【英文读物】Aspects of Literature.docx

《【英文读物】Aspects of Literature.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《【英文读物】Aspects of Literature.docx（96页珍藏版）》请在淘文阁 - 分享文档赚钱的网站上搜索。

1、【英文读物】Aspects of LiteraturePrefaceTwo of these essays, The Function of Criticism and The Religion ofRousseau, were contributed to the Times Literary Supplement; that onThe Poetry of Edward Thomas in the Nation; all the rest save onehave appeared in the Athen?um.The essays are arranged in the order i

2、n which they were written, with two exceptions. The second part of the essay on Tchehov has been placed with the first for convenience, although in order of thought it should follow the essay, The Cry in the Wilderness. More important, I have placed The Function of Criticism first although it was wr

3、itten last, because it treats of the broad problem of literary criticism, suggests a standard of values implicit elsewhere in the book, and thus to some degree affords an introduction to the remaining essays.But the degree is not great, as the critical reader will quickly discover for himself. I ask

4、 him not to indulge the temptation of convicting me out of my own mouth. I am aware that my practice is often inconsistent with my professions; and I ask the reader to remember that the professions were made after the practice and to a considerable extent as the result of it. The practice came first

5、, and if I could reasonably expect so much of the reader I would ask him to read The Function of Criticism once more when he has reached the end of the book.I make no apology for not having rewritten the essays. As a critic I enjoy nothing more than to trace the development of a writers attitude thr

6、ough its various phases; I could do no less than afford my readers the opportunity of a similar enjoyment in my own case. They may be assured that none of the essays have suffered any substantial alteration, even where, for instance in the case of the incidental and (I am now persuaded) quite inadeq

7、uate estimate of Chaucer in The Nostalgia of Mr Masefield, my view has since completely changed. Here and there I have recast expressions which, though not sufficiently conveying my meaning, had been passed in the haste of journalistic production. But I have nowhere tried to adjust earlier to later

8、points of view. I am aware that these points of view are often difficult to reconcile; that, for instance, ?sthetic in the essay on Tchehov has a much narrower meaning than it bears in The Function of Criticism; that the essay on The Religion of Rousseau is criticism of a kind which I deprecate as i

9、nsufficient in the essay, The Cry in the Wilderness, because it lacks that reference to life as a whole which I have come to regard as essential to criticism; and that in this latter essay I use the word moral (for instance in the phrase The values of literature are in the last resort moral) in a se

10、nse which is never exactly defined. The key to most of these discrepancies will, I hope, be found in the introductory essay on The Function of Criticism.May, 1920.The Function of CriticismIt is curious and interesting to find our younger men of letters actively concerned with the present condition o

11、f literary criticism. This is a novel preoccupation for them and one which is, we believe, symptomatic of a general hesitancy and expectation. In the world of letters everything is a little up in the air, volatile and uncrystallised. It is a world of rejections and velleities; in spite of outward si

12、milarities, a strangely different world from that of half a dozen years ago. Then one had a tolerable certainty that the new star, if the new star was to appear, would burst upon our vision in the shape of a novel. To-day we feel it might be anything. The cloud no bigger than a mans hand might even

13、be, like Trigorins in The Sea-gull, like a piano; it has no predetermined form.This sense of incalculability, which has been aroused by the prodigious literary efflorescence of late years, reacts upon its cause; and the reaction tends by many different paths to express itself finally in the ventilat

14、ion of problems that hinge about criticism. There is a general feeling that the growth of the young plant has been too luxuriant; a desire to have it vigorously pruned by a capable gardener, in order that its strength may be gathered together to produce a more perfect fruit. There is also a sense th

15、at if the lusus natur?, the writer of genius, were to appear, there ought to be a person or an organisation capable of recognising him, however unexpected his scent or the shape of his leaves. Both these tasks fall upon criticism. The younger generation looks round a little apprehensively to see if

16、there is a gardener whom it can trust, and decides, perhaps a little prematurely, that there is none.There is reviewing but no criticism, says one icy voice that we have learned to respect. There are pontiffs and potential pontiffs, but no critics, says another disrespectful young man. Oh, for some

