 1;D

or ?idioms? re the e@c!usive sign tures of men !i,e 8ee!e<reene- M r!owe- nd 2yd& 14 In m ny of these investig tionssty!istic n !ysis is indiscrimin te!y combined with study of con> tent>!in,s- sources- nd other m tters such s recurrent !!usions& 1hen th t is the c se- sty!istics serves on!y s too! for dif> ferent #ur#ose$ the identific tion of n uthor- the est b!ishment of uthenticitydetective Bob t most #re# r tory to !iter ry study& Difficu!t #r ctic ! #rob!ems re r ised by the e@istence of #rev !ent sty!es- by the #ower of sing!e uthor to e@cite imit > tion nd vogue& "ormer!y- the ide of genre h d #owerfu! force u#on sty!istic tr dition& In 9h ucer- for e@ m#!e- there is wide differenti tion of sty!es between the individu ! stories of the 9 nterbury / !es nd- more gener !!y- between his wor,s of different #eriods nd !iter ry ty#es& In the eighteenth century8ind ric odes tireb !! d h d e ch its own re:uired voc bu> ! ry nd sty!e& ?8oetic diction? w s confined to s#ecific genreswhi!e home!y voc bu! ry w s #ermitted or even #rescribed in !ow genres& 0ven 1ordsworth- in s#ite of his condemn tion of #oetic diction- wrote very different!y when he com#osed n odeto#ogr #hic ! ref!ective #oem !i,e / intern AbbeyMi!tonic sonnet- or ?!yric ! b !! d&? If we ignore such distinctions- we ch r cterize but futi!e!y the sty!e of n uthor who h s cu!tiv ted m ny genres or # ssed through !ong #erson ! evo!ution& It is #rob b!y best to s#e , of the ?sty!es? of <oethe- since we c n> not reconci!e the enormous differences between the e r!y Sturm und Dr ng sty!e- th t of the c! ssic ! #eriod- nd the ! te- #om> #ous nd invo!ved m nner of the 0!ective Affinities& /his method of sty!istic n !ysis H of concentr ting on the #ecu!i rities of sty!e- on tr its differenti ting it from the sur> rounding !inguistic systems H h s obvious d ngers& 1e re !i,e!y to ccumu! te iso! ted observ tions- s#ecimens of the m r,ed

tr its- nd to forget th t wor, of rt is who!e& 1e re !i,e!y to overstress ?origin !ity-? individu !ity- the mere!y idiosyn> cr tic& 8refer b!e is the ttem#t to describe sty!e com#!ete!y nd system tic !!y- ccording to !inguistic #rinci#!es& In Russi Ki,tor Kinogr dov h s written m ster!y studies of 8ush,inAs nd /o!stoyAs ! ngu ge& In 8o! nd nd in 9zechos!ov ,i - system tic

1 ;E /heory of Liter ture sty!istics h s ttr cted m ny b!e #r ctitioners B nd in S# inD m so A!onso h s begun the system tic n !ysis of <ongor As #oetry- whi!e Am do A!onso h s sensitive!y n !yzed the #oetic sty!e of 8 b!o *erud & 20 /he d nger of the method is the ide ! of ?scientific? com#!eteness& /he n !yst m y forget th t rtistic effect nd em#h sis re not identic ! with the mere fre> :uency of device& /hus Miss .ose#hine Mi!es is mis!ed by st tistic ! evidence into stressing the 8re>R #h e!ite e!ement in (o#,insA diction& 21 Sty!istic n !ysis seems most #rofit b!e to !iter ry study when it c n est b!ish some unifying #rinci#!e- some gener ! esthetic im #erv sive of who!e wor,& If we t ,e- for e@ m#!e- n eighteenth>century descri#tive #oet such s . mes /homson- we shou!d be b!e to show how his sty!istic tr its inter!oc,& /he Mi!tonic b! n, verse #uts cert in deni !s nd dem nds on the choice of voc bu! ry& /he voc bu! ry re:uires #eri#hr sis- nd #eri#hr sis im#!ies tension between word nd thing$ the obBect is not n med but its :u !ities re enumer ted& Stress on :u !ities nd their enumer tion im#!ies descri#tion C nd the # rticu! r ty#e of n ture descri#tion #r cticed in the eighteenth century im#!ies s#ecific #hi!oso#hy- the rgument from design& In his boo, on 8o#e- nd his ess ys on eighteenth>century #oetic dic> tion- <eoffrey /i!!otson h s ccumu! ted m ny cute observ > tions of this ,ind- e&g&- on the #ecu!i r ideo!ogy of #oetic dictionits ?8hysico>theo!ogic ! nomenc! ture-? s he c !!s it C but he h s f i!ed to integr te them into tot ! n !ysis of the sty!e& 22 Such #rocedure- !e ding from metric ! consider tions to #rob!ems of content nd even #hi!oso#hy must not- of course- be misunder> stood to me n #rocess scribing #riority- either !ogic ! or chrono!ogic !- to ny one of these e!ements& Ide !!y- we shou!d be b!e to st rt t ny given #oint nd shou!d rrive t the s me resu!ts& /his ty#e of demonstr tion shows how sty!istic n !ysis c n e si!y !e d to #rob!ems of content& In n intuitive- unsystem tic f shion- critics h ve !ong n !yzed sty!es s e@#ressive of # rticu> ! r #hi!oso#hic ! ttitudes& In his <oethe- <undo!f sensitive!y n !yzed the ! ngu ge of the e r!y #oems- showing how the #oetAs dyn mic s#eech ref!ects his turn tow rd dyn mic con> ce#tion of n ture& 25 (erm nn *oh! h s tried to show th t

Sty!e

nd Sty!istics 1;=

sty!istic tr its c n be devised by Di!they& 27

ssoci ted with the three ty#es of #hi!oso#hy

<erm n scho! rs h ve !so deve!o#ed more system tic #> #ro ch- c !!ed Motif% und 1ort- b sed on the ssum#tion of # r !!e!ism between !inguistic tr its nd content>e!ements& Leo S#itzer e r!y ##!ied it by investig ting the recurrence of such motifs s b!ood nd wounds in the writings of (enri + rbussend .osef 2orner h s fu!!y studied the motifs in Arthur Schnitz!erAs writings& 2D L ter- S#itzer h s tried to est b!ish the connection between recurrent sty!istic tr its nd the #hi!oso#hy of the uthor- e&g&- he connects the re#etitive sty!e of 8eguy with his +ergsonism nd the sty!e of .u!es Rom ins with his )n nimism& An !ysis of the word myths of 9hristi n Morgen> stern 3the uthor of nonsense verse v gue!y com# r b!e to Lewis 9 rro!!As6 shows th t he must h ve re d M uthnerAs nomin !istic 2riti, der S>#r che y dr wing from it the conc!usion th t over n im#enetr b!y d r, wor!d ! ngu ge on!y sw thes further vei!s& 2E Some of Leo S#itzerAs # #ers go very f r in inferring the #sy> cho!ogic ! ch r cteristics of n uthor from the tr its of his sty!e& 8roust !ends himse!f to such #rocedure C in 9h r!es Louis 8hi!!i#e- there is the recurrent construction ? c use de? inter> #reted s ?fseudo>obBe,tive Motivierung? im#!ying be!ief in f t !ismC in R be! is- S#itzer n !yzes word form tions whichusing ,nown root such s Sorbonne- combine it with dozens of f nt stic suffi@es for the cre tion of mu!titudinous re#u!sive nic,n mes 3e&g&- Sorb onn gre- Sorbonne Z on gre- wi!d ss6- in order to show th t there is in R be! is tension between the re ! nd the unre !- between comedy nd horror- between )to#i nd n tur !ism& 2= /he b sic ssum#tion is here- s S#itzer formu> ! tes it- th t ?ment ! e@citement which devi tes from the norm ! h bitus of our ment ! !ife must h ve co>ordin te !inguistic devi tion from norm ! us ge&? 2S +ut this #rinci#!e seems :uestion b!e& In much of his ! ter wor,- e&g&- his bri!!i nt study of ?2! ssische D m#fung in R cine-? S#itzer h s confined himse!f to n n !ysis of sty!istic tr its& 24 Indeed- however ingenious some of its suggestions m y be- #sycho!ogic ! sty!istics seems o#en to two obBections& M ny re! tionshi#s #rofessing to be thus est b!ished re not b sed on conc!usions re !!y dr wn from the !inguistic m teri ! but r ther

1 ;; /heory of Liter ture st rt with #sycho!ogic ! nd ideo!ogic ! n !ysis nd see, for confirm tion in the ! ngu ge& /his wou!d be une@ce#tion b!e if in #r ctice the !inguistic confirm tion did not itse!f seem fre> :uent!y str ined or b sed on very s!ight evidence& 1or, of this ty#e often ssumes th t true- or gre t- rt must be b sed on e@> #erience- 0r!ebnisy term which invo,es s!ight!y revised ver> sion of the biogr #hic ! f !! cy& "urthermore- the ssum#tion of necess ry re! tionshi# between cert in sty!istic devices nd cer> t in st tes of mind wou!d ##e r f !! cious& "or e@ m#!e- in the discussion of the + ro:ue- most <erm n scho! rs ssume n in>

evit b!e corres#ondence between dense- obscure- twisted ! n> gu ge nd turbu!ent- divided- nd tormented sou!& 50 +ut n obscure- twisted sty!e c n cert in!y be cu!tiv ted by cr ftsmen nd technici ns& /he who!e re! tionshi# between #syche nd word is !ooser nd more ob!i:ue th n is usu !!y ssumed& /hus <erm n Sti!forschung h s to be tre ted with consider> b!e c ution& "re:uent!y- it wou!d ##e r to be on!y disguised genetic #sycho!ogy- nd ssured!y its ssum#tions re very dif> ferent from those of <r ceAs esthetics- usu !!y considered its mode!& In 9roceAs system- which is com#!ete!y monistic- no dis> tinction c n be m de between st te of mind nd !inguistic e@> #ression& 9roce consistent!y denies the v !idity of !! sty!istic nd rhetoric ! c tegories- che distinction between sty!e nd formbetween form nd content- nd u!tim te!y- between word nd sou!- e@#ression nd intuition& In 9roce- this series of identific > tion !e ds to theoretic ! # r !ysis$ n initi !!y genuine insight into the im#!ic tions of the #oetic ! #rocess is #ushed so f r th t no distinctions re #ossib!e& It now seems c!e r th t #rocess nd wor,- form nd content- e@#ression nd sty!e- must be ,e#t # rt#rovision !!y nd in #rec rious sus#ense- ti!! the fin ! unity$ on!y thus re #ossib!e the who!e tr ns! tion nd r tion !iz tion which constitute the #rocess of criticism& If we c n describe the sty!e of wor, or of n uthor- there is no doubt th t we c n !so describe the sty!e of grou# of wor,sof genre$ the <othic nove!- the 0!iz beth n dr m - the Met > #hysic ! #oem >B th t we c n !so n !yze sty!istic ty#es such s the + ro:ue sty!e of seventeenth>century #rose& 51 'ne c n gen> er !ize even further nd describe the sty!e of #eriod or move> ment& In #r ctice- this seems e@tr ordin ri!y difficu!t to do with

Sty!e

nd Sty!istics 1 ;4

ny em#iric ! c!oseness& +oo,s !i,e 0& + r tAs Le Sty!e foeti:ue et ! revo!ution rom nti:ue or Luise /honAs Die Sfr che des deutschen Imfressionismus tr ce m ny sty!istic devices or tr its of synt @ nd voc bu! ry in who!e schoo! or movement& 52 And much h s been done to describe the sty!e of '!d /eutonic #oetry& 55 +ut these re most!y commun ! sty!es- f ir!y uniform in their n ture- which c n be tre ted !most !i,e the wor,s of sing!e uthor& /he sty!istic descri#tion of who!e ges nd who!e !iter ry movements !i,e 9! ssicism nd Rom nticism encounters !most unsurmount b!e difficu!ties- since we must find the com> mon denomin tor between the most diverse writers- sometimes writers of m ny countries& As rt history h s est b!ished wide!y cce#ted series of sty!ese&g&- the 9! ssic !- the <othic- the Ren iss nce- nd the + ro:ueit seems ttr ctive to try to tr nsfer these terms into !iter ture& +ut in so doing- we h ve come b c, to the :uestion of the re! tion between the rts nd !iter ture- the # r !!e!ism of the rts- nd the succession of the gre t #eriods of our civi!iz tion&

9(A8/0R JK Im ge- Met #hor- Symbo!- Myth 1hen we turn from c! ssifying #oems by their subBect m tter or themes to s,ing wh t ,ind of discourse #oetry is- nd wheninste d of #rose># r #hr sing- we identify the ?me ning? of #oem with its who!e com#!e@ of structures- we then encounters centr ! #oetic structure- the se:uence re#resented by the four terms of our tit!e& /he two m in org nizing #rinci#!es of #oetryone of our contem#or ries h s s id- re meter nd met #hor B moreover- ?metre nd met #hor Abe!ong together-A nd our defi> nition of #oetry wi!! h ve to be gener ! enough to inc!ude them both nd e@#! in their com# nionshi#&? G /he gener ! theory of #oetry im#!ied by this st tement w s bri!!i nt!y e@#ounded by 9o!eridge in +iogr fhi Liter ri & ( ve we- in these four termssing!e referentI Sem ntic !!ythe terms over! # C they c!e r!y #oint to the s me re of interest& 8erh #s our se:uence H im ge- met #hor- symbo!- nd myth H m y be s id to re#resent the convergence of two !ines- both im> #ort nt for the theory of #oetry& 'ne is sensuous # rticu! rityor the sensuous nd esthetic continuum- which connects #oetry with music nd # inting nd disconnects it from #hi!oso#hy nd science B the other is ?figur tion? or ?tro#o!ogy? H the ?ob!i:ue? discourse which s#e ,s in metonyms nd met #hors- # rti !!y com# ring wor!ds- #recising its themes by giving them im#r c> tic ! tr ns! tions into other idioms& 2 /hese re both ch r cteris> tics- differenti e- of !iter ture- in contr st to scientific discourse& Inste d of iming t system of bstr ctions consistent!y e@> #ressed by system of monosigns- #oetry org nizes uni:ueunre#e t b!e # ttern of words- e ch n obBect s we!! s sign nd used in f shion un#redict b!e by ny system outside of the #oem& 5 /he sem ntic difficu!ties of our to#ic re troub!esome- nd no re dy re!ief seems #ossib!e beyond const nt vigi! nt ttention to 140

Im ge- Met #hor- Symbo!- Myth 141 how terms re used in their conte@ts- es#eci !!y to their #o! r o##ositions& Im gery is to#ic which be!ongs both to #sycho!ogy nd to !iter ry study& In #sycho!ogy- the word ?im ge? me ns ment ! re#roductionmemory- of # st sens tion ! or #erce#tu ! e@> #erience- not necess ri!y visu !& /he #ioneer investig tions of "r ncis < ! ton- in 1;;0- sought to discover how f r men cou!d visu !!y re#roduce the # st- nd found th t men gre t!y differed in their degree of visu !iz tion& +ut im gery is not visu ! on!y& /he c! ssific tions of #sycho!ogists nd esthetici ns re nu> merous& /here re not on!y ?gust tory? nd ?o!f ctory? im ges-

but there re therm ! im ges nd #ressure im ges 3?,in es> thetic-? ?h #tic-? ?em# thic?6& /here is the im#ort nt distinc> tion between st tic im gery nd ,inetic 3or ?dyn mic?6& /he use of co!or im gery m y or m y not be tr dition !!y or #riv te!y symbo!ic& Syn esthetic im gery 3whether the resu!t of the #oetAs bnorm ! #sycho!ogic ! constitution or of !iter ry convention6 tr ns! tes from one sense into nother- e&g&- sound into co!or& "in !!y- there is the distinction- usefu! for the re der of #oetrybetween ?tied? nd ?free? im gery$ the former- uditory nd muscu! r im gery necess ri!y roused even though one re ds to himse!f nd ##ro@im te!y the s me for !! de:u te re ders C the ! tter- visu ! nd e!se- v rying much from #erson to #erson or ty#e to ty#e& 7 I& A& Rich rdsA gener ! conc!usions- s given in his 8rinci#!es of 1427- sti!! seem sound$ th t ?/oo much im#ort nce h s !w ys been tt ched to the sensory :u !ities of im ges& 1h t gives n im ge effic cy is !ess its vividness s n im ge th n its ch r cter s ment ! event #ecu!i r!y connected with sens tion&? Its ef> fic cy comes from its being ? re!ict? nd ?re#resent tion? of sens tion& D "rom im ges s the vestigi ! re#resent tives of sens tions we move with instructive e se to the second !ine which runs through our who!e re H th t of n !ogy nd com# rison& 0ven visu ! im ges re not to be !oo,ed for e@c!usive!y in descri#tive #oetry C nd few who h ve ttem#ted to write ?im gist? or ?#hysic !? #oetry h ve succeeded in restricting themse!ves to #ictures of the e@tern ! wor!d& R re!y- indeed- h ve they wished to do so& 0zr 8ound- theorist of sever ! #oetic movements- defined the

142 [ /heory of Liter ture ?im ge? not s #ictori ! re#resent tion but s ?th t which #re> sents n inte!!ectu ! nd emotion ! com#!e@ in n inst nt of time-? ?unific tion of dis# r te ide s&? /he Im gist credo s> serted- ?we be!ieve th t #oetry shou!d render # rticu! rs e@ ct!y nd not de ! in v gue gener !ities- however & & & sonorous&? In his #r ise of D nte nd his tt c,s on Mi!ton- 0!iot seems to ho!d more dogm tic !!y to the em#h sis on +i!d!ich,eit& D nteAshe s ys- ?is visu ! im gin tion&? (e is n !!egorist- nd ?for com#etent #oet- !!egory me ns Ac!e r visu ! im gery&A ? 'n the other h nd Mi!tonAs is- unfortun te!y- n ? uditory im gi> n tion&? /he visu ! im gery in ?LAA!!egro? nd ?II 8enseroso? is ? !! gener ! &&& it is not # rticu! r #!oughm n- mi!,m idnd she#herd th t Mi!ton sees & & & C the sensuous effect of these verses is entire!y on the e r- nd is Boined to the conce#ts of #!oughm n- mi!,m id- nd she#herd&? E In !! of these #ronouncements- the stress is r ther on A# r> ticu! rity nd the union of wor!ds 3 n !ogy- e&g&- !!egory D ?uni> fic tion of dis# r te ide s?6 th n it is on the sensuous& /he visu ! im ge is sens tion or #erce#tion- but it !so ?st nds for-? refers to- something invisib!e- something ?inner&? It c n be both #resent tion nd re#resent tion t once 3?the b! c, b t night h s

f!own? & & & ?Yonder !! before us !ie Des rts of v st eter> nity?6& /he im ge m y e@ist s ?descri#tion? or 3 s in our e@> m#!es6 s met #hor& +ut m y the im ges not offered s met > #hor- s seen by the ?mindAs eye-? !so be symbo!icI Is not every #erce#tion se!ectiveI = So Midd!eton Murry- who thin,s of ?simi!e? nd ?met #hor? s ssoci ted with the ?form ! c! ssific tion? of rhetoric- dvises the use of ?im ge? s term to inc!ude both- but w rns th t we must ?reso!ute!y e@c!ude from our minds the suggestion th t the im ge is so!e!y or even #redomin nt!y visu !&? /he im ge ?m y be visu !- m y be uditory-? or ?m y be who!!y #sycho> !ogic !&? An !ogous is the #r ctice of Louis M c*eice& /hough he distinguishes his terms- using ?#ro#erties? 3cf& ?st ge #ro#> erties?6 for #erce#tions nd reserving ?im ges? for met #horhe observes the difficu!ty of ho!ding to the distinction$ for ?the #ro#erties themse!ves m y be- in the u!tim te n !ysis- on!y symbo!s&? 'f 1ordsworth- M c*eice rem r,s th t he ?does not re:uire m ny im ges bec use his #ro#erties c rry their own

Im gey Met fhor- Symbo!- Myth 145 mess ge&? ; In writers s different s Sh ,es#e re r 0mi!y +rontend 8oe- we c n see th t the setting 3 system of ?#ro#erties?6 is often met #hor or symbo!$ the r ging se - the storm- the wi!d moor- the dec ying c st!e by the d n,- d r, t rn& Li,e ?im ge-? ?symbo!? h s given its n me to s#ecific !it> er ry movement& 4 Li,e ?im ge-? g in- it continues to ##e r in wide!y different conte@ts nd very different #ur#oses& It ##e rs s term in !ogic- in m them tics- in sem ntics nd semiotics nd e#istemo!ogyB it h s !so h d !ong history in the wor!ds of theo!ogy 3?symbo!? is one synonym for ?creed?6- of !iturgy- of the fine rts- nd of #oetry& /he sh red e!ement in !! these cur> rent uses is #rob b!y th t of something st nding for- re#resent> ing- something e!se& +ut the <ree, verb- which me ns to throw together- to com# re- suggests th t the ide of n !ogy between sign nd signified w s origin !!y #resent& It sti!! survives in some of the modern uses of the term& A!gebr ic nd !ogic ! ?symbo!s? re convention !- greed>u#on signs C but re!igious symbo!s re b sed on some intrinsic re! tion between ?sign? nd thing ?sig> nified-? metonymic or met #horic$ the 9ross- the L mb- the <ood She#herd& In !iter ry theory- it seems desir b!e th t the word shou!d be used in this sense$ s n obBect which refers to nother obBect but which dem nds ttention !so in its own rights #resent tion& 10 /here is ,ind of mind which s#e ,s of ?mere symbo!ism-? either reducing re!igion nd #oetry to sensuous im ges ritu !is> tic !!y rr nged or ev cu ting the #resented ?signs? or ?im ges? in beh !f of the tr nscendent ! re !ities- mor ! or #hi!oso#hic !which !ie beyond them& Another ,ind of mind thin,s of sym> bo!ism s something c !cu! ted nd wi!!edde!iber te ment ! tr ns! tion of conce#ts into i!!ustr tive- #ed gogic- sensuous terms& +ut- s ys 9o!eridge- whi!e !!egory is mere!y ? tr ns! >

tion of bstr ct notions into #icture ! ngu ge- which is itse!f nothing but n bstr ction from obBects of the senses & & & -? symbo! ?is ch r cterized by tr ns!ucence of the s#eci ! Sthe s#eciesT in the individu !- or of the gener ! SgenusT in the s#e> ci ! & & & C bove !!- by the tr ns!ucence of the etern ! through nd in the tem#or !&? J1 Is there ny im#ort nt sense in which ?symbo!? differs from ?im ge? nd ?met #hor?I 8rim ri!y- we thin,- in the recurrence

147 /heory of Liter ture nd #ersistence of the ?symbo!&? An ?im ge? m y be invo,ed once s met #hor- but if it #ersistent!y recurs- both s #resent > tion nd re#resent tion- it becomes symbo!- m y even become # rt of symbo!ic 3or mythic6 system& 'f +! ,eAs e r!y !yricsthe Songs of Innocence nd of 0@#erience- .& (& 1ic,steed writes$ ?/here is com# r tive!y !itt!e ctu ! symbo!ism- but there is const nt nd bund nt use of symbo!ic met #hor&? Ye ts h s n e r!y ess y on the ?Ru!ing Symbo!s? in She!!eyAs #oetry& ?'ne finds in his #oetry- besides innumer b!e im ges th t h ve not the definiteness Sfi@ityIT of symbo!s- m ny im ges th t re cert in!y symbo!s- nd s the ye rs went by he beg n to use these with more nd more de!iber te!y symbo!ic #ur#ose? H such im ges s c ves nd towers& 12 1h t h ##ens with im#ressive fre:uency is the turning of wh t- in writerAs e r!y wor,- is ?#ro#erty? into the ?symbo!? of his ! ter wor,& /hus in his e r!y nove!s- (enry . mes # ins> t ,ing!y visu !izes #ersons nd #! ces- whi!e- in the ! ter nove!s!! the im ges h ve become met #horic or symbo!ic& 1henever #oetic symbo!ism is discussed- the distinction is !i,e!y to be m de between the ?#riv te symbo!ism? of the modern #oet nd the wide!y inte!!igib!e symbo!ism of # st #oets& /he #hr se w s first- t !e st- n indictment C but our fee!ings nd ttitude tow rd #oetic symbo!ism rem in high!y mbiv !ent& /he !tern tive to ?#riv te? is difficu!t to #hr se$ if ?convention !? or ?tr dition !-? we c! sh with our desire th t #oetry shou!d be new nd sur#rising& ?8riv te symbo!ism? im#!ies systemnd c refu! student c n construe ?#riv te symbo!ism? s cry#togr #her c n decode n !ien mess ge& M ny #riv te sys> tems 3e&g&- those of +! ,e nd Ye ts6 h ve ! rge over! # with symbo!ic ! tr ditions- even though not with those most wide!y or current!y cce#ted& 15 1hen we get beyond ?#riv te symbo!ism? nd ?tr dition ! symbo!ism-? there is- t the other #o!e,ind of #ub!ic ?n tur !? symbo!ism which offers its own difficu!ties& "rostAs #oems- some of the best of them- use n tur ! symbo!s the reference of which we find it difficu!t to contro!$ we thin, of ?/he Ro d *ot / ,en-? ?1 !!s-? ?/he Mount in&? In ?Sto##ing by 1oods-? ?mi!es to go before I s!ee#? is !iter !!y true of the tr ve!er- we ssume B but in the ! ngu ge of n tur ! symbo!ism- to ?s!ee#? is

Im ge y Met fhor N Symbo!- Myth 1 4D to ?die? B nd- if one cou#!es by contr st the ?woods re !ove!yd r,- nd dee#? 3 !! three dBectives # negyric6 with the mor ! nd soci ! chec, of ?#romises to ,ee#-? one c nAt who!!y reBect the # ssing- not insisted on- e:u tion of esthetic contem#! tion with some ,ind of ce sing to be s res#onsib!e #erson& 8re> sum b!y no const nt re der of #oetry wi!! go wrong with "rost C but- # rt!y bec use of his n tur ! symbo!ism- "rost h s dr wn wide udience- some of whom- once gr s#ing the #ossibi!ity of symbo!s- wi!! be r down too he vi!y on both the n tur ! symbo!s nd their com# nions- giving to his #!urisigns fi@ity nd rigidity !ien to the n ture of #oetic st tement- es#eci !!y contem#or ry #oetic st tement& 17 /he fourth of our terms is ?myth-? which ##e rs in Aris> tot!eAs 8oetics s the word for #!ot- n rr tive structure- ?f b!e&? Its ntonym nd counter#oint is !ogos& /he ?myth? is n rr tivestory- s g inst di !ectic ! discourse- e@#osition C it is !so the ir> r tion ! or intuitive s g inst the system tic !!y #hi!oso#hic !$ it is the tr gedy of Aeschy!us g inst the di !ectic of Socr tes& 1D ?Myth-? f vorite term of modern criticism- #oints to- hovers over- n im#ort nt re of me ning- sh red by re!igion- fo!,!orenthro#o!ogy- socio!ogy- #sycho n !ysis- nd the fine rts& In some of its h bitu ! o##ositions- it is contr #osed to ?history-? or to ?science-? or to ?#hi!oso#hy-? or to ? !!egory? or to ?truth&? 1E In the seventeenth nd eighteenth centuries- the Age of the 0n!ightenment- the term h d common!y #eBor tive connot > tion$ myth w s fiction H scientific !!y or historic !!y untrue& +ut !re dy in the Scienz *uov of Kico- the em#h sis h s shifted to wh t- since the <erm n Rom nticists- 9o!eridge0merson- nd *ietzsche- h s become gr du !!y domin nt H the conce#tion of ?myth? s- !i,e #oetry,ind of truth or e:uiv> !ent of truth- not com#etitor to historic or scientific truth but su##!ement& 1= (istoric !!y- myth fo!!ows nd is corre! tive to ritu !C it is ?the s#o,en # rt of ritu !C the story which the ritu ! en cts&? /he ritu ! is #erformed for society by its #riest!y re#resent > tive in order to vert or #rocure C it is n ? gendum? which is re> current!y- #erm nent!y necess ry- !i,e h rvests nd hum n fer> ti!ity- !i,e the initi tion of the young into their societyAs cu!ture nd #ro#er #rovision for the future of the de d& +ut in

14E /heory 0N Liter ture wider sense- myth comes to me n ny nonymous!y com#osed story te!!ing of origins nd destinies- the e@#! n tions society offers its young of why the wor!d is nd why we do s we do- its #ed gogic im ges of the n ture nd destiny of m n& 1;

"or !iter ry theory- the im#ort nt motifs re- #rob b!y- the im ge or #icture- the soci !- the su#ern tur ! 3or non>n tur !ist or irr tion !6- the n rr tive or story- the rchety# ! or univers !the symbo!ic re#resent tion s events in time of our time!ess ide !s- the #rogr mm tic or esch to!ogic !- the mystic& In con> tem#or ry thought- ##e ! to the myth m y center on ny one of these- with s#re d to others& /hus Sore! s#e ,s of the ?<en> er ! Stri,e? of !! the wor!dAs wor,ers s ?myth-? me ning th t whi!e such n ide ! wi!! never become historic f ct it must- in order to motiv te nd dyn mize the wor,ers- be #resented s future historic ! event C myth is #rogr m& /hus *iebuhr s#e ,s of 9hristi n esch to!ogy s mythic$ the Second 9oming nd the L st .udgment im ge s future history wh t re #resent- #erm > nent- mor !- nd s#iritu ! ev !u tions& 14 If the mythic h s s its contr ry either science or #hi!oso#hy- it o##oses the #ictur b!e intuitive concrete to the r tion ! bstr ct& <ener !!y- too- in thisthe centr ! o##osition for !iter ry theorists nd #o!ogists- the myth is soci !- nonymous- commun !& In modern times- we m y be b!e to identify the cre tors H or some of the cre tors H of mythC but it m y sti!! h ve the :u !it tive st tus of myth if its uthorshi# is forgotten- not gener !!y ,nown- or t ny event unim#ort nt to its v !id tion H if it h s been cce#ted by the com> munity- h s received the ?consent of the f ithfu!&? /he term is not e sy to fi@$ it #oints tod y t n ? re of me n> ing&? 1e he r of # inters nd #oets in se rch of mytho!ogyC we he r of the ?myth? of #rogress or of democr cy& 1e he r of ?/he Return of the Myth in 1or!d Liter ture&? Yet we !so he r th t one c nAt cre te myth or choose to be!ieve one or wi!! one into being$ the boo, h s succeeded the myth- nd the cos> mo#o!it n city the homogeneous society of the city st te& 20 Does modern m n ! c, myth H or mytho!ogysystem of interconnected mythsI /his wou!d be *ietzscheAs view$ th t Socr tes nd the So#hists- the ?inte!!ectu !s-? h d destroyed the !ife of <ree, ?cu!ture&? Simi! r!y it wou!d be rgued th t the 0n!ightenment destroyed H or beg n destruction of H the 9hris>

Im ge- Met fhor- Symbo!- Myth 14= ti n ?mytho!ogy&? +ut other writers thin, of modern m n s h ving sh !!ow- in de:u te- or #erh #s even ?f !se? myths- such s the myth of ?#rogress-? or of ?e:u !ity-? or of univers ! edu> c tion- or of the hygienic nd modish we!!>being to which the dvertisements invite& /he common denomin tor between the two conce#tions seems to be the Budgment 3true- #rob b!y6 th t when o!d- !ong> fe!t- se!f>coherent w ys of !ife 3ritu !s with their ccom# nying myths6 re disru#ted by ?modernism-? most men 3or !!6 re im#overished$ s men c nAt !ive by bstr ctions !onethey h ve to fi!! their voids by crude- e@tem#orized- fr gment ry myths 3#ictures of wh t might be or ought to be6& /o s#e , of the need for myth- in the c se of the im gin tive writer- is sign of his fe!t need for communion with his society- for recognized st tus s rtist functioning within society& /he "rench Sym>

bo!ists e@isted in se!f>recognized iso! tion- were hermetic s#e> ci !ists- who be!ieved the #oet must choose between commerci ! #rostitution of his rt nd esthetic #urity nd co!dness& +ut Ye ts- for !! his vener tion of M !! rme- fe!t the need of union with Ire! nd D so he com#ounded tr dition ! 9e!tic mytho!> ogy with his own mythicizing version of ! tter>d y Ire! nd- in which the August n Ang!o>Irish 3Swift- +er,e!ey- nd +ur,e6 re s free!y inter#reted s the Americ n heroes of K che! Lind> s yAs im gin tion& 21 "or m ny writers- myth is the common denomin tor between #oetry nd re!igion& /here e@ists modern view- of course 3re#> resented by M tthew Arno!d nd the e r!y I& A& Rich rds6- th t #oetry wi!! more nd more t ,e the #! ce of the su#ern tur ! re!igion in which modern inte!!ectu !s c n no !onger be!ieve& +ut more im#ressive c se c n #rob b!y be m de for the view th t #oetry c nnot for !ong t ,e the #! ce of re!igion since it c n sc rce!y !ong survive it& Re!igion is the gre ter mysteryC #oetrythe !esser& Re!igious myth is the ! rge>sc !e uthoriz tion of #oetic met #hor& /hus 8hi!i# 1hee!wright- #rotesting th t by #ositivists ?re!igious truth nd #oetic truth re dismissed s fic> tions-? sserts th t the ?needed #ers#ective is &&& mytho> re!igious one&? An o!der 0ng!ish re#resent tive of this view is .ohn Dennis C re! tive!y recent one is Arthur M chen& 22 /he who!e series 3im ge- met #hor- symbo!- myth6 we m y ch rge o!der !iter ry study with tre ting e@tern !!y nd su#er>

14; /heory of Liter ture fici !!y& Kiewed for the most # rt s decor tions- rhetoric ! orn > ments- they were therefore studied s det ch b!e # rts of the wor,s in which they ##e r& 'ur own view- on the other h ndsees the me ning nd function of !iter ture s centr !!y #resent in met #hor nd myth& /here re such ctivities s met #horic nd mythic thin,ingthin,ing by me ns of met #horsthin,> ing in #oetic n rr tive or vision& A!! these terms c !! our tten> tion to the s#ects of !iter ry wor, which e@ ct!y bridge nd bind together o!d divisive com#onents- ?form? nd ?m tter&? /hese terms !oo, in both directions C th t is- they indic te the #u!! of #oetry tow rd ?#icture? nd ?wor!d? on the one h nd nd tow rd re!igion or 1 e!t nsch uung on the other& As we sur> vey modern methods of studying them- we c n fee! th t tension& Since o!der methods tre ted them s esthetic devices 3 !beit conceiving of such s mere!y decor tive6- the re ction ry d nger tod y is #erh #s too he vy stress on 1 e!t nsch uung& /he Scotch rhetorici n- writing t the end of the *eo>9! ssic ! #eriodr ther n tur !!y thought of simi!es nd met #hors s c !cu! tede!ected D tod yAs n !ysts- wor,ing fter "reud- re dis#osed to see !! im ges s reve! tory of the unconscious& It c !!s for nice e:ui!ibrium to void the rhetoric ! concern on the one h nd nd on the other both #sycho!ogic ! biogr #hy nd ?mess ge hunt> ing&? In the ! st twenty>five ye rs of !iter ry study- theory nd

#r ctice h ve both been #ursued& /h t is- we h ve ttem#ted ty#o!ogies of figur tion or- more s#ecific !!y- of #oetic im geryC nd we h ve !so devoted monogr #hs nd ess ys to the im gery of s#ecific #oets or wor,s 3with Sh ,es#e re s f vorite sub> Bect6& /he ?#r ctic ! criticism? h ving gone on with # rticu! r rdor- we begin to h ve some e@ce!!ent sh r# theoretic ! nd methodo!ogic ! # #ers scrutinizing the sometimes too e sy s> sum#tions of the #r ctitioners& M ny h ve been the ttem#ts t reducing !! the minute!y sub> divided figures H some two hundred nd fifty in mbitious !ists H into two or three c tegories& ?Schemes? nd ?tro#es? is itse!f one of these $ division into ?sound figures? nd ?sense figures&? An> other ttem#t se# r tes figures of ?s#eech? or ?verb ! figures? from ?figures of thought&? +oth dichotomies h ve the f u!thowever- of suggesting n outer- or outermost- structure which

Im ge- Met #hor- Symbo!- Myth 144 ! c,s e@#ressive function& /hus- under ny tr dition ! systemrhyme nd !!iter tion re both #honetic ?schemes-? coustic orn ment tions C yet both initi ! rhyme nd end rhyme c n servewe ,now- s sense binders- s sem ntic cou#!ers& /he nineteenth century reg rded the #un s ?#! y on words-? the ?!owest form of wit? B the eighteenth century h d- with Addison- !re dy c! s> sified it s one of the s#ecies of ?f !se wit&? +ut + ro:ue nd modern #oets use it serious!y s doub!ing of ide s?homo> #hone? or ?homonym-? #ur#osed ? mbiguity&? 25 Le ving the schemes side- we m y divide the tro#es of #oetry most re!ev nt!y into figures of contiguity nd figures of simi> ! rity& /he tr dition ! figures of contiguity re metonymy nd synec> doche& /he re! tions they e@#ress re !ogic !!y or :u ntit tive!y n !yz b!e$ the c use for the effect- or the contr ry C the con> t iner for the cont inedC the dBunct for its subBect 3?the vi!! ge green-? ?the briny dee#?6& In synecdoche- the re! tions between the figure nd its referent re s id to be intern !& 1e re offered s m#!e of something# rt intended to st nd for its who!es#ecies re#resenting genus- m tter beto,ening the form nd use to which it is #ut& In the f mi!i r # ss ge from Shir!ey i!!ustr tive of the tr di> tion ! use of metonymy- convention ! ccoutrements H instru> ments or too!s H st nd for soci ! c! sses $ Sce#tre nd crown must tumb!e down

And in the dust be e:u ! m de 1ith the A#oor croo,ed scythe nd s# de& sty> rt>#oets$

More stri,ing is the metonymic ?tr nsferred dBective-? !istic tr it of Kirgi!- S#enser- Mi!ton- <r y- c! ssic !

