cultural and critical theory library Open source archive of ebooks, texts, videos, documentary films and podcasts Pages * Home * List of major critical theorists * What is Critical theory ? * What is Frankfurt School ? * Support Critical Theory Library * Contact This Blog This Blog | | ————————————————- Top of Form Bottom of Form Home » texts » History & Class Consciousness: Preface by Georg Lukacs (1923) Thursday, February 3, 2011 History & Class Consciousness: Preface by Georg Lukacs (1923) Share History and Class Consciousness Preface
THE collection and publication of these essays in book form is not intended to give them a greater importance as a whole than would be due to each individually.
For the most part they are attempts, arising out of actual work for the party, to clarify the theoretical problems of the revolutionary movement in the mind ,of the author and his readers. The exceptions to this are the two essays Reification and the Consciousness of the Proletariat and Towards a Methodology of the Problem of Organisation which were both written specially for this collection during a period of enforced leisure.
They, too, are based on already existing occasional pieces. Although they have now been partly revised, no systematic attempt has been made. to remove the traces of the particular circumstances in which they were written. In some cases a radical recasting of an essay would have meant destroying what I regard as its inner core of truth. Thus in the essay on The Changing Function of Historical Materialism we can still hear the echoes of those exaggeratedly sanguine hopes that many of us cherished concerning the duration and tempo of the revolution.
The reader should not, therefore, look to these essays for a complete scientific system. Despite this the book does have a definite unity. This will be found in the sequence of the essays, which for this reason are best read in the order proposed. However, it would perhaps be advisable for readers unversed in philosophy to put off the chapter on reification to the very end. A few words of explanation — superfluous for many readers perhaps — are due for the prominence given in these pages to the presentation, interpretation and, discussion of the theories of Rosa Luxemburg.
On this point I would say, firstly, that Rosa Luxemburg, alone among Marx’s disciples, has made a real advance on his life’s work in both the content and method of his economic doctrines. She alone has found a way to apply them concretely to the present state of social development. Of course, in these pages, in pursuance of the task we have set ourselves, it is the methodological aspect of these questions that will be most heavily stressed.
There will be no assessment of the economic content of the theory of accumulation, nor of Marx’s economic theories as such: we shall confine our discussion to their methodological premises and implications. It will in any case be obvious to the reader that the present writer upholds the validity of their content. Secondly, a detailed analysis of Rosa Luxemburg’s thought is necessary because its seminal discoveries no less than its errors have had a decisive influence on the theories of Marxists outside Russia, above all in Germany.
To some extent this influence persists to this day. For anyone whose interest was first aroused by these problems a truly revolutionary, Communist and Marxist position can be acquired only through a critical confrontation with the theoretical life’s, work of Rosa Luxemburg. Once we take this path we discover that the writings and speeches of Lenin become crucial, methodologically speaking. It is not our intention to concern ourselves here with Lenin’s political achievements.
But just because our task is consciously one-sided and limited it is essential that we remind ourselves constantly of Lenin’s importance as a theoretician for the development of Marxism. This has been obscured for many people by his overwhelming impact as a politician. The immediate practical importance of each of his utterances for the particular moment in which they are made is always so great as to blind some people to the fact that, in the last resort, he is only so effective in practice because of his greatness, profundity and fertility as a theoretician.
His effectiveness rests on the fact that he has developed the practical essence of Marxism to a pitch of clarity and concreteness never before achieved. He has rescued this aspect of Marxism from an almost total oblivion and by virtue of this theoretical action he has once again placed in our hands the key to a right understanding of Marxist method. For it is our task — and this is the fundamental conviction underlying this book — to understand the essence of Marx’s method and to apply it correctly. In no sense do we aspire to ‘improve’ on it.
If on a number of occasions certain statements of Engels’ are made the object of a polemical attack this has been done, as every perceptive reader will observe, in the spirit of the system as a whole. On these particular points the author believes, rightly or wrongly, that he is defending orthodox Marxism against Engels himself. We adhere to Marx’s doctrines, then, without making any attempt to diverge from them, to improve or correct them. The goal of these arguments is an interpretation, an exposition of Marx’s theory as Marx understood it.
But this ‘orthodoxy’ does not in the least strive to preserve what Mr. von Struve calls the ‘aesthetic integrity’ of Marx’s system. On the contrary, our underlying premise here is the belief that in Marx’s theory and method the true method by which to understand society and history has finally been discovered. This method is historical through and through. It is self-evident, therefore, that it must be constantly applied to itself, and this is one of the focal points of these essays.