17、more Scotch Reviewers to settle the hash of our English bards, sighs a third. And the London Mercury, after whetting our appetite by announcing that it proposed to restore the standards of authoritative criticism, still leaves us a little in the dark as to what these standards are. Mr T.S. Eliot dea

18、ls more kindly, if more frigidly, with us in the Monthly Chapbook. There are, he says, three kinds of criticismthe historical, the philosophic, and the purely literary.Every form of genuine criticism is directed towards creation. The historical or philosophic critic of poetry is criticising poetry i

19、n order to create a history or a philosophy; the poetic critic is criticising poetry in order to create poetry.These separate and distinct kinds, he considers, are but rarely found to-day, even in a fragmentary form; where they do exist, they are almost invariably mingled in an inextricable confusio

20、n.Whether we agree or not with the general condemnation of reviewing implicit in this survey of the situation, or with the division of criticism itself, we have every reason to be grateful to Mr Eliot for disentangling the problem for us. The question of criticism has become rather like Glaucus the

21、sea-god, encrusted with shells and hung with weed till his lineaments are hardly discernible. We have at least clear sight of him now, and we are able to decide whether we will accept Mr Eliots description of him. Let us see.We have no difficulty in agreeing that historical criticism of literature i

22、s a kind apart. The historical critic approaches literature as the manifestation of an evolutionary process in which all the phases are of equal value. Essentially, he has no concern with the greater or less literary excellence of the objects whose history he tracestheir existence is alone sufficien

23、t for him; a bad book is as important as a good one, and much more important than a good one if it exercised, as bad books have a way of doing, a real influence on the course of literature. In practice, it is true, the historical critic generally fails of this ideal of unimpassioned objectivity. He

24、either begins by making judgments of value for himself, or accepts those judgments which have been endorsed by tradition. He fastens upon a number of outstanding figures and more or less deliberately represents the process as from culmination to culmination; but in spite of this arbitrary foreshorte

25、ning he is primarily concerned, in each one of the phases which he distinguishes, with that which is common to every member of the group of writers which it includes. The individuality, the quintessence, of a writer lies completely outside his view.We may accept the isolation of the historical criti

26、c then, at least in theory, and conceive of him as a fragment of a social historian, as the author of a chapter in the history of the human spirit. But can we isolate the philosophic critic in the same way? And what exactly is a philosophic critic? Is he a critic with a philosophical scheme in which

27、 art and literature have their places, a critic who therefore approaches literature with a definite conception of it as one among many parallel manifestations of the human spirit, and with a system of values derived from his metaphysical scheme? Hegel and Croce are philosophical critics in this sens

28、e, and Aristotle is not, as far as we can judge from the Poetics, wherein he considers the literary work of Greece as an isolated phenomenon, and examines it in and for itself. But for the moment, and with the uneasy sense that we have not thoroughly laid the ghost of philosophic criticism, we will

29、assume that we have isolated him, and pass to the consideration of the pure literary critic, if indeed we can find him.What does he do? How shall we recognise him? Mr Eliot puts before us Coleridge and Aristotle and Dryden as literary critics par excellence arranged in an ascending scale of purity.

30、The concatenation is curious, for these were men possessed of very different interests and faculties of mind; and it would occur to few to place Dryden, as a critic, at their head. The living centre of Aristotles criticism is a conception of art as a means to a good life. As an activity, poetry is m

31、ore philosophic than history, a nearer approach to the universal truth in appearances; and as a more active influence, drama refines our spiritual being by a purgation of pity and terror. Indeed, it would not be an exaggeration to say that the very pith and marrow of Aristotles literary criticism is

32、 a system of moral values derived from his contemplation of life. It was necessary that this relation should exist, because for Aristotle literature was, essentially, an imitation of life though we must remember to understand imitation according to our final sense of the theme which is the golden, p

33、ersistent thread throughout the Poetics. The imitation of life in literature was for Aristotle, the creative revelation of the ideal actively at work in human life. The tragic hero failed because his composition was less than ideal; but he could only be a tragic hero if the ideal was implicit in him