?S nsfoyAs de d dowry-? shifts the e#ithet from #ossessor to thing #ossessed& In <r yAs ?drowsy tin,!ings? nd Mi!tonAs ?merry be!!s-? the e#ithets refer to the we rers nd the ringers of be!!s res#ective!y& 1hen Mi!tonAs gr y>f!y is ?winding her su!try horn-? the e#ithet c !!s u# the hot summer evening !in,ed by ssoci tion with the sound of the gr y>f!y& In !! such c sescited out of their conte@t- nother- n nimistic- ,ind of re ding seems #ossib!e& /he distinction !ies in whether ssoci tion ! !ogic is o#er tive- or whether- inste d#ersistent #erson !iz tion&

200 /heory of Liter ture Devotion ! #oetry- 9 tho!ic or first thought- un void b!y met +ut Dr& 1 tts- the *eo>9! ssic sive effect- moving s we!! s 0v nge!ic !- wou!d seem- t #horic !- nd so it domin nt!y is& ! hymn writer- gets n im#res> st te!y- from metonymy$

1hen I survey the wondrous cross 'n which the 8rince of <!ory died& My richest g in I count but !oss And A#our contem#t on !! my #ride&

See- from his he d- his h nds- his side Sorrow nd !ove f!ow ming!ed downC Did e y er such !ove nd sorrow meet 'r thorns com#ose so rich crownI A re der tr ined u#on nother time sty!e might he r this hymn without #erceiving th t ?sorrow? nd ?!ove? e:u te ?w ter? nd ?b!ood&? (e died for !ove$ his !ove is c use D the b!ood- effect& In seventeenth>century Mu r!es- ?#our contem#t? wou!d suggest visu !iz b!e met #hor- but then the figure wou!d be #ursued H #erh #s with the fire of #ride #ut out by buc,et of contem#tC but ?#our? here is sem ntic intensive$ I contemn my #ride vig> orous!y- su#er! tive!y& /hese re- fter !!- n rrow!y restricted uses of the word& Re> cent!y some bo!der conce#tions of metonymy s !iter ry mode h ve been suggested- even the notion th t metonymy nd met> #hor m y be the ch r cterizing structures of two #oetic ty#es H #oetry of ssoci tion by contiguity- of movement within sing!e wor!d of discourse- nd #oetry of ssoci tion by com# rison- Boin> ing #!ur !ity of wor!ds- mi@ing- in the stri,ing #hr se of +uh!er?coc,t i! of s#heres&? 2i In bri!!i nt critic ! discussion of 1hitm n- D& S& Mirs,y s ys- ?/he se# r te fr ction ! im ges of the ASong of the +ro d> A@eA re end!ess metonymic im ges- e@ m#!es- s#ecimens of the e!ements com#rising democr tic constructiveness&? 2D 'ne might ch r cterize 1hitm nAs usu ! #oetic method s n n !ytic s#re dout- n itemized un# c,ing- of cert in ! rge- # r !!e! c te> gories& In his # r !!e!istic ch nts !i,e ?Song of Myse!f? he is

domin ted by the desire to #resent det i!s- individu !s- # rts # rts of who!e& "or !! his !ove of !ists- he is not re !!y

Im ge U Met fhor- Symbo!- Myth 201 #!ur !ist or #erson !ist but # ntheistic monistB nd the tot ! effect of his c t !ogues is not com#!e@ity but sim#!icity& "irst he ! ys nut his c tegories- nd then he co#ious!y i!!ustr tes them& Met #hor- which h s h d the ttention of #oetic theorists nd rhetorici ns since Aristot!e- who w s both- h s won ! rge tten> tion in recent ye rs from !inguistic theorists !so& Rich rds h s #rotested vehement!y g inst tre ting met #hor s devi tion from norm ! !inguistic #r ctice inste d of its ch r cteristic nd indis#ens b!e resource& /he ?!eg? of the ch ir- the ?foot? of the mount in- nd the ?nec,? of the bott!e !! ##!y- by n !ogy# rts of the hum n body to # rts of in nim te obBects& /hese e@> tensions- however- h ve become ssimi! ted into the ! ngu gend re common!y no !onger fe!t s met #horic !- even by the !iter ri!y nd !inguistic !!y sensitive& /hey re ?f ded? or ?worn>out? or ?de d? met #hor& 2E 1e must distinguish met #hor s the ?omni#resent #rinci#!e of ! ngu ge? 3Rich rds6 from the s#ecific !!y #oetic met #hor& <eorge 9 m#be!! ssigns the former Ato the ?gr mm ri n-? the ! tter to the ?rhetorici n&? /he gr mm ri n Budges words by etymo!ogies C the rhetorici n- by whether they h ve ?the effect of met #hor u#on the he rer&? 1undt wou!d deny the term ?met #hor? to such !inguistic ?tr ns#ositions? s ?!eg? of the t b!e nd ?foot? of the mount in- m ,ing the criterion of true met #horism the c !cu! ted- wi!!ed intention of its user to cre te n emotive effect& (& 2onr d contr sts the ?!inguistic? with the ? esthetic? met #hor- #ointing out th t the former 3e&g&- the ?!eg? of the t b!e6 under!ines the domin nt tr it of the obBectwhi!e the ! tter is conceived to give new im#ression of the ob> Bect- to ?b the it in new tmos#here&? 2/ 'f c ses difficu!t to c! ssify- #rob b!y the most im#ort nt is th t of met #hors common to !iter ry schoo! or gener tionsh red #oetic met #hors& Inst nces wou!d be ?bone>house-? ?sw n>ro d-? ?word>ho rd-? nd the other ,ennings of '!d 0ng!ish #oetsC (omerAs ?fi@ed met #hors? such s ?rosy> fingered d wn? 3used twenty>seven times in the "irst +oo, of the I!i d6 C the 0!iz beth nAs ?#e r!y teeth-? ?ruby !i#s-? ?ivory nec,s-? nd ?h ir of go!den wire?C or the August nAs ?w tery #! in-? ?si!ver stre ms-? ?en me!ed me dows&? 2S /o modern re ders some of these 3not b!y those from the Ang!o>S @on6 re

202 /heory of Liter ture bo!d nd ?#oetic-? whi!e most of the others re f ded nd :u int& Ignor nce- to be sure- c n confer n i!!egitim te origin !ity u#on the first e@ m#!es of n unf mi!i r convention& Indeed- the

etymo!ogic ! met #hors of ! ngu ge- not ?re !ized? by those whose n tive ! ngu ge it is- re const nt!y t ,en- by n !ytic !!y sensitive foreigners- s individu ! #oetic chievements& 24 'ne h s to ,now intim te!y both ! ngu ge nd !iter ry convention to be b!e to fee! nd me sure the met #horic intention of s#ecific #oet& In '!d 0ng!ish #oetry- ?bone>house? nd ?word>ho rd? re undoubted!y of ,ind with (omerAs ?winged words&? /hey re # rt of the #oetAs cr ft>educ tion nd give #!e sure to their he rers by their tr dition !ism- their be!onging to the #rofes> sion !- ritu ! ! ngu ge of #oetry& /he met #horic in them is neither who!!y re !ized nor who!!y missed$ !i,e much ecc!esi s> tic ! symbo!ism- they m y be s id to be ritu !& 50 In our genetic !!y minded ge- much ttention h s n tur !!y been given to the origins of the met #hor- both s !inguistic #rinci#!e nd s !iter ry mode of vision nd o#er tion& ?'n> togeny re#e ts #hy!ogeny?C nd- in reverse- we be!ieve we c n reconstruct #rehistoric cu!ture history through n !ytic observ > tion of #rimitive societies nd chi!dren& According to (einz 1erner- met #hor becomes ctive mong on!y such #rimitive #eo#!es s h ve t boos- obBects the ?#ro#er? n mes of which m y not be n med& 51 1e ref!ect immedi te!y on the rich .ewish t !ent for met #horizing the unn m b!e . weh s Roc,- s SunLion- nd so on- nd then u#on the eu#hemisms in our own so> ciety& +ut- obvious!yfe rfu! necessity is not the on!y mother of invention& 1e met #horize !so wh t we !ove- wh t we w nt to !inger over- nd contem#! te- to see from every ng!e nd under every !ighting- mirrored- in s#eci !ized focus- by !! ,inds of !i,e things& If we # ss from the motiv tion of !inguistic nd ritu ! met> #hor to the te!eo!ogy of #oetic met #hor- we h ve to invo,e something f r more inc!usive H the who!e function of im gin > tive !iter ture& /he four b sic e!ements in our who!e conce#tion of met #hor wou!d ##e r to be th t of n !ogyC th t of doub!e visionC th t of the sensuous im ge- reve! tory of the im#er> ce#tib!eC th t of nimistic #roBection& /he four in e:u ! me sure re never #resent$ ttitudes v ry from n tion to n tion nd

!m ge y Met fhor- Symbo! y Myth 205 esthetic #eriod to esthetic #eriod& According to one theorist<r eco>Rom n met #hor is !most restricted to n !ogy 3 :u si> !eg ! # r !!e!ism6- whi!e d s +!!d 3the im ge symbo!6 is dis> tinctive!y /eutonic figure& 52 Such cu!ture contr st- howeverh rd!y t ,es c re of It !i n nd "rench #oetry- es#eci !!y from + ude! ire nd Rimb ud to K !ery& A more #! usib!e c se cou!d be m de for contr st between #eriods nd between domin ting !ife>#hi!oso#hies& 0 ch #eriod sty!e h s its own ch r cteristic figures- e@#ressive of its 1e!t nsch uungC in the c se of b sic figures !i,e met #hore ch #eriod h s its ch r cteristic ,ind of met #horic method& *eo>9! ssic ! #oetry- for e@ m#!e- is ch r cterized by the simi!e#eri#hr sis- the orn ment ! e#ithet- e#igr m- b ! nce- ntithesis&

8ossib!e inte!!ectu ! #ositions re reduced to twos or threes- not #!ur !ities& "re:uent!y the third #osition is centr ! nd medi > tori ! #osition between n med #o! r heresies$ Some foreign writers- some our own des#ise/he ncients on!y- or the moderns y fr!ze& In the + ro:ue #eriod- ch r cteristic figures re the # r do@the o@ymoron- c t chresis& /hese re 9hristi n- mystic !- #!ur !> ist figures& /ruth is com#!e@& /here re m ny modes of ,now> ing- e ch with its own !egitim cy& Some ,inds of truths h ve to be st ted by neg tion or c !cu! ted distortion& <od c n be s#o,en of nthro#omor#hic !!y- for (e m de men in (is own im geC but (e is !so the tr nscendent ! 'ther& (ence in + ro:ue re!igion- truth bout <od m y be e@#ressed through n !ogic ! im ges 3the L mb- the +ridegroom6 > y it m y !so be e@#ressed through cou#!ings of contr dictories or contr ries- s in K ugh nAs ?dee# but d zz!ing d r,ness&? /he *eo>9! ssic ! mind !i,es c!e r distinctions nd r tion ! #rogressions$ meto> nymic movements from genus to s#ecies- or # rticu! r to s#ecies& +ut the + ro:ue mind invo,es universe t once of m ny wor!ds nd of wor!ds !!- in un#redict b!e w ys- connected& "rom the #oint of view of *eo>9! ssic ! #oetic theory- the ch r cteristic + ro:ue figures re- of course- in b d t ste- ?f !se wit? H either wi!!fu! #erversions of the n tur ! nd r tion !- or insincere crob tics- where s historic !!y they re rhetorico>#oetic

207 /heory of Liter ture e@#ressions of onto!ogy& #!ur !ist e#istemo!ogy nd su#ern tur !ist

?9 t chresis? offers n interesting inst nce& In 1D44 .ohn (os,yns 0ng!ishes the term s ? buse? nd de#!ores th t it is ?nowe growne in f shion& & & &? (e thin,s of it s str ined #hr se- ?more des#er te th n met #hor-? nd cites ? voice be utifu! to his e rs? from SidneyAs Arc di s e@ m#!e of visu ! term #erverse!y ##!ied to he ring& 8o#e QArt of Sin,ing1=2;6 cites ?mow be rd? nd ?sh ve the gr ss? s c t chretic& <eorge 9 m#be!! Q8hi!oso#hy of Rhetoric- 1==E6 cites ?be uti> fu! voice? nd ?me!odious to the eye? s c t chretic # irthough he dmits th t ?sweet- origin !!y # ! t !- c n now be #> #!ied to scentme!ody#ros#ect&? +e!ieving th t #ro#er met #hor uses the ?obBects of sens tion? to denote the ?obBects of #ure inte!!ection-? 9 m#be!! de#!ores the n !ogizing of sense obBects to other sense obBects& 'n the other h ndrecent 9 th> o!ic rhetorici n 3of + ro:ue>Rom ntic t ste6 defines c t chresis s the met #hor dr wn from simi! rity between two m teri ! obBects- urges th t the merits of the tro#e be studied- nd i!!us> tr tes it by such figures from Kictor (ugo s ?!es fer!es de ! rosee? nd ?i! neige des feui!!es&? 55 Another ,ind of met #hor cce#t b!e to + ro:ue sensibi!ityt ste!ess to *eo>9! ssic !- tr ns! tes the gre ter into the hum>

b!erN we might c !! it the diminishing or domestic ting met> #hor& /he ?s#heres? most ch r cteristic !!y mi@ed by + ro:ue #oetry re the n tur ! wor!d nd m nAs wor!d of cr fts nd rtifices& +ut ,nowing th t Art is n imit tion of * ture- *eo> 9! ssicism finds morbid nd #erverse the ssimi! tion of * ture to Art& /hom s <ibbons- for e@ m#!e- in 1=E=- w rns g inst finic ! nd ?f nt stic !? tro#es- nd cites s e@ m#!es ?the fo!!ow> ing descri#tions of the sever ! # rts of the 9re tion$ the emboss> ings of mount ins- the en me!ing of !esser se s- the o#en>wor, of the v st oce n- nd the fret>wor, of the roc,s&? 57 /o be sure- some n ture U rt met #hors rem in in *eo> 9! ssic ! verse- but it is under condition th t the met #hor ##e r s otiose e#ithet& 8o#eAs 8 stor !s nd "orest offer s#ecimens$ ?"resh rising b!ushes f int the w tery g! ss?N ?there b!ushing "!or f ints thA en me!!ed ground&? +ut the !ine w s gener !!y c!e rN nd Dryden- writing in 1E; 1- w s not sh med to confess

Im ge y Met #hor- Symbo!- Myth 20D th t when he w s chi!d he thought s chi!d$ ?I remember when &&& I thought inimit b!e S#enser me n #oet in com> # rison of Sy!vesterAs Du + rt s nd w s r #t into n ecst sy when I re d these !ines$ *ow when the winterAs ,een bre th beg n /o chryst !!ize the + !tic oce n& /o g! ze the ! ,es- to brid!e u# the "!oodsAnd #eriwig with snow the b !d># te woods? 5D /he youthfu! Mi!ton- nother re der of Du + rt s- ends his * tivity 'de with conceit in the s me mode& 0!iot resumes the tr dition in the ce!ebr ted o#ening of ?8rufroc,? 1hen the evening is s#re d out Li,e # tient etherized u#on g inst the s,y t b!e & & &

/he motives behind the + ro:ue #r ctice re not s re di!y reducib!e to one s the 9! ssic ! #rotest- un!ess we sim#!y ##e ! to its wider inc!usiveness- its t ste for richness over #urity#o!y#hony over mono#hony& More s#ecific motives re the #> #etite for sur#rise nd shoc, D 9hristi n inc rn tionism >- #ed> gogic domestic tion of the remote by home!y n !ogy& /hus f r we h ve been considering the n ture of figur tionwith s#eci ! stress on metonymy nd met #horC nd we h ve suggested the #ossib!e #eriod>sty!istic ch r cter of these figures& 1e turn now to studies of met #horic im gery which re !it> er ry>critic ! r ther th n !iter ry>historic !& /wo gener ! studies of met #horic im gery- one Americ n nd the other <erm n- seem to merit s#ecific #resent tion& In 1427- (enry 1e!!s #ub!ished study of 8oetic Im gery which ttem#ts to construct ty#o!ogy- the ty#es inductednd

chief!y i!!ustr ted- from 0!iz beth n !iter ture& Rich in #erce#> tive insights nd suggestive gener !iz tions- the boo, is !ess suc> cessfu! t system tic construction& 1e!!s thin,s of his scheme s chronistic- ##!ic b!e to !! #eriods- not Bust to the 0!iz beth n C nd he be!ieves himse!f to be descri#tive- not ev !u tive- in his wor,& /he b sis of his investig tion is s id to be the rr ngement of grou#s of figures ? s they ##e r on n scending sc !e from the !owest- or most ne r!y !iter !- to the most im gin tive- or im#ressionistic? - but the sc !e- th t of the ?ch r cter nd degree

20E /heory of Liter ture of im gin tive ctivity-? is sserted to h ve no direct be ring on the ev !u tion of them& (is seven ty#es of im gery- rr nged in his own order- re$ the Decor tive- the Sun,en- the Kio!ent 9or "usti n6- the R dic !- the Intensive- the 0@# nsive- nd the 0@> uber nt& /hey m y dv nt geous!y be re rr nged ccording to historic ! nd ev !u tive hints offered by 1e!!s& /he crudest forms- esthetic !!y- re the Kio!ent nd the Decor tive- or the ?met #hor of the m sses? nd the met #hor of rtifice& /he Decor tive im ge- bund nt in SidneyAs Arc di is Budged ?ty#ic !!y 0!iz beth n&? /he Kio!ent im ge- i!!ustr ted out of 2yd nd other e r!y 0!iz beth ns- is ch r cteristic of n e r!y #eriod of cu!ture C but- since most men st y t sub!iter ry !eve!- it be!ongs- in sub!iter ry forms- to ? ny #eriod? C socio!og> ic !!y- ?"usti n? constitutes ? ! rge nd soci !!y im#ort nt body of met #hor&? /he ev !u tive Budgment of both ty#es is th t they re ?deficient in the re:uisite subBective e!ement-? th t they too often !in, one #hysic ! im ge to nother 3 s in c t > chresis6 inste d of re! ting the ?outer wor!d of n ture to the inner wor!d of m n&? Ag in- in both Decor tive nd Kio!ent met #hors- the terms of the re! tionshi# rem in disBunct- fi@eduninv ded by e ch other& +ut in the highest forms of met #hor1e!!s be!ieves- e ch term cts u#on- !ters- the other- so th t third termnew ##rehension- is cre ted by the re! tionshi#& *e@t- s we go u# the sc !e- come the 0@uber nt im ge nd the Intensive- the former subt!er version of the Kio!ent- the ! tter subt!er version of the Decor tive& 1e h ve !eft behind obvious forms of dis#! y- whether of energy or ingenuity& In the 0@uber nt im ge- we h ve- historic !!y- re ched M r!owe- the first of the gre ter 0!iz beth ns- nd +urns nd Sm rt- the 8re> Rom nticsC this im ge is- s ys 1e!!s- ?es#eci !!y #rominent in much e r!y #oetry&? It Bu@t #oses ?two bro d nd im gin tive!y v !u b!e terms-? two bro d- smooth surf ces in f ce>to>f ce con> t ct& 'therwise #ut- this c tegory covers !oose com# risons- re! > tionshi#s b sed on sim#!e ev !u tive c tegories& +urns writes$ My !ove is !i,e red- red rose & & &

My !ove is !i,e me!ody /h tAs sweet!y f! yed in tune&

Im ge- Met #hor- Symbo!- Myth 20= /he common ground between be utifu! wom nfresh red rose- nd we!!>#! yed me!ody is their be uty nd desir bi!ityN they re !!- in ,ind- the best& It isnAt rosy chee,s which m ,es the wom n !i,e rose- or her sweet voice which m ,es her !i,e me!ody 3 n !ogies which wou!d #roduce Decor tive im ges6N her !i,eness to rose is not in co!or- te@ture- or structure- but in v !ue& 5E 1e!!sA Intensive im ge is ne t!y visu !iz b!e im ge of the sort ssoci ted with i!!umin ted m nuscri#ts nd # ge nts of the Midd!e Ages& In #oetry- it is the im ge of D nte nd- es#eci !!yin 0ng!ish #oetry- of S#enser& /he im ge is not on!y c!e r but H wh t #erh #s fo!!ows H diminutive- di gr mm tic$ D nteA5 (e!!not Mi!tonAs& ?Such met #hors re more often th n others re> ferred to s emb!ems or symbo!s&? /he # ge nt figures in ?Ly> cid s? H 9 mus with his h iry m nt!e nd sedge bonnet- nd St& 8eter with his mitre nd his two ,eys H re !so Intensive im ges& /hey re ?gui!d? im ges$ ?# stor !? nd ?e!egy? both h d- by Mi!tonAs timestoc, of motifs nd im ges& /here c n be stoc, im gery s we!! s stoc, ?#oetic diction&? Its tr dition !institution ! ch r cter nd its c!ose re! tion to the visu ! rts nd symbo!ic ceremony m ,e 1e!!s- thin,ing in terms of cu!ture history- tt ch the Intensive im ge to conserv tive re!igion- to the mediev !- the #riest!y- the 9 tho!ic& /he three highest c tegories re the Sun,en- the R dic !- nd the 0@# nsive 3t ,en- one wou!d thin,- in scending order6& +rief!y- the Sun,en is the im ge of c! ssic ! #oetryN the R dic !the im ge of the Met #hysic !s- #reeminent!y of DonneN nd the 0@# nsive- the im ge- #redomin nt!y- of Sh ,es#e re s we!! s of + con nd +rowne nd +ur,e& /he common denomi> n tions of the three- their m r,s of sh red !titude- re their s#ecific !!y !iter ry ch r cter 3their rec !citr nce to #ictori ! visu !iz tion6- their intern !ity 3met #horic thin,ing6- the in> ter#enetr tion of the terms 3their fruitfu!- #rocre tive m r> ri ge6& /he Sun,en im ge- not to be confounded with the f ded or trite- ,ee#s ?be!ow fu!! visibi!ity-? suggests the sensuous concrete without definite!y #roBecting nd c!e ring it& Its ! c, of overtones suits it to contem#! tive writing$ its 0!iz beth n e@em#! r is

20; /heory of Liter ture S mue! D nie!- who wrote- in verses nd /hore u$ dmired by 1ordsworth

un!ess bove himse!f he c n 0rect himse!f- how >#oor thing is m nV +ut Sh ,es#e re is m ster of it& In Le r- 0dg r s ys$

Men must endure /heir going hence- even Ri#eness is !!&

s their coming hitherC

?Ri#eness? is sun,en im ge- #resum b!y out of orch rds nd fie!ds& /here is n n !ogy suggested between the inevit bi!ity of n tur ! cyc!es of veget tion nd the cyc!es of !ife& A *eo> c! ssic ! gener tion might cite s ?mi@ed? some of Sh ,es#e reAs Sun,en im ges$ ' how c n summer y s honey bre th ho!d out Ag inst the wrec,fu! siege of b ttering d ys& /his sentence wou!d re:uire e! bor te n !ytic e@# nsion- for it mounts figure on figure$ ?d ys? is metonymic for /ime- Agewhich is then met #horized s besieging city nd ttem#tingby b ttering>r ms- to t ,e it& 1h t is ttem#ting H city>!i,e- or ru!er of the city>!i,e H to ?ho!d out? g inst these ss u!tsI It is youth- met #horized s summer- or more e@ ct!y- s the sweet fr gr nce of summer$ the fr gr nce of summer f!owers is to the e rth s sweet bre th is to the hum n body# rt of or dBunct of the who!e& If one tries to fit together ne t!y in one im ge the b ttering siege nd the bre th- he gets B mmed u#& /he figur > tive movement is r #id nd hence e!!i#tic !& 5= /he R dic ! im geH so>c !!ed #erh #s bec use its terms meet on!y t their roots- t n invisib!e !ogic ! ground- !i,e fin ! c use- r ther th n by Bu@t #osed obvious surf ces H is the im ge the minor term of which seems ?un#oetic-? either bec use too home!y nd uti!it ri n or bec use too technic !- scientific- !e rned& /he R dic ! im ge- th t is- t ,es s met #horic vehic!e some> thing which h s no obvious emotive ssoci tions- which be!ongs to #rose discourse- bstr ct or #r ctic !& /hus Donne- in his re> !igious #oetry- uses m ny figures from ?!e geometre enf! mm>e&? Ag in- in the ?"irst Annivers ry-? he uses #seudo>medic !

!m ge y Met #hor- Symbo!- Myth 204 figure which- e@ce#t for the s#ecified over! # of its terms- seems #erverse!y oriented in Bust the wrong 3i&e&#eBor tive6 di> rection$ +ut s some ser#entAs #oison hurteth not 0@ce#t it be from the !ive ser#ent shot& So doth her virtue need her here to fit /h t unto us- she wor,ing more th n it& /his is #rob b!y the ch r cteristic ,ind of R dic ! im ge$ the more obvious nd !ess #erverse e@ m#!e wou!d be the com# sses figure in DonneAs ?K !ediction "orbidding Mourning&? +ut- s 1e!!s subt!y rem r,s- R dic ! im ges c n be derived out of rom ntic !!y suggestive im ge> re s such s mount ins- riversnd se s- if one do#ts n ? n !ytic m nner&? 5S L st!y- there is the 0@# nsive im ge- its n me !in,ing it- by

contr riety- to the Intensive& If the Intensive is the mediev ! nd ecc!esi stic ! figure- the 0@# nsive is th t of #ro#hetic nd #rogressive thought- of ?strong # ssion nd origin ! medit tion-? cu!min ting in the com#rehensive met #hors of #hi!oso#hy nd re!igion re#resented in +ur,e- in + con- in +rowne- nd #re> eminent!y in Sh ,es#e re& +y definition- the 0@# nsive im ge is one in which e ch term o#ens wide vist to the im gin tion nd e ch term strong!y modifies the other$ the ?inter ction? nd ?inter#enetr tion? which- ccording to modern #oetic theory- re centr ! forms of #oetic ction occur most rich!y in the 0@# nsive met #hor& 1e m y t ,e e@ m#!es from Romeo nd .u!iet$ Yet- wert thou s B r As th t v st shore w sht with the f rthest se I shou!d dventure for such merch ndise& nd from M cbeth$ Light thic,ens- nd the crow M ,es wing to the roo,y wood$ <ood things of d y begin to droo#

nd drowse&

In these ! st !ines- Sh ,es#e re gives us ?met #horic ! setting for crime-? which turns into n 0@# nsive met #hor # r !!e!ing night nd d emonic evi!- !ight nd goodness- yet not in ny such obvious nd !!egoric f shion- but with suggestive # rticu! rity

210 /heory of Liter ture nd sensuous concreteness $ ?!ight thic,ens? B things ?droo# nd drowse&? /he #oetic !!y v gue nd the #oetic !!y s#ecific meet in the !ine- ?<ood things of d y begin to droo# nd drowse&? /he subBect nd the #redic te wor, b c,w rd nd forw rd on e ch other s we ttend $ st rting with the verb- we s, wh t ,inds of things H birds- nim !s- #eo#!e- f!owers H droo# or drowse C then- noticing the bstr ct n ming of the subBect- we wonder whether the verbs re met #horic ! for ?ce se to be vigi! nt-? ?:u i! timorous!y before the might of evi!&? 54 Rhetorici ns !i,e Muinti!i n !re dy m ,e much of the dis> tinction between the met #hor which nim tes the in nim tend th t which in nim tes the nim te C but they #resent the dis> tinction s one between rhetoric ! devices& 1ith 8ongs- our sec> ond ty#o!ogist- it becomes gr ndiose contr st between #o! r ttitudes H th t of the mythic im gin tion- which #roBects #er> son !ity u#on the outer wor!d of things- which nimizes nd nim tes n ture- nd the contr ry ty#e of im gin tion- which fee!s its w ys into the !ien- which de> nimizes or unsubBectivizes itse!f& A!! the #ossibi!ities of figur tive e@#ression re e@h usted by these two- the subBective nd obBective #o!es& 70 /he first form w s c !!ed by Rus,in the ?# thetic f !! cy?C if we thin, of it s being ##!ied u#w rd to <od s we!! s down> w rd to the tree nd the stone- we m y c !! it the nthro#omor> #hic im gin tion& 71 A student of mystic ! symbo!ism notes th t

there re three gener ! ty#es of e rth!y union v i! b!e for the symbo!ic e@#ression of the highest mystic ! e@#erience$ 3 i6 union between in nim te obBects 3#hysic ! mi@tures nd chemic ! unions$ the sou! in the fire of <od s s# r,- wood- w @- ironC <od s 1 ter to the soi! of the sou!- or s the 'ce n into which f!ows the river of the sou!6 C 326 unions figured ccording to the w ys in which the body ##ro#ri tes the essenti ! e!ements of its !ife$ ?in the Scri#tures <od is re#resented by those # rticu! r things from which we c nnot com#!ete!y withdr w ourse!ves H !ight nd ir- which enter t every cr c,- nd w ter- which in one form or other we !! receive d i!y? C 72 so- to mystics !! over the wor!d- <od is the food nd drin, of the sou!- its +re d- "ish1 ter- Mi!,- 1ineC 356 hum n re! tionshi#s H th t of son to f ther- wife to husb nd& /he first two of these wou!d be ssigned by 8ongs to the

Im ge- Met fhor- Symbo!- Myth 211 second u!tim te ty#e of met #horic intuition- th t of 0inBiih!ungitse!f subdivided into the ?mystic? nd the ?m gic&? /he mystic met #hor we h ve i!!ustr ted from the mystics r ther th n the #oets& Inorg nic e!ements re symbo!ic !!y tre ted- not s mere conce#ts or conce#tu ! n !ogies but s re#resent tions which re !so #resent tions& M gic ! met #hor is inter#reted fter the f shion of the rt histori n 1orringer- s n ? bstr ction? from the wor!d of n > ture& 1orringer studied the rts of 0gy#t- +yz ntium- 8ersi rts which ?reduce org nic n ture- inc!uding m n- to !ine r> geometric ! forms- nd fre:uent!y b ndon the org nic wor!d !together for one of #ure !ines- forms- nd co!ors&? ?'rn ment det ches itse!f now &&& s something which does not fo!!ow the stre m of !ife but rigid!y f ces it& & & & /he intention is no !onger to #retend but to conBure&? ?'rn ment &&& is some> thing t ,en w y from /ime C it is #ure e@tension- sett!ed nd st b!e&? 75 Anthro#o!ogists find both nimism nd m gic in #rimitive cu!tures& /he former see,s to re ch- #ro#iti te- #ersu de- unite with #erson !ized s#iritsH the de d- gods& /he ! tter- #re>sciencestudies the ! ws of #ower e@erted by things $ s cred words- mu> !ets- rods nd w nds- im ges- re!ics& /here is white m gic H th t of 9hristi n c b !ists !i,e 9orne!ius Agri## nd 8 r ce!sus nd there is b! c, m gic- th t of evi! men& +ut fund ment ! to both is the be!ief in the #ower of things& M gic touches the rts through im ge>m ,ing& 1estern tr dition ssoci tes the # inter nd scu!#tor with the s,i!! of the cr ftsm n- with ( e#h istos nd D id !os- with 8ygm !ion- who c n bring the im ge to !ife& In fo!,!ore esthetics- the m ,er of im ges is sorcerer or m gi> ci n- whi!e the #oet is the ins#ired- the #ossessed- the #roductive!y m d& 77 (owever- the #rimitive #oet c n com#ose ch rms nd inc nt tions- nd the modern #oet c n- !i,e Ye ts- do#t the m gic ! use of im ges- !iter ! im ges- s me ns to the use of m gic>symbo!ic im ges in his #oetry& 7D Mysticism t ,es the con>

tr ry !ine$ the im ge is symbo! effected by s#iritu ! st te C it is n e@#ressive im ge not c us tive im ge- nd it is not neces> s ry to the st te$ the s me s#iritu ! st te c n e@#ress itse!f in other symbo!s& 7E /he mystic ! met #hor nd the m gic re both de> nimizing$

212 /heory of Liter ture they run counter to m nAs #roBection of himse!f into the non> hum n wor!d y they summon u# the ?other? H the im#erson ! wor!d of things- monument ! rt- #hysic ! ! w& +! ,eAs ?/iger? is mystic ! met #hor C <od- or n s#ect of <od- is /iger 3!ess th n m n- more th n m n6 C the /iger in turn 3 nd through the /iger its M ,er6 is re d in terms of met ! forged in gre t he t& /he /iger is no nim ! from the n tur ! wor!d of the zootiger th t +! ,e might h ve seen t the /ower of Londonbut vision ry cre ture- symbo! s we!! s thing& /he m gic ! met #hor ! c,s this tr ns!ucency& It is Medus As m s, which turns the !iving into stone& 8ongs cites Stef n <eorge s re#resent tive of this m gic ! ttitude- this desire to #etrify the !iving$ ?It is not the n tur ! drive of the hum n #syche to #roBect itse!f from which <eorgeAs form>giving s#iritu !iz tion wor,s- but- in its origin#owerfu! destruction of bio!ogic ! !ifewi!!ed Aestr ngementA 3A !ien tionA6 s the b sis for the #re# r > tion of the inner- m gic wor!d&? 7= In 0ng!ish #oetry- Dic,inson nd Ye ts v rious!y re ch for this de> nimizing- this nti>mystic met #hor$ 0mi!y Dic,inson when she w nts to render the sense of de th s we!! s the e@> #erience of resurrection$ she !i,es to invo,e the e@#erience of dying- stiffening- #etrifying& ?It w s not de th-? but it w s As if my !ife were sh ven And fitted to fr me y ,ey & & &

