西方古典文论讲义.doc

A Brief Survey of Critical TheoryFrom Plato to 19th CenturyCompiled byZhang Xuchun Sichuan International Studies UniversityContentsSyllabus 3Introduction 51. Critical Theories in Greek Times 92. Critical Theories in Roman Times 113. Critical Theories in the Middle Ages 174. Critical Theories in the Renaissance 235. Critical Theories in the Age of Neo-classicism 306. Critical Theories in the Age of Sensibility 367. Critical Theories in the Age of Romanticism 438. Critical Theories of the 19th Century Social Criticism 549. New Developments in Theory 68Appendices 85Syllabus for Classical Western Critical TheoryCourse Purpose: This course, which is a 2-credit optional or selective course, is designed for the purpose of acquainting the students of English literature with some fundamental knowledge of classical critical theories in the west from the time of Plato well into the 19th century. Text: Zhang Xuchun, ed., Selected Readings in Classical Western Critical Theory.Further Readings: 1) Zhang Xuchun, ed., A Brief Survey of Critical Theory from Plato to 19th Century;2) Richard Harland, Literary Theory from Plato to Barthes: an Introductory History (NY: Palgrave, 1999);3) Hazard Adams & Leroy Searle ed., Critical Theory Since Plato (Beijing: Peking Univ. Press, 2006)4) Thomas H. Greer, A Brief History of the Western World (Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, 1992).5) 朱光潜：西方美学史（上、下）；6) 伍蠡甫、胡经之：西方文艺理论名著选编（上、中、下）；7) 伍蠡甫：西方文论选；8) 李赋宁主编：欧洲文学史（1、2、3、4）。Course Schedule:1. Introduction (1 week):2. Critical Theories in Greek Times (3 weeks):Plato: Republic;Aristotle, Poetics;3. Critical Theories in Roman Times (2 weeks):Horace, Art of Poetry;Longinus, On the Sublime;4. Critical Theories in the Middle Ages (2 weeks)Plotinus, On the Intellectual Beauty;Saint Thomas Aquinas, The Nature and Domain of Sacred Doctrines;5. Critical Theories in the Renaissance (2 weeks)Sir Philip Sidney, An Apology for Poetry;Sir Francis Bacon, The Advancement of Learning;6. Critical Theories in the Age of Neo-classicism (1 week):Pierre Corneille, Of the Three Unities of Action, Time, and Place;Samuel Johnson, Preface to Shakespeare;7. Critical Theories in the Age of Sensibility (4 weeks):Edmund Burke, A Philosophical Inquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful;Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, Laocoon;8. Critical Theories in the Age of Romanticism (2 weeks):Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Conversation with Eckerman;Friedrich von Schiller, Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man;9. Critical Theories of the 19th Century Social Criticism (2 weeks):Matthew Arnold, The Function of Criticism at the Present Time;Karl Mark, A Contribution of the Critique of Political Economy;10. New Developments in Theory (1 week):Walter Pater, Studies in the History of the Renaissance11. Writing and Submitting the course paper.IntroductionWhat is the nature of literature? What function socially as well as aesthetically, does literature perform? What are the intrinsic qualities that a literary work is supposed to have? All these are questions that a critical theory intends to answer. And it is the different answers to those questions that distinguish one critical theory from the other. IFor a clear, though seemingly simplified illustration on the orientations that characterize different critical theories, Id like to recommend you a scheme or a triangle set forth in M. H. Abrams The Mirror and the Lamp (1953). According to Abrams, there are altogether four elements involved in literature: the work, the artist, the audience, and the universe from which the work derives or signifies or reflects. And the emphasis upon any single relation between two elements leads to one particular type of critical theory: mimetic theories, pragmatic theories, expressive theories and objective theories.(mimetic theory)universework(objective theory) artist audience(expressive theory) (pragmatic theory)Mimetic theories privilege the relation of the literary work to the world (the universe) and usually define literature in terms of imitation (mimesis). Or to put it simply, mimetic theories argue that literature is the imitation or copying of the universe, therefore, mimetic theories usually judge a work on the accuracy or the verisimilitude of its presentation of the universe. (Just as Socrates puts it, the arts of painting, poetry, music, dancing, and sculpture are all imitations. And roughly in the same token, Samuel Johnson says the Shakespeares drama is the “mirrour of life”.) There is little doubt mimesis was the dominant critical term in the west from Plato well into the Renaissance (even in 20th century the Soviet social realism), though during that long stretch of time it underwent several shifts of meaning because critics differ from each other with respect to the identity or the notion of “universe”, or the object to be imitated by literature: for Plato it is the eternal Ideas, for Aristotle, it is human action or human society, for Horace it is the Greek masterpieces, for the neo-Platonists such as Plotinus it is the One, for 18th century neo-classicism it is human nature.1. 