34、 and he visibly approximated to it. It is this constant reference to the ideal which makes of imitation a truly creative principle and the one which, properly understood, is the most permanently valid and pregnant of all; it is also one which has been constantly misunderstood. Its importance is, nev

35、ertheless, so central that adequate recognition of it might conceivably be taken as the distinguishing mark of all fruitful criticism.To his sympathetic understanding of this principle Coleridge owed a great debt. It is true that his efforts to refine upon it were not only unsuccessful, but a trifle

36、 ludicrous; his effort to graft the vague transcendentalism of Germany on to the rigour and clarity of Aristotle was, from the outset, unfortunately conceived. But the root of the matter was there, and in Coleridges fertile mind the Aristotelian theory of imitation flowered into a magnificent concep

37、tion of the validity and process of the poetic imagination. And partly because the foundation was truly Aristotelian, partly because Coleridge had known what it was to be a great poet, the reference to life pervades the whole of what is permanently valuable in Coleridges criticism. In him, too, ther

38、e is a strict and mutually fertilising relation between the moral and the ?sthetic values. This is the firm ground beneath his feet when hetoo seldomproceeds to the free exercise of his exquisite ?sthetic discrimination.In Dryden, however, there was no such organic interpenetration. Dryden, too, had

39、 a fine sensibility, though less exquisite, by far, than that of Coleridge; but his theoretical system was not merely alien to himit was in itself false and mistaken. Corruptio optimi pessima. He took over from France the sterilised and lifeless Aristotelianism which has been the plague of criticism

40、 for centuries; he used it no worse than his French exemplars, but he used it very little better than they. It was in his hands, as in theirs, a dead mechanical framework of rules about the unities. Dryden, we can see in his critical writing, was constantly chafed by it. He behaves like a fine horse

41、 with a bearing rein: he is continually tossing his head after a minute or two of good manners and action, and saying, Shakespeare was the best of them, anyhow; Chaucer beats Ovid to a standstill. It is a gesture with which all decent people sympathise and when it is made in language so supple as Dr

42、ydens prose it has a lasting charm. Drydens heart was in the right place, and he was not afraid of showing it; but that does not make him a critic, much less a critic to be set as a superior in the company of Aristotle and Coleridge.Our search for the pure literary critic is likely to be arduous. We

43、 have seen that there is a sense in which Dryden is a purer literary critic than either Coleridge or Aristotle; but we have also seen that it is precisely by reason of the pureness in him that he is to be relegated into a rank inferior to theirs. It looks as though we might have to pronounce that th

44、e true literary critic is the philosophic critic. Yet the pronouncement must not be prematurely made; for there is a real and vital difference between those for whom we have accepted the designation of philosophic critics, Hegel or Croce, and Aristotle or Coleridge. Yet three of these (and it might

45、be wise to include Coleridge as a fourth) were professional philosophers. It is evidently not the philosophy as such that makes the difference.The difference depends, we believe, upon the nature of the philosophy. The secret lies in Aristotle. The true literary critic must have a humanistic philosop

46、hy. His inquiries must be modulated, subject to an intimate, organic governance, by an ideal of the good life. He is not the mere investigator of facts; existence is never for him synonymous with value, and it is of the utmost importance that he should never be deluded into believing that it is. He

47、will not accept from Hegel the thesis that all the events of human history, all mans spiritual activities, are equally authentic manifestations of Spirit; he will not even recognise the existence of Spirit. He may accept from Croce the thesis that art is the expression of intuitions, but he will not

48、 be extravagantly grateful, because his duty as a critic is to distinguish between intuitions and to decide that one is more significant than another. A philosophy of art that lends him no aid in this and affords no indication why the expression of one intuition should be preferred to the expression

49、 of another is of little value to him. He will incline to say that Hegel and Croce are the scientists of art rather than its philosophers.Here, then, is the opposition: between the philosophy that borrows its values from science and the philosophy which shares its values with art. We may put it with more cogency and truth: the opposition lies between a philosophy without values and a philosophy based upon them. For values are human, anthropocentr