And cou!d not bre the without

(ow m ny times these !ow feet st ggered& 'n!y the so!dered mouth c n te!!C /ryV c n you stir the wfu! rivetI /ry I c n you !ift the h sfs of stee!I 7S Ye ts re ches his u!tim te of 8oetry s M gic in ?+yz ntium? 314506& In the 142= ?S i!ing to +yz ntium-? he h s !re dy set the o##osition between the wor!d of bio!ogic ! !ife$ ?/he young in one notherAs rms- & & & the m c,ere!>crowded se s-? nd the wor!d of +yz ntine rt- where !! is fi@ed- rigid- unn tur !the wor!d of ?go!d mos ic? nd ?go!d en me!ing&? +io!ogic !!ym n is ?dying nim !? B his ho#e for surviv ! is through being ?g thered into the rtifice of eternity-? not g in to t ,e ?bodi!y

Im ge y Met #hor U Symbo! N Myth 215 form from ny n tur ! thing-? but to be wor, of rtgo!den bird on go!den bough& ?+yz ntium-? from one #oint of view tight!y written i!!ustr tion of Ye tsA ?system-? doctrin ! #oemis from nother- s#ecific !!y !iter ry #oint of view structure of c!ose!y interres#ondent non>n tur ! im ges- the who!e com#os> ing something !i,e #rescribed ritu ! or !iturgy& 74 8ongsA c tegories- which we h ve rendered with some free> dom- h ve the s#eci ! ch r cter of re! ting #oetic sty!e to view of !ife& D0 /hough e ch #eriod>sty!e is seen to h ve its own differ> enti ted versions of them- they re essenti !!y time!ess- !tern > tive w ys of !oo,ing t nd res#onding to !ife& A!! three- how> ever- be!ong outside of the gener ! !ines of wh t is often ch r> cterized s modern thought- i&e&- r tion !ism- n tur !ism- #osi> tivism- science& Such c! ssific tion of met #hors thus suggests th t #oetry rem ins !oy ! to #rescientific modes of thought& /he #oet ,ee#s the nimistic vision of the chi!d nd of #rimitive m nthe chi!dAs rchety#e& D1 In recent ye rs- there h ve been m ny studies of s#ecific #oets or even s#ecific #oems or #! ys in terms of their symbo!ic im gery& In such ?#r ctic ! criticism-? the ssum#tions of the critic become im#ort nt& 1h t is he !oo,ing forI Is he n !yzing the #oet or the #oemI 1e must distinguish between study of the s#heres from which the im ges re dr wn 3which- s M c*eice s ys- ?be!ongs sti!! more #ro#er!y to the study of subBect>m tter-? D2 6 nd study of ?the w ys in which im ges c n be used-? the ch r cter of the re! tionshi# between the ?tenor? nd the ?vehic!e? 3the met> #hor6 & Most monogr #hs on the im gery of s#ecific #oet 3e&g&RugoffAs Donne y s Im gery6 be!ong to the former c! ss& /hey ch rt nd weigh #oetAs interests by co!!ecting nd distributing his met #hors between n ture- rt- industry- the #hysic ! sciencesthe hum nities- the city- nd the country& +ut one c n !so c! ssify the themes or obBects which im#e! the #oet to met #hor- e&g&women- re!igion- de th- ir#! nes& More signific nt th n the c! ssific tion- however- is the discovery of ! rge>sc !e e:uiv !ents#sychic corre! tives& /h t two s#heres re#e ted!y summon u# e ch the other m y be su##osed to show their re ! inter#enetr > tion in the cre tive #syche of the #oet$ thus in DonneAs ?Songs nd Sonnets-? his #oems of #rof ne !ove- the met #horic g!oss is

217 /heory of Liter ture const nt!y dr wn from the 9 tho!ic wor!d of s cred !ove$ to se@u ! !ove he ##!ies the 9 tho!ic conce#ts of ecst sy- c noniz > tion- m rtyrdom- re!ics- whi!e in some of his ?(o!y Sonnets? he ddresses <od in vio!ent erotic figures $ Yet de r!y I !ove you- nd wou!d be !oved B m +ut m betrothed unto your enemy&

Divorce me- untie- or bre , th t ,not g in& / ,e me to you- im#rison me- for I 0@ce#t you enthr !! me- never sh !! be free*or ever ch ste- e@ce#t you r vish me& /he interch nge between the s#heres of se@ nd re!igion recog> nizes th t se@ is re!igion nd re!igion is !ove& 'ne ty#e of study stresses the se!f>e@#ression- the reve! tion of the #oetAs #syche through his im gery& It ssumes th t the #oetAs im ges re !i,e im ges in dre m- i&e&- uncensored by discretion or sh me$ not his overt st tements- but offered by w y of i!!ustr tion- they might be e@#ected to betr y his re ! centers of interest& +ut it m y be :uestioned whether #oet h s ever been so uncritic ! of his im ges& D5 Another ssum#tion- :uite cert in!y mist ,en- is th t the #oet must !iter !!y h ve #erceived wh tever he c n im gine 3on the strength of which Miss 1 de- in her study of /r herne- recon> structs his e r!y !ife6& D7 According to Dr& .ohnson- n dmirer of /homsonAs #oems thought she ,new his t stes from his wor,s& She cou!d g ther from his wor,s three # rts of his ch r> cter$ th t he w s gre t !overgre t swimmer- nd rig> orous!y bstinent C but- s id Shis intim teT S v ge- he ,nows not ny !ove but th t of the se@C he w s #erh #s never in co!d w ter in his !ifeC nd he indu!ges himse!f in !! the !u@ury th t comes within his re ch& (er conce#tion of the #oetAs #erson ! ch r cteristics nd h bits w s !udicrous!y in ccur te& *or c n we rgue th t bsence of met #horic im ges is e:uiv !ent to bsence of interest& In 1 !> tonAs !ife of Donne there is not fishing im ge mong its e!even figures& /he #oetry of the fourteenth>century com#oser M ch ut uses no tro#es dr wn from music& DD /he ssum#tion th t #oetAs im gery is the centr ! contribu>

Im ge- Met #hor- Symbo!- Myth 21D tion of his unconscious nd th t in it- therefore- the #oet s#e ,s s m n- not s n rtist- seems- in turn- refer b!e b c, to f!o t> ing- not very consistent- ssum#tions bout how to recognize ?sincerity&? 'n the one h nd- it is #o#u! r!y su##osed th t stri,> ing im gery must be contrived- nd hence insincere$ m n re !!y moved wou!d either s#e , in sim#!e unfigured ! ngu ge or in b n ! nd f ded figures& +ut there is riv ! ide th t the trite figure evo,ing the stoc, res#onse is sign of insincerity- of c> ce#ting crude ##ro@im tion to oneAs fee!ing in #! ce of scru#u!ous st tement of it& (ere we confuse men gener !!y with !iter ry men- men t !,ing with men writing- or- r ther- men t !,ing with #oems& 'rdin ry #erson ! c ndor nd trite im gery re eminent!y com# tib!e& As for ?sincerity? in #oem$ the term seems !most me ning!ess& A sincere e@#ression of wh tI 'f the su##osed emotion ! st te out of which it c meI 'r of

the st te in which the #oem w s writtenI 'r sincere e@#ression of the #oem- i&e&- the !inguistic construct sh #ing in the uthorAs mind s he writesI Sure!y it wi!! h ve to be the ! st$ the #oem is sincere e@#ression of the #oem& A #oetAs im gery is reve! tory of his se!f& (ow is his se!f definedI M rio 8r z nd Mrs& (ornstein h ve both been mus> ing t the e@#ense of Miss S#urgeonAs Sh ,es#e re- the uni> vers ! twentieth>century 0ng!ishm n& It c n be ssumed th t the gre t #oet sh red our ?common hum nity&? DE 1e need no im gistic ,ey to the scri#tures to !e rn th t& If the v !ue of im ge study !ies in uncovering something recondite- it wi!! #resum b!y m ,e it #ossib!e for us to re d some #riv te sign tures- un!oc, the secret of Sh ,es#e reAs he rt& Inste d of discovering in his im gery Sh ,es#e reAs univers ! hum nity- we m y find ,ind of hierog!y#hic re#ort on his #sychic he !th s it e@ists when he is com#osing s#ecific #! y& /hus- Miss S#urgeon s ys of /roi!us nd ( m!et- ?Did we not ,now it for other re sons- we cou!d be sure from the simi! rity nd continuity of symbo!ism in the two #! ys th t they were written ne r together- nd t time when the uthor w s suf> fering from disi!!usionment- revu!sion- nd #erturb tion of n ture such s we fee! nowhere e!se with the s me intensity&? (ere Miss S#urgeon is ssuming not th t the s#ecific c use of Sh ,es#e reAs disi!!usionment c n be !oc ted but th t ( m!et

21E /heory of Liter ture e@#resses disi!!usionment nd th t this must be Sh ,es#e reAs own& D= (e cou!d not h ve written so gre t #! y h d he not been sincere- i&e&- writing out of his own mood& Such doctrine runs counter to the view of Sh ,es#e re urged by 0& 0& Sto!! nd others which em#h sizes his rt- his dr m turgy- his s,i!!fu! #ro> vision of new nd better #! ys within the gener ! # ttern of #re> ceding successes$ e&g&- ( m!et s fo!!ower>u# of /he S# nish /r gedyC /he 1interAs / !e nd /he /em#est s riv ! the terAs e:uiv !ents to +e umont nd "!etcher& *ot !! studies of #oetic im gery- however- ttem#t to c tch the #oet off gu rd or to #ursue his inner biogr #hy& /hey m y focus- r ther- on n im#ort nt e!ement in the tot ! me ning of #! y H wh t 0!iot c !!s ?the # ttern be!ow the !eve! of #!ot nd ch r cter&? D; In her 1450 ess y- ?Le ding Motives in the Im gery of Sh ,es#e reAs /r gedies-? Miss S#urgeon herse!f is #rim ri!y interested in defining the im ge or c!uster of im ges which- domin ting s#ecific #! y- cts s tone>giver& S m#!es of her n !ysis re the discovery in ( m!et of im ges of dise see&g&- u!cer- c ncer C of food nd the digestive ## r tus in /roi!usC in 'the!!o- of ? nim !s in ction- #reying u#on one nother& & & &? Miss S#urgeon m ,es some effort to show how this substructure of #! y ffects its tot ! me ning- rem r,ing of ( m!et th t the dise se motif suggests th t the 8rince is not cu!# b!e- th t the who!e st te of Denm r, is dise sed& /he #osi> tive v !ue of her wor, !ies in this se rch for subt!er forms of !it>

er ry me ning th n ideo!ogic ! gener !iz tion structure&

nd overt #!ot

More mbitious studies of im gery- those of 1i!son 2nightt ,e off- initi !!y- from Midd!eton MurryAs bri!!i nt # ges on Sh ,es#e reAs im gery 3/he 8rob!em of Sty!e- 14226& 2nightAs e r!ier wor, 3e&g&- Myth nd Mir c!e- 1424- nd /he 1hee! of "ire- 14506 is e@c!usive!y concerned with Sh ,es#e re C but in ! ter vo!umes the method is ##!ied to other #oets s we!!- e&g&Mi!ton- 8o#e- +yron- 1ordsworth& D4 /he e r!ier wor,- c!e r!y the best- ,ee#s to studies of individu ! #! ys- studying e ch in terms of its symbo!ic im gery- giving # rticu! r ttention to im gistic o##ositions !i,e ?tem#ests? nd ?music-? but !so sensi> tive!y observing sty!istic differenti tions between #! y nd #! y s we!! s within #! y& In the ! ter boo,s- the e@tr v g nces

Im ge- Met #hor- Symbo!- Myth 21 = of n ?enthusi st? re # !# b!e& 2nightAs e@egesis of 8o#eAs 0ss ys on 9riticism nd on M n b!ithe!y disreg rds the :uestion of wh t the ?ide s? in those #oems cou!d historic !!y h ve me nt to 8o#e nd his contem#or ries& Deficient in historic ! #ers#ective- 2night suffers !so from desire to ?#hi!oso#hize&? /he ?#hi!oso#hy? he dr ws from Sh ,es#e re nd others is neither origin !- c!e r- nor com#!e@$ it mounts to the reconci!i > tion of 0ros nd Ag #e- of order with energy- nd so on with other # irs of contr ries& As !! the ?re !? #oets bring essenti !!y the s me ?mess ge-? one is !eft- fter the decoding of e ch- with fee!ing of futi!ity& 8oetry is ?reve! tion-? but wh t does it reve !I Muite s #erce#tive s 2nightAs wor, nd much better b !> nced is th t of 1o!fg ng 9!emen- whose Sh ,es fe res +i!der E0 c rries out the #romise of its subtit!e th t it wi!! study the de> ve!o#ment nd functioning of the im gery& 9ontr sting the im> gery of !yrics nd even e#ics- he insists on the dr m tic n ture of Sh ,es#e reAs #! ys$ in his m ture wor,- it is not Sh ,es#e re ?the m n? but /roi!us who met #horic !!y in the #! y thin,s in terms of r ncid food& In #! y- ?0 ch im ge is used by s#e> cific #erson&? 9!emen h s re ! sense for the right methodo> !ogic ! :uestions to #ut& In n !yzing /itus Andronicus- for e@> m#!e- he s,s- ?'n wh t occ sions in the #! y does Sh ,es#e re use im gesI Does there e@ist connection between the use of im gery nd the occ sionI 1h t function h ve the im gesI? H to which :uestions for /itus he h s on!y neg tive nswers& In /itus- the im gery is s# smodic nd orn ment !- but from th t we c n tr ce Sh ,es#e reAs deve!o#ment to the use of met #hor s u stimmungsm ssige )nterm !ung des <eschehensG y nd s ?g nz ursfriing!iche "orm der 1 hrnehmung-? i&e&- to met > #horic ! thin,ing& (e m ,es dmir b!e comments on the ? b> str ,te Met #hori,? of Sh ,es#e reAs Midd!e 8eriod 3with its ?unbi!d!iche +i!d!ich,eit? H corres#onding to 1e!!sA Sun,enR dic !- nd 0@# nsive ty#es of im gery6 C but- writing mono> gr #h on s#ecific #oet- he introduces his ty#e on!y when- in Sh ,es#e reAs ?deve!o#ment-? it ##e rs C nd- though his mono>

gr #h studies deve!o#ment- nd the ?#eriods? of Sh ,es#e reAs wor,- 9!emen remembers th t he is studying the ?#eriods? of the #oetry- not those of the uthorAs ! rge!y hy#othetic ! !ife&

2 1 ; /heory of Liter ture Li,e meter- im gery is one com#onent structure of #oem& In terms of our scheme- it is # rt of the synt ctic !- or sty!isticstr tum& It must be studied- fin !!y- not in iso! tion from the other str t but s n e!ement in the tot !ity- the integrity- of the !iter ry wor,&

9(A8/0R JKI /he * ture nd Modes of * rr tive "iction

Liter ry theory nd criticism concerned with the nove! re much inferior in both :u ntity nd :u !ity to theory nd criti> cism of #oetry& /he c use custom ri!y ssigned for this wou!d be the nti:uity of #oetry- the com# r tive recency of the nove!& +ut the e@#! n tion sc rce!y seems de:u te& /he nove! s n rt form is- s one c n s y in <erm nform of D,htungC isindeed- in its high form- the modern descend nt of the e#ic H with dr m - one of the two gre t forms& /he re sons re r therone thin,s- the wides#re d ssoci tion of the nove! with enter> t inment- musement- nd esc #e r ther th n serious rt H the confounding of the gre t nove!s- th t is- with m nuf ctures m de with n rrow im t the m r,et& /he !ingering Americ n #o#u> ! r view- dissemin ted by #ed gogues- th t the re ding of non> fiction w s instructive nd meritorious- th t of fiction- h rmfu! or t best se!f>indu!gent- w s not without im#!icit b c,ing in the ttitude tow rd the nove! of re#resent tive critics !i,e Lowe!! nd Arno!d& /here is n o##osite d nger- however- of t ,ing the nove! serious!y in the wrong w y- th t is- s document or c se his> tory- s H wh t for its own #ur#oses of i!!usion it sometimes #ro> fesses to be H confessiontrue storyhistory of !ife nd its times& Liter ture must !w ys be interesting B it must !w ys h ve structure nd n esthetic #ur#osetot ! coherence nd effect& It must- of course- st nd in recogniz b!e re! tion to !ifebut the re! tions re very v rious $ the !ife c n be heightened or bur!es:ued or ntithesized C it is in ny c se se!ection- of s#e> cific !!y #ur#osive sort- from !ife& 1e h ve to h ve ,now!> edge inde#endent of !iter ture in order to ,now wh t the re! > tion of s#ecific wor, to ?!ife? m y be& Aristot!e described #oetry 3th t is- e#ic nd dr m 6 s ne rer to #hi!oso#hy th n to history& /he dictum seems to h ve #er> 214

220 /heory of Liter ture m nent suggestiveness& /here is f ctu ! truth- truth in s#ecific det i! of time nd #! ce H truth of history in the n rrow sense& /hen there is #hi!oso#hic truth$ conce#tu !- #ro#osition !- gen> er !& "rom the #oints of view of ?history-? so defined- nd #hi!oso#hy- im gin tive !iter ture is ?fiction-? !ie& /he word ?fiction? sti!! #reserves this o!d 8! tonic ch rge g inst !iter > ture- to which 8hi!i# Sidney nd Dr& .ohnson re#!y th t !iter > ture never #retended to be re ! in th t sense C 1 nd sti!! #reserv> ing this vestigi ! remn nt of the o!d ch rge of dece#tion- it c n sti!! irrit te the e rnest writer of nove!s- who ,nows we!! th t fiction is !ess str nge nd more re#resent tive th n truth& 1i!son "o!!ett rem r,s dmir b!y of DefoeAs n rr tive of Mrs& Ke ! nd Mrs& + rgr ve th t ?0verything in the story is true e@ce#t the who!e of it& And m r, how difficu!t Defoe m ,es it to :uestion even th t who!e& /he t !e is to!d by third wom n of e@ ct!y the s me st m# s the other two!ife>!ong friend of Mrs& + rgr ve& & & &? 2 M ri nne Moore s#e ,s of #oetry s #resenting

for ins#ection- im gin ry g rdens with re ! to ds in them& /he re !ity of wor, of fiction H i&e&- its i!!usion of re !ityits effect on the re der s convincing re ding of !ife H is not necess ri!y or #rim ri!y re !ity of circumst nce or det i! or common#! ce routine& +y !! of these st nd rds- writers !i,e (owe!!s or <ottfried 2e!!er #ut to sh me the writers of 'edi#us Re@- ( m!et- nd Moby Dic,& Kerisimi!itude in det i! is me ns to i!!usion- but often used- s in <u!!iverAs /r ve!s- s decoy to entice the re der into some im#rob b!e or incredib!e situ tion which h s ?truth to re !ity? in some dee#er th n cir> cumst nti ! sense& Re !ism nd n tur !ism- whether in the dr m or the nove!re !iter ry or !iter ry>#hi!oso#hic ! movements- conventionssty!es- !i,e rom nticism or surre !ism& /he distinction is not be> tween re !ity nd i!!usion- but between differing conce#tions of re !ity- between differing modes of i!!usion& 5 1h t is the re! tion of n rr tive fiction to !ifeI /he c! ssic ! or *eo>9! ssic ! nswer wou!d be th t it #resents the ty#ic !- the univers ! H the ty#ic ! miser 3Mo!iere- + !z c6- the ty#ic ! f ith>

/he * ture

nd Modes of * rr tive "iction 221

!ess d ughters 3Le r- <oriot6& +ut re not such c! ss conce#ts for socio!ogyI 'r it wou!d h ve been s id th t rt ennob!es or heightens or ide !izes !ife& /here is such sty!e of rt- of coursebut it is sty!e- not the essence of rtC though !! rt- to be sureby giving esthetic dist nce- by sh #ing nd rticu! ting- m ,es th t #!e s nt to contem#! te which wou!d be # infu! to e@#eri>

ence or even- in !ife- to witness& 8erh #s it might be s id th t wor, of fiction offers ?c se history? H n i!!ustr tion or e@em> #!ific tion of some gener ! # ttern or syndrome& /here re inst nces H in short stories !i,e 9 therAs ?8 u!As 9 se? or ?/he Scu!#torAs "uner !? H which ##ro ch it& +ut the nove!ist offers !ess c se H ch r cter or event H th n wor!d& /he gre t nov> e!ists !! h ve such wor!d H recogniz b!e s over! ##ing the em#iric ! wor!d but distinct in its se!f>coherent inte!!igibi!ity& Sometimes it is wor!d which c n be m ##ed out in some re of the g!obe H !i,e /ro!!o#eAs counties nd c thedr ! towns( rdyAs 1esse@C but sometimes H s with 8oe H it is not$ 8oeAs horrendous c st!es re not in <erm ny or Kirgini but in the sou!& Dic,ensA wor!d c n be identified with LondonC 2 f, As with o!d 8r gue$ but both wor!ds re so ?#roBected-? so cre tive nd cre ted nd here fter recognized in the em#iric ! wor!d s Dic,ens ch r cters nd 2 f, situ tions th t the identific tions seem r ther irre!ev nt& Meredith- 9onr d- (enry . mes- nd ( rdy h ve !!- s ys Desmond Mc9 rthy- ?b!own gre t com#rehensive iridescent bubb!es- in which the hum n beings they describe- though they h ve of course recogniz b!e resemb! nce to re ! #eo#!e- on!y tt in in th t wor!d their fu!! re !ity&? Im gine- Mc9 rthy s ys? ch r cter moved from one im gin ry wor!d to nother& If 8ec,sniff were tr ns#! nted into /he <o!den +ow! he wou!d be> come e@tinct& & & & /he unforgiv b!e rtistic f u!t in nove!ist is f i!ure to m int in consistency of tone&? 7 /his wor!d or 2osmos of nove!ist H this # ttern or structure or org nism- which inc!udes #!ot- ch r cters- setting- wor!d>view?tone? H is wh t we must scrutinize when we ttem#t to com# re nove! with !ife or to Budge- ethic !!y or soci !!ynove!istAs wor,& /he truth to !ife- or ?re !ity-? is no more to be Budged by the f ctu ! ccur cy of this or th t det i! th n the mor ! Budg> ment is to be # ssed- s +oston censors # ss it- on whether s#e>

222 /heory of Liter ture cific se@u ! or b! s#hemous words occur within nove!& /he sound!y critic ! ##e ! is to the who!e fiction ! wor!d in com> # rison with our own e@#erienced nd im gined wor!d- com> mon!y !ess integr ted th n th t of the nove!ist& 1e re content to c !! nove!ist gre t when his wor!d- though not # tterned or sc !ed !i,e our own- is com#rehensive of !! the e!ements which we find necess ry to c tho!ic sco#e or- though n rrow in sco#ese!ects for inc!usion the dee# nd centr !- nd when the sc !e or hier rchy of e!ements seems to us such s m ture m n c n entert in& In using the term ?wor!d-? one is using s# ce term& ?( d we but wor!d enough nd time&? +ut ?n rr tive fiction? H orbetterterm !i,e ?story-? c !!s our ttention to time- nd se:uence in time& ?Story? comes from ?history?$ the ?9hroni> c!es of + rsetshire&? Liter ture is gener !!y to be c! ssed s time> rt 3in distinction from # inting nd scu!#ture- s# ce> rts6 D

but in very ctive w y modern #oetry 3non>n rr tive #oetry6 see,s to esc #e its destiny H to become contem#! tive st sis?se!f>ref!e@ive? # ttern C nd s .ose#h "r n, h s we!! shownthe modern rt>nove! 3)!ysses- *ightwood- Mrs& D !!ow y6 h s sought to org nize itse!f #oetic !!y- i&e&- ?se!f>ref!e@ive!y&? D /his c !!s our ttention to n im#ort nt cu!tur ! #henomenon$ the o!d n rr tive- or story 3e#ic or nove!6 h ##ened in time H the tr dition ! time>s# n for the e#ic w s ye r& In m ny gre t nove!s- men re born- grow u#- nd dieC ch r cters deve!o#ch nge > y even who!e society m y be seen to ch nge 3 /he "or> syte S g - 1 r nd 8e ce6 or f mi!yAs cyc!ic #rogress nd dec!ine e@hibited 3+uddenbroo,s6 & /he nove!- tr dition !!y- h s to t ,e the time dimension serious!y& In the #ic res:ue nove!- the chrono!ogic ! se:uence is !! there is$ this h ##ened nd then th t& /he dventures- e ch n inci> dent- which might be n inde#endent t !e- re connected by the figure of the hero& A more #hi!oso#hic nove! dds to chrono!ogy the structure of c us tion& /he nove! shows ch r cter deterio> r ting or im#roving in conse:uence of c uses o#er ting ste di!y over #eriod of time& 'r in c!ose!y contrived #!ot- something h s h ##ened in time$ the situ tion t the end is very different from th t t the o#ening& /o te!! story- one h s to be concerned bout the h ##ening-

/he * ture

nd Modes of * rr tive "iction 225

not mere!y the outcome& /here is or w s ,ind of re der who must !oo, he d to see how story ?comes out?C but one who re ds on!y the ?conc!uding ch #ter? of nineteenth>century nove! wou!d be somebody inc # b!e of interest in story- which is #rocess H even though #rocess tow rd n end& /here re cer> t in!y #hi!oso#hers nd mor !ists !i,e 0merson who c nnot t ,e nove!s serious!y #rim ri!y- one thin,s- bec use ction H or e@> tern ! ction H or ction in time H seems to them unre !& /hey c nnot see history s re !$ history is Bust n unro!!ing in time of more of the s meC nd the nove! is fictitious history& A word shou!d be s id bout the word ?n rr tive-? whichs ##!ied to fiction- shou!d im#!y the contr st of en cted fic> tion- i&e&- dr m & A story- or f b!e- c n be re#resented by mimesor it c n be n rr ted by sing!e te!!er- who wi!! be the e#ic te!!er- or one of his successors& /he e#ic #oet uses the first #erson nd c n- !i,e Mi!ton- m ,e th t !yric or uctori ! first #erson& /he nineteenth>century nove!ist- even though he did not write in the first #erson- used the e#ic #rivi!ege of comment nd gen> er !iz tion H wh t we might c !! the ?ess yistic? 3 s distinct from !yric6 first #erson& +ut the chief # ttern of n rr tive is its inc!usiveness $ it inters#erses scenes in di !ogue 3which might be cted6 with summ ry ccounts of wh t is h ##ening& E /he two chief modes of n rr tive fiction h ve- in 0ng!ishbeen c !!ed the ?rom nce? nd the ?nove!&? In 1=;D- 9! r Reeve distinguished them$ ?/he *ove! is #icture of re ! !ife

nd m nners- nd of the time in which it is written& /he Ro> m nce- in !ofty nd e!ev ted ! ngu ge- describes wh t never h ##ened nor is !i,e!y to h ##en&? = /he nove! is re !istic D the rom nce is #oetic or e#ic$ we shou!d now c !! it ?mythic&? Mrs& R dc!iffe- Sir 1 !ter Scott- ( wthorne re writers of ?ro> m nce&? " nny +urney- . ne Austen- Anthony /ro!!o#e- <eorge <issing re nove!ists& /he two ty#es- which re #o! r- indic te the doub!e descent of #rose n rr tive$ the nove! deve!o#s from the !ine ge of non>fictitious n rr tive forms H the !etter- the Bourn !- the memoir or biogr #hy- the chronic!e or history C it deve!o#s- so to s#e ,- out of documents C sty!istic !!y- it stresses re#resent tive det i!- ?mimesis? in its n rrow sense& /he ro> m nce- on the other h nd- the continu tor of the e#ic nd the mediev ! rom nce- m y neg!ect verisimi!itude of det i! 3the

227 /heory of Liter ture re#roduction of individu ted s#eech in di !ogue- for e@ m#!e6ddressing itse!f to higher re !itydee#er #sycho!ogy& ?1hen writer c !!s his wor, Rom nce-? writes ( wthorne?it need h rd!y be observed th t he wishes to c! im cert in ! titude both s to its f shion nd its m teri !& & & &? If such rom nce be ! id in # st time- it is not in order to #icture with minute ccur cy th t # st time- but to secure- in ( wthorneAs words e!sewhere- ? sort of #oetic & & & #recinct- where ctu !i> ties wou!d not be & & & insisted u#on& & & &? ; An !ytic ! criticism of the nove! h s custom ri!y distinguished three constituents- #!ot- ch r cteriz tion- nd setting$ the ! stso re di!y symbo!ic- becomes- in some modern theories- ? tmos> #here? or ?tone&? It is need!ess to observe th t e ch of these e!e> ments is determin nt of the others& As (enry . mes s,s in his ess y- ?/he Art of "iction-? ?1h t is ch r cter but the deter> min tion of incidentI 1h t is incident but the i!!ustr tion of ch r cterI? /he n rr tive structure of #! y- t !e- or nove! h s tr dition !!y been c !!ed the ?#!ot? C nd #rob b!y the term shou!d be re> t ined& +ut then it must be t ,en in sense wide enough to in> c!ude 9he,hov nd "! ubert nd (enry . mes s we!! s ( rdy1i!,ie 9o!!ins- nd 8oe $ it must not be restricted to me n # t> tern of c!ose intrigue !i,e <odwinAs 9 !eb 1i!!i ms& 4 1e sh !! s#e , r ther of ty#es of #!ots- of !ooser nd of more intric teof ?rom ntic? #!ots nd ?re !istic&? In time of !iter ry tr nsi> tionnove!ist m y fee! com#e!!ed to #rovide two ,inds- one of them out of n obso!escent mode& ( wthorneAs nove!s fter /he Sc r!et Letter offer- c!umsi!y- n o!d>f shioned mystery #!ot- whi!e their re ! #!ot is of !ooser- more ?re !istic-? v riety& In his ! ter nove!s- Dic,ens devotes much ingenuity to his mys> tery #!ots- which m y or m y not coincide with the nove!As re ! center of interest& /he ! st third of (uc, "inn- obvious!y in> ferior to the rest- seems #rom#ted by mist ,en sense of res#on> sibi!ity to #rovide some ?#!ot&? /he re ! #!ot- however- h s !re dy been in successfu! #rogress$ it is mythic #!ot- the meet> ing on r ft nd Bourney down gre t river of four who h ve

esc #ed- for v rious re sons- from convention ! society& 'ne of the o!dest nd most univers ! #!ots is th t of the .ourney- by

/he * ture

nd Modes of * rr tive "iction 22D

! nd or w ter$ (uc, "inn- Moby Dic,- 8i!grimAs 8rogressDon Mui@ote- 8ic,wic, 8 #ers- /he <r #es of 1r th& It is cus> tom ry to s#e , of !! #!ots s invo!ving conf!ict 3m n g inst n ture- or m n g inst other men- or m n fighting with him> se!f6 B but then- !i,e #!ot- the term must be given much ! titude& 9onf!ict is ?dr m tic-? suggests some m tching of ##ro@im te!y e:u ! forces- suggests ction nd counter ction& Yet there re #!ots which it seems more r tion ! to s#e , of in terms of sing!e !ine or direction- s #!ots of the ch se or the #ursuit$ 9 !eb 1i!!i ms- /he Sc r!et Letter- 9rime nd 8unishment- 2 f, As /ri !& /he #!ot 3or n rr tive structure6 is itse!f com#osed of sm !!er n rr tive structures 3e#isodes- incidents6& /he ! rger nd more inc!usive !iter ry structures 3the tr gedy- the e#ic- the nove!6 h ve deve!o#ed- historic !!y- from e r!ier- rudiment ry forms !i,e the Bo,e- the s ying- the necdote- the !etter C nd the #!ot of #! y or nove! is structure of structures& /he Russi n for> m !ists- nd <erm n form> n !ysts !i,e Dibe!ius- give the term ?motive? 3"r&- motif- <erm&- motiv6 to the u!tim te #!ot> e!ements& 10 ?Motive-? s thus used by !iter ry histori ns- is bor> rowed from the "innish fo!,!orists- who h ve n !yzed f iry nd fo!, t !es into their # rts& 11 'bvious e@ m#!es from written !iter ture wi!! be mist ,en identities 3 /he 9omedy of 0rrors6 C the m rri ge of youth nd o!d ge 3?. nu ry nd M y?6 C fi!i ! ingr titude to f ther QLe r- 8ere <oriot6 C the se rch of son for his f ther 3)!ysses- nd /he 'dyssey6& 12 1h t we c !! the ?com#osition? of the nove! is- by the <er> m ns nd Russi ns- c !!ed its ?motiv tion&? /he term might we!! be do#ted into 0ng!ish s v !u b!e #recise!y for its doub!e ref> erence to structur ! or n rr tive com#osition nd to the inner structure of #sycho!ogic !- soci !- or #hi!oso#hic ! theory of why men beh ve s they do H some theory of c us tion- u!tim te!y& Sir 1 !ter Scott sserts e r!y- th t ?the most m r,ed distinction between re ! nd fictitious n rr tive SisT th t the former- in reference to the remote c uses of the events it re! tes- is obscure & & & where s in the ! tter c se it is # rt of the uthorAs duty to & & & ccount for everything&? 15 9om#osition or motiv tion 3in the ! rgest sense6 wi!! inc!ude

22E /heory of Liter ture n rr tive method$ ?sc !e-? ?# ce?C devices$ the #ro#ortioning of scenes or dr m to #icture or str ight n rr tive nd of both to n rr tive summ ry or digest&

Motifs nd devices h ve their #eriod ch r cter& /he <othic rom nce h s its ownC the re !istic nove!- its& Dibe!ius re#e ted!y s#e ,s of Dic,ensA ?re !ism? s of the M rchen- not of the n tur !istic nove!- the devices being uti!ized to !e d into o!d> f shioned me!odr m tic motifs$ the m n su##osed de d who comes to !ife- or the chi!d whose re ! # ternity is fin !!y est b> !ished- or the mysterious benef ctor who turns out to be convict& 17 In wor, of !iter ry rt- the ?motiv tion? must incre se the ?i!!usion of re !ity?$ th t is- its esthetic function& ?Re !istic? motiv tion is n rtistic device& In rt- seeming is even more im#ort nt th n being& /he Russi n form !ists distinguish the ?f b!e-? the tem#or !> c us ! se:uence which- however it m y be to!d- is the ?story? or story>stuff- from the ?suBet-? which we might tr ns! te s ?n rr tive structure&? /he ?f b!e? is the sum of !! the motifswhi!e the ?suBet? is the rtistic !!y ordered #resent tion of the motifs 3often :uite different6& 'bvious inst nces invo!ve tem> #or ! dis#! cement$ beginning in medi s res- !i,e the 'dyssey or + rn by RudgeC b c,w rd nd forw rd movements- s in " u!,nerAs Abs !om- Abs !om& /he ?suBet? of " u!,nerAs As I L y Dying invo!ves the story being n rr ted in turn by the members of f mi!y s they c rry the motherAs body to dis> t nt gr vey rd& ?SuBet? is #!ot s medi ted through ?#oint of view-? ?focus of n rr tion&? ?" b!e? is- so to s#e ,- n bstr c> tion from the ?r w m teri !s? of fiction 3the uthorAs e@#eriencere ding- etc&6C the ?suBet? is n bstr ction from the ?f b!e?C or- bettersh r#er focusing of n rr tive vision& 1D " b!e>time is the tot ! #eriod s# nned by the story& +ut ?n rr tive? time corres#onds to ?suBet?$ it is re ding>time- or ?e@#erienced time-? which is contro!!ed- of course- by the nov> e!ist- who # sses over ye rs in few sentences but gives two !ong ch #ters to d nce or te ># rty& 1E /he sim#!est form of ch r cteriz tion is n ming& 0 ch ? ##e!> ! tion? is ,ind of vivifying- nimizing- individu ting& /he

