Theory of Literature
Author | |
---|---|
Country | United States |
Language | English |
Subject | Harcourt, Brace, and Company |
Publication date |
|
Media type | Hardcover |
Pages | 403 |
OCLC | 1599846 |
Theory of Literature is a book on
Originally consisting of twenty chapters – one was cut in later editions – Theory of Literature describes various aspects of
Published by
Background
There Wellek met Austin Warren (1899–1986[8]), an American literary scholar who considered himself an "old New Critic".[1] He had written extensively on literary criticism[9] and was raised in, but later saw several limitations to, the New Humanist views promoted by Irving Babbitt and Paul Elmer More. Wellek and Warren were soon in agreement over several aspects of literature, and by 1940 they had begun considering collaboration on a book.[10] Over the next several years they furthered their understandings of European and American literature theory through discussions with Cleanth Brooks and Robert Penn Warren, and extensive reading of contemporary European writings.[11]
Writing
Owing to several academic commitments, work on Theory of Literature did not begin until 1945, after Wellek and Warren received a stipend from the Rockefeller Foundation over a period of two summers. Wellek and Warren began dividing their responsibilities, at first evenly, but with more work done by Wellek as Warren dealt with the illness, and later loss, of his wife Eleanor in 1946. During this period of writing Wellek transferred to Yale University (1946) and Warren to the University of Michigan (1948), but collaboration continued.[12]
The title, according to Wellek and Warren, was "more than ordinarily difficult" to choose. Some titles, such as Theory of Literature and Methodology of Literary Study, were dismissed as too cumbersome.[13] However, in a 1950 review for The Antioch Review, the literary scholar Herbert S. Benjamin wrote that a better title would have been Theory of the Methodology of the Literary Study; he considered the book lacking the theory implied by the chosen title.[14][15]
The original publication of Theory of Literature consists of twenty chapters set in five sections based on thematic similarities;[16] one chapter and section was removed in later editions.[17] Wellek contributed thirteen of the book's chapters, while Warren wrote six; the final chapter was written collaboratively.[18] Although most of the chapters are credited as the work of one man, the two often copyedited and proofread each other's work, at times inserting entire sentences or paragraphs. Each also suggested further references that the other could use in expanding his chapter.[12]
In their writing Wellek and Warren attempted to present a single
Contents
Section 1: Definitions and Distinctions.
The first section, entitled Definitions and Distinctions, consists of five chapters and details how Wellek and Warren define literature.[16] This section also contrasts Wellek and Warren's definition with those of others, such views of literature as everything in print and as only belles-lettres (accepted literary canon). They define literary scholarship as beyond the personal ("super-personal")[21] and contrasted with the literary arts by its more scientific approach.[22] Wellek and Warren suggest that neither a purely objective nor a purely subjective approach would be able to properly describe literature. They note that literary scholarship should not only examine what makes a work or author unique, but also its general characteristics that allow it to be compared to other works.[23]
Wellek and Warren limit their definition of literature to pieces of "imaginative literature", which can gain artistic merit from their coherence and complexity. The language in literary works is contrasted from scientific and everyday language by the use of connotative (non-literal) language and expressive content.[24][25] Studies of literature must be literary and systematic,[26] treating literature as literature and not part of another field.[27] Wellek and Warren discuss several proposed functions of literature, beginning with Horace's proclamation that literature must be "sweet and useful" (dulce et utile; have a coalescing aesthetic and functional role), and extending to literature as a substitute for travel and experience, a vehicle for truth or persuasion, to relieve or incite emotion, or as something without a function.[28] They ultimately describe the main function of literature as being loyal to its own nature.[29]
They call for a systematic and integrated study of literature, uniting
Wellek and Warren describe the term
Section 2: Preliminary Operations
This section consists of a single chapter regarding the treatment, classification, annotation, and other aspects of working with
The authors identify two levels of operations when dealing with manuscripts: the assembly and preparation of the materials, and the establishment of aspects such as chronology and authorship.[37] At the first level one must locate and identify materials to study, be they written, printed, or oral; such a task may be difficult and depend on factors outside literature in its completion. Written and printed works must then be edited for readability; this task, which requires "lucky guesswork", entails deciphering illegible parts in the material, classifying it, and identifying possible changes made by scribes (and thus bringing the material closer to its "author's own").[39] Meanwhile, the second level may require greater initiative from the one studying a work; it involves, among other things, selection of what should be published, how it is best arranged in a collection, the establishment of chronology and authorship through internal and external evidence, and the provision of proper annotation and commentary.[36]
Section 3: The Extrinsic Approach to the Study of Literature
The third section consists of five chapters discussing various elements
Wellek and Warren describe three views of a biographical approach, of which only one – the biographical aspects relating to the production of a work – can be of use;