At the same time this entails taking up a substantive position with regard to the urgent problems of the present; for according to this view of Marxist method its pre-eminent aim is knowledge of the present. Our preoccupation with methodology in these essays has left little space for an analysis of the concrete problems of the present. For this reason the author would like to take this opportunity to state unequivocally that in his view the experiences of the years of revolution have provided a magnificent confirmation of all the essential aspects of orthodox (i. . Communist) Marxism. The war, the crisis and the Revolution, not excluding the so-called slower tempo in the development of the Revolution and the new economic policy of Soviet Russia have not thrown up a single problem that cannot be solved by the dialectical method — and by that method alone. The concrete answers to particular practical problems lie outside the framework of these essays. The task they propose is to make us aware of Marxist method, to throw light on it as an unendingly fertile source of solutions to otherwise intractable dilemmas.
This is also the purpose of the copious quotations from the works of Marx and Engels. Some readers may indeed find them all too plentiful. But every quotation is also an interpretation. And it seems to the present writer that many very relevant aspects of the Marxist method have been unduly neglected, above all those which are indispensable for understanding the coherent structure of that method from the point of view Of logic as well as content. As a consequence it has become difficult, if not almost impossible, to understand the life nerve of that method, namely the dialectic.
We cannot do justice to the concrete, historical dialectic without considering in some detail the founder of this method, Hegel, and his relation to Marx. Marx’s warning not to treat Hegel as a ‘dead dog’ has gone unheeded even by many good Marxists. (The efforts of Engels and Plekhanov have also been all too ineffectual. ) Yet Marx frequently drew attention to this danger. Thus he wrote of Dietzgen: “It is his bad luck that he managed not to study Hegel. ” (Letter to Engels, 7. 11. 1868. ) And in another letter (dated 11. . 1868) we read: “The gentlemen in Germany … think that Hegel’s dialectic is a ‘dead dog’. In this respect Feuerbach has much on his conscience. ” In a letter dated 14 January, 1858 he lays emphasis on the ‘great benefits’ he has derived for his method of procedure with the Critique of Political Economy from his re-reading of Hegel’s Logic. But we are not here concerned with the philological side of the relation between Marx and Hegel. Marx’s view of the importance of Hegel’s dialectic is of esser moment here than the substantive significance of this method for Marxism. These statements which could be multiplied at will were quoted only because this significance had been underestimated even by Marxists. Too much reliance has been placed on the well-known passage in the preface to Capital which contains Marx’s last public statement on the matter. I am referring here not to his account of the real content of their relationship, with which I am in complete agreement and which I have tried to spell out systematically in these pages.
I am thinking exclusively of the phrase which talks of ‘flirting’ with Hegel’s ‘mode of expression’. This has frequently misled people into believing that for Marx the dialectic was no more than a superficial stylistic ornament and that in the interests of ‘scientific precision’ all traces of it should be eradicated systematically from the method of historical materialism. Even otherwise conscientious scholars like Professor Vorlander, for example, believed that they could prove that Marx had ‘flirted’ with Hegelian concepts ‘in only two places’, and then again in a ‘third place’.
Yet they failed to notice that a whole series of categories of central importance and in constant use stem directly from Hegel’s Logic. We need only recall the Hegelian origin and the substantive and methodological importance of what is for Marx as fundamental a distinction as the one between immediacy and mediation. If this could go unnoticed then it must be just as true even today that Hegel is still treated as a ‘dead dog’, and this despite the fact that in the universities he has once again become persona grata and even fashionable.
What would Professor Vorlander say if a historian of philosophy contrived not to notice — in the works of a successor of Kant, however critical and original, that the ‘synthetic unity of apperception’, to take but one instance, was derived from the Critique of Pure Reason? The author of these pages wishes to break with such views. He believes that today it is of practical importance to return in this respect to the traditions of Marx — interpretation founded by Engels (who regarded the ‘German workers’ movement’ as the ‘heir to classical German philosophy’), and by Plekhanov.
He believes that all good Marxists should form, in Lenin’s words “a kind of society of the materialist friends of the Hegelian dialectic”. But Hegel’s position today is the reverse of Marx’s own. The problem with Marx is precisely to take his method and his system as we find them and to demonstrate that they form a coherent unity that must be preserved. The opposite is true of Hegel. The task he imposes is to separate out from the complex web of ideas with its sometimes glaring contradictions all the seminal elements of his thought and rescue them as a vital intellectual force for the present.
He is a more profitable and potent thinker than many people imagine. And as I see it, the more vigorously we set about the task of confronting this issue the more clearly we will discern his fecundity and his power as a thinker. But for this we must add (and it is a scandal that we should have to add it) that a greater knowledge of Hegel’s writings is utterly indispensable. Of course we will no longer expect to discover his achievement in his total system. The system as we have it belongs to the past.