/he * ture

nd Modes of * rr tive "iction 22=

!!egoric or :u si> !!egoric n me ##e rs in eighteenth>century comedy$ "ie!dingAs A!!worthy nd /hw c,um- 1itwoud- Mrs& M ! #ro#- Sir +enB min + c,bite- with their echo of .onson+uny n- S#enser- nd 0verym n& +ut the subt!er #r ctice is ,ind of onom to#oeic toning- t which nove!ists s !ien s Dic,ens nd (enry . mes- + !z c nd <ogo!- re !i,e de#t$ 8ec,sniff- 8umb!echoo,- Ros D rt!e 3d rtC st rt!e6- Mr& nd Miss Murdstone 3murder Z stony he rt6& Me!vi!!eAs Ah b nd Ishm e! show wh t c n be done by !iter ry H in this inst nce+ib!ic ! H !!usion s form of ch r cterizing economy& 1= Modes of ch r cteriz tion re m ny& '!der nove!ists !i,e Scott introduce e ch of their m Bor #ersons by # r gr #h de>

scribing in det i! the #hysic ! ##e r nce nd nother n !yzing the mor ! nd #sycho!ogic ! n ture& +ut this form of b!oc, ch r cteriz tion m y be reduced to n introductory ! be!& 'r the ! be! m y turn into device of mimicry or # ntomime H some m nnerism- gesture- or s ying- which- s in Dic,ens- recurs when> ever the ch r cter re ##e rs- serving s emb!em tic ccom# ni> ment& Mrs& <ummidge is ? !w ys thin,ing of the o!d un?C )ri h (ee# h s word- ?umb!e-? nd !so ritu ! gesture of the h nds& ( wthorne sometimes ch r cterizes by !iter ! em> b!em$ Oenobi As red f!owerC 1esterve!tAs bri!!i nt!y rtifici ! teeth& /he ! ter . mes of /he <o!den +ow! h s one ch r cter see nother in symbo!ic terms& /here re st tic ch r cteriz tions nd dyn mic or deve!o#> ment !& /he ! tter seems # rticu! r!y suited to the !ong nove! !i,e 1 r nd 8e ce- s it is obvious!y !ess suited to dr m - with its confined n rr tive time& Dr m 3e&g&- Ibsen6 c n gr du !!y disc!ose how ch r cter h s become wh t it isC the nove! c n show the ch nge occurring& ?"! t? ch r cteriz tion 3which common!y over! #s ?st tic?6 #resents sing!e tr it- seen s the domin nt or soci !!y most obvious tr it& It m y be c ric ture or m y be bstr ctive ide !iz tion& 9! ssic ! dr m 3e&g&- R cine6 ##!ies it to m Bor ch r cters& ?Round? ch r cteriz tion- !i,e ?dyn mic-? re:uires s# ce nd em#h sisC is obvious!y us b!e for ch r cters foc ! for #oint of view or interestC hence is ordi> n ri!y combined with ?f! t? tre tment of b c,ground figures H the ?chorus&? 1;

22; /heory of Liter ture /here is obvious!y some ,ind of connection between ch r c> teriz tion 3!iter ry method6 nd ch r ctero!ogy 3theories of ch r cter- #erson !ity ty#es6& /here re ch r cter>ty#o!ogies# rt!y !iter ry tr dition- # rt!y fo!,> nthro#o!ogy- which re used by nove!ists& In nineteenth>century 0ng!ish nd Americ n fiction- one finds brunettes- m !e nd fem !e 3(e thc!iffe- Mr& Rochester C +ec,y Sh r# C M ggie /u!!iverC Oenobi - Miri mC Ligei 6 nd b!ondes 3fem !e inst nces H Ame!i Sed!eyC Lucy De nC (i!d - 8risci!! - nd 8hoebe S( wthorneTC L dy Row> en S8oeT6& /he b!onde is the home>m ,er- une@citing but ste dy nd sweet& /he brunette H # ssion te- vio!ent- mysterious!!uring- nd untrustworthy H g thers u# the ch r cteristics of the 'rient !- the .ewish- the S# nish- nd the It !i n s seen from the #oint of view of the ?Ang!o>S @on&? 14 In the nove!- s in the dr m - we h ve something !i,e re#> ertory com# ny$ the hero- the heroine- the vi!! in- the ?ch r> cter ctors? 3or ?humor ch r cters-? or comic re!ief6& /here re the Buveni!es nd ingenues nd the e!der!y 3the f ther nd mother- the m iden unt- the duenn - or the nurse6& /he dr > m tic rt of the L tin tr dition 38! utus nd /erence- the corn> medi de!!A rte- .onson- Mo!iere6 uses strong!y m r,ed nd tr dition ! ty#o!ogy of mi!es g!oriosus- miser!y f ther- wi!y serv nt& +ut gre t nove!ist !i,e Dic,ens ! rge!y do#ts nd d #ts the ty#es of the eighteenth>century st ge nd nove!C he

initi tes on!y two ty#es H the he!#!ess o!d nd young- nd the dre mers or f nt sts 3e&g&- /om 8inch- in 9huzz!ewit6& 20 1h tever the u!tim te soci ! or nthro#o!ogic ! b sis for !it> er ry ch r cter>ty#es such s the b!onde heroine nd the bru> nette- the ffective # tterns c n both be m de out from the nove!s without document ry id- nd they h ve- common!y- !it> er ry>historic ! ncestries nd !ines H !i,e the femme B t !e nd the d r, S t nic hero studied by M rio 8r z in /he Rom ntic Agony& 21 Attention to setting H the !iter ry e!ement of descri#tion s distinguished from n rr tion H wou!d t first thought seem to differenti te ?fiction? from dr m C our second thought- how> ever- wou!d r ther m ,e it m tter of #eriod& Det i!ed tten> tion to setting- whether in dr m or the nove!- is Rom ntic or

/he * ture

nd Modes of * rr tive "iction 224

Re !istic 3i&e&- nineteenth>century6 r ther th n univers !& In dr m - the setting m y be given verb !!y within the #! y 3 s in Sh ,es#e re6 or indic ted by st ge directions to scene designers nd c r#enters& Some ?scenes? in Sh ,es#e re re not to be #! ced- !oc !ized- t !!& 22 +ut within the nove!- !so- descri#tion of the setting is to high degree v ri b!e& . ne Austen- !i,e "ie!ding nd Smo!!ett- r re!y describes either interiors or e@te> riors& /he e r!ier nove!s of . mes- written under the inf!uence of + !z c- re det i!ed for both houses nd ! ndsc #esC the ! ter nove!s substitute for how scenes !oo, some symbo!ic rendering of how they tot !!y fee!& Rom ntic descri#tion ims t est b!ishing nd m int ining mood$ #!ot nd ch r cteriz tion re to be domin ted by toneeffect H Mrs& R dc!iffe nd 8oe re inst nces& * tur !istic de> scri#tion is seeming document tion- offered in the interest of i!!usion 3Defoe- Swift- Oo! 6& Setting is environmentC nd environments- es#eci !!y domestic interiors- m y be viewed s metonymic- or met #horic- e@#res> sions of ch r cter& A m nAs house is n e@tension of himse!f& Describe it nd you h ve described him& + !z cAs det i!ed s#eci> fic tions for the house of the miser <r ndet or the 8ension K u:uer re neither irre!ev nt nor w stefu!& 25 /hese houses e@#ress their ownersC they ffect- s tmos#here- those others who must !ive in them& /he #etty>bourgeois horror of the 8en> sion is the immedi te #rovoc tion of R stign cAs re ction nd in nother sense K utrinAs- whi!e it me sures the degr d tion of <oriot nd ffords const nt contr st with the gr ndeurs !ter> n te!y described& Setting m y be the e@#ression of hum n wi!!& It m y- if it is n tur ! setting- be #roBection of the wi!!& S ys the se!f> n !yst Amie!- ?A ! ndsc #e is st te of mind&? +etween m n nd n ture there re obvious corre! tives- most intense!y 3but not e@c!usive!y6 fe!t by the Rom ntics& A stormy- tem#estuous

hero rushes out into the storm& A sunny dis#osition !i,es sun> !ight& \ Ag in- setting m y be the m ssive determin nt H environment viewed s #hysic ! or soci ! c us tion- something over which the individu ! h s !itt!e individu ! contro!& /his setting m y be

250 /heory of Liter ture ( rdyAs 0gdon (e th or LewisA Oenith& /he gre t city 38 risLondon- *ew Yor,6 is the most re ! of the ch r cters in m ny modern nove!& A story c n be to!d through !etters or Bourn !s& 'r it c n de> ve!o# from necdotes& /he fr me>story enc!osing other stories is- historic !!ybridge between necdote nd nove!& In the Dec meron- the stories re them tic !!y grou#ed& In the 9 n> terbury / !es B such grou#ing of themes 3e&g&- m rri ge6 is bri!> !i nt!y su##!emented by the conce#tion of ch r cteriz tion of te!!er through t !e nd of set of ch r cters with #sycho!ogic ! nd soci ! tensions between them& /he story>of>stories h s Rom ntic version s we!!$ in IrvingAs / !es of /r ve!!er nd (offm nnAs / !es of the Ser #ion +rethren& /he <othic nove!Me!moth the 1 nderer ]- is str nge but undeni b!y effective grou# of se# r te t !es united on!y !oose!y s ve by their common tone of horror& Another device- currrent!y out of #r ctice- is the short story inc!uded within nove! 3e&g&- the ?M n on the (i!!As / !e? in /om .onesC the ?9onfessions of +e utifu! Sou!-? in 1i!he!m Meister6& /his c n be seen s- on one !eve!- the ttem#t to fi!! out the size of wor,C on nother- s the se rch for v riety& +oth ends seem better served in the Kictori n three>dec,er nove!s- which ,ee# two or three #!ot>se:uences in !tern te movement 3on their revo!ving st ge6 nd eventu !!y show how they inter!oc, H com#ounding of #!ots !re dy #r cticed by the 0!iz beth ns- often bri!!i nt!y& Artistic !!y h nd!ed- one #!ot # r !!e!s the other 3in Le r6 or serves s ?comic re!ief? or # rody nd hence under!ining of the other& /e!!ing story in the first #erson 3the Ich>0rz h!ung6 is method c refu!!y to be weighed g inst others& Such n rr tor must not- of course- be confounded with the uthor& /he #ur> #ose nd effect of n rr tion in the first #erson v ry& Sometimes the effect is to m ,e the te!!er !ess sh r# nd ?re !? th n other ch r cters 3D vid 9o##er fie!d6& 'n the other h nd- Mo!! "! nders nd (uc, "inn re centr ! to their own stories& In ?/he (ouse of )sher-? 8oeAs first>#erson n rr tion en b!es the re der to identify himse!f with )sherAs neutr ! friend nd to withdr w with him t the c t stro#hic fin !eC but the neurotic

/he * ture

nd Modes of * rr tive "iction 251

or #sychotic centr ! ch r cter te!!s his own story in ?Ligei -? ?+erenice-? nd ?/he /e!!>/ !e (e rt?$ the n rr tor- with whom we c nnot identify- is m ,ing confession- ch r cterizing himse!f by wh t he re#orts nd how he re#orts it& Interesting is the :uestion of how the story #ur#orts to e@ist& Some t !es re e! bor te!y introduced 39 st!e of 'tr nto- /urn of the Screw- Sc r!et Letter6 $ the story #ro#er is given sever ! degrees of det chment from its uthor or the re der by being re#resented s to!d to A by +- or s m nuscri#t entrusted to A by +- who #erh #s wrote down the !ife>tr gedy of 9& 8oeAs first>#erson n rr tives re sometimes- ostensib!y- dr m tic mono> !ogues 3?Amonti!! do?6- sometimes the written confession of tormented sou!- vowed!y unburdening himse!f 3?/he /e!!> / !e (e rt?6& 'ften the ssum#tion is not c!e r$ in ?Ligei -? re we to thin, of the n rr tor s t !,ing to himse!f- rehe rsing his story to refresh his own sense of horrorI /he centr ! #rob!em of n rr tive method concerns the re! tion of the uthor to his wor,& "rom #! y- the uthor is bsent B he h s dis ##e red behind it& +ut the e#ic #oet te!!s story s #rofession ! story>te!!er- inc!uding his own comments within the #oem- nd giving the n rr tion #ro#er 3 s distinct from di > !ogue6 in his own sty!e& /he nove!ist c n simi! r!y te!! story without ! ying c! im to h ving witnessed or # rtici# ted in wh t he n rr tes& (e c n write in the third #erson- s the ?omniscient uthor&? /his is undoubted!y the tr dition ! nd ?n tur !? mode of n rr tion& /he uthor is #resent- t the side of his wor,- !i,e the !ecturer whose e@#osition ccom# nies the ! ntern s!ides or the documen> t ry fi!m& /here re two w ys of devi ting from th t mi@ed mode of e#ic n rr tion$ one- which m y be c !!ed the rom ntic>ironicde!iber te!y m gnifies the ro!e of the n rr tor- de!ights in vio> ! ting ny #ossib!e i!!usion th t this is ?!ife? nd not ? rt-? em> #h sizes the written !iter ry ch r cter of the boo,& /he founder of the !ine is Sterne- es#eci !!y in /ristr m Sh ndyC he is fo!> !owed by .e n 8 u! Richter nd /iec, in <erm nyC by Ke!t> m n nd <ogo! in Russi & /ristr m might be c !!ed nove! bout nove!>writing- s might <ideAs Les " u@>Monn yeurs nd its deriv tive- 8oint 9ounter>#oint& /h c,er yAs much>censured

252 /heory of Liter ture m n gement of K nity " ir H his const nt reminder th t these ch r cters re #u##ets he h s m nuf ctured H is doubt!ess s#e> cies of this !iter ry irony$ !iter ture reminding itse!f th t it is but !iter ture& /he o##osite go ! for the nove! is the ?obBective? or ?dr > m tic? method- rgued for nd i!!ustr ted by 'tto Ludwig in <erm ny- "! ubert nd M u# ss nt in "r nce- (enry . mes in 0ng! nd& 27 /he e@#onents of this method- critics s we!! s

r>

tists- h ve sought to re#resent it s the on!y rtistic method 3 dogm which need not be cce#ted6& It h s been dmir b!y e@#ounded in 8ercy Lubboc,As 9r ft of "iction8oetics of the nove! b sed on the #r ctice nd the theory of (enry . mes& ?'bBective? is the better term to use- since ?dr m tic? might me n ?di !ogue? or ? ction- beh vior? 3in contr st to the inner wor!d of thought nd fee!ing6 C but- :uite c!e r!y- it w s the dr m - the the ter- which instig ted these movements& 'tto Ludwig formed his theories on the b sis chief!y of Dic,enswhose devices of # ntomime nd ch r cteriz tion by stoc, #hr se were borrowed from the o!der eighteenth>century comedy nd me!odr m & Inste d of n rr ting- Dic,ensA im#u!se is !w ys to f resent - in di !ogue nd # ntomime C inste d of te!!ing us bout he shows us& L ter modes of the nove! !e rn from other nd subt!er the ters- s . mes did from th t of Ibsen& 2D /he obBective method must not be thought of s !imited to di !ogue nd re#orted beh vior 3. mesA /he Aw,w rd AgeC (emingw yAs ?/he 2i!!ers?6& Such !imit tion wou!d bring it into direct- nd une:u !- riv !ry with the the ter& Its trium#hs h ve been in the #resent tion of th t #sychic !ife which the the ter c n h nd!e but w,w rd!y& Its essenti !s re the vo!un> t ry bsence from the nove! of the ?omniscient nove!ist? ndinste d- the #resence of contro!!ed ?#oint of view&? . mes nd Lubboc, see the nove! s giving us- in turn- ?#icture? nd ?dr m -? by which they me n some ch r cterAs consciousness of wh t is going on 3within nd without6 in distinction from ?scene-? which is # rt!y t !e st in di !ogue nd which #resentsin some det i!- n im#ort nt e#isode or encounter& 2E /he ?#ic> ture? is s ?obBective? s the ?dr m -? on!y it is the obBective rendering of s#ecific subBectivity H th t of one of the ch r> cters 3M d me +ov ry- or Strether6- whi!e the ?dr m ? is the

/he * ture

nd Modes of * rr tive "iction 255

obBective rendering of s#eech nd beh vior& /his theory dmits of shift of ?#oint of view? 3e&g&- from the 8rince to the 8rin> cess in the second h !f of /he <o!den +ow!6- #rovided it be system tic& It !so dmits the uthorAs use of ch r cter within the nove!- not un!i,e the uthor- who is either te!!ing the n r> r tive to some friends 3 M rio w- in 9onr dAs Youth6 or the con> sciousness through which !! is seen 3Strether- in /he Amb s> s dors6 $ the insistence is u#on the se!f>consistent obBectivity of the nove!& If the uthor is to be #resent other th n ?in so!ution-? it must be by reducing himse!f or his re#resent tive to the s me size nd st tus s the other ch r cters& 2= Integr ! to the obBective method is #resent tion in time- the re derAs !iving through the #rocess with the ch r cters& /o some e@tent- ?#icture? nd ?dr m ? must !w ys be su##!emented by ?summ ry? 3the ?five d ys e! #se between Acts I nd II? of the the ter6 C but it shou!d be minim !& /he Kictori n nove! used to end with ch #ter summ rizing the subse:uent c reers- m r> ri ges- nd de ths- of the #rinci# ! ch r cters C . mes- (owe!!s-

nd their contem#or ries #ut n end to this #r ctice- which they viewed s n rtistic b!under& According to obBectivist theorythe uthor must never ntici# te wh t !ies he d D he must un> ro!! his ch rt- !etting us see on!y !ine t time& R mon "er> n ndez sets u# distinction between the recti- the n rr tive of wh t h s !re dy t ,en #! ce- nd is now being to!d- ccording to the ! ws of e@#osition nd descri#tion- nd the rom n- or nove!- which re#resents events t ,ing #! ce in time- ccording to the order of !iving #roduction& 2; A ch r cteristic technic ! device of the obBective nove! is wh t the <erm ns c !! ?er!ebte Rede? nd the "rench ?!e sty!e in> direct !ibre? 3/hib udet6 nd ?!e mono!ogue interieur? 3Du> B rdin6 C nd in 0ng!ish- the #hr se- ?stre m of consciousness-? which goes b c, to 1i!!i m . mes- is the !oose- inc!usive cor> res#ondent& 24 DuB rdin defines ?interior mono!ogue? s de> vice for the ?direct introduction of the re der into the interior !ife of the ch r cter- without ny interventions in the w y of e@#! n tion or comment ry on the # rt of the uthor & & &? nd s ?the e@#ression of the most intim te thoughts- those which !ie ne rest the unconscious & & &? In /he Amb ss dors- s ys Lub> boc,- . mes does not ?te!! the story of StretherAs mindC he

257 /heory of Liter ture m ,es it te!! itse!f- he dr m tizes it&? 50 /he history of these devices- nd of their dumbr tions in !! modern !iter tureson!y begins to be studied$ the Sh ,es#e re n so!i!o:uy is one ncestor C Sterne- ##!ying Loc,e on the free ssoci tion of ide sis nother C the ?intern ! n !ysis-? i&e&- the summ rizing by the uthor of ch r cterAs movement of thought nd fee!ing- is third& 51 /hese observ tions on our third str tum- th t of the fiction ! ?wor!d? 3#!ot- ch r cters- setting6- h ve been i!!ustr ted chief!y from the nove! but shou!d be understood s ##!ic b!e !so to the dr m - considered s !iter ry wor,& /he fourth nd ! st str tum- th t of the ?met #hysic ! :u !ities-? we h ve viewed s c!ose!y re! ted to the ?wor!d-? s e:uiv !ent to the ? ttitude tow rds !ife? or tone im#!icit in the wor!dN but these :u !ities wi!! recur for c!oser ttention in our tre tment of 0v !u tion&

9(A8/0R JKII Liter ry <enres Is !iter ture co!!ection oL individu ! #oems nd #! ys nd nove!s which sh re common n meI Such nomin !istic nswers h ve been given in our time- es#eci !!y by 9roce& 1 +ut his n> swer- though inte!!igib!e s re ction g inst e@tremes of c! ssic ! uthorit ri nism- h s not commended itse!f s doing Bustice to the f cts of !iter ry !ife nd history&

/he !iter ry ,ind is not mere n me- for the esthetic con> vention in which wor, # rtici# tes sh #es its ch r cter& Lit> er ry ,inds ?m y be reg rded s institution ! im#er tives which both coerce nd re in turn coerced by the writer&? 2 Mi!ton- so !ibert ri n in #o!itics nd re!igion- w s tr dition !ist in #oetryh unted- s 1& 8& 2er dmir b!y s ys- by the ? bstr ct ide of the e#ic? B he ,new himse!f ?wh t the ! ws re of true e#ic #oem- wh t of dr m tic- wh t of !yric&? 5 +ut he !so ,new how to dBust- stretch- !ter the c! ssic ! forms H ,new how to 9hristi nize nd Mi!tonize the Aeneid- s in S mson he ,new how to te!! his #erson ! story through (ebrew fo!, t !e tre ted s <ree, tr gedy& /he !iter ry ,ind is n ?institution? H s 9hurch- )niversityor St te is n institution& It e@ists- not s n nim ! e@ists or even s bui!ding- ch #e!- !ibr ry- or c #ito!- but s n institution e@ists& 'ne c n wor, through- e@#ress himse!f through- e@isting institutions- cre te new ones- or get on- so f r s #ossib!e- without sh ring in #o!ities or ritu !s C one c n !so Boin- but then resh #einstitutions& 7 /heory of genres is #rinci#!e of order$ it c! ssifies !iter ture nd !iter ry history not by time or #! ce 3#eriod or n tion ! ! n> gu ge6 but by s#ecific !!y !iter ry ty#es of org niz tion or struc> ture& D Any critic ! nd ev !u tive H s distinct from historic ! H study invo!ves- in some form- the ##e ! to such structures& /he Budgment of #oem- for e@ m#!e- invo!ves ##e ! to oneAs tot ! 25D

25E /heory of Liter ture e@#erience nd conce#tion- descri#tive nd norm tive- of #oetry 3though of course oneAs conce#tion of #oetry is- in turn- !w ys being !tered by oneAs e@#erience nd Budgment of further s#e> cific #oems6& Does theory of !iter ry ,inds invo!ve the su##osition th t every wor, be!ongs to ,indI /he :uestion is not r ised in ny discussion we ,now& If we were to nswer by n !ogy to the n tu> r ! wor!d- we shou!d cert in!y nswer ?yes?$ even the wh !e nd the b t c n be #! cedC nd we dmit of cre tures who re tr nsi> tions from one ,ingdom to nother& 1e might try series of re#hr sings such s give our :uestion sh r#er focus& Does every wor, st nd in c!ose enough !iter ry re! tions to other wor,s so th t its study is he!#ed by the study of the other wor,sI Ag inhow f r is ?intention? invo!ved in the ide of genreI Intention on the # rt of #ioneerI Intention on the # rt of othersI E Do genres rem in fi@edI 8resum b!y not& 1ith the ddition of new wor,s- our c tegories shift& Study the effect on theory of the nove! of /ristr m Sh ndy or )!ysses& 1hen Mi!ton wrote 8 r dise Lost- he thought of it s one with the I!i d s we!! s the AeneidC we wou!d doubt!ess sh r#!y distinguish #rimitive e#ic from !iter ry e#ic- whether or not we thin, of the I!i d s

the former& Mi!ton #rob b!y wou!d not h ve gr nted th t the " erie Mueene w s n e#ic- though written in time when e#ic nd rom nce were sti!! unse# r te nd when the !!egoric ! ch r cter of e#ic w s he!d domin nt 5 yet S#enser cert in!y thought of himse!f s writing the ,ind of #oem (omer wrote& Indeed- one ch r cteristic ,ind of critic ! #erform nce seems the discovery- nd the dissemin tion- of new grou#ingnew generic # ttern$ 0m#son #uts together- s versions of # stor !As You Li,e It y /he +egg rAs 'f er - A!ice in 1onder! nd& /he +rothers 2 r m zov is #ut with other murder mysteries& Aristot!e nd (or ce re our c! ssic ! te@ts for genre theory& "rom them- we thin, of tr gedy nd e#ic s the ch r cteristic 3 s we!! s the two m Bor6 ,inds& +ut Aristot!e t !e st is !so w re of other nd more fund ment ! distinctions H between dr m e#ic- nd !yric& Most modern !iter ry theory wou!d be inc!ined to scr # the #rose>#oetry distinction nd then to divide im gin > tive !iter ture 3Dichtung6 into fiction 3nove!- short story- e#ic6-

Liter ry <enres 25= dr m 3whether in #rose or verse6- nd #oetry 3centering on wh t corres#onds to the ncient ?!yric #oetry?6& Kietor suggests- :uite #ro#er!y- th t the term ?genre? ought not to be used both for these three more or !ess u!tim te c te> gories nd !so for such historic ! ,inds s tr gedy nd comedyC = nd we gree th t it shou!d be ##!ied to the ! tter H the his> toric ! ,inds& A term for the former is difficu!t to m n ge H #er> h #s not often- in #r ctice- needed& ; /he three m Bor ,inds re !re dy- by 8! to nd Aristot!e- distinguished ccording to ?m n> ner of imit tion? 3or ?re#resent tion?6 $ !yric #oetry is the #oetAs own ferson C in e#ic #oetry 3or the nove!6 the #oet # rt!y s#e ,s in his own #erson- s n rr tor- nd # rt!y m ,es his ch r cters s#e , in direct discourse 3mi@ed n rr tive6 C in dr m - the #oet dis ##e rs behind his c st of ch r cters& 4 Attem#ts h ve been m de to show the fund ment ! n ture of these three ,inds by dividing the dimensions of time nd even !inguistic mor#ho!ogy between them& In his !etter to D ven nt(obbes h d tried something of the sort when- h ving divided the wor!d into court- city- nd country- he then found cor> res#onding three- b sic ,inds of #oetry H the heroic 3e#ic nd tr gedy6- the scomm tic 3s tire nd comedy6- nd the # stor !& 10 0& S& D !! st !ented 0ng!ish critic who ,new the critic ! thin,ing of the Sch!ege!s s we!! s 9o!eridge- 11 finds three b sic ,inds of #oetry- ?8! y- t !e- nd song-? which he then wor,s out into series of schem t more <erm n th n 0ng!ish& (e tr ns> ! tes$ dr m H second #erson- #resent timeC e#ic H third #erson# st timeC nd !yric H first #erson singu! r- future& .ohn 0rs,inehowever- who in 14 12 #ub!ished n inter#ret tion of the b sic !iter ry ,inds of #oetic ?tem#er ment-? finds th t the !yric e@> #resses #resent time- but- by t ,ing the !ine th t tr gedy shows the Budgment d y u#on m nAs # st H his ch r cter ccumu! ted

into his f te H nd e#ic the destiny of n tion or r ce- he is b!e to rrive t wh t- mere!y !isted- sounds the #erverse identific > tion of dr m with the # st nd e#ic with the future& 12 0rs,ineAs ethico>#sycho!ogic ! inter#ret tion is remote in s#irit nd method from the ttem#t of the Russi n form !ists !i,e Rom n . ,obson- who wish to show the corres#ondence be> tween the fi@ed gr mm tic ! structure of the ! ngu ge nd the !iter ry ,inds& /he !yric- dec! res . ,obson- is the first #erson

25; /heory of Liter ture singu! r- #resent tense- whi!e the e#ic is third #erson- # st tense 3the ?I? of the e#ic te!!er is re !!y !oo,ed t from the side s third #erson H ?dieses obBe,tivierte Ich?6& 15Such e@#!or tions of the b sic ,inds- which tt ch them on the one e@treme to !inguistic mor#ho!ogy nd t the other to u!ti> m te ttitudes tow rd the universe- though ?suggestive? re sc rce!y #romising of obBective resu!ts& It is o#en indeed to :ues> tion whether these three ,inds h ve ny such u!tim te st tuseven s com#onent # rts v rious!y to be combined& 'ne w,w rdness- to be sure- is the f ct th t in our time dr m st nds on different b sis from e#ic 3?fiction-? nove!6 nd !yric& "or Aristot!e nd the <ree,s- #ub!ic or t !e st or ! #er> form nce w s given the e#ic$ (omer w s #oetry recited by rh #sode !i,e Ion& 0!egi c nd i mbic #oetry were ccom# nied by the f!ute- me!ic #oetry by the !yre& /od y- #oems nd nove!s re eye>re d to onese!f- for the most # rt& 17 +ut the dr m is sti!!s mong the <ree,smi@ed rt- centr !!y !iter ry- no doubtbut invo!ving !so ?s#ect c!e? H m ,ing use of the ctorAs s,i!! nd the #! y directorAs- the cr fts of the costumer nd e!ec> trici n& 1D If- however- one voids th t difficu!ty by reducing !! three to common !iter riness- how is the distinction between #! y nd story to be m deI /he recent Americ n short story 3e&g&(emingw yAs ?/he 2i!!ers?6 s#ires to the obBectivity of the #! y- to the #urity of di !ogue& +ut tr dition ! nove!- !i,e the e#ic- h s mi@ed di !ogue- or direct #resent tion- with n rr tion C indeed- the e#ic w s Budged highest of genres by Sc !iger nd some other devisers of generic sc !es- # rt!y bec use it inc!uded !! the others& If e#ic nd the nove! re com#ound forms- then for u!tim te ,inds we h ve to diseng ge their com#onent # rts into something !i,e ?str ight n rr tion? nd ?n rr tion through di !ogue? 3un cted dr m 6 C nd our three u!tim tes then be> come n rr tion- di !ogue- nd song& So reduced- #urified- m de consistent- re these three !iter ry ,inds more u!tim te th n- s y?descri#tion- e@#osition- n rr tion?I 1E Let us turn from these ?u!tim tes? H #oetry- fiction- nd dr m H to wh t might be thought of s their subdivisions$ the eight> eenth>century critic- /hom s ( n,ins- writes on 0ng!ish dr m i!!ustr ted in ?its v rious s#ecies- viz&- mystery- mor !ity-

Liter ry <enres 254 tr gedy- nd comedy&? 8rose fiction h d- in the eighteenth cen> tury- two s#ecies$ the nove! nd the rom nce& /hese ?subdivi> sions? of grou#s of the second order re- we thin,- wh t we shou!d norm !!y evo,e s ?genres&? /he seventeenth nd eighteenth centuries re centuries which t ,e genres serious!y B their critics re men for whom genres e@ist- re re !& 1= /h t genres re distinct H nd !so shou!d be ,e#t distinct H is gener ! rtic!e of *eo>9! ssic ! f ith& +ut if we !oo, to *eo>9! ssic ! criticism for definition of genre or method of distinguishing genre from genre- we find !itt!e con> sistency or even w reness of the need for r tion !e& +oi!e uAs c non- for e@ m#!e- inc!udes the # stor !- the e!egy- the ode- the e#igr m- s tire- tr gedy- comedy- nd the e#icC yet +oi!e u does not define the b sis of this ty#o!ogy 3#erh #s bec use he thin,s of the ty#o!ogy itse!f s historic !!y given- not r tion !ist con> struction6& Are his genres differenti ted by their subBect m ttertheir structure- their verse form- their m gnitude- their emo> tion ! tone- their 1e!t nsch uung- or their udienceI 'ne c n> not nswer& +ut one might s y th t for m ny *eo>9! ssicists the who!e notion of genres seems so se!f>evident th t there is no gener ! #rob!em t !!& (ugh +! ir QRhetoric nd +e!!es Lettres1=;56 h s series of ch #ters on the #rinci# ! genres but no in> troductory discussion of ,inds in gener ! or #rinci#!es of !iter ry c! ssific tion& *or do the ,inds he se!ects h ve ny methodo!og> ic ! or other consistency& Most of them go b c, to the <ree,sbut not !! $ he discusses t !ength ?Descri#tive 8oetry-? in whichhe s ys- ?the highest e@ertions of genius m y be dis#! yed-? yet by it he does not me n ? ny one # rticu! r s#ecies or form of com#osition-? even- ## rent!y- in the sense in which one m y s#e , of s#ecies of ?did ctic #oem? H De Rerum * tur or /he 0ss y on M n& And from ?Descri#tive 8oetry-? +! ir # sses to ?/he 8oetry of the (ebrews-? thought of s ?dis#! ying the t ste of remote ge nd country-? s H though +! ir nowhere s ys or :uite sees this H s#ecimen of 'rient ! #oetry#oetry :uite un!i,e th t of the ru!ing <r eco>Rom n>"rench tr dition& /here fter +! ir turns to discussing wh t- with com#!ete or> thodo@y- he c !!s ?the two highest ,inds of #oetic writing- the e#ic nd the dr m tic? $ he might- for the ! tter- h ve been more #recise nd s id ?the tr gedy&?

270 /heory of Liter ture *eo>9! ssic ! theory does not e@#! the doctrine of ,inds or the b sis e@tent- it ttends to such to#ics ,inds- dur tion of ,inds- ddition in- e@#ound- or defend for differenti tion& /o some s #urity of ,ind- hier rchy of of new ,inds& mi@ture of uthori> conserv tive force- dis>

Since *eo>9! ssicism w s- in historyt ri nism nd r tion !ism- it cted s

#osed- so f r s #ossib!e- to ,ee# to nd d #t the ,inds of ncient origin- es#eci !!y the #oetic ,inds& +ut +oi!e u dmits the sonnet nd the m drig ! C nd .ohnson #r ises Denh m for h ving- in 9oo#erAs (i!!- invented ? new scheme of #oetry-? ?s#ecies of com#osition th t m y be denomin ted !oc ! #oetry-? nd Budges /homsonAs Se sons s ?#oem &&& of new ,ind? nd /hom> sonAs ?mode of thin,ing nd of e@#ressing his thoughts? in it

s origin !&?