古者包牺氏之望天下也，仰则观象于天，俯则观法于地，观鸟兽之文与地之宜，近取诸身，远取诸物，于是始作八卦。（周易正义卷八）In ancient times, when Pao-hsi ruled over the world, he lifted his head and contemplated the signs in heaven; he bent down and contemplated the orders on earth. He contemplated the patterns (wen) on birds and beasts, and the suitabilities of the earth. He drew (ideas) from his own person, and from the objects afar. Thereupon he first invented the Eight Trigrams. (Translated by James J. Y. Liu)2. 文之为德也大矣，与天地并生者何哉！夫玄黄色杂，方圆体分，日月叠璧，以垂丽天之象；山川焕绮，以铺理地之形，此盖道之文也。仰观吐曜，俯查含章，高卑定位，故两仪既生矣；惟人参之，性灵所钟，是谓三才。为五行之秀，实天地之心，心生而言立，言立而文明，自然之道也。（刘勰：文心雕龙原道）The power of wen (configurations/culture/literature) is great indeed! It was born together with heaven and earth. How so? (At first) the dark (i.e., the heaven) and the brown (i.e., earth) interspersed their colors; (then) the square (i.e., earth) and the round (i.e., heaven) separated their bodies; the sun and the moon, twin jade discs, suspended their signs attached to heaven; the mountains and rivers, shining like fine silk, spread their orderly arrangements over the earth these are really the wen (configurations/embellishments) of the Tao. Looking up, one might contemplate that which emitted lights, and bending down, observed that which contained compositions (chang) within. When the high (i.e., heaven) and the low (i.e., earth) each had its position fixed, then the Two Forms (Liang-yi) were born. Man alone made a third, being the concentration of natural spiritual powers (Hsing-ling). These are called the Trinity. (Man) is the finest essence of the Five Agents, and truly the mind of heaven and earth. When mind was born, then language was established, then wen (literature/patterns) shone forth. This is a natural principle (tao).( (Translated by James J. Y. Liu)3. 人文之元，肇始太级，幽赞神明，易象惟先。庖牺画其始，仲尼翼其中。而乾、坤两位，独治文言。言之文也，天地之心哉！（刘勰：文心雕龙原道）The origin of human wen (culture/literature/embellishments) began with the Great Primordial (Tai-chi). In profoundly manifesting the divine light, the signs in the Book of Changes were the first. Pao-his began (the book) by drawing (the trigrams), and Chung-ni (i.e., Confucius) completed it with the Wings. But only on the first two hexagrams, Chien and Kun, did he compose the commentary “wen-yen” (patterned/embellished words). Now, the wen (pattern/configuration/embellishment) of words is this not indeed the mind of heaven and earth? (Translated by James J. Y. Liu)Pragmatic theories emphasize the readers relation to the work, or they highlight on the effects literary works of art have on the reader, be it emotional or didactic or aesthetic (As Abrams puts it: “it looks at the work of art chiefly as means to an end, an instrument for getting something done, and tends to judge its value according to its success in achieving that aim”). However, it is worth noting that when pragmatic theories began to appear they did so for a while without diminishing the importance of mimesis. Both Plato and Aristotle took significant account of the moral effects on the reader and audience. Longinus, by foregrounding the notion of sublime, emphasized emotional effects that poetry is supposed to achieve, and the idea that poetry both delighted and taught was a classical invention commonly expressed all the way from Horace to Sir Philip Sidney. There had always been in the Middle Ages and well into the eighteenth century a strong moralistic, didactic criticism. In the eighteenth century, didactic criticism shared power with the new aesthetics and the concept of affect. Alexander Baumgarten established the term aesthetic at mid-century, and thereafter theories of aesthetic pleasure abounded, culminating in the Critique of Judgment (1790) of Immanuel Kant.1. 关雎，后妃之德也，风之始也，所以风天下而正夫妇也。固用之乡人焉，用之邦国焉。风，风也，教也；风以动之，教以化之。（诗大序）Guan Ju is the virtue (德)of the Queen Consort and the beginning of the Feng. It is the means by which the world is influenced (风) and by which the relations between husband and wife correct (正). Thus it is used in smaller communities, and it is used in large states. “Airs” are “Influence”; it is “to teach.” By influence it stirs them; by teaching it transforms them. (Preface to the Book of Poetry, Translated by Stephen Owen)2. 故正得失，动天地，感鬼神，莫近于诗。先王以是经夫妇，成孝敬，厚人伦，美教化，移风俗。