Even this statement concedes too much for, in my view, a really incisive critic would have to conclude that he had to deal, not with an authentically organic and coherent system, but with a number of overlapping systems. The contradictions in method between the Phenomenology and the system itself are but one instance of this. Hegel must not be treated as a ‘dead dog’, but even so we must demolish the ‘dead’ architecture of the system in its historical form and release the extremely relevant and modem sides of his thought and help them once again to become a vital and effective force in the present.
It is common knowledge that Marx himself conceived this idea of writing a dialectics. “The true laws of dialectics are already to be found in Hegel, albeit in a mystical form. What is needed is to strip them of that form,” he wrote to Dietzgen. I hope it is not necessary to emphasise that it is not my intention in these pages to propose even the sketchiest outline of a system of dialectics. My aim is to stimulate discussion and. as it were, to put the issue back on the agenda from the point of view of method.
Hence, at every opportunity attention has been drawn as concretely as possible both to those points at which Hegelian categories have proved decisive for historical materialism and also to those places where Hegel and Marx part company. In this way it is to be hoped that material and, where possible, direction has been provided for the very necessary discussion of this problem. These considerations have also determined in part the detailed account of classical philosophy in Section II of the chapter on reification. But only in part. For it seemed to me equally essential to examine the contradictions of bourgeois thought at the point where that thought received its highest philosophical expression. ) Discussions of the kind contained in these pages have the inevitable defect that they fail to fulfil the — justifiable — demand for a completely systematic theory, without offering any compensation in the way of popularity. I am only too aware of this failing.
This account of the genesis and aim of these essays is offered less as an apology than as a stimulus — and this is the true aim of this work — to make the problem of dialectical method the focus of discussion as an urgent living problem. If these essays provide the beginning or even just the occasion for a genuinely profitable discussion of dialectical method, if they succeed in making, dialectics generally known again, they will have fulfilled their function perfectly.
While dwelling on such shortcomings I should perhaps point out to the reader unfamiliar with dialectics one difficulty inherent in the nature of dialectical method relating to the definition of concepts and terminology. It is of the essence of dialectical method that concepts which are false in their abstract one-sidedness are later transcended (zur Aufhebung gelangen). The process of transcendence makes it inevitable that we should operate with these one-sided, abstract and false concepts. These concepts acquire their true meaning less by definition than by their function as aspects that are then transcended in the totality.
Moreover, it is even more difficult to establish fixed meanings for concepts in Marx’s improved version of the dialectic than in the Hegelian original. For if concepts are only the intellectual forms of historical realities then these forms, one-sided. , abstract and false as they are, belong to the true unity as genuine aspects of it. Hegel’s statements about this problem of terminology in the preface to the Phenomenology are thus even more true than Hegel himself realised when he said: “Just as the expressions ‘unity of subject and object’, of ‘finite and infinite’, of ‘being and thought’, etc. have the drawback that ‘object’ and ‘subject’ bear the same meaning as when thy exist outside that unity, so that within the unity they mean something other than is implied by their expression: so, too, falsehood is not, qua false, any longer a moment of truth. ” In the pure historicisation of the dialectic this statement receives yet another twist: in so far as the ‘false’ is an aspect of the ‘true’ it is both ‘false’ and ‘non-false’. When the professional demolishers of Marx criticise his ‘lack of conceptual rigour’ and his use of ‘image’ rather than ‘definitions’, etc. they cut as sorry a figure as did Schopenhauer when he tried to expose Hegel’s ‘logical howlers’ in his Hegel critique. All that is proved is their total inability to grasp even the ABC of the dialectical method. The logical conclusion for the dialectician to draw from this failure is not that he is faced with a conflict between different scientific methods, but that he is in the presence of a social phenomenon and that by conceiving it as a socio-historical phenomenon he can at once refute it and transcend it dialectically. Vienna, Christmas 192 | | | | | home | | essays | | upload | | resources | | custom papers | | message board | | procrastination | | Store| | | Monday, March 14, 2011| | help/faq| | memberlist| | top essays| | auto-citation| | contact| | search| | register| | log in| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Professionally written papers on this topic: View more… eCheat. com Essay Index ;; Humanities ;; English ;; Poetry ;; “Ars Poetica” Critical Analysis| “Ars Poetica” Critical Analysis Uploaded by Boarding13 on Nov 16, 2006| | | “Ars Poetica” Critical Analysis
Every person has his or her own opinion about poetry. Some analyze and go into deep thought about poetry and others just look at the superficial appearance presented by the author. Either way, interpretations are created and opinions are based. The poem “Ars Poetica”, by Archibald MacLeish is a very simple and blunt poem. His feelings about poetry are presented in a very simple way, so that no one can get the wrong idea. The first stanza summarizes the whole poem. He starts out by stating how quiet and simple a poem should be. He compares all of his ideas with examples and similes.