8urity of ,inddoctrine historic !!y invo,ed by dherents of c! ssic ! "rench tr gedy s g inst n 0!iz beth n tr gedy dmissive of comic scenes 3the gr vediggers in ( m!et - the drun,en #orter in M cbeth6- is (or ti n when it is dogm tic nd Aristote!i n when it is n ##e ! to e@#erience nd to edu> c ted hedonism& /r gedy- s ys Aristot!e- ?ought to #roduce- not ny ch nce #!e sure- but the #!e sure #ro#er to it& & & & ? 1S /he hier rchy of ,inds is # rt!y hedonistic c !cu!us$ in its c! ssic ! st tements- the sc !e of #!e sure is not- however- :u n> tit tive in the sense either of sheer intensity or of number of re ders or he rers # rtici# ting& It is mi@ture- we shou!d s y- of the soci !- the mor !- the esthetic- the hedonistic- nd the tr di> tion !& /he size of the !iter ry wor, is not disreg rded$ the sm !!er ,inds- !i,e the sonnet or even the ode- c nnot- it seems @iom tic- r n, with the e#ic nd the tr gedy& Mi!tonAs ?minor? #oems re written in the !esser ,inds- e&g&- the sonnet- the c n> zone y the m s:ueC his ?m Bor? #oems re ?regu! r? tr gedy nd two e#ics& If we ##!ied the :u ntit tive test to the two high> est contest nts- e#ic wou!d win out& Yet t this #oint- Aristot!e hesit ted nd- fter discussion of conf!icting criteri - w rded the first #! ce to tr gedy- whi!e Ren iss nce critics- more consistent!y#referred the e#ic& /hough there is much subse:uent w vering between the c! ims of the two ,inds- *eo>9! ssic ! critics- such s (obbes or Dryden or +! ir- re for the most # rt content to give them Boint #ossession of the #rime c tegory&

Liter ry <enres 27 1 1e come then to nother ty#e of grou#s- those in which st nz form nd meter re the determin nts& (ow sh !! we c! ssify the sonnet- the ronde u- the b !! deI Are they genres or something e!se nd !essI Most recent "rench nd <erm n writers inc!ine to s#e , of them s ?fi@ed forms? nd- s c! ss- to differenti te them from genres& Kietor- however- m ,es n e@ce#tion H t !e st for the sonnet C we shou!d inc!ine to wider inc!usion& +ut here we move from termino!ogy to defining criteri $ Is there such genre s ?octosy!! bic verse? or s ?di#odic verse?I 1e re dis#osed to s y th t there is- nd to me n th t- s g inst the 0ng!ish norm of i mbic #ent meter- the eighteenth>century #oem in octosy!! bics- or the e r!y twentieth>century #oem in

di#odics- is !i,e!y to be # rticu! r ,ind of #oem in tone or ethos- 14 th t one is de !ing not mere!y with c! ssific tion c> cording to meters 3such s one m y find t the b c, of the hymn boo,- with its 9M&- L&M&- etc&6 but with something more inc!u> sive- something which h s ?inner? s we!! s ?outer? form& <enre shou!d be conceived- we thin,- s grou#ing of !iter ry wor,s b sed- theoretic !!y- u#on both outer form 3s#ecific meter or structure6 nd !so u#on inner form 3 ttitude- tone- #ur#ose H more crude!y- subBect nd udience6& /he ostensib!e b sis m y be one or the other 3e&g&- ?# stor !? nd ?s tire? for the inner form C di#odic verse nd 8ind ric ode for outer6 C but the critic ! #rob!em wi!! then be to find the other dimension- to com#!ete the di gr m& Sometimes n instructive shift occurs$ ?e!egy? st rts out- in 0ng!ish s we!! s in the rchety# ! <ree, nd Rom n #oetrywith the e!egi c cou#!et or distich D yet the ncient e!egi c writers did not restrict themse!ves to ! ment for the de d- nor did ( m> mond nd Shenstone- <r yAs #redecessors& +ut <r yAs ?0!egy-? written in the heroic :u tr in- not in cou#!ets- effectu !!y destroys ny continu tion in 0ng!ish of e!egy s ny tender #erson ! #oem written in end>sto##ed cou#!ets& 'ne might be inc!ined to give u# genre history fter the eighteenth century H on the ground th t form ! e@#ect tionsre#etitive structur ! # tterns- h ve ! rge!y gone out& Such hesit tion recurs in the "rench nd <erm n writing bout genretogether with the view th t 1 ;70> 1470 is #rob b!y n nom !ous

272 /heory of Liter ture !iter ry #eriod- nd th t we sh !! doubt!ess return to some more genre>constituted !iter ture in the future& Yet it seems #refer b!e to s y th t the conce#tion of the genre shifts in the nineteenth century- not th t it H sti!! !ess the #r ctice of genre writing H dis ##e rs& 1ith the v st widening of the udience in the nineteenth century- there re more genres C ndwith the more r #id diffusion through che # #rinting- they re shorter>!ived or # ss through more r #id tr nsitions& ?<enre? in the nineteenth century nd in our own time suffers from the s me difficu!ty s ?#eriod?$ we re conscious of the :uic, ch nges in !iter ry f shion H new !iter ry gener tion every ten ye rsr ther th n every fifty$ in Americ n #oetry- the ge of vers !ibrethe ge of 0!iot- the ge of Auden& At further dist nce- some of these s#ecificities m y be seen to h ve common direction nd ch r cter 3 s we now thin, of +yron- 1ordsworth- nd She!!ey s !! being 0ng!ish Rom ntics6& 20 1h t re nineteenth>century e@ m#!es of genreI /he his> toric ! nove! is const nt!y cited by K n /ieghem nd others& 21 (ow bout the ?#o!itic ! nove!? 3subBect of monogr #h by M& 0& S#e re6 I And if there is #o!itic ! nove!- is there not such genre s the ecc!esi stic ! nove! 3which inc!udes Robert

!so

0!seynere nd 9om#ton M c,enzieAs /he A!t r Ste#s s we!! s + rchester /owers nd S !em 9h #e!6 I *o- here H with the ?#o> !itic !? nove! nd the ?ecc!esi stic !-? we seem to h ve got off into grou#ing b sed on!y on subBect m tter#ure!y socio!og> ic ! c! ssific tionC nd in th t !ine we c n of course go on end> !ess!y H the nove! of the '@ford Movement- De#iction of /e chers in the *ineteenth>9entury *ove!- S i!ors in the *ine> teenth>9entury *ove!- !so Se *ove!s& (ow does the ?his> toric ! nove!? differI *ot mere!y bec use its subBect is !ess restricted- i&e&- nothing !ess th n the who!e of the # st- but #rim ri!y bec use of the ties of the historic ! nove! to the Ro> m ntic movement nd to n tion !ism H bec use of the new fee!> ing bout- ttitude tow rd- the # st which it im#!ies& /he <othic nove! is sti!! better c se- beginning in the eighteenth century with /he 9 st!e of 'tr nto nd coming down to the #resent& /his is genre by !! the criteri one c n invo,e for #rose> n rr tive genre$ there is not on!y !imited nd continuous sub> Bect m tter or them tics- but there is stoc, of devices 3descri#>

Liter ry <enres 275 tive> ccessory nd n rr tive- e&g&- ruined c st!es- Rom n 9 tho!ic horrors- mysterious #ortr its- secret # ss gew ys re ched through s!iding # ne!s B bductions- immurements- #ursuits through !one!y forests6 B there is- sti!! further2unstwo!!en- n esthetic intent- n intent to give the re der s#eci ! sort of #!e sur b!e horror nd thri!! 3?#ity nd terror? some of the <othicists m y h ve murmured6& 22 In gener !- our conce#tion of genre shou!d !e n to the for> m !ists side- th t is- inc!ine to generize (udibr stic octosy!! bics or the sonnet r ther th n the #o!itic ! nove! or the nove! bout f ctory wor,ers$ we re thin,ing of ?!iter ry? ,inds- not such subBect>m tter c! ssific tions s might e:u !!y be m de for non> fiction& Aristot!eAs 8oetics- which rough!y nomin tes e#ic- dr m nd !yric 3?me!ic?6 #oetry s the b sic ,inds of #oetry- ttends to differenti ting medi nd the #ro#riety of e ch to the esthetic #ur#ose of the ,ind$ dr m is in i mbic verse bec use th t is ne rest to convers tion- whi!e e#ic re:uires the d cty!ic he@ meter which is not t !! reminiscent of s#eech$ ?If nyone shou!d com> #ose n rr tive #oem in ny other meter or in sever !- it wou!d seem unfitting- for the heroic is the most st te!y nd weighty of the meters nd therefore most e si!y receives borrowed words nd met #hors nd orn ments of !! ,inds& & & &? 25 /he ne@t !eve! of ?form? bove ?meter? nd ?st nz ? shou!d be ?struc> ture? 3e&g&s#eci ! sort of #!ot org niz tion6 $ this we h ve- to some e@tent- t !e st- in tr dition !- i&e&- <ree,>imit tive- e#ic nd tr gedy 3beginning in medi s res- the ?#eri#ety? of tr gedythe unities6& *ot !! the ?c! ssic ! devices? seem structur !- how> everC the b tt!e #iece nd the descent into the Lower 1or!d ##e r to be!ong to subBect m tter or theme& In #ost>eighteenth> century !iter ture- this !eve! is not so e sy to !oc te- e@ce#t in the ?we!!>m de #! y? or the detective nove! 3the murder mystery6where the c!ose #!ot is such structure& +ut even in the 9he,hovi n tr dition of the short story- there e@ists n or>

g niz tionstructure- on!y of different sort from the short story of 8oe or '& (enry 3we c n c !! it ?!ooser? org niz > tion if we choose6& 27 Anyone interested in genre theory must be c refu! not to con> found the distinctive differences between ?c! ssic !? nd modern theory& 9! ssic ! theory is regu! tive nd #rescri#tive- though its

277 /heory of Liter ture ?ru!es? re not the si!!y uthorit ri nism sti!! often ttributed to them& 9! ssic ! theory not on!y be!ieves th t genre differs from genre- in n ture nd in g!ory- but !so th t they must be ,e#t # rt- not !!owed to mi@& /his is the f mous doctrine of ?#urity of genre-? of the ?genre tr nche&? 2D /hough it w s never wor,ed out with sh r# consistency- there w s re ! esthetic #rinci#!e 3not mere!y set of c ste distinctions6 invo!ved$ it w s the ##e ! to rigid unity of tonesty!ized #urity nd ?sim> #!icity-? concentr tion on sing!e emotion 3terror or ! ughter6 s on sing!e #!ot or theme& /here w s n ##e ! !so to s#e> ci !iz tion nd #!ur !ism$ e ch ,ind of rt h s its own c # cities nd its own #!e sure$ 1hy shou!d #oetry try to be ?#ictures:ue? or ?music !-? or music try to te!! story or describe sceneI A##!ying the #rinci#!e of ? esthetic #urity? in th t sense- we rrive t the conc!usion th t sym#hony is ?#urer? th n n o#er or or torio 3which is both chor ! nd orchestr !6 but string :u rtet sti!! #urer 3since it uses but one of the orchestr ! choirs!e ving behind the woodwinds- br sses- nd #ercussive instru> ments6& 9! ssic ! theory h d- too- its soci ! differenti tion of genres& 0#ic nd tr gedy de ! with the ff irs of ,ings nd nob!escomedy with those of the midd!e c! ss 3the city- the bourgeoisie6nd s tire nd f rce with the common #eo#!e& And th t sh r# distinction in the dr m tis ferson e #ro#er to e ch ,ind h s its concomit nts in the doctrine of ?decorum? 3c! ss ?mores?6 nd the se# r tion of sty!es nd dictions into high- midd!e- nd b se& 2E It h d- too- its hier rchy of ,inds- in which not mere!y the r n, of the ch r cters nd the sty!e counted s e!ements but !so the !ength or size 3the c # city for sust ining #ower6 nd the seriousness of tone& A modern sym# thizer with ?geno!ogy? 3 s K n /ieghem c !!s our study6 2/ is !i,e!y to w nt to m ,e c se for the *eo> c! ssic ! doctrine- nd to fee! indeed th t much better c se 3on grounds of esthetic theory6 c n be m de th n their theorists ctu !!y de!ivered& /h t c se we h ve # rt!y #ut in e@#ositing the #rinci#!e of esthetic #urity& +ut we must not n rrow ?gen> o!ogy? to sing!e tr dition or doctrine& ?9! ssicism? w s in> to!er nt of- indeed unwitting of- other esthetic systems- ,indsforms& Inste d of recognizing the <othic c thedr ! s ?form-?

Liter ry <enres 27D

one more com#!e@ th n the <ree, tem#!e- it found in it nothing but form!essness& So with genres& 0very ?cu!ture? h s its genres $ the 9hinese- the Ar bi n- the IrishC there re #rimitive or ! ?,inds&? Mediev ! !iter ture bounded in ,inds& 2; 1e h ve no need to defend the ?u!tim te? ch r cter of the <r eco>Rom n ,inds& *or need we defend- in its <r eco>Rom n form- the doctrine of generic #urity- which ##e !s to one ,ind of esthetic criterion& Modern genre theory is- c!e r!y- descri#tive& It doesnAt !imit the number of #ossib!e ,inds nd doesnAt #rescribe ru!es to uthors& It su##oses th t tr dition ! ,inds m y be ?mi@ed? nd #roduce new ,ind 3!i,e tr gicomedy6& It sees th t genres c n be bui!t u# on the b sis of inc!usiveness or ?richness? s we!! s th t of ?#urity? 3genre by ccretion s we!! s by reduction6& In> ste d of em#h sizing the distinction between ,ind nd ,ind- it is interested H fter the Rom ntic em#h sis on the uni:ueness of e ch ?origin ! genius? nd e ch wor, of rt H in finding the com> mon denomin tor of ,ind- its sh red !iter ry devices nd !it> er ry #ur#ose& MenAs #!e sure in !iter ry wor, is com#ounded of the sense of nove!ty nd the sense of recognition& In music- the son t form nd the fugue re obvious inst nces of # tterns to be recog> nized B in the murder mystery- there is the gr du ! c!osing in or tightening of the #!ot H the gr du ! convergence 3 s in 'edifus6 of the !ines of evidence& /he tot !!y f mi!i r nd re#etitive # t> tern is boring B the tot !!y nove! form wi!! be uninte!!igib!e H is indeed unthin, b!e& /he genre re#resents- so to s#e ,sum of esthetic devices t h nd- v i! b!e to the writer nd !re dy in> te!!igib!e to the re der& /he good writer # rt!y conforms to the genre s it e@ists- # rt!y stretches it& +y nd ! rge- gre t writers re not the inventors of genres $ Sh ,es#e re nd R cine- Mo!iere nd .onson- Dic,ens nd Dostoevs,y- enter into other menAs ! bors& 'ne of the obvious v !ues of genre study is #recise!y the f ct th t it c !!s ttention to the intern ! deve!o#ment of !iter tureto wh t (enry 1e!!s 3in *ew 8oets from '!d- 14706 h s c !!ed ?!iter ry genetics&? 1h tever the re! tions of !iter ture to other re !ms of v !ue- boo,s re inf!uenced by boo,s B boo,s imit te# rody- tr nsform other boo,s H not mere!y those which fo!!ow

27E /heory of Liter ture them in strict chrono!ogic ! succession& "or the definition of modern genres one #rob b!y does best to st rt with s#ecific high!y inf!uenti ! boo, or uthor- nd !oo, for the reverber > tions$ the !iter ry effect of 0!iot nd Auden- 8roust nd 2 f, & Some im#ort nt to#ics for genre theory we shou!d !i,e to sug> gest- though we c n offer on!y :uestions nd tent tives& 'ne con> cerns the re! tion of #rimitive genres 3those of fo!, or or ! !iter ture6 to those of deve!o#ed !iter ture& Sh,!ovs,y- one of

the Russi n form !ists- ho!ds th t new rt forms re ?sim#!y the c noniz tion of inferior 3sub>!iter ry6 genres&? Dostoevs,yAs nove!s re series of g!orified crime nove!s- rom ns sens tion y ?8ush,inAs !yrics come from !bum verses- +!o,As from gi#sy songs- M y ,ovs,yAs from funny># #er #oetry&? 24 +ertho!d +recht in <erm n nd Auden in 0ng!ish both show the de!ib> er te ttem#t t this tr nsform tion of #o#u! r #oetry into serious !iter ture& /his might be c !!ed the view th t !iter ture needs const nt!y to renew itse!f by ?reb rb riz tion&? 50 A simi! r view- th t of Andre .o!!es- wou!d urge th t com#!e@ !iter ry forms deve!o# out of sim#!er units& /he #rimitive or e!ement ry genres- by com#ounding of which one c n rrive t !! the others.o!!es finds to be$ Legende y S ge- My Athe - R tse!- Sfruch y 2 suSy .KLemor bi!e y M rchen- 1itz& 51 /he history of the nove! ##e rs n inst nce of some such deve!o#ment$ behind its r> riv ! t m turity in 8 me! nd /om .ones nd /ristr m Sh ndy !ie such ?einf che "ormen? s the !etter- the di ry- the tr ve! boo, 3or ?im gin ry voy ge?6- the memoir- the seventeenth> century ?ch r cter-? the ess y- s we!! s the st ge comedy- the e#ic- nd the rom nce& Another :uestion h s to do with the continuity of genres& +runetiere- it is gener !!y greed- did disservice to ?geno!ogy? by his :u si>bio!ogic ! theory of ?evo!ution-? #roducing such s#ecific conc!usions s th t- in "rench !iter ry history- seven> teenth>century #u!#it or tory turns 3 fter n hi tus6 into nine> teenth>century !yric ! #oetry& 52 /his !!eged continuity seems!i,e K n /ieghemAs !!i nce of the (omeric e#ic nd the 1 ver> !ey nove!s- the court!y metric ! rom nce- nd the modern #sy> cho!ogic ! nove!- !in, ges between wor,s se# r ted in s# ce nd time- b sed u#on n !ogies in the dis#ositions of uthors nd udiences H ?:ue!:ues tend nces frimordi !es&? +ut K n /ieghem

Liter ry <enres !iP?T bre ,s off from this ,ind of n !ogizing to rem r, th t these !in, ges do not re#resent ?!es genres !itter ires H fro>#rement dits&? 55 1e ought- sure!y- to be b!e to #roduce some strict form ! continuity in order to c! im generic succession nd unity& Is tr gedy one genreI 1e recognize #eriods nd n tion ! modes of tr gedy$ <ree, tr gedy- 0!iz beth n- "rench c! ssic !- nine> teenth>century <erm n& Are these so m ny se# r te genres- or s#ecies of one genreI /he nswer seems to de#end t !e st # rt!y on form ! continuity from c! ssic ! nti:uity- # rt!y on in> tention& 1hen we come to the nineteenth century- the :uestion becomes more difficu!t$ (ow bout 9he,hovAs 9herry 'rch rd nd Se ><u!!- IbsenAs < hosts y Rosmersho!m- M ster>+ui!derI Are they tr gediesI /he medium h s ch nged from verse to #rose& /he conce#tion of the ?tr gic hero? h s ch nged& 1e h ve to s, :uestions !i,e- ?Did they ,now the tr gic m ster#ieces of the # stI? nd ?1 s it the intention of 9he,hov nd Ibsen to write #! ys which shou!d be modern e:uiv !ents of the tr gediesso n med nd so conceived- written in the # stI? /hese :uestions !e d us to the :uestion concerning the n ture

of genre history& It h s been rgued on the one h nd th t to write critic ! history is im#ossib!e 3since to t ,e Sh ,es#e reAs tr gedies s norm is to do inBustice to those of the <ree,s nd the "rench6- nd on the other- th t history without #hi!os> o#hy of history is mere chronic!e& 57 +oth contentions h ve force& /he nswer wou!d ##e r to be th t the history of 0!iz > beth n tr gedy c n be written in terms of the deve!o#ment tow rd Sh ,es#e re nd the dec!ine from him- but th t nything !i,e history of tr gedy wi!! h ve to #r ctice doub!e methodth t is- define ?tr gedy? in common denomin tor terms nd tr ce in chronic!e f shion the !in,s between one #eriod> nd> n tion tr gic schoo! nd its successor- but u#on this continuum su#erim#ose sense of critic ! se:uences 3e&g&- "rench tr gedy from .ode!!e to R cine nd from R cine to Ko!t ire6& /he subBect of the genre- it is c!e r- r ises centr ! :uestions for !iter ry history nd !iter ry criticism nd for their interre! tion& It #uts- in s#ecific !!y !iter ry conte@t- the #hi!oso#hic ! :ues> tions concerning the re! tion of the c! ss nd the individu !s com#osing it- the one nd the m ny- the n ture of univers !s&

9(A8/0R JKIII 0v !u tion It is convenient to distinguish between the terms ?v !ue? nd ?ev !u te&? /hrough history- m n,ind h s ?v !ued? !iter tureor ! nd #rinted- th t is- h s t ,en interest in it- h s ssigned #ositive worth to it& +ut critics nd #hi!oso#hers who h ve ?ev !u ted? !iter ture- or s#ecific !iter ry wor,s- m y come to neg tive verdict& In ny c se- we # ss from the e@#erience of interest to the ct of Budgment& +y reference to norm- by the ##!ic tion of criteri - by com# rison of it with other obBects nd interests- we estim te the r n, of n obBect or n interest& If we ttem#t in ny det i! to describe m n,indAs concern with !iter ture- we sh !! get into difficu!ties of definition& 'n!y very gr du !!y does !iter ture- in ny modern sense- emerge from the cu!ture c!uster of song- d nce- nd re!igious ritu ! in which it ##e rs to origin te& And if we re to describe m n,indAs t> t chment to !iter ture- we shou!d n !yze the f ct of tt chment into its com#onent # rts& 1h t- s m tter of f ct- h ve men v !ued !iter ture forI 1h t ,inds of v !ue or worth or interest h ve they found in itI Kery m ny ,inds- we shou!d nswer$ (or ceAs summ ry du!ce et uti!e we might tr ns! te s ?enter> t inment? nd ?edific tion-? or ?#! y? nd ?wor,-? or ?termin ! v !ue? nd ?instrument ! v !ue-? or ? rt? nd ?#ro# g nd ? H or rt s end in itse!f nd rt s commun ! ritu ! nd cu!ture binder& If now we s, for something> norm tive H how ought men to v !ue nd ev !u te !iter tureI H we h ve to nswer with some definitions& Men ought to v !ue !iter ture for being wh t it isC they ought to ev !u te it in terms nd in degrees of its !iter ry v !ue& 1 /he n ture- the function- nd the ev !u tion of !iter ture

must necess ri!y e@ist in c!ose corre! tion& /he use of thing H its h bitu ! or most e@#ert or #ro#er use H must be th t use to which its n ture 3or its structure6 designs it& Its n ture is- in #otence27;

0v !u tion 274 wh t- in ct- is its function& It is wh t it c n doB it c n do nd shou!d do wh t it is& 1e must v !ue things for wh t they re nd c n do- nd ev !u te them by com# rison with other things of !i,e n ture nd function& 1e ought to ev !u te !iter ture in terms nd degrees of its own n ture& 1h t is its own n tureI 1h t is !iter ture s suchI 1h t is ?#ure? !iter tureI /he #hr sing of the :uestions im#!ies some n !ytic or reductive #rocess B the ,ind of nswer rrives t conce#tions of ?#ure #oetry? H im gism or echo! !i & +ut if we try to #ress for #urity !ong such !ines- we must bre , u# the m !g m of visu ! im gery nd eu#hony into # inting nd music > y nd #oetry dis ##e rs& Such conce#tion of #urity is one of n !yzing e!ements& 1e do better to st rt with org niz tion nd function& It is not wh t e!ements but how they re #ut together- nd with wh t functionwhich determine whether given wor, is or is not !iter ture& 2 In their reform tory ze !- cert in o!der dvoc tes of ?#ure !it> er ture? identified the mere #resence of ethic ! or soci ! ide s in nove! or #oem s the ?did ctic heresy&? +ut !iter ture is not defi!ed by the #resence of ide s !iter ri!y used- used s integr ! # rts of the !iter ry wor, H s m teri !s H !i,e the ch r cters nd the settings& 1h t !iter ture is- by modern definition- ?#ure of? is #r ctic ! intent 3#ro# g nd - incit tion to direct- immedi te ction6 nd scientific intent 3#rovision of inform tion- f cts? dditions to ,now!edge?6& +y ?#ure of? we donAt me n th t the nove! or #oem ! c,s ?e!ements-? diseng ged e!ements- which c n be t ,en #r ctic !!y or scientific !!y- when removed from their conte@t& Ag in- we donAt me n th t ?#ure? nove! or #oem c nAt- s who!e- be re d ?im#ure!y&? A!! things c n be misusedor used in de:u te!y- i&e&- in functions not centr !!y re!ev nt to their n tures$ As some to church re# ir *ot for the doctrine but the music there& In their d y- <ogo!As ?/he 9!o ,? nd De d Sou!s were # rent!y misre d- even by inte!!igent critics& Yet the they were #ro# g nd misre ding e@#!ic b!e in terms ! ted # ss ges nd e!ements in them- is sc rce!y to be with the e! bor teness of their !iter ry org niz tion#> view th t of iso> reconci!ed their com>

2D0 /heory of Liter ture

#!ic ted devices of irony- # rody- word #! y- mimicry- nd bur!es:ue& Li,e the fine rts nd music- !iter ture h s s its #rime function the #rovision of e@#erience& In thus defining the function of !iter ture- h ve we sett!ed nythingI In sense- the who!e issue in esthetics might be s id to !ie between the view which sserts the e@istence of se# r teirreducib!e ? esthetic e@#erience? 3 n utonomous re !m of rt6 nd th t which m ,es the rts instrument ! to science nd societywhich denies such tertium :uid s the ? esthetic v !ue-? inter> medi te between ?,now!edge? nd ? ction-? between science nd #hi!oso#hy on the one side nd ethics nd #o!itics on the other& 5 'f course one need not deny th t wor,s of rt h ve v !ue bec use one denies some u!tim te- irreducib!e ? esthetic v !ue?$ one m y mere!y ?reduce-? bre , u#- distribute the v !ues of the wor, of rt- or of rt- between wh t he ccredits s the ?re !-? ?u!tim te? systems of v !ue& (e m y- !i,e some #hi!oso#hersreg rd the rts s #rimitive nd inferior forms of ,now!edge- or he m y- !i,e some reformers- me sure them in terms of their su##osed effic cy in inducing ction& (e m y find the v !ue of the rts 3# rticu! r!y !iter ture6 #recise!y in their inc!usivenesstheir uns#eci !ized inc!usiveness& "or writers nd critics- this is more gr ndiose c! im to m ,e th n the c! im of e@#ertness t the construction or inter#ret tion of !iter ry wor,s of rt& It gives the ?!iter ry mind? fin ! ?#ro#hetic? uthority- #ossession of distinctive ?truth? wider nd dee#er th n the truths of science nd #hi!oso#hy& +ut these gr ndiose c! ims re by their very gr ndiosity difficu!t to defend- e@ce#t in th t ,ind of g me t which e ch re !m of v !ue H whether re!igion- #hi!oso#hy- eco> nomics- or rt H c! ims- in its own ide ! form- to inc!ude !! th t is best- or re !- in the others& 7 /o cce#t the st tus of !iter ture s one of the fine rts seems- to some of her defenders- !i,e timidity nd tre son& Liter ture h s c! imed to be both su#erior form of ,now!edge nd form !so of ethic ! nd soci ! ction$ to with> dr w these c! ims- is it not to renounce ob!ig tion s we!! s st tusI And doesnAt e ch re !m 3!i,e e ch e@# nding n tion nd mbitious- se!f>confident individu !6 h ve to c! im more th n he e@#ects to be conceded by his neighbors nd riv !sI Some !iter ry #o!ogists wou!d- then- deny th t !iter ture c n #ro#er!y be tre ted s ?fine rt-? in esthetic terms& 'thers

0v !u tion 2D1 wou!d deny such conce#ts s ? esthetic v !ue? nd ? esthetic e@> #erience? so f r s they ssert or im#!y some uni:ue c tegory& Is there distinct utonomous re !m of ? esthetic e@#erience? or of esthetic obBects nd :u !ities- by their n ture c # b!e of e!iciting such n e@#erienceI Most #hi!oso#hers since 2 nt nd most men serious!y con> cerned with the rts gree th t the fine rts- inc!uding !iter tureh ve uni:ue ch r cter nd v !ue& 'ne c nnot- s ys /heodore

<reene- for e@ m#!e- ?reduce rtistic :u !ity to other more #rim> itive :u !ities? B nd he goes on$ ?the uni:ue ch r cter of the rtistic :u !ity of wor, c n on!y be immedi te!y intuited- nd though it c n be e@hibited nd denoted- it c nnot be defined or even described&? D )#on the ch r cter of the uni:ue esthetic e@#erience- there is ! rge greement mong #hi!oso#hers& In his 9riti:ue of .udg> ment- 2 nt stresses the ?#ur#osiveness without #ur#ose? 3the #ur#ose not directed tow rd ction6 of rt- the esthetic su> #eriority of ?#ure? over ? dherent? or ##!ied be uty- the dis> interestedness of the e@#eriencer 3who must not w nt to own or consume or otherwise turn into sens tion or con tion wh t is designed for #erce#tion6& /he esthetic e@#erience- our con> tem#or ry theorists gree- is #erce#tion of :u !ity intrinsic !!y #!e s nt nd interesting- offering termin ! v !ue nd s m#!e nd foret ste of other termin ! v !ues- other ?rests? nd fu!fi!!> ments& It is connected with fee!ing 3#!e sure># in- hedonistic res#onse6 nd the senses C but it obBectifies nd rticu! tes fee!ing H the fee!ing finds- in the wor, of rt- n ?obBective corre! tive-? nd it is dist nced from sens tion nd con tion by its obBectAs fr me of fiction !ity- its ch r cter of ?imit tion-? th t is- con> scious #erce#tion& /he esthetic obBect is th t which interests me for its own :u !ities- which I donAt ende vor to reform or turn into # rt of myse!f- ##ro#ri te- or consume& /he esthetic e@> #erience is form of contem#! tion!oving ttention to :u !> ities nd :u !it tive structures& 8r ctic !ity is one enemy B the chief other is h bit- o#er tive !ong !ines once ! id down by #r ctic !ity& /he wor, of !iter ture is n esthetic obBect- c # b!e of rous> ing esthetic e@#erience& 9 n we ev !u te !iter ry wor, entire!y u#on esthetic criteri - or do we need- s /& S& 0!iot suggests- to Budge the !iter riness of !iter ture by esthetic criteri nd the

2D2 /heory of Liter ture gre tness of !iter ture by e@tr > esthetic criteri I E 0!iotAs first Budgment shou!d be dichotomized& 'f s#ecific verb ! construc> tion- we c! ssify it s !iter ture 3i&e&- story- #oem- #! y6 nd then we s, whether or not it is ?good !iter ture-? i&e&- of r n, worth the ttention of the esthetic !!y e@#erienced& /he :uestion of ?gre tness? brings us to st nd rds nd norms& Modern critics !imiting themseves to esthetic criticism re common!y c !!ed ?form !ists? H sometimes by themse!ves- sometimes 3#eBor > tive!y6 by others& At !e st s mbiguous is the cogn te word ?form&? As we sh !! use it here- it n mes the esthetic structure of !iter ry wor, H th t which m ,es it !iter ture& = Inste d of dichotomizing ?form>content-? we shou!d thin, of m tter nd then of ?form-? th t which esthetic !!y org nizes its ?m tter&? In successfu! wor, of rt- the m teri !s re com#!ete!y s> simi! ted into the form$ wh t w s ?wor!d? h s become ?! n> gu ge&? ; /he ?m teri !s? of !iter ry wor, of rt re- on one !eve!- words- on nother !eve!- hum n beh vior e@#erience- nd on nother- hum n ide s nd ttitudes& A!! of these- inc!uding ! ngu ge- e@ist outside the wor, of rt- in other modes C but in

successfu! #oem or nove! they re #u!!ed into #o!y#honic re! > tions by the dyn mics of esthetic #ur#ose& Is it #ossib!e de:u te!y to ev !u te !iter ture by #ure!y form !istic criteri I 1e sh !! out!ine n nswer& /he criterion which Russi n form !ism m ,es #rim ry #> #e rs !so in esthetic ev !u tion e!sewhere$ it is nove!ty- sur> #rise& /he f mi!i r !inguistic b!oc, or ?c!iche? is not he rd s immedi te #erce#tion$ the words re not ttended to s wordsnor is their Boint referent #recise!y m de out& 'ur res#onse to trite- stoc, ! ngu ge is ?stoc, res#onse-? either ction !ong f mi!i r grooves or boredom& 1e ?re !ize? the words nd wh t they symbo!ize on!y when they re fresh!y nd st rt!ing!y #ut together& L ngu ge must be ?deformed-? i&e&- sty!ized- either in the direction of the rch ic or otherwise remote- or in the direc> tion of ?b rb riz tion-? before re ders ttend to it& So Ki,tor Sh,!ovs,y s#e ,s of #oetry s ?m ,ing it new-? ?m ,ing it str nge&? +ut this criterion of nove!ty h s been very wides#re dt !e st since the Rom ntic movement H th t ?Ren scence of 1onder-? s 1 tts>Dunton c !!ed it& 1ordsworth nd 9o!e> ridge were v rious!y- corre! tive!y- wor,ing to ?m ,e it str nge-?