（诗大序）Thus to correct (正) (the presentation of ) achievements (得) and failures, to move Heaven and Earth, to stir the gods and spirits, there is nothing more apposite than poetry. By it the former kings managed the relations between husbands and wives, perfected the respect due to parents and superiors, gave depth to human relations, beautifully taught and transformed the people, and changed local customs. (Translated by Stephen Owen)The expressive orientation holds that “a work of art is essentially the internal made external, resulting from a creative process operating under the impulse of feeling” (Abrams). To be specific, according to the expressive theory, a work of art is the verbal expression of the artists inner feeling or individual personality. And this idea is most succinctly expressed by William Wordsworth. “Poetry”, Wordsworth announced in his Preface to the Lyrical Ballads of 1800, “is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings”. The expressive orientation is not as old as mimesis or the pragmatic orientation, it came with romanticism in the late eighteenth century with Jean Jacques Rousseau as one of its early precursors and the British Romantics as its devoted practitioners. Before Rousseau very little attention had been paid to the authorial individuality as in something conveyed by a literary work. Indeed, there was hardly any interest in the idea that writers had personalities to express. Wordsworth notion that a poem was the inner made outer was indeed revolutionary in the history of western critical theory because it for the first time emphasized the central role of the poet. And this emphasis is still powerful today in spite of the efforts of objective theorists, such as T. S. Eliot, to eradicate it. Early in the twentieth century, Eliot insisted that the poets effort should be to flee personality and that criticism should concentrate on the poem apart from its author.诗者，志之所之也，在心为志，发言为诗。情动于中而形于言，言之不足，故嗟叹之；嗟叹之不足，故永歌之；永歌之不足，不知手之舞之，足之蹈之也。（诗大序）The poem is that to which what is intently on the mind (志) goes. In the mind (心) it is “being intent” (志); coming out in language (言), it is a poem. The affection (情)are stirred within and take on form (形). If words alone are inadequate, we speak them out in sighs. If sighing them is inadequate, unconsciously our hands dance them our feet tap them. (Translated by Stephen Owen)Objective theories, the fourth of Abrams orientations, arose principally from aesthetic speculations derived from Kant that tended to treat art as in some ways autonomous, as “a world of its own, independent of the world into which we are born, whose end is not to instruct or please but simply exist.” （“A poem should not mean /But be” - Archibald MacLeish）. That is to say, objectivist judgment concentrated on the poetic object as a unique system of internal relations, or a verbal icon. One early version of this view is represented by a phrase poetry for poetrys sake or “Art for Arts sake”. The objectivist emphasis developed further along two independent lines in 20th century, one that of the Russian formalists (see Shklovsky and Eichenbaum) and the other that of the American New Critics (see Ransom, Blackmur, Brooks, Wimsatt, and Beardsley), who attacked any determinations of meaning in a work by recourse either to authorial intention or to a readers response.Objective Theories: 夫诗有别材，非关书也；诗有别趣，非关理也。然非多读书多穷理，则不能极其至。所以不涉理路，不落言荃者，上也。诗者，吟咏性情者。盛唐诸人惟在兴趣。羚羊挂角，无迹可求。故其妙处，透彻玲珑，不可凑泊；如空中之音，相中之色，水中之月，镜中之象；言有尽而意无穷。（严羽：沧浪诗话诗辩）Poetry involves a distinct material (材) that has nothing to do with books. Poetry involves a distinct interest (趣) that has nothing to do with natural principle (理). Still, if you dont read extensively and learn all there is to know about natural principle, you cant reach the highest level. But the very best involves what is known as “not getting onto the road of natural principle” and “not falling into the trap of words”. Poetry is “to sing what is in the heart”. In the stirring and excitement （兴-趣）of their poetry, the High Tang writers were those antelopes that hang by their horns, leaving no tracks to be followed. Where they are subtle (妙), there is a limpid and sparking quality that can never be quite fixed and determined-like tones in the empty air, or words in a face, or moonlight in the water, or an image (象) in a mirror the words are exhausted, but the meaning is never exhausted. (Yan Yun, Miscellaneous Talks on Poetry at Canglang, Translated by Stephen Owen)IIAbrams classification is valuable for its clarity of taxonomy of critical orientations but less valuable for historisizing those orientations. A complimentary way to grasp the long history with which we are concerned is to notice the relations of literary theory to philosophical emphases in different eras. In a radically simplified manner, we can