|
Winter Quarter ’03 –
The History of Literary Criticism and Theory I: Plato to 1900
The Blackboard
We will be posting supplemental material to this
site during the quarter. We don't expect to leave things up here indefinitely--so
if you need it, read it or download it soon.
Current Postings:
-
FINAL EXAM
-
Horace to Wordsworth: Reflections on Taste
-
Precis Paper Assignment
-
Song: Come My Celia (Ben Jonson)
-
A Conceptual Framework of Studying the History of
Literary Criticism
- The Machine
- Webster's Rules for Reading Complex texts
Final Take-Home Examination
Due date: 12 PM, Wednesday, March 17 (in the box located outside the
office of Prof. Handwerk, B-537 Padelford)—Late papers will be penalized.
Please remember that you are also supposed to turn in a copy of your MacroMachine
along with your final. Please also put your name on the BACK (not the
front) of your essay, and write YES or NO there (concerning whether or
not you would like any comments on the essay).
Address the following topic in an essay of NOT MORE THAN 5 double-spaced,
typed pages.
For all of its paradoxical ingenuity, Wilde’s “The Decay
of Lying” remains a piece of criticism that is continually in dialogue
with its predecessors in the critical traditions we have been studying.
It thus serves as an apt occasion for synthesizing our analytical work
from throughout the quarter, and for reflecting upon the nature of the
critical conversations we have been tracing.
Your task in the take-home essay is to respond to these questions:
- Who are the two figures from the list below with whom you see Wilde
most productively or provocatively in conversation?
- Where does he agree and where does he disagree with each of them?
- Why do these similarities and differences matter (i.e., what is particularly
important in the end about what Wilde says)?
Figures on whom you may write include: Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Wordsworth,
Arnold, Nietzsche.
Horace to Wordsworth: Reflections on Taste
Though “taste” as a critical term is largely an 18th century
invention, the concept it names of a critical faculty that some people
have by which the quality of art can be recognized by a kind of “tasting”
of a thing is much older. It is very clearly present in Horace, where
poetry is divided into high and low, and standards are set up by which
the critic can be an arbiter between them. In Horace the principal ingredients
of taste are learning on one hand, and an in-born sensibility on the other.
Horace doesn’t say explicitly that any one class has better inborn
taste than another, but the whole notion of taste nevertheless gets a
social and elitist twist as Horace contrasts the critic’s good taste
to the “ignorant” crowd’s lack of it (71a). Only the
entitled classes have the required education, though many of even this
group don’t actually have good taste. That’s where innate
sensibility comes in, dividing even the privileged into the haves and
the have-nots.
But what is important about this idea of taste is at least two-fold:
first, it makes poetry a social matter. The poet is writing for the approval
of those who have good taste—for other people, and in particular,
for a certain subset of people. Which brings us to importance number two:
theories of taste tend to be elitist. Poetry is not thought of here either
in terms of blind inspiration, to be measured only by its truth value,
or even of Aristotle’s universals of affect. Here if the crowd is
not moved by your poetry, then so much the better, as long as those of
good taste are. Moreover, the faculty of taste helps make (though doesn’t
necessarily require) poetry-writing into something politically conservative,
both because the people you are writing for tend to be those favored by
the establishment, and because the principle of decorum requires that
whatever you write be found “fitting” or “appropriate.”
But that in turn tends to be what is expectable, what doesn’t rock
the boat by going against the canons of good taste. Poetry has the duty
here to please, and pleasing requires that it not offend.
“Taste” is no more a major term in Boileau than it is in
Horace, but the concept to which the term taste will soon be regularly
applied certainly is—and in a pretty much Horatian form. Again the
potential audience for poetry is divided into those who have sensibility
and knowledge on the one hand, and those who don’t on the other.