0v !u tion 2D5 s one sought to give str ngeness to the f mi!i r nd the other to domestic te the wonderfu!& 0 ch more recent ?movement? in #oetry h s h d the s me design$ to c!e r w y !! utom tic res#onse- to #romote renew ! of ! ngu ge 3 ?Revo!ution of the 1ord?6- nd sh r#ened re !iz tion& /he Rom ntic move> ment e@ !ted the chi!d for his unB ded- fresh #erce#tion& M tisse ! bored to !e rn to # int s five>ye r>o!d sees& /he esthetic disci#!ine- urged 8 ter- forbids h bits s f i!ures in #erce#tion& *ove!ty is the criterion- but nove!ty- we must remember- for the s ,e of the disinterested #erce#tion of :u !ity& 4 (ow f r c n this criterion c rry usI As ##!ied by the Rus> si ns- it is dmitted!y re! tivist& /here is no esthetic norm- s ys Mu, fovs,y- for it is the essence of the esthetic norm to be bro,en& 10 *o #oetic sty!e st ys str nge& (ence- Mu, fovs,y rgues- wor,s c n !ose their esthetic function nd then ! ter- #er> h #s- reg in it H fter the too f mi!i r becomes g in unf mi!i r& In the c se of s#ecific #oems- we !! ,now wh t it is to ?use them u#-? tem#or ri!y& Sometimes we ! ter come b c, to them- g in nd g in C sometimes we ##e r to h ve e@h usted them& So- s !iter ry history moves on- some #oets grow str nge g in- others rem in ?f mi!i r&? 1J In s#e ,ing of #erson ! returns to wor,- however- we seem !re dy to h ve # ssed- in effect- to nother criterion& 1hen we return g in nd g in to wor,- s ying th t we ?see new things in it e ch time-? we ordin ri!y me n not more things of the s me ,ind- but new !eve!s of me ning- new # tterns of ssoci tion$ we find the #oem or nove! m nifo!d!y org nized& /he !iter ry wor, which- !i,e (omer or Sh ,es#e re- continues to be dmired-

must #ossess- we conc!ude with <eorge +o s?mu!tiv !ence? $ its esthetic v !ue must be so rich nd com#rehensive s to in> c!ude mong its structures one or more which gives high s tis> f ction to e ch ! ter #eriod& 12 +ut such wor,- even in its uthorAs time- must be conceived of s so rich th t r ther community th n sing!e individu ! c n re !ize !! its str t nd systems& In #! y by Sh ,es#e re- ?"or the sim#!est uditors there is the #!otfor the more thoughtfu! the ch r cter nd conf!ict of ch r cterfor the more !iter ry the words nd #hr sing- for the more music !!y sensitive the rhythm- nd for uditors of gre ter underst nding nd sensitiveness me ning which reve !s itse!f

2D7 /heory of Liter ture gr du !!y&? 15 'ur criterion is inc!usiveness $ ?im gin tive in> tegr tion? nd ? mount 3 nd diversity6 of m teri ! inte> gr ted&? 17 /he tighter the org niz tion of the #oem- the higher its v !ue- ccording to form !istic criticism- which indeed often !imits itse!f- in #r ctice- to wor,s so com#!e@ of structures s to need nd rew rd e@egesis& /hese com#!e@ities m y be on one or more !eve!s& In (o#,ins- they re #rim ri!y diction !- synt ctic !#rosodicC but there m y !so- or inste d- be com#!e@ities on the !eve! of im gery or them tics or tone or #!ot$ the wor,s of highest v !ue re com#!e@ !so in those u##er structures& +y diversity of m teri !s- we m y me n # rticu! r!y ide sch r cters- ty#es of soci ! nd #sycho!ogic ! e@#erience& 0!iotAs ce!ebr ted inst nce in ?/he Met #hysic ! 8oets? is re!ev nt& +y w y of showing th t the #oetAs mind is ?const nt!y m !g m t> ing dis# r te e@#erience-? he im gines such who!e formed of the #oetAs f !!ing in !ove- re ding S#inoz - he ring the sound of ty#ewriter- nd sme!!ing something coo,ing& Dr& .ohnson h d described this s me m !g m tion s discordi concors- ndthin,ing of f i!ures r ther th n successes in the method- finds th t ?the most heterogeneous ide s re yo,ed by vio!ence to> gether&? A ! ter writer on the ?Met #hysic !s-? <eorge 1i!> !i mson- sing!es out- for the most # rt- the successes& 'ur #rin> ci#!e here wou!d be th t- #rovided re ! ? m !g m tion? t ,es #! ce- the v !ue of the #oem rises in direct r tio to the diversity of its m teri !s& In /hree Lectures on Aesthetic y +os n:uet distinguishes ?e sy be uty? from ?difficu!t be uty-? with its ?intric cy-? ?tension-? nd ?width&? 1e might e@#ress the distinction s between be uty chieved out of tr ct b!e m teri !s 3eu#hony- #!e sing visu ! im ges- the ?#oetic subBect?6 nd be uty wrested from m teri !s which- s m teri !s- re rec !citr nt$ the # infu!- the ug!y- the did ctic- the #r ctic !& /his distinction w s dumbr ted by the eighteenth century in its contr st of the ?be utifu!? nd the ?sub!ime? 3?difficu!t be uty?6& /he ?sub!ime? nd the ?ch r cteristic? estheticize th t which ##e rs ?un esthetic&? /r gedy inv des nd gives e@#ressive form to the # infu!C comedy simi! r!y m sters the ug!y& /he e sier be uties re im> medi te!y gree b!e in their ?m teri !s? nd their #! stic ?forms?C difficu!t be uty is one of e@#ressive form&

0v !u tion 2DD ?Difficu!t? be uty nd rtistic ?gre tness? re- it wou!d #> #e r- to be e:u ted- s ?#erfect? rt nd ?gre t? rt shou!d not be& /he e!ement of size or !ength is im#ort nt- not of course for itse!f but s m ,ing #ossib!e n incre se in the intric cy- tensionnd width of the wor,& A ?m Bor? wor,- or ?m Bor? genre- is one of dimension& If we c nnot de ! with this f ctor s sim#!y s *eo>9! ssic ! theorists did- we c nnot dismiss it $ we c n but e@ ct th t sco#e must be economic !- th t the !ong #oem tod y must ?do? in return for its s# ce more th n it used& /o some esthetici ns- ?gre tness? invo!ves recourse to e@tr > esthetic criteri & 1D /hus L& A& Reid #ro#oses to defend ?the view th t gre tness comes from the content side of rt- nd th trough!y- rt is Agre tA in so f r s it is e@#ressive of the Agre tA v !ues of !ife? C nd /& M& <reene #ro#oses ?truth? nd ?gre t> ness? s e@tr > esthetic but necess ry st nd rds of rt& In #r cticehowever- <reene nd es#eci !!y Reid h rd!y get beyond +os n> :uetAs criteri for difficu!t be uty& "or e@ m#!e- ?the gre t wor,s of the gre t #oets- So#hoc!es- D nte- Mi!ton- Sh ,es#e re- re org nized embodiments of ! rge v riety of hum n e@#erience&? /he ?notes? or criteri of gre tness in ny re !m of theory or #r ctice ##e r to h ve in common ? gr s# of the com#!e@- with sense of #ro#ortion nd re!ev nce? C but these common ch r c> ters of gre tness- when they ##e r in wor, of rt- h ve to ##e r in ? n embodied v !ue>situ tion-? s ? n embodied v !ue to be s voured nd enBoyed&? Reid doesnAt s, the :uestion$ Is the gre t #oem the wor, of #oet who is gre t m n 3or mind or #erson !ity6- or is it gre t s #oemI Inste d- he ttem#ts to reconci!e the im#!ied nswers& /hough he finds the gre t #oem gre t by its sco#e nd Budgment- he ##!ies these criteri on!y to the #oem s #oetic !!y sh #ed- not to some hy#othetic ! 0r!ebnis& 1E D nteAs Divine 9omedy nd Mi!tonAs 8 r dise Lost re good test c ses for form !ist tre tment& 9roce- refusing to see the 9omedy s #oem- reduces it to series of !yric ! e@tr cts inter> ru#ted by #seudo>science& /he ?!ong #oem? nd the ?#hi!o> so#hic ! #oem? both seem to him se!f>contr dictory #hr ses& /he estheticism of gener tion go- s inst nced in writer !i,e Log n 8e rs !! Smith- sees 8 r dise Lost s com#ound of out> moded theo!ogy nd uditory de!ight H the ce!ebr ted ?org n

2DE /heory of Liter ture h rmonies-? which re !! th t is !eft to Mi!ton& 1= /he ?content? h s to be disreg rded 5 the form is diseng ge b!e& Such Budgments shou!d not- we thin,- be cce#ted s s tisf c> tory versions of ?form !ism&? /hey t ,e n tomistic view of the wor, of rt- estim ting the re! tive #oetic !ity of its m teri !s

inste d of the #oetic !ity of the tot ! wor,- which m y m gnetize to its #ur#ose much which- out of this conte@t- wou!d be bstr ct discourse& +oth D nte nd Mi!ton wrote tre tises s we!! s #oems- nd did not confound the two& Mi!tontheo!ogic ! in> de#endent- wrote dissert tion De Doctrin 9hristi n t bout the time during which he w s com#osing 8 r dise Lost& (ow> ever one defines the n ture of his #oem 3e#ic- 9hristi n e#ic- or #hi!oso#hic !> nd>e#ic #oem6 nd in s#ite of its nnounced de> sign to ?Bustify the w ys of <od-? it h d different #ur#ose from the tre tise$ its n ture is est b!ished by the !iter ry tr di> tions it invo,es nd by its re! tion to Mi!tonAs own e r!ier #oetry& Mi!tonAs theo!ogy in 8 r dise Lost is orthodo@ 8rotest nt or susce#tib!e of such re ding& +ut the re derAs f i!ure to sh re th t theo!ogy doesnAt denude the #oem& As !ong go s +! ,eindeed- it w s suggested th t S t n is the hero of the #oem- by Mi!tonAs unconscious ?intention?C nd there w s- with +yron nd She!!eyrom ntic 8 r dise Lost which cou#!ed S t n with 8rometheus nd which dwe!t sym# thetic !!y- s 9o!!ins h d e r!ier begun to do- u#on the ?#rimitivism? of Mi!tonAs 0den& 1; /here is cert in!y !so ?hum nist? re ding- s S ur t h s shown& /he swee#- the vist s of the #oem- its scenery H somber or v gue!y gr nd H re not dis#osed of by dissent to its theo!ogy or f ct& /h t the sty!e of 8 r dise Lost !e ves it gre t #oem even though its doctrine shou!d be scr ##ed is high!y dubious& Such view reduces to the bsurd the se# r tion of wor, into its ?form? nd its ?me ning?$ ?form? here becomes ?sty!e-? nd ?me ning? becomes ?ideo!ogy&? /he se# r tion- indeed- does not t ,e c re of the tot ! wor,$ it !e ves out !! structures ? bove? metrics nd dictionC nd ?me ning-? ccording to its ccount- is wh t L& A& Reid c !!s ?second ry subBect>m tter? 3subBect m t> ter sti!! outside the wor, of rt6& It !e ves out the #!ot or n r> r tive- the ch r cters 3or- more #ro#er!y- the ?ch r cteriz > tion?6- nd the ?wor!d-? the inter!oc,ing of #!ot- tmos#here-

0v !u tion 2D= nd ch r cters H the ?met #hysic ! :u !ity? 3viewed s the wor!d view which emerges from the wor,- not the view did ctic !!y st ted by the uthor within or without the wor,6& 8 rticu! r!y obBection b!e is the view th t the ?org n h r> monies? c n be diseng ged from the #oem& In restricted sense they c n be viewed s h ving ?form ! be uty? H #honetic reso> n nce D but in !iter ture- inc!uding #oetry- the form ! be uty !most !w ys e@ists in the service of e@#ression$ we h ve to s, bout the ##ro#ri teness of the ?org n h rmonies? to #!otch r cter- theme& Mi!tonAs sty!e ##!ied by minor #oets to com> #ositions on trivi ! themes bec me unintention !!y ridicu!ous& A form !ist criticism must su##ose th t greement between our own creed nd th t of n uthor or #oem need not e@ist- is indeed irre!ev nt- since otherwise we shou!d dmire on!y !it>

er ry wor,s whose view of !ife we cce#t& Does the 1e!t n> sch uung m tter to the esthetic BudgmentI /he view of !ife #resented in #oem- s ys 0!iot- must be one which the critic c n ? cce#t s coherent- m ture- nd founded on the f cts of e@#erience&? 14 0!iotAs dictum bout coherence- m turity- nd truth to e@#erience goes- in its #hr sing- beyond ny form !ism$ coherence- to be sure- is n esthetic criterion s we!! s !ogic !N but ?m turity? is #sycho!ogic ! criterion- nd ?truth to e@#e> rience? n ##e ! to wor!ds outside the wor, of rtc !! for the com# rison of rt nd re !ity& Let us re#!y to 0!iot th t the m turity of wor, of rt is its inc!usiveness- its w reness of com#!e@ity- its ironies nd tensions D nd the corres#ondence be> tween nove! nd e@#erience c n never be me sured by ny sim#!e # iring off of items$ wh t we c n !egitim te!y com# re is the tot ! wor!d of Dic,ens- 2 f, - + !z c- or /o!stoy with our tot ! e@#erience- th t is- our own thought nd fe!t ?wor!d&? And our Budgment of this corres#ondence registers itse!f in esthetic terms of vividness- intensity- # tterned contr st- width- or de#th- st tic or ,inetic& ?Life>!i,e? might !most be # r #hr sed s ? rt>!i,e-? since the n !ogies between !ife nd !iter ture be> come most # !# b!e when the rt is high!y sty!ized$ it is writers !i,e Dic,ens- 2 f, - nd 8roust who su#erim#ose their signed wor!d on re s of our own e@#erience& 20 +efore the nineteenth century- discussions of ev !u tion were !i,e!y to center u#on the r n, nd hier rchy of uthors H the

2D; /heory of Liter ture c! ssics who ? !w ys h ve been nd !w ys wi!! be dmired&? /he chief inst nces cited wou!d n tur !!y be the ncient <ree, nd Rom n uthors- whose #otheosis c me with the Ren iss nce& +y the nineteenth centurywider ,now!edge of such !iter ry se:uences s the mediev !- the 9e!tic- the *orse- the (indund the 9hinese h d m de such e r!ier ?c! ssicism? obso!ete& 1e re w re of wor,s which dis ##e r from view nd then re> ##e r- nd of wor,s which !ose for time their esthetic effi> c cy but reg in it- e&g&- Donne- L ng! nd- nd 8o#e- M urice Sceve nd <ry#hius& +y re ction to uthorit ri nism nd its c > nonic ! !ist- the modern view is inc!ined to e@cessive- unnecess ry re! tivism- to t !, of the ?whir!igig of t ste-? s e r!ier s,e#tics murmured- de gustibus non est disfut ndum& /he c se is more com#!ic ted th n hum nist or s,e#tic wou!d m ,e it out& /he desire to ffirm in some form the obBectivity of !iter ry v !ues does not re:uire commitment to some st tic c non- to which no new n mes re dded nd within which no shifts of r n, m y occur& A!!en / te right!y ch !!enges- s ?i!!usion-? the ssum#tion th t ?the re#ut tion of ny writer is ever fi@ed-? to> gether with the corre! tive ?curious be!ief? th t ?the chief func> tion of criticism is the r n,ing of uthors r ther th n their use&? 21 Li,e 0!iot- whose dictum bout the # stAs !ter tion by the #resent he is remembering- / te is cre tive writer who must

be!ieve in the #resent nd future s we!! s the # st of 0ng!ish #oetry& +ut we m y su##ose !so th t he thin,s use s im#ort nt n obBectivity s ?fi@ed r n,&? And the ?obBectivity? of v !ue !ies in the criteri - not in the rt obBects& R n, in c! ss is !w ysso to s#e ,- com#etitive nd re! tive& So !ong s new entries continue to be m de- there is !w ys the ch nce of new bestC but ny entry m de wi!! !ter- however s!ight!y- the r n, of the other wor,s& 1 !!er nd Denh m t once c:uired nd !ost r n, when 8o#e h d m de his #osition H they were th t mbiv !ent thing- forerunnersC they !ed u# to 8o#e- but they were !so sc !ed down by him& /here is n o##osite desire on the # rt of nti> c demics within nd without the universities to ffirm the tyr nny of f!u@the ?whir!igig of t ste&? 22 9 ses there re H !i,e th t of 9ow!ey H of gener tion ! t stes never r tified by subse:uent gener >

0v !u tion 2D4 tion& /hey seem not- however- to be m ny& /hirty ye rs goS,e!ton might seem # r !!e! c se- but not nowC we find him bri!!i nt- ?sincere-? modern& Me nwhi!e- the ! rgest re#ut tions survive gener tion ! t stes $ 9h ucer- S#enser- Sh ,es#e re- Mi!> ton H even Dryden nd 8o#e nd 1ordsworth nd /ennyson H h ve #erm nent- though not ?fi@ed? #osition& /he esthetic structures of such #oets seem so com#!e@ nd rich th t they c n s tisfy the sensibi!ity of successive ges $ there is the *eo>9! ssic ! Mi!ton dmired by Addison in his S#ect tor ess ys nd by 8o#e- nd the Rom ntic Mi!ton or Mi!tons of +yron- 1ordsworth- 2e ts- She!!ey& /here w s the Sh ,es#e re of 9o!eridge- nd now we h ve the Sh ,es#e re of 1i!son 2night& 0 ch gener tion !e ves e!ements in the gre t wor, of rt un ##ro#ri ted- finds !eve!s or str t ! c,ing in ?be uty? or even #ositive!y ug!y 3 s the *eo>9! ssicists did Sh ,es#e reAs #uns6- yet finds the who!e esthetic !!y s tisfying& 1e seem thus f r rrived t ,ind of gener tionism which denies the re! tivity of t ste viewed s the individu !As but finds !tern tions in !iter ry history of more or !ess contr ry sets of esthetic criteri 3 s in 1o!ff!inAs contr st of Ren iss nce nd + ro:ue6 nd suggests no getting behind or beyond these !ter> n tions to common #rinci#!esC we seem !so rrived t ?mu!tiv > !ence-? 25 the view th t enduring wor,s of rt ##e ! to different dmiring gener tions for different re sons or- to #ush the two conc!usions together- th t m Bor wor,s- the ?c! ssics-? ,ee# their #! ce but ,ee# it by series of ch nging ##e !s or ?c uses-? whi!e origin !- high!y s#eci ! wor,s 3e&g&- Donne6 nd minor wor,s 3good in the sty!e of the #eriod- e&g&- 8rior or 9hurchi!!6 g in in re#ut tion when the !iter ture of the d y be rs some ,ind of sym# thetic re! tion to th t of their d y- !ose when th t re! tion is dverse& 27 1e move with difficu!ty- #erh #s- beyond this #osition- but

move beyond it we c n& "or one thing- we need not !imit the ##reci tion e r!ier ges h d for their c! ssics 3(omer- Kirgi!Mi!ton- et !&6 by the rguments their critics mustered u#& 1e c n deny th t e r!ier criticism w s b!e to do Bustice to the cre > tive wor, of its own d y or indeed to its own esthetic e@#eri> ence& 2D 1e c n !so ffirm th t re !!y de:u te !iter ry theory c n void the either>or of gener tion !ism $ thus <eorge 1i!>

2E0 /heory of Liter ture !i mson 2E thin,s the best of the met #hysic ! #oems re Bust good #oetry C there is no need to dmire !! met #hysic ! #oems or to condemn !!- nor re the best #oems of the schoo! the ?most met #hysic !&? /hus 8o#e h s been #r ised in our time s H in # rt- t !e st H ?met #hysic !? #oet- th t isgood nd re ! #oet- not Bust the ?#oet of n ge of #rose&? 2/ And c!e r!y theorists s different s the Rich rds of 8r ctic ! 9riticism- nd +roo,s nd 1 rren Q)nderst nding 8oetry6 thin, of sing!e st nd rd for #oetry nd e@ ct!y stress th t one shou!d not try to ?#! ce? the #oem s to uthor- #eriod- or schoo! before Budg> ing it& It m y of course be s id th t these ntho!ogist>critics #> #e ! to st nd rd 3rough!y- the 0!iotic6- to which m ny re ders wou!d not ssent& +ut their st nd rds en b!e them to Bustify wide r nge of #oetry$ !e st f ir to the Rom ntics- they s ve t !e st +! ,e nd 2e ts& *o !iter ry critic c n- we thin,- re !!y either reduce himse!f to gener tionism 3which denies th t there is n esthetic norm6 or tt ch himse!f to so b rren nd #ed gogic n bso!utism s th t of the ?fi@ed r n,&? (e m y sound t times !i,e gener tionist mere!y by #rotest or by desire to enter nd underst nd the # st uthor through the who!!y ##ro#ri te me ns of his n !ogy to some uthor of the #resent& Yet he me ns to ffirm th t the v !ue so discovered is re !!y- or #otenti !!y- #resent in the rt obBect H not ?re d into? it or ssoci tive!y tt ched to it- but with the dv nt ge of s#eci ! incentive to insight- seen in it& /his brings us to the :uestion concerning the !ocus of esthetic v !ues& Is it the #oem- or the re der of the #oem- or the re! tion between the twoI /he second nswer is subBectivist$ it correct!y sserts th t someone h s to v !ue the v !ued- but does not corre> ! te the n ture of the res#onse with the n ture of the obBect& It is #sycho!ogistic- in the sense th t it turns the ttention w y from wh t is contem#! ted or enBoyed to fi@ it u#on the re c> tions- emotion ! vibr tions- of the se!f- even the #riv te- gener> !ized se!f& 1hether one gives the first or the third nswer seems m tter of inter#ret tion& /he first nswer- to #rofes> sion ! #hi!oso#hers- un void b!y suggests 8! tonism or some other system of bso!ute st nd rds thought of s e@isting with> out reference to hum n need or cognition& 0ven if one me nss !iter ry theorists re !i,e!y to- to ssert the obBective ch r cter

0v !u tion 2E1

of the !iter ry structure- from devices to ?me ning-? the first nswer h s the further difficu!ty of suggesting th t the !iter ry v !ues re there for nyone y s #resent s redness or co!d& *o critic- however- h s re !!y me nt to c! im th t ,ind of un:u !i> fied obBectivity for #oem$ Longinus nd other ?c! ssicists? who ##e ! to the suffr ge of !! men of !! times nd ! nds m ,e si!ent restriction of their ? !!? to ? !! com#etent Budges&? 1h t the form !ist w nts to m int in is th t the #oem is not on!y c use- or #otenti ! c use- of the re derAs ?#oetic e@#e> rience? but s#ecific- high!y org nized contro! of the re derAs e@#erience- so th t the e@#erience is most fitting!y described s n e@#erience of the #oem& /he v !uing of the #oem is the e@> #eriencing- the re !iz tion- of esthetic !!y v !u b!e :u !ities nd re! tionshi#s structur !!y #resent in the #oem for ny com#etent re der& +e uty- s ys 0!iseo Kiv s- e@#ounding wh t he c !!s ?obBective re! tivism? or ?#ers#ective re !ism-? is ? ch r cter of some things- nd in them #resentC but #resent on!y in the thing for those endowed with the c # city nd the tr ining through which !one it c n be #erceived&? 2; /he v !ues e@ist #otenti !!y in the !iter ry structures$ they re re !ized- ctu !!y v !ued- on!y s they re contem#! ted by re ders who meet the re:uisite conditions& /here is undoubted!y tendency to dis !!ow 3in the n me of democr cy or science6 ny c! im to obBectivity or ?v !ue? which is not #ub!ic!y verifi b!e in the most com#!ete sense& +ut it is difficu!t to thin, of ny ?v !ues? which offer themse!ves thus uncondition !!y& '!der m nu !s often contr st ?Budici !? criticism with other ty#es H ?im#ressionist-? for e@ m#!e& /his distinction w s mis> !e ding!y n med& /he former ty#e ##e !ed to ru!es or #rinci> #!es ssumed s obBective D the ! tter often f! unted its ! c, of #ub!ic reference& +ut in #r ctice the ! tter w s n un vowed form of Budgment by n e@#ert- whose t ste is to offer norm for !ess subt!e sensibi!ities& *or c n there h ve been m ny critics of the ! tter sort who did not ttem#t wh t Remy de <ourmont defines s the gre t effort of ny sincere m n H to ?erect into ! ws his #erson ! im#ressions&? 24 /od y- m ny ess ys c !!ed ?criticism? re e@egetic ! of s#ecific #oems or uthors nd offer no conc!uding estim te- r ting- or r n,ing& 'bBection is some> times r ised to !!owing such e@egeses the n me of ?criticism?

2E2 /heory of Liter ture 3which in its <ree, origins me nt ?Budgment?6& And sometimes the distinction is m de between the ?e!ucid tory? nd the ?Budi> ci !? s !tern tive ty#es of criticism& 50 +ut though se# r tion be> tween the e@egesis of me ning 3Deutung6 nd the Budgment of v !ue 31ertung6 c n cert in!y be m de- it is r re!y- in ?!iter ry criticism-? either #r cticed or #r ctic b!e& 1h t is crude!y s,ed for or offered s ?Budici ! criticism? is b!unt gr ding of uthors nd #oems- ccom# nied by the cit tion of uthorities or ##e ! to few dogm s of !iter ry theory& /o go beyond th t- of neces> sity invo!ves n !yses nd n !ytic ! com# risons& 'n the other

h nd- n ess y which ##e rs to be #ure!y e@egetic ! must- by its very e@istence- offer some minim ! Budgment of worth D ndif it is e@egetic ! of #oemBudgment of esthetic worth- not historic !- biogr #hic !- or #hi!oso#hic !& /o s#end time nd t> tention on #oet or #oem is !re dy Budgment of v !ue& +ut few e@egetic ! ess ys m ,e Budgment mere!y by the ct of choos> ing to#ic& ?)nderst nding #oetry? # sses re di!y into ?Budging #oetry-? on!y Budging it in det i! nd Budging whi!e n !yzinginste d of m ,ing the Budgment #ronouncement in the fin ! # r gr #h& /he one>time nove!ty of 0!iotAs ess ys w s #recise!y their de!ivering themse!ves of no fin ! summ ry or sing!e Budg> ment but Budging !! the w y through n ess y$ by s#ecific com> # risons- Bu@t #ositions of two #oets with res#ect to some :u !itys we!! s by occ sion ! tent tive gener !iz tion& /he distinction one needs to m ,e- it wou!d seem- is between overt nd im#!icit Budgment H not the s me s the distinction between Budgments conscious nd unconscious& /here is Budg> ment of sensibi!ity nd re sonedr tiocin tive- Budgment& /hey e@ist in no necess ry contr diction $ sensibi!ity c n sc rce!y tt in much critic ! force without being susce#tib!e of consider> b!e gener !ized- theoretic ! st tementC nd re soned Budg> ment- in m tters of !iter ture- c nnot be formu! ted s ve on the b sis of some sensibi!ity- immedi te or deriv tive&

9(A8/0R JIJ Liter ry (istory Is it #ossib!e to write !iter ry history- th t is- to write th t which wi!! be both !iter ry nd historyI Most histories of !it> er ture- it must be dmitted- re either soci ! histories- or his> tories of thought s i!!ustr ted in !iter ture- or im#ressions nd Budgments on s#ecific wor,s rr nged in more or !ess chrono> !ogic ! order& A g! nce t the history of 0ng!ish !iter ry his> toriogr #hy wi!! corrobor te this view& /hom s 1 rton- the first ?form !? histori n of 0ng!ish #oetry- g ve s his re son for studying ncient !iter ture th t it ?f ithfu!!y records the fe > tures of the times nd #reserves the most #ictures:ue nd e@#res> sive re#resent tions of m nners? nd ?tr nsmits to #osterity genuine de!ine tions of !ife&? @ (enry Mor!ey conceived of !it> er ture s ?the n tion ! biogr #hy? or the ?story of the 0ng!ish mind&? 2 Les!ie Ste#hen reg rded !iter ture s ? # rticu! r function of the who!e soci ! org nism-? ? ,ind of by>#roduct? of soci ! ch nge& 5 1& .& 9ourtho#e- uthor of the on!y history of 0ng!ish #oetry b sed on unified conce#tion of its deve!o#> ment- defined the ?study of 0ng!ish #oetry s in effect the study of the continuous growth of our n tion ! institutions s ref!ected in our !iter ture-? nd !oo,ed for the unity of the subBect ?#re> cise!y where the #o!itic ! histori n !oo,s for it- n me!y- in the !ife of n tion s who!e&? 7 1hi!e these nd m ny other histori ns tre t !iter ture s mere document for the i!!ustr tion of n tion ! or soci ! historythose constituting nother grou# recognize th t !iter ture is first

nd foremost n rt- but ##e r un b!e to write history& /hey #resent us with discontinuous series of ess ys on individu ! uthors- ttem#ting to !in, them by ?inf!uences? but ! c,ing ny conce#tion of re ! historic ! evo!ution& In his introduction to A Short (istory of Modem 0ng!ish Liter ture 31;4=6- 0dmund <osse #rofessed- to be sure- to show the ?movement of 0ng!ish 2E5

2E7 /heory of Liter ture !iter ture-? to give ?fee!ing of the evo!ution of 0ng!ish !iter > ture-? D but he w s mere!y # ying !i#>service to n ide ! then s#re ding from "r nce& In #r ctice- his boo,s re series of critic ! rem r,s on uthors nd some of their wor,s- chrono!ogi> c !!y rr nged& <osse ! ter- :uite right!y- disc! imed ny in> terest in / ine nd stressed his indebtedness to S inte>+euve- the m ster of biogr #hic ! #ortr iture& E Mut tis mut ndis- the s me is true of <eorge S intsbury- whose conce#tion of criticism w s ne rest to 8 terAs theory nd #r ctice of ? ##reci tion-? = nd of '!iver 0!ton- whose Survey of 0ng!ish Liter ture- in si@ vo!> umes H the most rem r, b!e chievement of recent !iter ry his> tory in 0ng! nd H fr n,!y #rofesses to be ?re !!y reviewdi> rect criticism-? nd not history& ; /his !ist cou!d be e@tended !most indefinite!y 5 nd n e@ min tion of "rench nd <erm n histories of !iter ture wou!d !e d- with some e@ce#tions- to !most identic ! conc!usions& /hus / ine w s obvious!y interested m in!y in his theories of n tion ! ch r cter nd his #hi!oso#hy of ?mi!ieu? nd r ce- .usser nd studied the history of m nners s i!!ustr ted in 0ng!ish !iter ture- nd 9 z mi n invented who!e theory of ?the osci!! tion of the mor ! rhythm of the 0ng!ish n tion ! sou!&? 4 Most !e ding histories of !iter ture re either histories of civi!iz tion or co!!ections of critic ! ess ys& 'ne ty#e is not history of rtC the other- not history of rt& 1hy h s there been no ttem#t- on ! rge sc !e- to tr ce the evo!ution of !iter ture s rtI 'ne deterrent is the f ct th t the #re# r tory n !ysis of wor,s of rt h s not been c rried out in consistent nd system tic m nner& Liter ry theory h s not yet deve!o#ed methods en b!ing us to describe wor, of rt #ure!y s system of signs& 0ither we rem in content with the o!d rhetoric ! criteri - uns tisf ctory in their #reoccu# tion with #> # rent!y su#erfici ! devices- or we h ve recourse to n emotive ! ngu ge describing the effects of wor, of rt u#on the re der in terms inc # b!e of re ! corre! tion with the wor, itse!f& Another difficu!ty is the #reBudice th t no history of !iter ture is #ossib!e s ve in terms of c us ! e@#! n tion by some other hum n ctivity& A third difficu!ty !ies in the who!e conce#tion of the deve!o#ment of the rt of !iter ture& "ew wou!d doubt the #ossibi!ity of n intern ! history of # inting or music&/t suffices to w !, through ny set of rt g !!eries rr nged ccording to

Liter ry (istory 2ED chrono!ogic ! order or in ccord nce with ?schoo!s? to see th t there is history of the rt of # inting :uite distinct from either the history of # inters or the ##reci tion or Budgment of indi> vidu ! #ictures& It suffices to !isten to concert in which com#o> sitions re chrono!ogic !!y rr nged to see th t there is history of music which h s sc rce!y nything to do with the biogr #hies of the com#osers- the soci ! conditions under which the wor,s were #roduced- or the ##reci tion of individu ! #ieces& Such histories h ve been ttem#ted in # inting nd scu!#ture ever since 1inc,e!m nn wrote his <eschichte der 2unst im A!ter turnnd most histories of music since +urney h ve # id ttention to the history of music ! forms& Liter ry history h s before it the n !ogous #rob!em of tr c> ing the history of !iter ture s n rt- in com# r tive iso! tion from its soci ! history- the biogr #hies of uthors- or the ##re> ci tion of individu ! wor,s& 'f course- the t s, of !iter ry his> tory 3in this !imited sense6 #resents its s#eci ! obst c!es& 9om> # red to # inting- which c n be seen t g! nce!iter ry wor, of rt is ccessib!e on!y through time se:uence nd is thus more difficu!t to re !ize s coherent who!e& +ut the n !ogy of mu> sic ! form shows th t # ttern is #ossib!e- even when it c n be gr s#ed on!y in tem#or ! se:uence& /here re- further- s#eci ! #rob!ems& In !iter ture- there is gr du ! tr nsition from sim#!e st tements to high!y org nized wor,s of rt- since the medium of !iter ture- ! ngu ge- is !so the medium of everyd y com> munic tion nd es#eci !!y the medium of sciences& It is thus more difficu!t to iso! te the esthetic structure of !iter ry wor,& Yet n i!!ustr tive #! te in medic ! te@tboo, nd mi!it ry m rch re two e@ m#!es to show th t the other rts h ve !so their border!ine c ses nd th t the difficu!ties in distinguishing be> tween rt nd non> rt in !inguistic utter nce re on!y gre ter :u ntit tive!y& /heorists there re- however- who sim#!y deny th t !iter ture h s history& 1& 8& 2er rgued- for inst nce- th t we do not need !iter ry history- s its obBects re !w ys #resent- re ?etern !-? nd thus h ve no #ro#er history t !!& 10 /& S& 0!iot !so wou!d deny the ?# stness? of wor, of rt& ?/he who!e of the !iter ture of 0uro#e from (omer-? he s ys- ?h s simu!> t neous e@istence nd com#oses simu!t neous order&? 1J Art-

2EE /heory of Liter ture one cou!d rgue with Scho#enh uer- h s !w ys re ched its go !& It never im#roves- nd c nnot be su#erseded or re#e ted& In rt we need not find out ?wie es eigent!ich gewesen? H s R n,e #ut the im of historiogr #hy H bec use we c n e@#erience :uite di> rect!y how things re& So !iter ry history is no #ro#er history bec use it is the ,now!edge of the #resent- the omni#resent- the etern !!y #resent& 'ne c nnot deny- of course- th t there is some re ! difference between #o!itic ! history nd the history of rt&

/here is distinction between th t which is historic ! nd th t which is historic ! nd sti!! somehow #resent&

nd # st

As we h ve shown before- n individu ! wor, of rt does not rem in unch nged through the course of history& /here is- to be suresubst nti ! identity of structure which h s rem ined the s me throughout the ges& +ut this structure is dyn micC it ch nges throughout the #rocess of history whi!e # ssing through the minds of re ders- critics- nd fe!!ow> rtists& /he #rocess of inter#ret tion- criticism- nd ##reci tion h s never been com> #!ete!y interru#ted nd is !i,e!y to continue indefinite!y- or t !e st so !ong s there is no com#!ete interru#tion of the cu!tur ! tr dition& 'ne of the t s,s of the !iter ry histori n is the descri#> tion of this #rocess& Another is the tr cing of the deve!o#ment of wor,s of rt rr nged in sm !!er nd ! rger grou#s- ccording to common uthorshi#- or genres- or sty!istic ty#es- or !inguistic tr dition- nd fin !!y inside scheme of univers ! !iter ture& +ut the conce#t of the deve!o#ment of series of wor,s of rt seems n e@tr ordin ri!y difficu!t one& In sense e ch wor, of rt is- t first sightstructure discontinuous with neighboring wor,s of rt& 'ne c n rgue th t there is no deve!o#ment from one individu !ity to nother& 'ne meets even with the obBection th t there is no history of !iter ture- on!y one of men writing& 12 Yet ccording to the s me rgument we shou!d h ve to give u# writing history of ! ngu ge bec use there re on!y men utter> ing words or history of #hi!oso#hy bec use there re on!y men thin,ing& 0@treme ?#erson !ism? of this sort must !e d to the view th t every individu ! wor, of rt is com#!ete!y iso! tedwhich- in #r ctice- wou!d me n th t it wou!d be both incommu> nic b!e nd incom#rehensib!e& 1e must conceive r ther of !it> er ture s who!e system of wor,s which is- with the ccretion

Liter ry (istory 2E= of new ones- const nt!y ch nging its re! tionshi#s- growing ch nging who!e& s

+ut the mere f ct th t the !iter ry situ tion of time h s ch nged com# red to the situ tion of dec de or century be> fore is sti!! insufficient to est b!ish #rocess of ctu ! historic ! evo!ution- since the conce#t of ch nge ##!ies to ny series of n tur ! #henomen & It m y me n mere!y ever new but me ning> !ess nd incom#rehensib!e re rr ngements& /hus the study of ch nge recommended by "& .& /egg rt in his /heory of (is> tory 15 wou!d !e d mere!y to the bo!ishment of !! differences between historic ! nd n tur ! #rocesses- !e ving the histori n to subsist on borrowings from n tur ! science& If these ch nges re> curred with bso!ute regu! rity we shou!d rrive t the conce#t of ! w s the #hysicist conceives it& Yet- des#ite the bri!!i nt s#ecu! tions of S#eng!er nd /oynbee- such #redict b!e ch nges h ve never been discovered in ny historic ! #rocess& Deve!o#ment me ns something e!se nd something more th n ch nge or even regu! r nd #redict b!e ch nge& It seems obvious

th t it shou!d be used in the sense e! bor ted by bio!ogy& In bio!ogy- if we !oo, c!oser- there re two very different conce#ts of evo!ution$ first- the #rocess e@em#!ified by the growth of n egg to bird- nd second- the evo!ution e@em#!ified by the ch nge from the br in of fish to th t of m n& (ere no series of br ins ever deve!o#s ctu !!y- but on!y some conce#tu ! b> str ction- ?the br in-? defin b!e in terms of its function& /he individu ! st ges of deve!o#ment re conceived s so m ny #> #ro@im tions to n ide ! dr wn from ?hum n br in&? 9 n we s#e , of !iter ry evo!ution in either of these two sensesI "erdin nd +runetiere nd .ohn Addington Symonds s> sumed th t we c n s#e , in both& /hey su##osed th t one cou!d consider !iter ry genres on the n !ogy of s#ecies in n ture& 17 Liter ry genres- once they re ch cert in degree of #erfectionmust wither- ! nguish- nd fin !!y dis ##e r- t ught +runetiere& "urthermore- genres become tr nsformed into higher nd more differenti ted genres- Bust s do s#ecies in the D rwini n conce#> tion of evo!ution& /he use of ?evo!ution? in the first sense of the term is obvious!y !itt!e more th n f ncifu! met #hor& Ac> cording to +runetiere- "rench tr gedy- for e@ m#!e- w s borngrew- dec!ined- nd died& +ut the tertium comf r tionis for the

2E; /heory of Liter ture birth of tr gedy is mere!y the f ct th t there were no tr gedies written in "rench before .ode!!e& /r gedy died on!y in the sense th t no im#ort nt tr gedies conforming to +runetiereAs ide ! were written fter Ko!t ire& +ut there is !w ys the #ossibi!ity th t future gre t tr gedy wi!! be written in "rench& According to +runetiere- R cineAs 8hedre st nds t the beginning of the dec!ine of tr gedy- somewhere ne r to its o!d ge C but it stri,es us s young nd fresh com# red to the !e rned Ren iss nce tr gedies- which- ccording to this theory- re#resent the ?youth? of "rench tr gedy& 0ven !ess defensib!e is the ide th t genres become tr nsformed into other genres- s- ccording to +rune> tiere- "rench #u!#it or tory of the c! ssic ! centuries w s tr ns> formed into the Rom ntic !yric& Yet no re ! ?tr nsmut tion? h d t ,en #! ce& 'ne cou!d t most s y th t the s me or simi! r emotions were e@#ressed e r!ier in or tory nd ! ter in !yric ! #oetry- or th t #ossib!y the s me or simi! r soci ! #ur#oses were served by both& 1hi!e we thus must reBect the bio!ogic ! n !ogy between the deve!o#ment of !iter ture nd the c!osed evo!ution ry #rocess from birth to de th H n ide by no me ns e@tinct nd recent!y revived by S#eng!er nd /oynbee H - ?evo!ution? in this second sense seems much ne rer to the re ! conce#t of historic ! evo!u> tion& It recognizes th t no mere series of ch nges but- inste dn im for this series must be #ostu! ted& /he sever ! # rts of the series must be the necess ry condition for the chievement of the end& /he conce#t of evo!ution tow rd s#ecific go ! 3e&g&the hum n br in6 m ,es series of ch nges into re ! conc te> n tion with beginning nd n end& Sti!!- there is n im#or> t nt distinction between this second sense of bio!ogic ! evo!ution

nd ?historic ! evo!ution? in the #ro#er sense& /o gr s# his> toric ! evo!ution in distinction from bio!ogic !- we must some> how succeed in #reserving the individu !ity of the historic ! event without reducing the historic ! #rocess to co!!ection of se:uent but unre! ted events& /he so!ution !ies in or norm& 'n!y then c events be s#!it into then c n we s#e , of individu !ity of the re! ting the historic ! #rocess to v !ue n the ## rent!y me ning!ess series of its essenti ! nd its unessenti ! e!ements& 'n!y n historic ! evo!ution which yet !e ves the sing!e event unim# ired& +y re! ting n in>

