Traditional Approaches in Literary
Criticism--Criticism & Theory
[Study material for Annamalai University MPhil students—for purely
scholarly purposes
Dr. S. Sreekumar]
Introduction
New
Criticism put into clear focus what a poem, novel, or drama is trying to do.
New Critics insisted that the scholars must concentrate on the work itself. New
Critics insisted that literature has an intrinsic worth. But many 20th
century New Critics have been guilty of totally ignoring the biographical and
historical background of a work. Fortunately the most astute critics have
recommended a varied approach to literature, which includes elements of all
approaches. Oscar Cargill, in the introduction to his Towards a Pluralistic
Criticism endorsed an eclectic approach.
I have
always held that any method which could produce the meaning of a work of
literature was a legitimate method…. I came to the conclusion that…. the
critic’s task was…. to procure a viable meaning appropriate to the critic’s
time and place. Practically this meant employing not only one method in
interpreting a work of art but every method which might prove efficient.
In any
event, while we may grant the basic position that literature is primarily art,
it must be affirmed also that art does not exist in a vacuum. It is a creation
by someone at some time in history, and it is intended to speak to other human
beings about some idea that is of relevance to others. Many literary classics
are admittedly autobiographical, propagandist, or tropical (that is related to
contemporary events).
A. Textual Scholarship: A Prerequisite to Criticism
Textual
criticism has its ideal the establishment of an authentic text, or the
text, which the author intended. This aim is not as easy as one might
think. It is a problem with not only older works, where it might be more
expected, but also with contemporary works. There are countless ways in which a
literary work can be corrupted. The authors own manuscript may contain
omissions and errors in spelling and mechanics. The scribes and printers may
add their own. Sometimes the copyists or editors may take it upon themselves to
correct what the author wrote. If these errors are not found out during the
time of proofreading, they can be published, disseminated, and perpetuated.
(Nor does it help the matters when the author himself cannot decide what the
final form of their work is to be but actually release for publication several
different versions).
We
sometimes assume that the text comes to us in a pure form. Very often the
reverse is the case. Because it is pointless to study anything that is not
accurate, we have to depend upon textual criticism to clear the text for us. James
Thorpe in his Principles of Textual Criticism writes: “…. where there
is no editing the texts perish”.
Textual
Criticism plays an important role in studying the genesis and development of a
piece of literature. Thus it has helped us to see how Pound’s editorial surgery
transformed Eliot’s clumsy and diffuse The Waste Land to a modern
classic. Other famous textual cases include Dickens’s two endings for Great
Expectations. After seeing the unhappy ending in proof, Dickens wrote
another ending and authorized it. Later editors felt that the first has more
aesthetic quality and preferred it though the author never authorized it.
Thomas Hardy made so many changes in his Return of the Native that
Thorpe asks, “Which is the real Return of the Native”?
The
relation between textual criticism and interpretive criticism can be made clear
with a surgical metaphor. Textual critics are the first in a team of critics
who prepare the literary corpus for further study. But we must not mistake that
the textual critics are scientists. They are a combination of scientists and
artists. As A.E. Housman says, textual criticism is the “science of discovering
error in texts and the art of removing it”
B.
Types of Traditional Approaches.
There are two
types of traditional approaches to literature.
1.
The Historical-Biographical.
2.
The
Moral-Philosophical.
1. The
Historical-biographical
This
approach has been evolving over several centuries. Its basic tenets are
articulated clearly in the writings of the 19th century French critic H.A.
Taine. Taines’s phrase race, milieu, et moment summarize the
spirit of the traditional approach. This approach sees the work simply as a
reflection of the author’s life and times or the life and times of the
characters in the work.
Examples
William Langland’s
Piers Plowman is an attack on the corruption of 14th
century English life. Several of Milton’s poems reflect events of his life or
times. “On His Blindness” can be best understood when we realize that the poet
became totally blind when he was forty-four. Samson Agonistes also
reflects several episodes in the poet’s life and the life of the times.
Similarly, a
historical novel is meaningful when either its background or that of its author
is understood. Sir Walter Scott’s Ivanhoe and Dickens’s A tale of Two
Cities can be better understood by readers who understood the Anglo-Norman
times or the French Revolution.
It is a
mistake, however, to think that the poets do not concern themselves with social
themes. Actually, poets have from earliest times been the historians and the
prophets of their people. Even a poet as mystical as William Blake can be read
meaningfully in terms of his England. His “London” is an outcry against the
oppression of man by society. His
“preface” to “Milton” is an attack on the “dark satanic mills” of the
Industrial Revolution.
Political and
religious satires like Dryden’s in the 17th century and personal
satires of Pope in the 18th have one of their primary aims of making
fun of the contemporary situations and persons. Dryden’s Absolom and
Achitophel is a satire on the Whig’s attempt to replace Charles II with his
illegitimate son, the Duke of Monmouth. Pope’s Dunciard is directed
against the people who offended Pope.
All the above works can be
understood without referring to the historical or biographical background. But
most readers will agree with Richard D. Altick that “almost every literary
work is attended by a host of outside circumstances which, once we expose them
or explore them, suffuse it with additional meaning.”
2. Moral-
Philosophical.
This approach is as old as classical
Greek and Roman critics. Plato, for example emphasized moralism and
utilitarianism. Horace insisted that literature should be delightful and
instructive. Samuel Johnson is the most famous English moralist. The basic
position of such critic is that the larger function of literature is to teach
morality and to probe philosophical issues.
They would interpret literature within the larger context of the period.
From their point of view Sartre or Camus can be read profitably only if one
understands existentialism. Similarly, Pope’s ‘Essay on Man’ may be grasped
only if one understands the meaning and the role of reason in 18th
century.
A related attitude is that of
Matthew Arnold, the Victorian critic, who insisted that a great literary work
must possess “high seriousness”. Moralists consider form, figurative language,
and other aesthetic considerations as secondary. Moral or philosophical
teaching is more important.
It seems reasonable to use
traditional methods to get the total meaning of a work of art. These approaches
may not err on the side of over interpretation. Other esoteric methods may err
on the side over interpretation.
The enemies of traditional
approaches may argue that it is deficient in imagination. They may also say
that it has neglected newer sciences like psychology and anthropology. But it
has done at least one service. It has avoided all cultism and faddism. It has
preserved scholarly discipline in literary criticism. In one sense these
approaches offer a necessary first step before we take up other approaches.
[Dr. S. Sree Kumar, Reader, Postgraduate and Research
Department of English, Government
Arts College
END
No comments:
Post a Comment