Wellek and Warren consider analysis of characters the only legitimate application of psychological analysis in literary study. Such an analysis, however, they find lacking on its own merits: individual characters do not fit psychological theories of the time they are written. Works which are true to certain psychological theories, meanwhile, are not necessarily better. Thus, they question the value of looking for psychological "truth" in how a work is presented.[46] Additionally they outline and critique psychological theories that have been used to analyze authors[47] and the creative process.[48]
Wellek and Warren write that literature is ultimately a social institution as several aspects of it are created or influenced through
Wellek and Warren note arguments that literature is a form of
Wellek and Warren write that the relationship between literature and other forms of art, such as
Section 4: The Intrinsic Study of Literature
This section, almost twice the size of the others, consists of eight chapters regarding various elements
Wellek and Warren consider patterns of sound as inherent to the text; these must be analyzed while keeping the meaning (or general emotional tone) in mind. They suggest two different aspects of sound systems: sounds in isolation, and sounds in relations with others. The sounds in isolation are used in a work establish a
Language, meanwhile, they describe as "quite literally the material of the literary artist"; although a work is influenced by language, the writer's style, the use of communicative language, may influence language.
For other understandings of meaning, Wellek and Warren suggest a look at the sequence of
After reiterating their views of the relationship between reality and literature, Wellek and Warren write that narrative fiction takes place in its own "worlds", consisting of five codeterminant elements:
Wellek and Warren consider genres as influencing "any critical and evaluative ... study".[85] All works of literature can be so classified, although the genres themselves are (presumably) not fixed. After outlining a brief history of the "ultimate" genres as understood by Aristotle (poetry, prose, and drama), they show such an understanding as "scarcely promising of objective results" and overly prescriptive; they also reject several alternative theories of genre.[86] Instead, they suggest that genres should be understood descriptively, as based on the "outer form" (meter, structure) and the "inner form" (attitude, tone, purpose), with the "outer form" emphasized.[87] Wellek and Warren consider genres to be continually shifting, with good writers conforming to but ultimately expanding them.[88]
According to Wellek and Warren, evaluation of literary work should be done based on the work's own nature, divorced from an author's practical or scientific intent. They reject evaluation based on extra-literary content, writing instead that literature – like all fine art – will provide an "aesthetic experience" which can be judged.[89] They note various criteria used to identify "good" literature, rejecting Russian formalism's criterion of defamiliarization and similar understandings for one based on the diversity of materials amalgamated within a work.[90] They reject a static hierarchy or generationalist understanding of literary greats. Instead, they suggest that every work's rank changes when a new work is introduced and that values within are "really, or potentially, present in the art object".[91] They note a dialectic relationship between evaluating and critically analyzing literature.[92] This ties genre theory to the history of literature.[93]
Wellek and Warren – disapproving of contemporary histories of literature – opine that a history of literature is possible and should be based on elements intrinsic to works. Such a history should describe the development of "[t]he process of interpretation, criticism, and appreciation" or trace the development of works in small and large groups before tying it to universal literature.[93] This "historical evolution" of related yet individual events they tie to "variable schemes of values" which must be "abstracted from history itself."[94] They suggest numerous ways in which this can be accomplished, including identifying the development of values, traits, forms, themes, and motifs.[95] Periodization, they write, should not be based on chronological boundaries, but a "time section dominated by a system of literary norms, standards, and conventions, whose introduction, spread, diversification, integration, and disappearance can be traced" which must be extracted from history, with boundaries marked by both internal and external changes.[96] They close the chapter by stating that existing methods are "clumsy" and that a new ideal and methods of literary history is necessary.[97]
Section 5: The Academic Situation
The final section of the book, removed in later editions, consists of a single chapter regarding the study of literature.[16] Wellek and Warren bemoan that literary students are "offered no wider choice than between the 'historical method' ... and dilettantism", supporting instead a critically oriented literary scholarship.[98] After finding faults with the literary scholarship in England, Germany, France, and Russia, Wellek and Warren suggest that the US is poised to start a new era in scholarship.[98] They note that this opportunity may, however, be lost in a conflict between those advocating change and the inertia (including persons defending the status quo) in American literary studies and institutions.[99]
Rather than maintain the system of having scholars specialized in certain time periods and authors, Wellek and Warren push for scholars who have mastered certain approaches and thought patterns, preferably those who are from a literary background. They also recommend "sharper distinction between the teacher and the scholar", allowing some individuals to devote their careers to research and not teaching.