divide the history of western philosophy and of western literary theory into three major phases of general emphasis, namely, the ontological, the epistemological, and the linguistic. The first and by far the longest phase, the ontological, addressed the question of the nature of Being and existence. Platos location of Being in the eternal ideas or forms led to his characterization of poetry as a twice-removed copy of Being. Aristotles shifting and redefinition of ideas and forms also redefined imitation. It is no surprise that this emphasis raised over and over again the question of the status of literary fictions. The question of Being and verisimilitude dominated philosophy and critical theory through the Middle Ages and well into the Renaissance.Then, however, the emphasis shifted to what had come to be regarded as a prior question. One no longer began with the problem of Being but instead with that of knowing. The two classic expressions of the epistemological problem are those of Descartes and John Locke in the seventeenth century. Descartes rationalism thought out the problem beginning with the human subjects own indubitable (rational) knowledge I think, therefore I am. Descartes then proceeded to deduce further knowledge. Lockes empiricism divided experience into secondary (subjective) and primary (objective) qualities, privileging all that was primary, that is, all that was ascertainable as real through measurement. Knowledge became identical with the results of scientific method. The epistemological age threatened to separate poetry from reality in a new way, or rather reserved the real world for science and tended to drive poetry into subjectivity. A variety of movements tacitly or implicitly accepted poetic subjectivity, either to exploit it by identifying poetry with the expression of irrational, personal, often isolated experience or to overcome it to some extent by at least a partial recapture of objectivity, either of taste (David Hume), of morality (John Dennis, Samuel Johnson), or, later, of scientific method itself (Emile Zola). At the same time, the epistemological phase focused much attention on the mind, giving sanction to an interest in subjectivity (such the theory of psychoanalysis). The epistemological phase greatly enlivened critical discourse, rescuing it from a vocabulary of mimesis that had fairly well exhausted itself; but until poetry could find a theory that would overcome its relegation to subjectivity, it would suffer denigration of its value.The rise of aesthetics was such attempt, particularly Kants efforts to establish what he oxymoronically called subjective universality in aesthetic response. But, as is so often the case, the problem was not so much solved in favor of another one: As the ontological question led to the epistemological one, so the epistemological question led to the linguistic one. To ask about Being led inevitably to ask about how and what we can know. But other questions came to seem prior to this one. Can what we call knowing occur apart from language, to what extent does language inform us, and to what extent are we enclosed within it? For a very long time, with some important exceptions, philosophers considered language as a way of expressing and communicating prior experiences and ideas, which it translated into or represented in words. But as the epistemological phase developed it seemed that the matter was much more complicated, that language, not merely perception, played a constitutive role in the way reality appeared to us. The idea of language as imitating or representing some prior entity now had to vie with the idea that language made these entities or at least establish the limits within which entities existed for us.It has always been recognized, of course, that poetry is composed of language. From the earliest times poets have been obsessed with language as medium of their art. But the new linguistic age saw language as fundamental to human nature, not just as a human tool. The 20th century excursion into language theory known as semiotics or the theory of sign is interested in analyzing language as if it has its own life or is itself a system. The source of this interest is mainly structuralist linguistics, grounded in the work of Ferdinand de Saussure, which functioned as the primary inspiration for various language-oriented critical theories in 20th century, such as Russian Formalism, Anglo-American New Criticism, Fryean Archetypal Criticism, French Structuralism, and Derridean Deconstructionism, etc. All in all, in the age of linguistic turn (or linguistic age), it seemed that if there was anything left of mimesis, its direction has been entirely reversed. The world as we know it copied the structure of l