Liter ry (istory 2E4 dividu ! re !ity to gener ! v !ue- we do not degr de the indi> vidu ! to mere s#ecimen of gener ! conce#t but- inste d- give signific nce to the individu !& (istory does not sim#!y individu> !ize gener ! v !ues 3nor is it- of coursediscontinuous me n> ing!ess f!u@6- but the historic ! #rocess wi!! #roduce ever new forms of v !ue- hitherto un,nown nd un#redict b!e& /he re! > tivity of the individu ! wor, of rt to sc !e of v !ues is thus nothing e!se th n the necess ry corre! tive of its individu !ity& /he series of deve!o#ments wi!! be constructed in reference to scheme of v !ues or norms- but these v !ues themse!ves emerge on!y from the contem#! tion of this #rocess& /here is- one must dmit!ogic ! circ!e here$ the historic ! #rocess h s to be Budged by v !ues- whi!e the sc !e of v !ues is itse!f derived from his> tory& 1D +ut this seems un void b!e- for otherwise we must either resign ourse!ves to the ide of me ning!ess f!u@ of ch nge or ##!y some e@tr >!iter ry st nd rds H some Abso!ute- e@tr neous to the #rocess of !iter ture& /his discussion of the #rob!em of !iter ry evo!ution h s been necess ri!y bstr ct& It h s ttem#ted to est b!ish th t the evo!u> tion of !iter ture is different from th t of bio!ogy- nd th t it h s nothing to do with the ide of uniform #rogress tow rd one etern ! mode!& (istory c n be written on!y in reference to v ri b!e schemes of v !ues- nd these schemes h ve to be b> str cted from history itse!f& /his ide m y be i!!ustr ted by ref> erence to some of the #rob!ems with which !iter ry history is confronted& /he most obvious re! tionshi#s between wor,s of rt H sources nd inf!uences H h ve been tre ted most fre:uent!y nd consti> tute st #!e of tr dition ! scho! rshi#& A!though not !iter ry history in the n rrow sense- the est b!ishment of !iter ry re! > tionshi#s between uthors is obvious!y most im#ort nt #re# > r tion for the writing of such !iter ry history& If- for inst ncewe shou!d w nt to write the (istory of 0ng!ish 8oetry in the eighteenth century- it wou!d be necess ry to ,now the e@ ct re> ! tionshi#s of the eighteenth>century #oets to S#enser- Mi!ton nd Dryden& A boo, !i,e R ymond ( vensA Mi!tonAs Inf!uence on 0ng!ish 8oetryI E centr !!y !iter ry study- ccumu! tes im> #ressive evidence for the inf!uence of Mi!ton- not on!y ssem> b!ing the o#inions of Mi!ton he!d by eighteenth>century #oets

2=0 /heory of Liter ture but studying the te@ts nd n !yzing simi! rities nd # r !!e!s& 8 r !!e!>hunting h s been wide!y discredited recent!y$ es#eci !!y when ttem#ted by n ine@#erienced student- it runs into obvi> ous d ngers& "irst of !!- # r !!e!s must be re ! # r !!e!s- not v gue simi! rities ssumed to turn- by mere mu!ti#!ic tion- into #roof& "orty zeroes sti!! m ,e zero& "urthermore- # r !!e!s must be e@c!usive # r !!e!s C th t is- there must be re son b!e cert inty th t they c nnot be e@#! ined by common sourcecert inty tt in b!e on!y if the investig tor h s wide ,now!edge of !it> er ture or if the # r !!e! is high!y intric te # ttern r ther th n n iso! ted ?motif? or word& 1or, vio! ting these e!ement ry re:uirements is not on!y shoc,ing!y ! rge in mount but is some> times #roduced by distinguished scho! rs who shou!d be b!e to recognize the common#! ces of #eriod H c!iches- stereoty#ed met #hors- simi! rities induced by common theme& 1= 1h tever the buses of the method- however- it is !egiti> m te method nd c nnot be reBected in toto& +y Budicious study of sources it is #ossib!e to est b!ish !iter ry re! tionshi#s& Among those- :uot tions- #! gi risms- mere echoes re the !e st interest> ing$ they est b!ish- t the most- the mere f ct of the re! tion> shi#- though there re uthors !i,e Sterne nd +urton who ,now how to use :uot tions for their own rtistic #ur#oses& +ut most :uestions of !iter ry re! tionshi#s re- obvious!y- f r more com> #!e@ nd re:uire for their so!ution critic ! n !ysis- for which the bringing together of # r !!e!s is mere!y minor instrument& /he defects of m ny studies of this ,ind !ie #recise!y in their ignoring this truth$ in their ttem#ts to iso! te one sing!e tr itthey bre , the wor, of rt into !itt!e #ieces of mos ic& /he re! > tionshi#s between two or more wor,s of !iter ture c n be dis> cussed #rofit b!y on!y when we see them in their #ro#er #! ce within the scheme of !iter ry deve!o#ment& Re! tionshi#s be> tween wor,s of rt #resent critic ! #rob!em of com# ring two who!es- two configur tions not to be bro,en into iso! ted com> #onents e@ce#t for #re!imin ry study& 1hen the com# rison is re !!y focused on two tot !ities- we sh !! be b!e to come to conc!usions on fund ment ! #rob!em of !iter ry history- th t of origin !ity& 'rigin !ity is usu !!y mis> conceived in our time s me ning mere vio! tion of tr ditionor it is sought for t the wrong #! ce- in the mere m teri ! of

Liter ry (istory 2=1 the wor, of rt- or in its mere sc ffo!ding H the tr dition ! #!otthe convention ! fr mewor,& In e r!ier #eriods- there w s sounder underst nding of the n ture of !iter ry cre tionrec> ognition th t the rtistic v !ue of mere!y origin ! #!ot or sub> Bect m tter w s sm !!& /he Ren iss nce nd *eo>9! ssicism right!y scribed gre t im#ort nce to tr ns! ting- es#eci !!y the

tr ns! ting of #oetry- nd to ?imit tion? in the sense in which 8o#e imit ted (or ceAs s tires or Dr& .ohnson- .uven !As& 1; Mis> conce#tions of the rtistic #rocess under!ie much wor, of this ,ind- e&g&- the m ny studies of Sir Sidney Lee on 0!iz beth n sonnets- which #rove the thorough convention !ity of the form but do not thereby #rove- s Sidney Lee su##osed- the insin> cerity nd b dness of the sonnets& 14 /o wor, within given tr > dition nd do#t its devices re #erfect!y com# tib!e with emo> tion ! #ower nd rtistic v !ue& /he re ! critic ! #rob!ems in this ,ind of study rise when we re ch the st ge of weighing nd com# ring- of showing how one rtist uti!izes the chievements of nother rtist- when we w tch the tr nsforming #ower& /he est b!ishment of the e@ ct #osition of e ch wor, in tr dition is the first t s, of !iter ry history& /he study of the re! tionshi#s between two or more wor,s of rt !e ds then to further #rob!ems in the evo!ution of !iter ry history& /he first nd most obvious series of wor,s of rt is th t of the wor,s written by one uthor& (ere scheme of v !uesn im- is !e st difficu!t to est b!ish$ we c n Budge one wor, or grou# of wor,s to be his m turest- nd c n n !yze !! the other wor,s from the #oint of view of their ##ro@im tion to this ty#e& Such study h s been ttem#ted in m ny monogr #hsthough r re!y with c!e r consciousness of the #rob!ems in> vo!ved- nd fre:uent!y in ine@tric b!e confusion with #rob!ems of the uthorAs #riv te !ife& Another ty#e of evo!ution ry series c n be constructed by iso> ! ting cert in tr it in wor,s of rt nd tr cing its #rogress to> w rd some ide ! 3even though tem#or ri!y ide !6 ty#e& /his c n be done in the writings of sing!e uthor if we study- for in> st nce- s 9!emen 20 did- the evo!ution of Sh ,es#e reAs im geryor it c n be done in #eriod or in the who!e of n tionAs !iter > ture& +oo,s !i,e those of <eorge S intsbury on the history of 0ng!ish #rosody nd #rose rhythm 21 iso! te such n e!ement nd

2=2 /heory of Liter ture tr ce its history- though S intsburyAs own mbitious boo,s re viti ted by the unc!e r nd obso!ete conce#tions of meter nd rhythm on which they re b sed- demonstr ting thereby th t no #ro#er history c n be written without n de:u te scheme of reference& /he s me ty#e of #rob!ems wi!! rise in history of 0ng!ish #oetic diction- for which we h ve on!y !itt!e s,etchesor in history of 0ng!ish #oetic im gery- which h s not been even ttem#ted& 1ith this ty#e of study one might be e@#ected to c! ss the m ny historic ! studies of themes nd motifs such s ( m!et or Don .u n or the 1 ndering .ew D but ctu !!y these re dif> ferent #rob!ems& K rious versions of story h ve no such neces> s ry connection or continuity s h ve meter nd diction& /o tr ce !! the different versions of- s y- the tr gedy of M ry Mueen of Scots throughout !iter ture might we!! be #rob!em of interest for the history of #o!itic ! sentiment- nd wou!d- of course- inci>

dent !!y i!!ustr te ch nges in the history of t ste H even ch ng> ing conce#tions of tr gedy& +ut it h s itse!f no re ! coherence or di !ectic& It #resents no sing!e #rob!em nd cert in!y no critic ! #rob!em& 22 Stoffgeschichte is the !e st !iter ry of histories& /he history of !iter ry genres nd ty#es offers nother grou# of #rob!ems& +ut the #rob!ems re not inso!ub!e D nd- des#ite 9roceAs ttem#ts to discredit the who!e conce#tion- we h ve m ny studies #re# r tory to such theory nd themse!ves sug> gesting the theoretic ! insight necess ry for the tr cing of c!e r history& /he di!emm of genre history is the di!emm of !! his> tory$ i&e&- in order to discover the scheme of reference 3in this c se- the genre6 we must study the history C but we c nnot study the history without h ving in mind some scheme of se!ection& 'ur !ogic ! circ!e is- however- not insurmount b!e in #r ctice& /here re some c ses- !i,e the sonnet- where some obvious e@> tern ! scheme of c! ssific tion 3the fourteen>!ine #oem rhymed ccording to definite # ttern6 #rovides the necess ry st rting> #oint B in other c ses- !i,e the e!egy or the ode- one m y !egiti> m te!y doubt whether more th n common !inguistic ! be! ho!ds together the history of the genre& /here seems !itt!e over! # be> tween +en .onsonAs ?'de to (imse!f-? 9o!!insA ?'de to 0ve> ning-? nd 1ordsworthAs ?Intim tions of Immort !ity? B but sh r#er eye wi!! see the common ncestry in (or ti n nd 8in>

Liter ry (istory 2=5 d ric ode- nd wi!! be b!e to est b!ish the connecting !in,- the continuity between ## rent!y dis# r te tr ditions nd ges& /he history of genres is indubit b!y one of the most #romising re s for the study of !iter ry history& /his ?mor#ho!ogic !? ##ro ch c n be nd shou!d be ##!ied on ! rge sc !e to fo!,!ore- where genres re fre:uent!y more c!e r!y #ronounced nd defined th n in ! ter rt>!iter ture- nd where this ##ro ch seems t !e st s signific nt s the common!y #referred study of the mere migr tions of ?motifs? nd #!ots& <ood beginnings h ve been m de- es#eci !!y in Russi & 25 Modern !iter ture- t !e st u# to the Rom ntic revo!t- is incom#rehensib!e without gr s# of both c! ssic ! genres nd the new genres which rose in the Midd!e AgesC their ming!ing nd cont min tiontheir strugg!e- is ! rge # rt of !iter ry history between 1D00 nd 1;00& Indeed- wh tever the Rom ntic ge m y h ve done to b!ur distinctions nd to introduce mi@ed forms- it wou!d be n error to underr te the #ower of the conce#t of genre- even in the most recent !iter ture& /he e r!y genre histories of +rune> tiere or Symonds re cert in!y viti ted by n e@cessive re!i nce on the bio!ogic ! # r !!e!& +ut in recent dec des there h ve come studies which wor, more c utious!y& Such studies run the d nger of reducing themse!ves to descri#tions of ty#es or to n unre> ! ted series of individu ! discussionsf te which h s overt ,en m ny boo,s c !!ing themse!ves histories of the dr m or the nove!& +ut there re boo,s which c!e r!y envis ge the #rob!em of the deve!o#ment of ty#e& It c n sc rce!y be ignored in writ> ing the (istory of 0ng!ish Dr m u# to Sh ,es#e re- within

which the succession of ty#es !i,e Mysteries nd Mor !ities nd the rise of modern dr m c n be tr ced in stri,ing mi@ed forms !i,e + !eAs 2ing .ohn& /hough divided in its #ur#oses- 1& 1& <regAs boo, on 8 stor ! 8oetry nd 8 stor ! Dr m is n e r!y e@ m#!e of good genre historyC 27 nd ! ter 9& S& LewisA A!!e> gory of Love 2D h s #rovided n i!!ustr tion of c!e r!y con> ceived scheme of deve!o#ment& In <erm ny- there re t !e st two very good boo,s- 2 r! KietorAs (istory of the <erm n 'de nd <iinther Mii!!erAs (istory of the <erm n Song& 2E +oth of these uthors h ve ref!ected cute!y u#on the #rob!ems with which they re confronted& 2= Kietor c!e r!y recognizes the !ogic ! circ!e but is not frightened by it$ the histori n- he sees- must

2=7 /heory of Liter ture intuitive!y- though #rovision !!y- gr s# wh t is essenti ! to the genre which is his concern- nd then go to the origins of the genre- to verify or correct his hy#othesis& /hough the genre wi!! ##e r in the history e@em#!ified in the individu ! wor,s- it wi!! not be described by !! tr its of these individu ! wor,s$ we must conceive of genre s ?regu! tive? conce#t- some under!ying # tternconvention which is re !- i&e&- effective bec use it c> tu !!y mo!ds the writing of concrete wor,s& /he history never needs to re ch s#ecific im in the sense th t there c nnot be ny further continu tion or differenti tion of genre- but- in order to write #ro#er history- we sh !! h ve to ,ee# in mind some tem#or ! im or ty#e& 0@ ct!y n !ogous #rob!ems re r ised by history of #eriod or movement& /he discussion of deve!o#ment must h ve shown th t we c nnot gree with two e@treme views$ either the met > #hysic ! view th t #eriod is n entity whose n ture h s to be intuited- or the e@treme nomin !istic view th t #eriod is mere !inguistic ! be! for ny section of time under consider tion for the #ur#oses of descri#tion& 0@treme nomin !ism ssumes th t #eriod is n rbitr ry su#erim#osition on m teri ! which in re !ity is continuous direction!ess f!u@- nd thus !e ves us with ch os of concrete events on the one h nd nd with #ure!y sub> Bective ! be!s on the other& If we ho!d this view- then obvious!y it does not m tter where we #ut cross>section through re !ity essenti !!y uniform in its m nifo!d v riety& It is then of no im> #ort nce wh t scheme of #eriods- however rbitr ry nd me> ch nic !- we do#t& 1e c n write !iter ry history by c !end r centuries- by dec des- or by ye rs- in n nn !istic f shion& 1e m y even do#t such criterion s Arthur Symons did in his boo, on /he Rom ntic Movement in 0ng!ish 8oetry& 2; (e dis> cusses on!y uthors born before 1 ;00 nd of those on!y such s died fter 1;00& 8eriod is then mere!y convenient wordnecessity in the subdivision of boo, or the choice of to#ic& /his view- though fre:uent!y unintended- under!ies the #r ctice of boo,s which devout!y res#ect the d te !ines between centuries or which set to to#ic e@ ct !imit tions of d te 3e&g&- 1=00> 1=D06 unBustified by ny re son s ve the #r ctic ! need for some !imits& /his res#ect for c !end r d tes is !egitim te- of course- in #ure!y bib!iogr #hic ! com#i! tions- where it #rovides such orient tion

Liter ry (istory 2=D s the Dewey decim ! system offers to !ibr ry D but such #eri> odic ! divisions h ve nothing to do with !iter ry history #ro#er& Most !iter ry histories- however- divide their #eriods in c> cord nce with #o!itic ! ch nges& Liter ture is thus conceived of s com#!ete!y determined by the #o!itic ! or soci ! revo!utions of n tion- nd the #rob!em of determining #eriods is h nded over to the #o!itic ! nd soci ! histori ns- whose divisions nd #eriods re usu !!y nd without :uestion do#ted& If we !oo, into o!der histories of 0ng!ish !iter ture- we sh !! find th t they re either written ccording to numeric ! divisions or ccording to one sim#!e #o!itic ! criterion H the reigns of the 0ng!ish sovereigns& It is sc rce!y necess ry to show how confusing it wou!d be to subdivide the ! ter history of 0ng!ish !iter ture ccording to the de th d tes of the mon rchs$ nobody thin,s serious!y of distin> guishing in e r!y nineteenth>century !iter ture between the reigns of <eorge III- <eorge IK- nd 1i!!i m IKC yet the e:u !!y rtifici ! distinctions between the reigns of 0!iz beth. mes I- nd 9h r!es I sti!! h ve some surviv !& If we !oo, into more recent histories of 0ng!ish !iter turewe find th t the o!d divisions by c !end r centuries or reigns of ,ings h ve dis ##e red !most com#!ete!y nd h ve been re> #! ced by series of #eriods whose n mes- t !e st- re derived from the most diverse ctivities of the hum n mind& /hough we sti!! use the terms ?0!iz beth n? nd ?Kictori n-? surviv !s of the o!d distinctions between reigns- they h ve ssumed new me ning inside scheme of inte!!ectu ! history& 1e ,ee# them bec use we fee! th t the two :ueens seem to symbo!ize the ch r> cter of their times& 1e no !onger insist u#on rigid chrono> !ogic ! #eriod ctu !!y determined by the scent to the throne nd the de th of the mon rch& 1e use the term ?0!iz beth n? to inc!ude writers before the c!osing of the the ters- !most forty ye rs fter the de th of the :ueenC nd- on the other h ndthough his !ife f !!s we!! within the chrono!ogic ! !imits of Kic> tori As reign- we r re!y s#e , of m n !i,e 'sc r 1i!de s Kictori n& /he terms- origin !!y of #o!itic ! origin- h ve thus ssumed definite me ning in inte!!ectu ! nd even in !iter ry history& *one the !ess- the mot!ey deriv tion of our current ! be!s is somewh t disconcerting& ?Reform tion? comes from ecc!esi stic ! historyC ?(um nism-? m in!y from the history of

2=E /heory of Liter ture scho! rshi#C ?Ren iss nce? from rt historyC ?9ommonwe !th? nd ?Restor tion? from definite #o!itic ! events& /he term ?eighteenth century? is n o!d numeric ! term which h s s> sumed some of the functions of !iter ry terms such s ?August n? nd ?*eo>9! ssic&? ?8re>Rom nticism? nd ?Rom nticism? re #rim ri!y !iter ry terms- whi!e Kictori n- 0dw rdi n- nd <eor>

gi n re derived from the reigns of the sovereigns& /he s me bewi!dering #icture is #resented by !most ny other !iter ture$ for e@ m#!e- the ?9o!oni ! #eriod? in Americ n !iter ture is #o!itic ! term- whi!e ?Rom nticism? nd ?Re !ism? re !iter ry terms& In defense of this mi@ture of terms it m y- of course- be urged th t the ## rent confusion w s c used by history itse!f& As !it> er ry histori ns- we h ve first of !! to # y heed to the ide s nd conce#tions- the #rogr ms nd n mes- of the writers themse!vesnd thus be content with cce#ting their own divisions& /he v !ue of the evidence su##!ied by conscious!y formu! ted #rogr msf ctions- nd se!f>inter#ret tions in the history of !iter ture isof course- not to be minimizedC but sure!y the term ?movement? might we!! be reserved for such se!f>conscious nd se!f>critic ! ctivities- to be described- s we wou!d describe ny other his> toric ! se:uence of events nd #ronouncements& +ut such #ro> gr ms re mere!y m teri !s for our study of #eriod- Bust s the who!e history of criticism wi!! offer running comment ry to ny history of !iter ture& /hey m y give us suggestions nd hints- but they shou!d not #rescribe our own methods nd divi> sions- not bec use our views re necess ri!y more #enetr ting th n theirs but bec use we h ve the benefit of seeing the # st in the !ight of the #resent& +esides- it must be s id- these terms of confusing!y different origin were not est b!ished in their own time& In 0ng!ish- the term ?(um nism? occurs first in 1;52- ?Ren iss nce? in 1;70?0!iz beth n? in 1; 1=- ?August n? in 1; 14- nd ?Rom nti> cism? in 1;77& /hese d tes- derived from the '@ford Dic> tion ry- re #rob b!y not :uite re!i b!e- for the term ?August n? ##e rs s#or dic !!y s e r!y s 1E40C 9 r!y!e uses ?Rom nti> cism? in 1 ;5 1& 24 +ut they indic te the time ! g between the ! be!s nd the #eriods which they design te& /he Rom nticistss we ,now- did not c !! themse!ves Rom nticists- t !e st in

Liter ry (istory 2.. 0ng! nd& A## rent!y on!y bout 1;74 were 9o!eridge nd 1ordsworth connected with the Rom ntic movement nd grou#ed with She!!ey- 2e ts- nd +yron& 50 In her Liter ry (is> tory of 0ng! nd between the 0nd of the 0ighteenth nd the +eginning of the *ineteenth 9entury 31;;26- Mrs& '!i#h nt never uses the term- nor does she conceive of the ?L ,e? #oetsthe ?9oc,ney? schoo!- nd the ?S t nic? +yron s one move> ment& /here is thus no historic ! Bustific tion for the #resent usu !!y cce#ted #eriods of 0ng!ish !iter ture& 'ne c nnot esc #e the conc!usion th t they constitute n indefensib!e Bumb!e of #o!itic !- !iter ry- nd rtistic ! be!s& +ut even if we h d series of #eriods ne t!y subdividing the cu!tur ! history of m n H #o!itics- #hi!oso#hy- the other rts- nd so forth H !iter ry history shou!d not be content to cce#t scheme rrived t on the b sis of v rious m teri !s with different ims in mind& Liter ture must not be conceived s being mere!y

# ssive ref!ection or co#y of the #o!itic !- soci !- or even inte!> !ectu ! deve!o#ment of m n,ind& /hus the !iter ry #eriod shou!d be est b!ished by #ure!y !iter ry criteri & If our resu!ts shou!d coincide with those of #o!itic !- soci !rtistic- nd inte!!ectu ! histori ns- there c n be no obBection& +ut our st rting #oint must be the deve!o#ment of !iter ture s !it> er ture& 8eriod is- then- on!y subsection of the univers ! de> ve!o#ment& Its history c n be written on!y with reference to v ri b!e scheme of v !ues- nd this scheme of v !ues h s to be bstr cted from history itse!f& A #eriod is thus time section domin ted by system of !iter ry norms- st nd rds- nd conven> tions- whose introduction- s#re d- diversific tion- integr tionnd dis ##e r nce c n be tr ced& /his does not- of course- me n th t we h ve to cce#t this system of norms s binding for ourse!ves& 1e must e@tr ct it from history itse!f$ we h ve to discover it there in re !ity& "or inst nce- ?Rom nticism? is not unit ry :u !ity which s#re ds !i,e n infection or #! gue- nor is it- of course- mere!y verb ! ! be!& It is n historic ! c tegory or- if one #refers the 2 nti n term?regu! tive ide ? 3or- r therwho!e system of ide s6 with the he!# of which we inter#ret the historic ! #rocess& +ut we h ve found this scheme of ide s in the #rocess itse!f& Such conce#t of the term ?#eriod? differs from one in fre:uent use-

2=; /heory of Liter ture which e@# nds it into #sycho!ogic ! ty#e det ch b!e from its historic ! conte@t& 1ithout necess ri!y condemning the use of est b!ished historic ! terms s n mes for such #sycho!ogic ! or rtistic ty#es- we shou!d see th t such ty#o!ogy of !iter ture is very different from the m tter under discussion H th t it does not be!ong to !iter ry history in the n rrow sense& /hus #eriod is not ty#e or c! ss but time section defined by system of norms embedded in the historic ! #rocess nd irremov b!e from it& /he m ny futi!e ttem#ts to define ?Ro> m nticism? show th t #eriod is not conce#t simi! r to c! ss in !ogic& If it w r ere- !! individu ! wor,s cou!d be subsumed under it& +ut this is m nifest!y im#ossib!e& An individu ! wor, of rt is not n inst nce in c! ss- but # rt which- together with !! the other wor,s- m ,es u# the conce#t of the #eriod& It thus itse!f modifies the conce#t of the who!e& /he discrimin tion of different ?Rom nticisms? 51 or mu!ti#!e definitions- however v !u b!e they re s indic tions of the com#!e@ity of the scheme to which they refer- seem on theoretic ! grounds mist ,en& It shou!d be fr n,!y re !ized th t #eriod is not n ide ! ty#e or n bstr ct # ttern or series of c! ss conce#ts- but time sec> tion- domin ted by who!e system of norms- which no wor, of rt wi!! ever re !ize in its entirety& /he history of #eriod wi!! consist in the tr cing of the ch nges from one system of norms to nother& 1hi!e #eriod is thus section of time to which some sort of unity is scribed- it is obvious th t this unity c n be on!y re! tive& It me ns mere!y th t during this #eriod cert in scheme

of norms h s been re !ized most fu!!y& If the unity of ny one #eriod were bso!ute- the #eriods wou!d !ie ne@t to e ch other !i,e b!oc,s of stone- without continuity of deve!o#ment& /hus the surviv ! of #receding scheme of norms nd the ntici# tions of fo!!owing scheme re inevit b!e- s #eriod is historic ! on!y if every event is considered s resu!t of the who!e #receding # st nd if its effects c n be tr ced into the who!e future& 52 /he #rob!em of writing the history of #eriod wi!! be first #rob!em of descri#tion$ we need to discern the dec y of one convention nd the rise of new one& 1hy this ch nge of con> vention h s come bout t # rticu! r moment is historic ! #rob!em inso!ub!e in gener ! terms& 'ne ty#e of so!ution #ro> #osed ssumes th t within the !iter ry deve!o#ment st ge of

Liter ry (istory 2=4 e@h ustion is re ched re:uiring the rise of new code& /he Rus> si n form !ists describe this #rocess s #rocess of ? utom ti> z tion-? i&e&- devices of #oetic cr ft effective in their time be> come so common nd h c,neyed th t new re ders become inured g inst them nd cr ve something different- something- it is ssumed- ntithetic to wh t h s gone before& A sees w !ter> n tion is the scheme of deve!o#mentseries of revo!ts ever !e ding to new ? ctu !iz tions? of diction- themes- nd !! other devices& +ut this theory does not m ,e c!e r why deve!o#> ment h s to move in the # rticu! r direction it h s t ,en$ mere sees w schemes re obvious!y in de:u te to describe the who!e com#!e@ity of the #rocess& 'ne e@#! n tion of these ch nges in direction wou!d #ut the burden on outside interferences nd #ressures of the soci ! mi!ieu& 0 ch ch nge of !iter ry conven> tion wou!d be c used by the rise of new c! ss or t !e st grou# of #eo#!e who cre te their own rt$ in Russi - with the c!e r c! ss distinctions nd ffi!i tions which #rev i!ed before 141=fre:uent!y c!ose corre! tion between soci ! nd !iter ry ch nge c n be est b!ished& Another e@#! n tion turns to the rise of new gener tion& /his theory h s found m ny dherents since 9ournotAs 9onsid> er tions sur ! m rche des idees 3 1 ;=26 nd h s been e! bor tedes#eci !!y in <erm ny- by 8etersen nd 1echss!er& 55 +ut it c n be obBected th t gener tion- t ,en s bio!ogic ! entity- does not offer ny so!ution t !!& If we #ostu! te three gener tions in century- e&g&- 1;00>1;55- 1 ;57>1;E4- 1;=0>1400- we must dmit th t there re e:u !!y series 1;01>1;57- 1;5D>1;=0- 1;=1>1401etc&- etc& +io!ogic !!y considered- these series re com#!ete!y e:u ! B nd the f ct th t grou# of #eo#!e born round 1;00 h ve inf!uenced !iter ry ch nge more #rofound!y th n grou# born round 1; 1D must be scribed to other th n #ure!y bio> !ogic ! c uses& It is undoubted!y true th t t some moments in history !iter ry ch nge is effected by grou# of young #eo#!e 3.ugendreihe6 of bout e:u ! ge$ the <erm n Sturm und Dr ng or Rom nticism re the obvious e@ m#!es& A cert in ?gener tion !? unity seems chieved by such soci ! nd his> toric ! f cts th t on!y #eo#!e of cert in ge grou# c n h ve

e@#erienced n im#ort nt event such s the "rench Revo!ution or the two 1or!d 1 rs t n im#ression b!e ge& +ut this is

2;0 /heory of Liter ture sim#!y the c se of one #owerfu! soci ! inf!uence& In other c ses we c n sc rce!y doubt th t !iter ry ch nge h s been #rofound!y inf!uenced by the m ture wor,s of o!d men& 'n the who!e- the mere e@ch nge of gener tions or soci ! c! sses is insufficient to e@#! in !iter ry ch nge& It is com#!e@ #rocess v rying from occ sion to occ sion C it is # rt!y intern !- c used by e@h ustion nd the desire for ch nge- but !so # rt!y e@tern !- c used by soci !- inte!!ectu !- nd !! other cu!tur ! ch nges& An unending discussion h s been given to the m in #eriods of modern !iter ry history& /he terms ?Ren iss nce-? ?9! ssicism-? ?Rom nticism-? ?Symbo!ism-? nd recent!y ?+ ro:ue? h ve been defined- redefined- controverted& 57 It is un!i,e!y th t ny ,ind of greement c n be re ched so !ong s the theoretic ! issues we h ve tried to c! rify rem in confused- so !ong s the men eng ged in the discussions insist on !ogic ! definitions- confuse ?#eriod? terms with ?ty#e? terms- confuse the sem ntic history of the terms with the ctu ! ch nges of sty!e& Muite underst nd> b!y- A& '& LoveBoy nd others h ve recommended the b n> donment of such terms s ?Rom nticism&? +ut the discussion of #eriod wi!! t !e st r ise !! ,inds of :uestions of !iter ry his> tory$ the history of the term nd the critic ! #rogr ms s we!! s the ctu ! sty!istic ch nges C the re! tionshi#s of the #eriod to !! the other ctivities of m n D the re! tionshi# to the s me #eriods in other countries& As term- Rom nticism comes ! te to 0ng> ! nd- but there is new #rogr m in 1ordsworthAs nd 9o!e> ridgeAs theories which h s to be discussed in re! tion to the #r c> tice of 1ordsworth nd 9o!eridge nd to th t of the other Ro> m ntic #oets& /here is new sty!e whose ntici# tions c n be tr ced b c, even into the e r!y eighteenth century& 1e c n com> # re 0ng!ish Rom nticism with the different Rom nticisms in "r nce nd <erm ny nd c n study the # r !!e!s or !!eged # r> !!e!s with the Rom ntic movement in the fine rts& /he #rob> !ems wi!! be different in every time nd #! ce$ it seems im#os> sib!e to m ,e gener ! ru!es& 9 z mi nAs su##osition th t the !tern tion of #eriods h s grown s#eedier nd s#eedier unti! tod y the osci!! tion h s become st bi!ized is sure!y mist ,ennd so re ttem#ts to st te dogm tic !!y which rt #recedes nother or which n tion #recedes nother in the introduction of new sty!e& 'bvious!y we shou!d not e@#ect too much from

Liter ry (istory 2;1 mere #eriod ! be!s $ one word c nnot c rry dozen connot tions& +ut the s,e#tic ! conc!usion which wou!d b ndon the #rob!em is e:u !!y mist ,en- s the conce#t of #eriod is cert in!y one of the m in instruments of historic ! ,now!edge&

/he further nd wider #rob!emhistory of n tion ! !iter > ture s who!e- is h rder to envis ge& It is difficu!t to tr ce the history of n tion ! !iter ture s n rt when the who!e fr me> wor, invites to references essenti !!y un!iter ry- to s#ecu! tions bout n tion ! ethics nd n tion ! ch r cteristics which h ve !itt!e to do with the rt of !iter ture& In the c se of Americ n !iter > ture- where there is no !inguistic distinction from nother n > tion ! !iter ture- the difficu!ties become m nifo!d- since the de> ve!o#ment of the rt of !iter ture in Americ must be necess ri!y incom#!ete nd # rt!y de#endent on n o!der nd stronger tr > dition& 9!e r!y- ny n tion ! deve!o#ment of the rt of !iter ture #resents #rob!em which the histori n c nnot fford to ignorethough it h s sc rce!y ever been investig ted in ny system tic f shion& *eed!ess to s y- histories of grou#s of !iter tures re even more dist nt ide !s& /he e@istent e@ m#!es- such s . n M ch !As S! vonic Liter tures or Leon rdo '!sch,iAs ttem#t to write history of !! Rom nce !iter tures during the Midd!e Ages- re not too successfu!& 5D Most histories of wor!d !iter ture re ttem#ts to tr ce the m in tr dition of 0uro#e n !iter ture united by their common descent from <reece nd Rome- but none of these h ve gone beyond ideo!ogic ! gener !ities or su#er> fici ! com#i! tions un!ess #ossib!y the bri!!i nt s,etches by the brothers Sch!ege!- which h rd!y serve contem#or ry needs& 5E "in !!ygener ! history of the rt of !iter ture is sti!! f r dis> t nt ide !& /he e@isting ttem#ts- !i,e .ohn +rownAs (istory of the Rise nd 8rogress of 8oetry d ting from 1=E5- re too s#ecu! tive nd schem tic- or e!se- !i,e the 9h dwic,sA three vo!> umes on /he <rowth of Liter ture- #reoccu#ied with :uestions of st tic ty#es of or ! !iter ture& 5= After !!- we re on!y beginning to !e rn how to n !yze wor, of rt in its integrityC we re sti!! very c!umsy in our methods- nd their b sis in theory is sti!! const nt!y shifting& /hus- much is before us& *or is there nything to regret in the f ct th t !iter ry history h s future s we!! s # stfuture which c nnot nd shou!d not consist mere!y in the fi!!ing of

2;2 /heory of Liter ture g #s in the scheme discovered by o!der methods& 1e must see, to e! bor te new ide ! of !iter ry history nd new methods which wou!d m ,e its re !iz tion #ossib!e& If the ide ! here out> !ined seems undu!y ?#urist? in its em#h sis on the history of !iter ture s n rt- we c n vow th t no other ##ro ch h s been considered inv !id nd th t concentr tion seems necess ry nti> dote to the e@# nsionist movement through which !iter ry his> tory h s # ssed in the ! st dec des& A c!e r consciousness of scheme of re! tionshi#s between methods is in itse!f remedy g inst ment ! confusion- even though the individu ! m y e!ect to combine sever ! methods&