Theoretical borrowings
Theory of Literature was influenced by
Wellek and Warren's concept of aesthetics borrowed from the writings of
Publication
Theory of Literature was published by
Translations of Theory of Literature began soon after it was published;
Reception
Academic reception of Theory of Literature was mixed. The philologist Helmut Hatzfeld, reviewing shortly after the book's release, described Theory of Literature as "radical in its viewpoint, rich in ideas and bibliographical material, poised in its judgment of other approaches to literature"
Edward G. Ballard, reviewing for The Journal of Philosophy, found the treatment lacking, with major terms left undefined and much of the book providing synopses of other writers' theories; he conceded, however, that it convincingly showed that "the intellectual study of literature qua literature has just begun".[125] In The Kenyon Review, Vivas wrote that the book's discussion of the relation between literary criticism and scholarship "leaves nothing to be desired", providing a "well balanced" look at the major points;[126] he found that no other such work existed in English at the time.[127] Vivas opined, however, that Wellek and Warren lacked a single, non-contradictory theory to use as a base for their conclusions.[126] Kemp Malone, reviewing for Linguistics, discussed three chapters on elements of literature related to linguistics. He considered these to provide "food for thought" for linguists and suggested that Wellek was well-versed in linguistics for a professor of literature, despite misusing several terms common in the discipline.[128]
Newton Arvin, writing in the Partisan Review, found Theory of Literature to excessively indulge in formalism and expressed concern that the idea of literary history may have "gone into the discard once and for all".[15] Benjamin found the book not something new, but a final assertion of the dominance of New Criticism in literary theory, a dominance which he considered untenable.[129] Rather than emphasize theory, he found that Theory of Literature was "ninety-nine parts a 'good offense' against its slain and buried foes"[130] with "exceptionally lucid and authoritative" discussions of literary problems.[14] Scaglione opined that Theory of Literature's plain, imprecise language had introduced numerous inconsistencies within its theoretical framework;[131] he also stated that the book led readers to believe they were approaching an understanding of literature without ever reaching the core essence of the subject.[132]
Ingarden, who believed his theories the basis of Wellek and Warren's arguments, considered himself inadequately credited and took offense with the attribution of his ideas to "pure phenomenologists".[133] He also stated that they had misrepresented his views.[133] George Grabowicz, prefacing his translation of Ingarden's The Literary Work of Art, suggested that Theory of Literature was "instrumental" in spreading Ingarden's ideas.[134]
Legacy
At the time of publication Wellek and Warren considered Theory of Literature unparalleled in English-language publications,
In an academic biography of Wellek, Michael Holquist of the
The book was used to teach literary theory at universities beginning not long after publication[15] and remained dominant into the mid-1960s,[102] at which time an increasingly heterogeneous academia questioned the universal value of literature; literary theorist Terry Eagleton finds that, after the 1960s, "it was no longer possible to take for granted what literature was, how to read it, or what social functions it might serve".[139] Steven Mailloux describes Theory of Literature as crystallizing an American movement towards intrinsic literary criticism, as dominated by New Criticism,[140] while van Rees credits the book with popularizing a text-oriented interpretation.[141] Grabowicz writes that its importance for both American and general literary studies is "indisputable".[134] Writing in 1987, Jeremy Hawthorn described the book as an "excellent introductory study", despite extrinsic studies having become more dominant in literary criticism,[105] while Holquist found that the book could still "be usefully invoked" in literary debates of the early 21st century.[115] In an obituary of Wellek, Robert Thomas Jr. credited Theory of Literature with "introduc[ing] European scholarship to the United States" and establishing a framework for comparative literature studies in the United States.[142]
The theoretical positions promulgated in Theory of Literature have generally been criticized by later writers. Van Rees, for example, considers Wellek and Warren's distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic aspects of literature to be too sharply drawn, leading to the two aspects becoming binary opposites.[143] Holquist notes that this distinction proceeds from a different understanding of literature. He writes that Wellek's school of thought considered literature as a "unified subject" with definite boundaries which could be mastered,[115] while more recent scholarship has rendered "[t]he very identity of literature as an object of study ... no longer clear."[144]
Notes
- ^ a b Drake 1996, pp. 851–854.