Boileau appeals to “reason” and to nature, both of which align
him with Horace’s principle of decorum: the reasonable fits expectations,
conforms to the probable, and Boileau’s notion of nature does the
same, particularly as it ties the poet to tradition. For following nature
here means following the best that one can find in the antecedent literary
tradition: Homer figures prominently. “Nature” is thus that
pre-Romantic idea of those principles of character and action which the
gifted poets of the past have intuited and represented in their works,
a set of principles which ordinary life obscures, and which the ordinary
poet cannot get firmly focussed. But Boileau’s poet, by reading
the classics with sensitivity, by himself observing men and manners, and
(in good Horatian manner) by listening to critics of good judgment, can.
Again, the keys to having good taste are a sensibility one is born with
and the sort of education which accompanies a certain class and status.
Now, to be sure, one can be of middle class origin and still attain
to good taste, but as Boileau describes it achieving good taste could
also be seen as being assimilated into the politically dominant cultural
ethic. You will have arrived when you can write things which established
judgments admire. Again, the social effect of this is both socially conservative
and defensive of the status quo.
One could suggest that even though the concept of taste is implicit
in most Horatian poetics, “taste” doesn’t become a specifically
defined critical issue until the 18th century because it is only then
that the notion of the rightness of such an elitist definition of worth
comes under significant fire. As the polity increasingly includes middle
class and even lower class readers, and as those readers embrace art forms
(and political positions) which are “indecorous” from the
point of view of the traditional elite, the elite finds itself needing
to defend its traditional hegemony, and taste becomes one of its principal
terms. This can be seen in both Burke and Hume, for underlying their efforts
to write anatomies of taste one can see an inherently conservative agenda:
by the ends of their treatises they will have justified the notion of
taste by appeals to science and universal principles, yet the social function
of taste will hardly have changed. In place of Horace and Boileau’s
mere assumption of the rightness of the role of good tasters, Burke and
Hume give one an elitist concept of taste now grounded in a kind of rhetoric
of universal human equality. They write as if to say: “No, no, when
we say we like this sort of art and we condemn that sort, and are challenged
by others who say, ‘well, that’s just your opinion, and in
matters of taste, all of us are entitled to have our own,’ we will
reply by showing you that taste is NOT just a matter of whim or caprice,
but arises—just like our knowledge of the material world—from
capacities universal to human nature. Thus there are in fact ways to show
that ‘good taste’ has an empirical, testable basis, and isn’t
mere cultural snobbism.”
They thus turn objections to the dominance of the culture by those of
(ostensibly) good taste back upon their relativist and democratic objectors.
No, it turns out, everyone does NOT have a right to their own opinion
in matters of taste. For that would imply that there are no principles,
no universals, that all men are not by birth equal in matters of perception,
of which taste is one dimension. Science makes it obvious that there are
in fact principles and capacities which the behavior of everyone reveals—so
long as that behavior is properly interpreted. Now, coincidentally, when
we follow Burke, for example, in his study of these universals, and watch
him show that everyone has equality of taste, we also work our way up
with him to the concept of “judgment,” by which he effectively
reestablishes the same hierarchialized and privileged institution of good
taste which had so long dominated the arts without any of this scientific
rationalism to support it. For Burke (and Hume, too, through a somewhat
different argument) doesn’t finally think we all have the same artistic
taste; quite the contrary, some of us (as in Horace) have good taste,
and others do not.
But here the reason for that difference isn’t (as in Horace) merely
assumed, or described as the effect of a naturally more sophisticated
sensibility (though Burke and especially Hume do still make some allowance
for such differences in sensibility). Rather it’s the result of
a carefully trained and experienced judgment. If our human capacity for
taste is equal, our judgment manifestly is not. We develop judgment only
through experience and study, but as soon as we grant a need for experience
and study, presto, we’re right back to where the right to set rules,
to decide on what is valuable, belongs only to an elite group (to which
both Burke and Hume belong) that has been educated in just the right way.