/he Ac demic Situ tion

9(A8/0R JJ /he Study of Liter ture in the <r du te Schoo! "or t !e st gener tion- now- Americ ns of !iter ry interests h ve fe!t i!! t e se either within or without our universities& Young men h ve gone to gr du te schoo! in se rch of doctor tegener !!y in 0ng!ish- with the ho#e of receiving serious !iter ry educ tion& Some h ve dro##ed outC others h ve become bitter but resigned 5 others h ve com#!ied but been distr cted from their #ro#er direction nd on!y be! ted!y h ve sought to give themse!ves th t !iter ry disci#!ine they h d missed& 1h t is the m tter with our ?higher study? of !iter tureI Are we offered no wider choice th n between the ?historic ! method? 3not the s me s !iter ry history6 nd di!ett ntismI Is the situ > tion #ecu!i r!y Americ nI /here is n obvious g in in #ers#ective if- before ddressing ourse!ves s#ecific !!y nd #r ctic !!y to the f mi!i r !oc ! situ > tion- we review brief!y the com# r b!e situ tions- between the two 1or!d 1 rs- in 0ng! nd- "r nce- <erm ny- nd Russi & 1 In 0ng! nd- the m ss>#roduction of 8h&D&As is not d ngerfor the universities re sti!! com# r tive!y few- nd m n ge with sm !! st ffs& 2 Mere nti:u ri nism- however- is f!ourishing& An inf!uenti ! #rofessor h s been he rd to s y th t the future of !iter ry scho! rshi# is in ?bib!iogr #hy-? i&e&- the ty#e of te@tu ! criticism cu!tiv ted by 1& 1& <reg nd Dover 1i!son& +ut f r more inf!uenti ! nd #rominent is ?gentee!? tr dition which ##roves the writing of irres#onsib!e- whimsic !- im#ressionistic ess ys& In !e ding #ositions there re sti!! men contem#tuous of !! theory nd system- of everything modern nd contem#or rymen best e@em#!ified #erh #s by the ! te 8resident of M gd !enDr& <eorge <ordon& /hough the educ tion of student of 0ng> !ish in the +ritish universities m y be more !iter ry th n in most Americ n universities- one c nnot s y th t it gives critic ! tr in> ing- not to s#e , of nything !i,e system tic theory& In 0ng> 2;D

2;E /heory of Liter ture ! nd- !itt!e c demic #ub!ic tion voids the e@tremes of #ure nti:u ri nism on the one h nd nd #ure !iter ry ess y>writing on the other& /here re- to be sure- some #recursors of ch ngemen !i,e <eoffrey /i!!otsonstudent of the history of 0ng!ish #oetry- who- though his theory be f r too re! tivistic- is gen> uine!y occu#ied with #oetics- or "& R& Le vis- editor of Scrutinywho- s !e der of critic ! grou#- h s fought vigorous!y g inst c demic genti!ity- or Le visA b!e ssoci te- L& 9& 2nights& /he

+ritish universities h ve the consider b!e dv nt ge of dr wing on students who come from cu!tiv ted f mi!ies- nd who h ve re> ceived sound tr ining in the c! ssic ! ! ngu ges& +ut the sus#icion of theory nd the #rev i!ing genti!ity combine to #rec!ude high st nd rd of critic ! scho! rshi#& A reform is overdue& At the end of the nineteenth century- <erm ny w s the center nd norm of e@ ct rese rch nd ?scientific method&? 5 +etween the two w rs- re ction went to m zing !engths$ from f cts nd f cts !one- one is tem#ted to s y- the <erm ns swung to f nciess#ecu! tions- nd dogm & /he <erm ns it w s who re cted g inst wh t Americ n hum nists re sti!! !i,e!y to thin, of s ?<erm n scho! rshi#&? Among them there were- of course- tem> #er te- distinguished thin,ers- !i,e Di!they nd )nger- who de> fined #rob!ems of method nd c! rified e#istemo!ogic ! issues& +ut- es#eci !!y in its ! ter deve!o#ments- <erm n !iter ry scho! rshi# h s #roduced gr ndiose theories nd #retentious verb !isms which neither rise from nor ##!y themse!ves to concrete wor,s of rt& 0ven before the * zis- <erm n theorizers concentr ted on the <erm n ?<eist? nd its #ermut tions& /he chief writers h ve sc rce!y been critic !!y n !yzed- s ve #er> h #s in terms of their #o!itic ! thought - nd- indeed- outside of n tion !istic nd r ci !ist criteri 3sometimes disguised- !i,e ?org nicity?6- <erm n !iter ry scho! rshi# is high!y re! tivistic& Studies in ?com# r tive !iter ture-? in some res#ects ctive- re domin ted by the s me reference to the norms of <erm n 2u!tur nd <erm n <eist& /hough the * zi ru!e h s # ssed- those twe!ve ye rs must h ve !eft their dee# im#ress even on men not technic !!y identified with the ?movement&? Its r ci ! theoryits # tho!ogic ! sense of su#eriority to the rest of the wor!d- nd its centr !!y #o!itic ! out!oo, h ve #erv ded <erm n !iter ry

/he Study of Liter ture in the <r du te Schoo! 2;= scho! rshi#- necessit ting its #resent reconstruction the bottom& !most from

In "r nce- the tr dition of critic ! scho! rshi# h s been very strong B nd "rench !iter ry scho! rshi#- on the who!e- h s been in !ess d nger of !osing the sense of its true voc tion th n h s !iter ry scho! rshi# e!sewhere& +ut in "r nce there h s been tendency tow rd m ss>#roduction& /he enormous these h s en> cour ged sheer wordiness- rhetoric- or the indiscrimin te dis#! y of m teri !s C nd- when the wor, is devoted to foreign uthorit h s inc!uded word>for>word tr ns! tions& After the first 1or!d 1 r- it wou!d ##e r th t "r nce w nted to vie with <erm n org nized scho! rshi# $ one thin,s of the e! bor te nd overe! b> or te editions of "rench c! ssics !i,e R be! is or the ?integr !? !iter ry history of D nie! Mornet- who dvoc tes the study of minor nd even ?minim !? uthors& 7 (ence critic !i,e K !ery L rb ud #ro#oses th t scho! rs be forbidden to write boo,s nd be !imited to #rinting of their tre sured fiches- their ?notes nd :ueries&? D /he "rench h ve #roduced !itt!e system tic !iter ry theory nd h ve- on the who!e- voided methodo!ogic ! discus> sion& In # rt- however- these very ! c,s testify not on!y to dist ste

for /eutonic e@tremes but to the gener ! soundness of the "rench tr dition& /he "rench universities c n sti!! t ,e for gr nted cer> t in hum nistic tr ining im# rted by the !ycees H tr ining which- though r ther !imited in sco#e nd t ste- inc!udes gr m> m r- rhetoric- nd e@#!ic tion of te@ts& +ut in "r nce- s e!se> where- the disBunction between scho! rshi# nd criticism widens& In Russi - Bust fter the first 1or!d 1 r- the "orm !istsorigin !!y grou# of !inguists- did much to c! rify the meth> odo!ogy of !iter ry study nd #roduced some e@ce!!ent n !yses of #oetry nd #rose& E /heir reso!ution to study !iter ture s !iter> ture w s dmir b!eC but it is im#ossib!e to endorse their void> nce of the critic ! #rob!em& /hrough their stress on evo!utionon ?historic ! #oetics-? they rrived t new re! tivism- ccord> ing to which wor,s of !iter ture re to be Budged so!e!y by how f r they modify e@isting #oetic convention- succeed in ch nging the course of !iter ture& *ow- "orm !ism s movement h s been su##ressed& Most of its #ro#onents h ve shifted their writing to historic ! nove!s nd biogr #hies& Liter ry scho! rshi# is offici !!y domin ted by

2;; /heory of Liter ture the M r@ist view& It is- however- #ossib!e H witness the new Soviet Ac demy (istories of Russi n- "rench- 0ng!ish nd Americ n Liter ture H to combine #rofessions of M r@ist f ith 3 ttested by fre:uent cit tions of M r@ nd Lenin6 not on!y with convention ! historic ! scho! rshi# but !so with observ > tions form !istic in origins nd methods& 'n the who!e- Soviet !iter ry scho! rshi# is !ess #ure!y nti:u ri n th n its Americ n e:uiv !ent- s it is !so f r !ess theoretic ! nd c!oudy th n the <erm nC but it suffers from its n rrow conce#tion of soci ! uti!ity nd is not centr !!y or #rim ri!y ?!iter ry&? 'ne c nnot yet ntici# te the w y in which 0uro#e n !iter ry scho! rshi# wi!! be reconstituted& +ut it seems #rob b!e th t- in ny c se- !e dershi# h s # ssed to the )nited St tes& (ere the m teri ! b ses h ve been unim# ired C here it h s been #ossib!e to ssemb!e 0uro#e n scho! rs of methodo!ogic ! nd s#ecu! tive concerns s we!! s !e rning C nd here there is n tive- inde> #endent critic ! movement beginning to m ,e itse!f c demic !!y fe!t& (ere there is ch nce H though one which we c n miss or misuse H to reconstitute !iter ry scho! rshi# on more critic ! !ines$ to give mere!y nti:u ri n !e rning its #ro#er subsidi ry #ositionto bre , down n tion !istic nd !inguistic #rovinci !isms- to bring scho! rshi# into ctive re! tions with contem#or ry !iter ture- to give scho! rshi# theoretic ! nd critic ! w reness& /he #resent st tus of Americ n scho! rshi# in !iter ture h s been fre:uent!y nd often unf vor b!y ch r cterized& = /he com> mon obBections rehe rse the trivi !ity- futi!ity- remoteness from !ife nd !iter ture of much c demic #ub!ic tionC the chief!y :u ntit tive st nd rdsC the e@ !t tion of the hitherto un,nown nd un#ub!ished- wh tever its intrinsic worthC the com#! cent

#!e sure in mere f ctu ! ccur cy& Ac demics re- of course- in> c!ined to dismiss such strictures s either #erfectionist or hosti!e H m de by those e@tr muros& /hey defend current #roduction v rious!y- sometimes on the conviction th t ny ,ind of industry is #refer b!e to undisguised ! ziness- or to mere!y #o!ite #ursuits !i,e g rdening- go!f #! ying- coc,t i!s- nd /he *ew Yor,er& /hey c n m int in H nd fre:uent!y with some truth H th t wh t ##e rs trivi ! to the ! ym n m y- to the conte@tu !!y w re s#e> ci !ist- seem signific nt& /hey m y ssert th t the fe r of erudite ccumu! tions 3?m sses of ,now!edge?6 is e@cessive H or v in&

/he Study of Liter ture in the <r du te Schoo! 2;4 Such defenses- we thin,- void the re ! issue& /he crisis of the #rofession is not due to scho! rshi# or to such un void b!e tech> nic !ities of #rofession s invite the ridicu!e of the outsider& R ther- we h ve to do with s#eci ! situ tion- th t of the !iter ry scho! r C nd we be!ieve it remedi b!e from within the #rofession& /here re- indubit b!y- some ho#efu! signs& 1ithin the ! st twenty>five ye rs- those who fee! the need of reform h ve grown to be voc ! minority& At 9hic go- the who!e gr du te #rogr m h s been bo!d!y reoriented from the historic ! to the critic ! C t Iow - under *orm n "oerster- the Schoo! of Letters deve!o#ed com#rehensive nd f!e@ib!e critic ! doctor te C !most every> where there h ve been some ch nges in n n !ogous direction& /hese new interests t the universities find e@#ression nd stimu> ! tion in the new grou#s which h ve- t the Modern L ngu ge Associ tion conventions- been org nized s ?S#eci ! /o#ics&? *ow- s critic ! !tern tive to the org niz tion by historic ! #eriods- we h ve sections studying 8oetics nd <ener ! Aes> thetics- Liter ture nd Society- Liter ture nd the "ine Arts& /he s me fe!t need for the rticu! tion of theory nd method #rom#ted the est b!ishment of the 0ng!ish Institute- which h s !re dy he!d si@ nnu ! meetings& In the wor!d of #rofession ! m g zines- simi! r ch nges re observ b!e& /he ?!e rned Bourn !s-? inc!uding the 8MLA- h ve incre sing!y dmitted rtic!es 3theory- !iter ry criticism- studies of contem#or ry writers !i,e .oyce- 8roust- nd /& S& 0!iot6 which- before- wou!d either h ve been reBected or never received& Some recent!y est b!ished Bourn !s- not b!y the .ourn ! of the (istory of Ide s nd the .ourn ! of Aesthetics nd Art 9riticismh ve set new st nd rds of inte!!ectu ! #recision nd sty!istic c re& +ut our m g zines of ?!iter ry scho! rshi#? inc!ude !so- nd centr !!y- the critic ! or critic ! nd cre tive :u rter!ies H the ! te 9riterion nd Southern Review- the current Scrutiny- Sew nee Review- 2enyon Review- 8 rtis n Review- nd Accent& 'f the obvious forces which wor, for the #reserv tion of the e@isting order- the chief is undoubted!y inerti & 'thers re of institution ! n ture& Americ n universities h ve become enor> mous enter#rises re:uiring huge st ffs of 0ng!ish nd Modern L ngu ge te chers& /he necess ry c! ssific tion nd gr ding of such te chers c n most e si!y be done by giving them st nd> n

240 /heory of Liter ture rdized educ tion with st nd rdized degrees- nd by me suring their subse:uent chievement in terms of # ges contributed to ?!e rned Bourn !s?C nd it is m nifest!y difficu!t to re#! ce this system by something !ess mech nic !& "urther- the overe@# nsion of the university h s !ed to cor> res#onding over#roduction of te chers of 0ng!ish& Li,e history!iter ture is too often t ught by men without s#ecific voc tion- by those who might s we!! h ve become businessmen- ! wyers- or #re chers& /he te cher of !iter ture shou!d himse!f be !iter ry m n- s #rofessors of #hi!oso#hy re- sti!!- e@#ected to be #hi!os> o#hers- not mere!y histori ns of #hi!oso#hy& 1hether #r c> ticing #oet or nove!ist or critic or theorist- he shou!d be m n who h s e@#erienced- nd who v !ues- !iter ture s n rt& In the tr dition ! sense- he shou!d be n ? #o!ogist? for !iter ture& 9ur> rent!y- other disci#!ines H e&g&- socio!ogy- #sychi try H #ress their c! ims- e@tend the ##!ic tion of their #rinci#!es& /he #rofessor of !iter ture must be convers nt with the re! tions between !it> er ry theory- #hi!oso#hy- #sycho!ogy& (e must be b!e to give some re soned ccount- to re#resent tives of other disci#!ines- of the n ture nd v !ue of !iter ture& /he eminent "rench criticA!bert /hib udet- h s suggested th t- Bust s there re ch irs of #hi!oso#hy- so there shou!d be ch irs of ?!iter ture-? for in> :uiries which be!ong to the gener ! theory of !iter ture& /he sug> gestion is good& +ut we Americ ns shou!d do more$ we shou!d see, to m ,e our #rofessors of 0ng!ish into #rofessors of Liter > ture& /he re#!y from the ?o!d gu rd? wi!! of course be th t no in> dividu ! c n be n ? uthority? on 0ng!ish !iter ture- !et !one on ?!iter ture&? Distinction in !iter ry scho! rshi# is #ossib!e on!y through sh r# !imit tion of the d t H in effect!imit tion in time nd s# ce 3one #eriod- one n tion- one uthor6& /he st nd> rd 0ng!ish de# rtments must sti!! h ve n ccredited s#eci !ist in 9h ucer- in Sh ,es#e re- nd in Mi!ton- nd for e ch #eriod of fifty or hundred ye rs& As the #ub!ic tions of scho! rshi# incre se- it becomes more nd more difficu!t to be- without s crifice of #ers#ectivetech> nic ! Sh ,es#e re scho! r& 0& 0& Sto!! is one of our few Sh ,e> s#e re ns who is !so m n of !etters& /he most com#rehensive

/he Study of Liter ture In the <r du te Schoo! 24 1 recent critic of Sh ,es#e re- the ! te <r nvi!!e>+ r,er- w s dr m tist nd dr m tic #roducer- not #rofessor& +ut #rev i!ing conce#tions of wh t constitutes distinction in de# rtment we be!ieve to be unsound!y n rrow nd su#erfici !& )niversities shou!d ##oint to their v c nt ch irs on!y men of

gener ! inte!!ectu ! nd !iter ry distinction- the best they c n find& /here is no need to fo!!ow Mi!tonist with Mi!tonist& *or is it necess ry th t Mi!ton be t ught by Mi!tonist- i&e&someone who h s #ub!ished boo,s nd rtic!es on Mi!ton& It is the #resent #resum#tion th t m n te ches on!y fter he h s #ub!ished boo, or rtic!e on the uthor to whom the course is devoted& 1e might better rgue- however- th t he shou!d te ch the course on!y ti!! he h s #ub!ished his boo,& After his view h s been deve!o#ed nd committed to #rint- it is w ste of time to h ve it re#e ted nd di!uted in !ectures& A #rofessor of !iter ture shou!d be b!e- with #ro#er d hoc #re# r tion- to te ch nd to write on ny uthor or #eriod within his !inguistic com# ss$ 1& 8& 2er- (& .& 9& <rierson- nd M rio 8r z re e@ m#!es of such vers ti!e distinction& Rese rch of ?f ctu !? sort is not necess ry to the #roduction of sound crit> icism& +ut- wh t the te cher>critic does need- of course- is the gr s# his tr ining in the methods of !iter ry scho! rshi# shou!d give him H the bi!ity to Budge the gener ! re!i bi!ity of #ub> !ished rese rch- the bi!ity to n !yze the ssum#tions nd !ogic of other !iter ry scho! rs- the bi!ity to n !yze #oem- nove!or #! y& Inste d of st ffing de# rtment in terms of ?Sh ,es#e re men? nd ?1ordsworth men-? we shou!d- better- invo,e ty#es of mind nd method& ( ve we someone de#t t e@egesis nd #r ctic ! criticismI ( ve we !iter ry theoristI ( ve we m n of strong #hi!oso#hic ! interests nd tr ining who c n n !yze the interre! tions of !iter ture nd #hi!oso#hy in the ?history of ide s?I ( ve we #oetI ( ve we te cher who h s ctive soci ! nd #o!itic ! interests without ce sing to be !iter ry m nI ( ve we ?9 tho!ic inte!!ectu !?I ( ve we m n versed in modern #sycho!ogy nd #sychi tryI ( ve we men who re de:u te!y sym# thetic re#resent tives of the chief !iter ry ,inds H dr m - the nove!- #oetryI )n void b!y- if our de# rtments !ter their conce#tions of

242 /heory of Liter ture 0ng!ish #rofessors- o!der men- within given university nd e!sewhere- wi!! com#! in th t st nd rds h ve been !owered or given u#& A!! such ! ments- it is im#ort nt to see- re not st te> ments of f ct but Budgments of v !ue& If- in 1450- 2ittredge h d retired nd /& S& 0!iot h d been ##ointed in his ste d- most ( rv rd 8h&D&As wou!d #rob b!y h ve s id th t ( rv rd st nd> rds h d dec!ined& /hey wou!d obvious!y h ve ch nged& 1hen our st nd rds for #rofessors grow more !iter ry- we sh !! sur> render some things once thought im#er tive whi!e we sh !! !so m ,e new e@ ctions& /o # ss from ##ointment nd #romotion to their corre! tive nd- in ! rge me sure- #rere:uisite H the tr ining of future te chers of !iter ture$ we urge f r>re ching reform in the tr in> ing of c ndid tes for the 8h&D& ; In gener !- two w ys re o#en&

/he first wou!d invo!ve sh r#er distinction between the te cher nd the scho! r& Sm !!er nd humb!er institutions H #erh #s most co!!eges H wou!d b ndon their #resent #retensions to ?scho! r!y rese rch&? /he doctor te H or t ny r te the 8h&D& H wou!d re !!y re#resent wh t it h s #rofessed to re#resent& Its ho!ders wou!d be s#eci !ists with e sy ccess to the ! rgest !ibr ries- whofreed from e!ement ry te ching- wou!d devote themse!ves to their own studies nd the tr ining of their successors& /he new ?higher? 8h&D& wou!d corres#ond r ther to "rench docteur es !ettres or the ( bitu tion of <erm n 8riv tdozent& In ddition- there wou!d be ?te ching? degree- fr n,!y uti!i> t ri n- which wou!d be focused on wh t wou!d be usefu! in future co!!ege te ching- nd might re:uire courses in 0duc tion or #os> sib!y ?#r ctice te ching&? /hough it wou!d meet some of the crit> icisms of the #resent situ tion- this so!ution wou!d not be s tis> f ctory- but- #rob b!y- even ggr v te the divorce between !e rning nd !iter ture& /he ?high? 8h&D& wou!d tend to become n even more technic ! nd nti:u ri n degree C the te ching de> gree wou!d tend to become #ure!y voc tion !- i!!iber !& /he other nd o##osite w y- which is !so the democr tic w yseems much the sounder& It wou!d reform the 8h&D& in the direction of m ,ing its ho!der not s#eci !ist in #eriod but #rofession ! m n of !ettersm n who- in ddition to 0ng!ish nd Americ n !iter ture- ,nows !iter ry theory- the modes of scho! rshi# nd criticism- who- without recourse to im#ressionism

/he Study of Liter ture in the <r du te Schoo! 245 nd ? ##reci tion-? c n n !yze nd discuss boo,s with his c! sses& Such #rogr m of gr du te study cou!d be in ugur ted gr d> u !!y& "e sib!e me ns #resent themse!ves& In the !inguistic re:uirements- r dic ! ch nge shou!d be m de& /he usu ! #erfunctory tt inments in the mediev ! st ges of modern ! ngu ges nd in L tin re- we thin,- of !itt!e direct v !ue to the student of modern !iter tures& /his is- of coursenot to dis# r ge re !!y subst nti ! tt inments in the c! ssic ! ! n> gu ges- nor to :uestion the im#ort nce of '!d "rench or '!d *orse s we!! s L tin for the student s#eci !izing in mediev ! !iter ture nd civi!iz tions& *or- of course- do we doubt the v !ue of science of !inguistics which h s its own r tion !e nd #rob!ems nd shou!d tr in scho! rs by its own methods& +ut the new ty#e of 8h&D& wou!d #rofit most- it seems to us- from re ! convers nce with one or two modern ! ngu ges& /he #resent e@ min tions in "rench nd <erm n fre:uent!y test the c ndi> d tesA bi!ity to re d some # #er in 0ng!ische Studien or Ang!i or some # ss ge in / ine or Legouis>9 z mi n H the bi!ity- th t is- to re d c demic or critic ! #rose concerning 0ng!ish !iter > ture& /he ssum#tion- sure!y de#!or b!e- is th t "rench nd <erm n- for the m n of !etters s for the chemist or #hysicist- re too! subBects- vehic!es of scientific communic tion& At #resent our !inguistic re:uirements re too e sy- too uni>

form- nd not de:u te!y !iter ry& 'ur student of !iter ture shou!d ,now "rench or <erm n or It !i n or even S# nish or Russi n so we!! th t he c n re d #oetry nd fiction in one or two of those tongues with !iter ry underst nding& If he ,nows R cine nd + ude! ire- or <oethe nd Ri!,e H which- of course- im> #!ies th t he is b!e to study other "rench nd <erm n #oets H his underst nding of 0ng!ish #oetry wi!! be me sur b!y in> cre sed 3in terms not of ?sources? nd ?inf!uences? but of com> # rison nd contr st6 nd he wi!! come into direct re! tion with modern movements of !iter ture- which neither c n nor shou!d be understood in terms of sing!e ! ngu ge& /hus it wou!d be #ossib!e to !ower those bound ries between n tion ! !iter tures which h ve obstructed the syno#tic view of !iter ry history- to ##ro@im te- t !e st- the ide ! of ?gener ! !iter ture&? 'ur #resent gr du te curricu!um offers two ,inds of courses H

247 /heory of Liter ture those in #eriods nd those in gre t uthors- both 3in #r ctice6 i!!ustr tions of !oose!y conceived !iter ry history B nd there is tendency to thin, of com#u!sory courses in the chief #eriods nd uthors& +oth the course theory of educ tion nd the e@> c!usive ru!e of the ?historic ! method? shou!d be ch !!enged& A gr du te schoo! e@ists to induct !iter ri!y serious students into n c:u int nce with the ims nd methods of !iter ry study nd to #rovide critic ! su#ervision of their re ding nd writing& Such conce#tion inc!udes both ?scho! rshi#? nd ?criticism? 3 s Amer> ic ns common!y use these terms6 nd refuses to distinguish in its methods of study between !iter ture before the twentieth century nd ?contem#or ry !iter ture&? "or curricu! r re:uirements- we shou!d #! n ?ty#es? of courses& 'ne wou!d be course in #eriod- which need not be restricted to sing!e !iter ture$ ?/he Age of Re son-? or ?/he Rom ntic Movement? shou!d survey t !e st "r nce- <erm ny0ng! nd- nd Americ & A course in sing!e uthor #rovides H shou!d indeed necessit te H c!ose re ding nd e@egesis C but the uthors thus se!ected need not be !w ys the s me- nor on!y the three or four m sters- nor !w ys uthors from the remote # st& /here shou!d be genre course- which need not be so bro d s ?/he 0ng!ish *ove!? but shou!d cert in!y not turn into series of iso! ted n !yses& /here shou!d be course in !iter ry theory& /here shou!d be semin r studying s#ecific ##ro ches to !iter > ture H the biogr #hic !- the socio!ogic !- the ideo!ogic ! C studying the re! tions between !iter ture nd the fine rts- between !iter> ture nd #hi!oso#hy& /he doctor ! thesis shou!d be conceived of s f!e@ib!y s we conceive of #rofession ! !iter ry distinction& As the most in> dividu ! # rt of m nAs #rofession ! tr ining- it shou!d give the re der H not mere!y the offici ! de# rtment ! ?re der? H re ! s m#!e of its uthorAs inte!!ectu ! :u !ity& It shou!d cert in!y not be ssigned by the s#onsoring #rofessor s subdivision of some to#ic u#on which he is #rofession !!y eng ged C it shou!d- r ther-

be #ro#osed by the c ndid te nd r tified s suit b!e nd in> te!!ectu !!y #rofit b!e by the dvisor& Length nd document tion H or degree of document tion H shou!d be f!e@ib!e& 0very to#ic h s its own !ogic nd its own !ength& Mere industry nd en> dur nce re not inte!!ectu ! virtuesC nd the fiches H the three>

/he Study of Liter ture in the <r du te Schoo! 24D by>five c rds H shou!d not- even though # sted together- con> stitute boo,& Shou!d the thesis be #rinted- nd if so- when nd howI It- or some re#resent tive # rt of it- shou!d be #ub!ished r ther soon fter the w rding of the degree& It does not seem desir b!e th t ten or fifteen ye rs shou!d go to wor,ing over of the thesiswhich m y then become the uthorAs so!e #ub!ic tion& A##ren> ticeshi# shou!d not be #ro!onged into midd!e ge& If m n h s no c # city for inde#endent study nd writing- he shou!d not be s# red th t se!f>,now!edge& /he success or f i!ure of the doctor ! c ndid te shou!d de#end much more even!y th n is now the c se on both thesis nd gen> er ! e@ min tion& /he ! tter 3both written nd or !- nd in time ne rer to three d ys th n to three hours6 shou!d be # ssed before ctive wor, on the thesis is begun& /he gener ! e@ min tion shou!d be critic ! 3i&e&- e@egetic ! nd ev !u tive6 s we!! s f c> tu ! nd historic !& At some schoo!s- it m y be str tegic to set se# r te # #ers- one historic ! nd the other critic ! B but such se# r tion wou!d be f !se were it t ,en to im#!y some re ! dis> Bunction between history H !iter ry history H nd criticism& /he fin ! or ! shou!d either be b ndoned or !imited to discussion of the thesis& As gener ! e@ min tion- it comes too ! te in the studentAs c reer& It is usu !!y so b d!y #! nned th t it tests on!y the ,now!edge of iso! ted bits of inform tion& 4 In some 0uro#e n universities- every c ndid te for the 8h&D&whether in L tin or in 9hemistry- h s to # ss two>hour or ! e@ min tion in #hi!oso#hy H the history of 0uro#e n #hi!oso#hy nd theory 3#sycho!ogy- !ogic- e#istemo!ogy- #erh #s6& /he in> tent is thorough!y sound& /he !e rned s#eci !ist shou!d !so be com#rehensive- ?educ ted m n&? And he shou!d !so ,now something concerning the ?#hi!oso#hy? of his own subBect- see its #! ce- historic !!y nd theoretic !!y- in the who!e structure of hum n ,now!edge- thought- nd civi!iz tion& "or !iter ry menthis wou!d- of course- me n esthetics- with its subdivision#oetics& Sometimes 3e&g&- t +er!in under Dessoir nd t 8rince> ton under +owm n6 !! #ros#ective 8h&D&As h ve been re:uired to ttend course of #hi!oso#hic ! !ectures es#eci !!y ddressed to them& A course wou!d seem !ess usefu!- however- th n individ> u !!y guided re ding u#on which the c ndid te shou!d be or !!y

24E /heory of Liter ture

e@ mined by members of the #hi!oso#hy de# rtment& 1h t is needed- in ny c se- is not nother ritu ! gesture tow rd the hy#othetic unity of hum n ,now!edge but- t our highest !eve! of educ tion- some ctu ! disci#!ine for !! in the unific tion of ,now!edge H in !ogic- e#istemo!ogy- or semiotics& /he shoc,ing in bi!ity of one scho! r to communic te- t ny res#ect b!e !eve! of bstr ction- with nother scho! r C the in bi!ity of s#eci !ist to st te either to himse!f- or to s#eci !ist in nother disci#!inethe ssum#tions nd s nctions of his rese rches$ these re recog> nized sym#toms of cu!tureAs disru#tion& /hough the wor!d wi!! not be #ut together g in by semiotics or even #hi!oso#hymodest degree of inte!!ectu ! communic tion between scientistssoci ! scientists- nd hum nists c n do much to ho!d together wh t rem ins& /hese recommend tions for the reform of the 0ng!ish doc> tor te c n be ##!ied with s!ight modific tions to the degree in the other modern !iter tures& 0ven L tin nd <ree, m y be re> vit !ized by reducing their stress on nti:u ri nism nd the #ur> suit of microsco#ic #hi!o!ogic ! !e rning& A student of "rench !iter ture 3or <erm n or S# nish6 wou!d !so #rofit from sh r# reduction in the re:uirements of mediev ! ! ngu ges nd !inguistics nd strong stress on !iter ry theory nd criticism& (e shou!d e!ect s second subBect 0ng!ish !iter ture- needed to he!# him underst nd nd to te ch his 0uro#e n !iter ture& It is n nom !ous situ tion th t m ny te chers of "rench- <erm nnd S# nish re !most tot !!y ignor nt of the !iter ture in their own- or t !e st their studentsA- n tive tongue& /he combin tion of "rench nd 0ng!ish- <erm n nd 0ng!ish- S# nish nd 0ng> !ish might be trusted to bre , down the cu!tur ! #rovinci !ism nd even the cu!tur ! "r nco#hi!i - <erm no#hi!i - or (is# no> #hi!i of m ny of our te chers of "rench- <erm n- nd S# nish& 10 'ur #ro#os !s for reform m y !so suggest th t there is the #ossibi!ity of reviv !- t !e st in the ! rger institutions- of 9om# r tive Liter ture- which shou!d become sim#!y De# rt> ment of <ener ! or Intern tion ! Liter ture- or sim#!y of Lit> er ture& /he d ngers of di!ett ntism- of mere sentiment ! e@> # nsionism- re here cute& 8rofession !s in the est b!ished !it> er tures h ve fre:uent!y fe!t th t such studies offer n e sy esc #e from the rigors of their !inguistic- #hi!o!ogic !- nd his>

/he Study of Liter ture in the <r du te Schoo! 24= toric ! tr ining& +ut there is nothing wrong in this if the esc #e from #etty nti:u ri nism be com#ens ted for by rigorous tr ining in !iter ry theory nd criticism& 8ro#er s fegu rds g inst di!ett ntism c n be introduced- mong them- high initi ! ! ngu ge re:uirements& 'ne !iter ture shou!d be the re of con> centr tion B nd within it !most s much cou!d be dem nded s from the student of the one !iter ture& 1hy shou!d it not be #ossib!e to combine the study of "rench nd <erm n or 0ng!ish nd "renchI In the Rom nce L ngu ge de# rtments- it is #os> sib!e nd even necess ry to study "rench nd S# nish or "rench nd It !i n or even !! three m Bor Rom nce !iter tures&

De# rtments of 9om# r tive Liter ture shou!d be !so con> cerned to encour ge studies in the c! ssic ! tr dition s continued in the modern !iter turesto#ic sure!y deserving of system tic cu!tiv tion& /he De# rtment of 9om# r tive Liter ture cou!d !so e si!y become the s#eci ! #rotector of studies in !iter ry theory- studies which re not nd c nnot be confined to sing!e !inguistic medium& A (istory of 9riticism not concerned witht !e st- Aristot!e- the It !i ns of the Ren iss nce- nd the "rench of the seventeenth century is h rd!y worthy of the n me C yet it c n be ! be!ed 0ng!ish on!y if we e@tend the 0ng!ish De# rt> ment to t ,e !! !iter ture for its #rovince& /he De# rtment of 9om# r tive Liter ture m y do#t s s#eci ! t s, the needed tr ining of te chers #re# red to direct the <re t +oo,s- (um n> ities- nd Liter ture 9ore courses now given in m ny Americ n institutions nd now usu !!y t ught by te chers gross!y un#re> # red for their t s,& 11 /hus the de# rtment m y become the center for the reform which shou!d- however- be c rried out #rim ri!y within the de# rtments of 0ng!ish nd the other Modern L ngu ges- the reform which- brief!y- dem nds 8h&D& in !iter ture r ther th n in 0ng!ish- "rench- or <erm n 8hi> !o!ogy& It h s been obBected to such #rogr m s ours th t it s,s for reform of homo Americ nus- th t it ignores his #reoccu# tion with the Bob- his ide ! of efficiency- his be!ief in te ching nybody nd everybody- his inborn #ositivism& 12 /his obBection we do not gr nt& 1hi!e we !! ho#e for ch nge in m n- nd in the Amer> ic n s#ecific !!y- the scheme #ro#osed is not )to#i n nor does it contr dict fund ment ! Americ n tr ditions& It is the o!der- the

24; /heory of Liter ture e@isting- #rogr m which is ?unre !istic-? since it ! c,s integr tion with contem#or ry !ife nd !iter ture- nd does not #re# re for the te ching in the co!!ege c! ssroom which the !iter ry doctor is to undert ,e& 1e do not s, for reorient tion ccording to some v gue nd tenuous ide !ism& If we reBect some of the #reconce#tions of nineteenth>century scientism H its tomism- its e@cessive deter> minism- its s,e#tic ! re! tivism H we re thereby in greement with we!!>nigh !! of the #hysic ! nd soci ! sciences- for with them tod y- revo!ution ry conce#ts such s # tterns- fie!ds- nd <est !t h ve su#erseded the o!d conce#ts of tomism- nd with them determinism is no !onger gener !!y cce#ted dogm & A turn tow rd the study of theory nd criticism is neither ?ide !> istic? nor un>Americ n& /he educ tion of the recent # st w s cons#icuous for its #ro> vinci ! reduction of !! serious v !ues to the scientific nd its conse:uent reduction of the hum nities to the st tus of #seudo> sciences or irres#onsib!e ec!ecticisms& 1e need not !onger m in> t in this nineteenth>century e#istemo!ogy or cce#t the dis> miss ! of the rts s no !onger deserving of serious ttention& +ut

we #rofessors of !iter ture must not ho#e to #ersist in our o!de sy w ys- our #erson ! com#oundings of #ed ntry nd di!> ett ntism& Liter ry study within our universities H our te ching nd our writing H must become #ur#osive!y !iter ry& It must turn w y from the de!ightfu! det i!s of ?rese rch? nd direct itse!f tow rd the ! rge- unso!ved #rob!ems of !iter ry history nd !it> er ry theory& It must receive stimu! tion nd direction from modern criticism nd contem#or ry !iter ture H from # rtici# > tion in !iter ture s !iving institution&