- ^ a b Holquist 2010, p. 163.
- ^ Makaryk 1993, p. 484.
- ^ Holquist 2010, p. 169.
- ^ Holquist 2010, pp. 166, 168.
- ^ Holquist 2010, p. 170.
- ^ Wellek 1976, p. 68.
- ^ NYT 1986, Austin Warren.
- ^ Wellek 1976, p. 69.
- ^ Wellek 1976, p. 71.
- ^ Wellek 1976, p. 72.
- ^ a b Wellek 1976, pp. 73–74.
- ^ a b Wellek & Warren 1949, p. v.
- ^ a b Benjamin 1953, p. 427.
- ^ a b c d e Scaglione 1958, p. 400.
- ^ a b c d e f Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. ix–x.
- ^ a b Scaglione 1958, p. 408.
- ^ a b Wellek & Warren 1949, p. vi.
- ^ Wellek 1976, p. 73.
- ^ a b c van Rees 1984, p. 504.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 8–10.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 3.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 5–8.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 11–14.
- ^ van Rees 1984, p. 528.
- ^ van Rees 1984, p. 506.
- ^ van Rees 1984, p. 507.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 20–27.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 28.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 29–31.
- ^ a b Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 33–35.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 36.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 38–41.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 41.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 41–43.
- ^ a b Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 54–58.
- ^ a b Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 49.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 60–62.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 50–52.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 73.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 65.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 67–68.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 69.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 70–72.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 73–74.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 86–88.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 75–79.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 81–85.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 111.
- ^ a b Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 89–90.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 91–98.
- ^ a b Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 100–104.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 106.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 107–109.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 111–112.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 113–118.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 120–121.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 122–123.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 124–126.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 124–127.
- ^ a b Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 135.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 129–131.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 139.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 141–150.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 151–152.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 157.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 159–176.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 159–160.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 161–164.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 165–167.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 168–176.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 177–178.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 180–183.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 184.
- ^ a b Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 185–189.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 190.
- ^ a b Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 191–198.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 199–204.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 205–213.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 214–218.
- ^ a b Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 219–222.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 223–227.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 228–229.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 234.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 235.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 236–239, 245.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 241–242.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 244.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 249–252.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 253–255.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 257–258.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 262.
- ^ a b Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 263–266.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 267–268.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 269–273.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 274–280.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 282.
- ^ a b Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 285–288.
- ^ a b c Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 289–293.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 297.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 294.
- ^ a b Holquist 2010, p. 172.
- ^ Makaryk 1993, p. 53.
- ^ Makaryk 1993, p. 120.
- ^ a b c d e Parrinder 1993, pp. 135–136.
- ^ van Rees 1984, p. 516.
- ^ van Rees 1984, p. 529.
- ^ Holquist 2010, p. 175.
- ^ van Rees 1984, p. 512.
- ^ van Rees 1984, p. 524.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 35.
- ^ a b van Rees 1984, p. 519.
- ^ a b c Wellek 1976, p. 75.
- ^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. iv.
- ^ a b c Holquist 2010, p. 165.
- ^ Wellek 1976, p. 74.
- ^ Hatzfeld 1949, p. 277.
- ^ Hatzfeld 1949, p. 281.
- ^ Hatzfeld 1949, p. 280.
- ^ Hatzfeld 1949, p. 278.
- ^ Troy 1950, p. 619.
- ^ a b Troy 1950, p. 620.
- ^ Betsky 1949, p. 260.
- ^ Betsky 1949, p. 261.
- ^ Ballard 1951, pp. 109–110.
- ^ a b Vivas 1950, p. 162.
- ^ Vivas 1950, p. 165.
- ^ Malone 1950, pp. 311–313.
- ^ Benjamin 1953, p. 424.
- ^ Benjamin 1953, p. 425.