Now that is all interesting enough, but the turn Kant takes on the problem
is more interesting by far. For Kant accepts the offer of rationalists
like Burke and Hume of “universality” of taste, but he rejects
judgment, or rather, reduces the scope of judgment to a relatively small
element in the machine of perception. For Kant all men have “good”
taste because taste is all the same—here there really is no such
thing as good or bad taste at all, there is simply “taste.”
It is a given, a universal. And because the beautiful is purely and simply
a matter of taste, all men are equally qualified to experience it. Judgment
in Burke’s sense doesn’t even come into the equation, since
“beautiful” can be felt only about “purposeless”
objects, and since they are purposeless, there can be no way in which
to judge them rationally, since such judgments always entail purpose:
“good FOR WHAT?”
Nor is Kant satisfied merely with this democratizing of the beautiful;
he brings a kind of cognition back (without importing with it—somewhat
contradictorily, one might think—a complex notion of educated judgment)
as he describes the sublime, with its “vibrations.” Kant never
suggests that some of us perceive the sublime better than do others, though
his discourse is thick with terms like “judgment” and even
“purpose.” And this remains true of his extension of the sublime
to the notion of the aesthetic idea—in a way even more so, since
the aesthetic idea resembles the concept of the beautiful in being “without
any definite thought, i.e. any concept being capable of being adequate
to it.” That makes it ineffable, Kant tells us, but it also, one
would think, makes it impossible to judge, since, like the beautiful which
cannot be judged because it has no concept or purpose to serve as a standard
against which it can be measured, the aesthetic idea cannot be judged
because there exists no “definite thought” or “concept”
to which it can be compared such that it could be found either sufficient
or wanting.
Now, we are some distance from “taste” when we hit this
aesthetic idea, but perhaps not as far as it seems. For by fully democratizing
“taste” in matters of the beautiful, Kant has set up a kind
of conceptual precedent for doing the same in matters first of the sublime,
and then, even more importantly, in matters of the aesthetic idea. There
may still be here an elite group of those who do this imagining better
than others, but the ability to do it no longer is the product of social
training. No education in classical texts can do this for you—you
are on your own. If you have more imaginative genius than someone else,
it’s because you have more “spirit” (“Geist”
in Kant’s German), which reveals itself in the working of the imagination.
And rather than being bounded by experience, as is the notion of taste
in writers like Burke and Hume, the object of the imagination’s
work is precisely “to go beyond the limits of experience”—in
a word: to transcend it.
So one can see Kant as a revolutionizer of the concept of taste, and
from there it will be but a short step to Wordsworth. “Taste”
is a critical term in Wordsworth: he uses it quite explicitly in the Preface
to Lyrical Ballads, but in doing so he significantly redefines its application.
You can see this in at least two ways. First he goes to great lengths
to justify adopting for poetry the “language of real men”
and subjects “drawn from rustic life,” declaring that such
subjects and language are closer to nature than anything to be found in
traditional poetry.
Like Burke and Hume, then, Wordsworth finds it necessary to ground his
sense of good poetic taste in something, and, again like them, the something
he grounds it in is “nature.” But rather than the neo-classical
tradition’s nature that we find in the great writers like Homer
(“Learn hence for ancient rules a just esteem; / To copy nature
is to copy them,” to use Alexander Pope’s Boileau-esque lines),
or Burke or Hume’s sense of the human species’ natural “organs”
of perception, Wordsworth substitutes the new and improved Romantic notion
of nature: that which one sees when one goes out walking. So for him the
measure of taste is no longer going to be anything like a judgment carefully
trained by study of the great writers of the past and now applied to the
universal human aptitude for taste, but rather the spontaneously felt
impact of the non-urban, non-cultured world upon one’s innate but
threatened-by-social-institutions sensibility. This of course leads to
a second big difference: though Wordsworth allows that others might be
able to point out weaknesses in what he writes, it is he, the poet, not
they, the critics, who are the final arbiters of what is poetically just
and tasteful. Precisely because it is his own sensibility he is expressing
in his poetry, in the final analysis only he can judge whether his expression
of it is proper.
It is hard to overestimate the revolutionary character of Wordsworth’s
rewriting of “taste” to accord with his new sense of poetry’s
subject and function. Social entitlements to good taste are not just disallowed;
they are described as positively harmful. The more you know of tradition,
the more deeply corrupted you are by the artificial. And in Wordsworth’s
world it is not just the with-it crowd of readers and publishers who have
taste (indeed, their taste is probably corrupt). As in Kant, all human
beings are endowed with a sensibility that can recognize—indeed,
even live from—a true poetic sensibility. If the Horatian aesthetic
of taste, in either its 17th or its 18th century forms, tends to privilege
the status quo, the cultural hegemony of the economically and socially
advantaged, Wordsworth’s new Kant-influenced romantic aesthetic
creates a quite different sense of tasteful entitlement. It, too, can
see hierarchy and privileging, but the minds it privileges are those of
the socially uncorrupted: poets, children, and that band of rustics whose
lives have enabled them either to avoid the distorting influence of social
institutions altogether, or to hear in their work and life the countervailing
voice of “the spirit in the woods.” And of course, the class
of the tasteful will now also include you and me as well--those who, as
readers of Wordsworth’s poetry, may be affected by the poet’s
recollections and be moved along with him to a
. . . primal sympathy
Which having been must ever be;
In the soothing thoughts that spring
Out of human suffering;
In the faith that looks through death,
In years that bring the philosophic mind. (Ode on Intimations: 182-7)
Précis Paper: Boileau,
Burke, Hume, or Kant
Length: 3-4 pages, typed, double-spaced
Due date: Friday, February 27, 12 PM (at our offices)
Assignment:
The goals of this paper are straightforward: to write, within the space
of a 3-4 page paper, an explication of a specific passage from one of
our primary texts. Your aim should be to present and explain the logic
of the arguments in this passage, i.e., to explain what it is that the
author is asserting here and what the reasons are that justify those assertions.
Doing that well will require that you think more broadly than in terms
of just one passage, so should therefore feel free to consider and draw
upon other passages from the text. But again, your primary goal should
be to explicate what is right here in this single passage—what is
the author saying, why does he assert these ideas, and why (in the context
of his theory and in the history of literary criticism) do they matter?
The pedagogical purposes of this exercise are likewise straightforward.
Doing this paper well will involve reviewing and pulling together your
reading and our class discussion of one of these authors. This sort of
reflective review will help you prepare for the upcoming midterm, where
this sort of general understanding of the individual authors will be the
basis for the exam questions (that may deal with individual writers or
be comparative in structure).
Passages available for adoption:
1) Boileau, The Art of Poetry, pp. 246-47 (“There is
no serpent…an unforeseen aspect to the whole.”)
2) Burke, A Philosophical Inquiry, p. 303-04 (“So long
as…upon the same principle.”)
3) Hume, Of the Standard of Taste, pp. 312-13 (“It is
well known…the true standard of taste and beauty.”)
4) Kant, Critique of Judgment, p. 378 (“This explanation…claim
upon everyone’s assent.”)
5) Kant, Critique of Judgment, pp. 387-88 (“We call that
sublime…measurement that has been made.”)
6) Kant, Critique of Judgment, pp. 390-91 (“But we can
regard…with nature itself.”)
Come, my Celia, let us prove,
While we can, the sports of love.
Time will not be ours forever;
He at length our good will sever.
Spend not then his gifts in vain.
Suns that set may rise again;
But if once we lose this light,
‘Tis with us perpetual night.
Why should we defer our joys?
Fame and rumor are but toys.
Cannot we delude the eyes
Of a few poor household spies,
Or his easier ears beguile,
So removéd by our wile?
‘Tis no sin love’s fruit to steal;
But the sweet thefts to reveal,
To be taken, to be seen,
These have crimes accounted been.