- ^ Scaglione 1958, p. 402.
- ^ Scaglione 1958, p. 404.
- ^ a b Ingarden & Grabowicz 1979, pp. lxxix–lxxxiv.
- ^ a b Ingarden & Grabowicz 1979, p. lxiii.
- ^ Ballard 1951, p. 108.
- ^ a b Holquist 2010, p. 164.
- ^ a b Holquist 2010, p. 176.
- ^ van Rees 1984, p. 505.
- ^ Eagleton 2008, p. 191.
- ^ Mailloux 1984, p. 51.
- ^ van Rees 1984, p. 501.
- ^ Thomas 1995, René Wellek.
- ^ van Rees 1984, p. 510.
- ^ Bernheimer 1995, p. 2, quoted in Holquist (2010, p. 166)
References
- "Austin Warren". New York Times. August 22, 1986. Retrieved 25 October 2012.
- Ballard, Edward G. (February 1951). "Theory of Literature by René Wellek: Austin Warren". The Journal of Philosophy. 48 (4): 108–110. JSTOR 2021441. (subscription required)
- Benjamin, Herbert S. (1953). "Criticism in Reverse". In Bixler, Paul Howard (ed.). The Antioch Review Anthology: Essays, Fiction, Poetry, and Reviews from the Antioch Review. Cleveland: World Publishing. pp. 424–428. ISBN 978-0-8369-1782-6.
- Bernheimer, Charles (1995). "Introduction". Comparative Literature in the Age of Multiculturalism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 1–17. ISBN 978-0-8018-5004-2.
- Betsky, Seymour (September 1949). "The New Antiquarianism". Scrutiny. 17 (3): 260–264.
- Parrinder, Patrick (1993). "Having Your Assumptions Questioned". In Bradford, Richard (ed.). The State of Theory. New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-07323-3.
- Drake, Robert (1996). "Continuity, Coherence, Completion". Mississippi Quarterly. 49 (4): 851–854.
- Eagleton, Terry (2008). Literary Theory: An Introduction. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 978-0-8166-5447-5.
- Hatzfeld, Helmut (Summer 1949). "Theory of Literature by René Wellek; Austin Warren". Comparative Literature. 1 (3): 277–281. JSTOR 1769174. (subscription required)
- Holquist, Michael (2010). "Remembering René Wellek". Comparative Critical Studies. 7.2 (3): 163–178. . (subscription required)
- Ingarden, Roman; Grabowicz, George G. (translator) (1979). "Translator's Introduction". The Literary Work of Art: An Investigation of the Borderlines of Ontology, Logic, and Theory of Language. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press. )
- Mailloux, Steven (1984). Interpretive Conventions: The Reader in the Study of American Fiction. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-9285-3.
- Makaryk, Irene Rima, ed. (1993). Encyclopedia of Contemporary Literary Theory: Approaches, Scholars, Terms. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 978-0-8020-6860-6.
- Malone, Kemp (April–June 1950). "Theory of Literature by René Wellek; Austin Warren". Linguistics. 26 (2): 311–313. JSTOR 410075. (subscription required)
- van Rees, C. J. (December 1984). "'Theory of literature' viewed as a conception of literature: On the premises underlying Wellek and Warren's handbook". Poetics. 13 (6): 501–533. . (subscription required)
- Scaglione, Aldo (May 1958). "'Theory of Literature' (2d ed.), by René Wellek and Austin Warren (Book Review)". Romance Philology. 11 (4): 400–408.
- Thomas Jr., Robert McG. (November 16, 1995). "René Wellek, 92, a Professor of Comparative Literature, Dies". New York Times.
- Troy, William (Winter 1950). "Limits of the Intrinsic". The Hudson Review. 2 (4): 619–621. JSTOR 3847717. (subscription required)
- Vivas, Eliseo (Winter 1950). "Theorists without Theory". The Kenyon Review. 12 (1): 161–165. JSTOR 4333129. (subscription required)
- Wellek, René (1976). "Collaborating with Austin Warren on Theory of Literature". In Simon, Myron; Gross, Harvey (eds.). Teacher & Critic: Essays By and About Austin Warren. Los Angeles: Plantin Press. pp. 68–75. OCLC 3023887.
- Wellek, René; Warren, Austin (1949). Theory of Literature. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Company. OCLC 1599846.