Ben Jonson (1573-1637)
A Conceptual Framework for Studying the History
of Literary Criticism
As you wrestle this quarter for control of issues that
come up again and again in the history of criticism, it may help if
you think of our texts as each taking part in a centuries-long struggle
for cultural position and authority. For poetry, or literary “making”
(the Greek root for “poetry” is poiein, “to make”),
is only one cultural enterprise among many, and as the enactors of a
set of practices its partisans tend to do what the partisans of other
cultural enterprises also do: look for ways to justify both the products
of their energies, and, through those products, their own lives. But
both because any culture’s material and intellectual resources
are limited, and because one cultural enterprise’s claims may
conflict with those of another enterprise, poetry’s partisans
have also often defined themselves against other arts, arguing that
they, and not philosophy, or history, or oratory (for example) can best
offer the culture truth, or an understanding of nature, or wisdom, or
pleasure.
You can see this intra-art competition already well formed
as early as the first of the writers we read. For Plato (certainly NOT
an advocate for poetry, but, as he saw it, for philosophy instead) effectively
argues that in his culture poetry already has too much cultural authority.
He sees poetry as in contest with philosophy for control of truth, and
he declares that poetry’s claim is finally invalid. Worse yet,
Plato sees poetry as endowed with great power, and, because powerful,
also (since in his view poets tell lies and create immoral models for
action) harmful.
Aristotle, by contrast, develops the conversation by writing
what is in many ways a defense of poetry against Plato’s attack.
He offers a different understanding of truth, one within which poetry
can both be morally and philosophically “true” without having
to imitate reality with historical exactness. This in turn constitutes
an argument on behalf of poetry, and is part of an allocation to the
poet of a certain amount of power: a power to provide pleasure, a power
to provide a certain moral edification, a power to effect the psychologically
useful and satisfying process of catharsis. Poetry for Aristotle is
thus culturally beneficial and deserving of respect and authority.
Other things could be said here about how each of these
writers positions poetry in the on-going competition for cultural authority
and value. But it is clear in their works that that positioning is going
on, and that it is part of what has given their writings on poetry such
lasting interest. Indeed, those early texts set the terms of a debate
which is no less alive now than it was then. For poetry and the arts
are still in a contest for cultural value and authority. That debate
plays out in terms of respect (does the culture respect the writers,
the teachers, the performers, who practice the literary arts? does it
listen to what they say? Does it take seriously the discourses they
offer the culture?) and materially as well (what resources does the
culture provide to the literary arts? Do we value them by employing
them? Buying their products, whether poems, novels and plays, or classes,
essays and theories?)
Many would now argue that, while the current culture certainly values
the literary arts in some degree, it doesn’t value them as highly
as it should. Literary-artistic practices, many now would say, can do
more for the culture than the culture thinks. Without taking a position
on that here, the argument of this course will be that the issues over
which the current contest about the cultural role of the arts is being
fought are not new. Rather, they have a long history—an understanding
of which can fill out and make far more productive the current conversation.
In particular, our texts set out and explore an array
of concepts, many of which persist in ideas still foundational to today’s
versions of these conversations, but which, removed from their historical
context, now often lead to confusion rather than to productive exchange.
Indeed, one very practical reason for studying the history of criticism
is that doing so can bring insight to questions still very much in play.
With these issues of poetry’s cultural authority
as a context, then, in this course we will be asking of each of the
works we read: What position does this work take on the question of
poetry’s struggle for cultural power and authority?
That question leads to sub-questions as well. Exactly
how, for example, does each of these works define the powers and functions
of poetry/literature? What does each think poetry can do, positively
or negatively? How extensive do they think its reach? How do they each
explain the means by which poetry has those powers?
Formulating answers to such questions will be a project
for the entire quarter; to begin we offer you four related concepts
through which you can work out for yourselves the relationships between
the writers we take up. Because we will use these terms over and over
again, and because doing so can seem a little mechanical at times (though
not on that account any less helpful), we call the schema that represents
these concepts “The Machine.”
The Machine
Given the range of texts we will read in this course,
you are likely soon to find yourself losing track of what any one figure
thought poetry was or might be. To help you keep track we will be using
“The Machine.” The Machine offers four perspectives through
which you can classify the theories we read. These perspectives are
not mutually exclusive. A theory can be both Mimetic and Pragmatic,
for example, concerned both with how poetry is an imitation and with
what its imitation does. As you make your way through our authors, we
strongly recommend that you keep your own Machine Notebook in which
you jot down summaries for each. (These perspectives are adapted from
Adams; see the "Introduction" to CTSP for his discussion of
them.)
1. Mimetic: Mimetic theories
(also called “Imitation theories”) argue that poetry (or
“imaginative literature”) is an “imitation”
of something. Mimetic theories thus attempt to answer such questions
as: Granted that it is essential to poetry that it imitate something,
what, exactly, does it imitate? is there in fact a particular thing,
or set of things, that poetry imitates? Life? Ideas? Truth? Mental pictures?
2. Pragmatic: Pragmatic theories
begin with the questions: What is the effect of poetry? What does it
do? How are its readers affected? Does poetry move us to action? Or
does it simply make us think hard? Does it teach? If so, what does it
teach, and how? By proposing models for imitation? by offering us wisdom?
by showing us Ideas? Or does poetry (in fact) do nothing at all? Is
a poem merely a beautiful thing? (See Aesthetic below.)
3. Expressivist: The expressivist
perspective centers on the Poet, asking: How is a poem an expression
of the poet him- or herself? What is it that makes such expressions
interesting? Are poets different from the rest of us? Is the poet inspired?
If so, what does a poet’s singing/writing express? Something mystical?
The Divine? Her imagination? His inner self? If poets are not inspired,
but only different from other people, how then are they different? Do
they have a different kind of consciousness from the rest of us? a different
kind of intellectual capacity? or a different access point to truth?
And if any of these, how do we know? What grounds can we give for believing
such a thing?
4. Aesthetic: This fourth perspective
looks at poetry as an object—a thing in the world, something made.
What makes a poem a poem? How is it different from other objects? Is
it “beautiful”? What is beauty? Is it a way of decorating
life or thought? Does a poem have to be useful? If poetry is different
because it is made differently, how, then, does this difference manifest
itself? Is the poem (play, story) a highly crafted object? With parts
which interrelate? Or is it the quickly caught record of a fragile,
vanishing mental impression? What formal elements distinguish it from
other discourses? Can one catalogue its parts? What gives it form? Can
one describe why its formal qualities make it worth attention?
Webster’s Five Principles for Reading
Complex Texts
1. Patience. Develop a capacity for
suspending a thought until you’ve gotten enough to put it together.
Correlative: don’t let an initial inability to comprehend something
stop you from plowing on through.
2. Contextualize. Find a way to understand
how this piece is a move in a larger conversation. What is the point
of this piece? What is it trying to do, really? To whom does it respond?
With whom is it in conflict? What work do you already know that can
be brought to bear to help explain this piece?
3. One, Two, Three. Get one, then two,
then three things straight. One step at a time.
4. Bracketing. Parse a sentence into
its crucial parts, locating the essential core, and then bracketing
off the rest while you work out the sense of that core.
5. Learn to tolerate a certain level of incompleteness.
These are hard ideas, with a lot of allusiveness, and few readers can
understand everything, especially on a first or second pass. So don’t
worry too much if there are bits and pieces you don’t quite get.
Some will come into focus as you get the basic structure, but others
may never fully make sense for you. Even with some incompleteness in
your understanding, you may still be able to get what is crucial to
a given piece. (Indeed, even some of our authors will not have understood
everything they wrote.)
|
|