In this case, it is a piece of fruit. He goes on to say that poems are dumb and that they should be wordless and effortless. From this stanza, we can tell that he is a man with a very simple mind and very straightforward thoughts. He gives no indication of symbolism or hidden meanings, he just wants the reader to know his feelings on what a poem should be. He wants the reader to realize the non-complicity of this poem. “A poem should be wordless, as the flight of birds” means that it takes no thinking to observe birds, their actions are sight only.
As you can see, he is a very comparative writer with shallow thoughts and simplistic verses. The second stanza follows the exact same organization and flow as the first. It seems as if the moon rises and falls without us even knowing. We just look and its there. That is what MacLeish believes a poem should be like. He continues on with the comparison to the moon and the way it falls in the third line. As the moon passes through the trees there are times at which it is visible and other times when its not. As he compares it to the falling moon, I think that he feels as if the reader should not always understand he poem, and that its okay to not understand parts of poetry because that is just the natural and normal thing. He goes on to say that poems should be just a memory and that they will all fade away soon. In the last line, he repeats the first. Once again, he wishes to emphasize that fact that there should be no fast moving poetry and that it should not immediately stir something up in your mind. In this stanza, he used a repeating line to convey an idea. This means that he must really wish that the reader register that particular idea.
The last stanza relays the true feelings of the poem to the reader. He starts out by saying what a poem should be equal to and replies “not true. ” This is the only point in the poem that the reader is unclear in what he is reading. MacLeish may mean that a poem should be equal to nothing and that it is whatever the reader wishes it to be. He goes on to say that for all of the grief and hardship that we have endured throughout our lives, all that is left to show it is an empty doorway and a leaf, representing just a hole in the wall and no one there. Next, love is discussed.
As the grass leans, all of the attentions goes to it and it is given a romantic theme. Just like two people alone on the beach. Finally, he says “a poem should not mean, but be. ” This means that the context should relate to people and cause a reaction, rather than just have people hear it. All in all, the poem should be a meaningful and heartly issue that just goes straight to the point clearly. This poem has some very straight points and some vague parts at the end. In the beginning, he clearly states his criteria for a poem and what a poems means to him.
What he wishes is or all to see poetry the way he does. The first stanza is about how simplistic a poem needs to be. It doesn’t even need “words”, just needs to mean something to the reader. The second paragraph is all about emotion. The way a person reacts may be different, however, it will mean something to everyone. We also know that this is an important thought, otherwise the author would not have added the same line twice. The third and final stanza is based on emotional and how each individual chooses to react to it.
It is not easily understood, yet I believe the author is trying to convey that either a person can be left empty with nothing to show, or that someone could be touched by it and display great emotion. This poem has many meanings and show’s the personal feeling about someone in particular. Modern UsageThe term “ars poetica” can refer to devices of metalanguage. The definition of “ars poetica” in the past decade extends to defining techniques of rhetoric, including but not limited to: writing about writing, singing about singing, thinking about thinking, etc.
Stemming first from poetry on poetry, “ars poetica” is now widely used as a literary device to enhance imagery, understanding, or profundity. Moreover, the technique of “ars poetica” was previously an attempt to capture the essence of poetry through poetry; the poet would write his poem, then step back, and his poem would become a way of knowing, of seeing, albeit through the senses, the emotions, and the imagination. In the modern century, a passage of writing or composition employing an “ars poetica” style is one that tries to capture the essence, the intrinsic value, of what it is expressing through.
A song about a song, for example, would be an attempt to manifest the fleeting beauty of lyrics, notes, and dynamics. | | | | | | | | | | | | – Introduction – Ancient Greece – Ancient Rome – Other Ancient Civilizations – Timeline – Alphabetical List of Authors – Index of Individual Works – Index of Important Characters – Sources Top of FormBottom of Form E-mail: lukem@lukemastin. com Web-site designed by: Luke Mastin | | ANCIENT ROME – HORACE – ARS POETICA(Didactic Poem, Latin/Roman, c. 8 BCE, 476 lines)Introduction | Synopsis | Analysis | Resources Introduction| Back to Top of Page | “Ars Poetica” (“The Art of Poetry” or “On the Nature of Poetry”), sometimes known under its original title, “Epistula Ad Pisones” (“Letters to the Pisos”), is a treatise or literary essay on poetics by the Roman poet Horace, published around 18 or 19 BCE. Synopsis| Back to Top of Page | The poem takes the form of a letter of advice on the pursuit of literature, addressed to a father and two sons, known only as the Pisos, whose identity is uncertain.
The work is often split up into sections as follows (although other splits have also been suggested):Lines 1 – 37: On unity and harmony. Lines 38 – 72: The writer’s aims. Lines 73 – 118: What the tradition dictates (decorum). Lines 119 – 152: Invention vs. imitation (be consistent if you are original). Lines 153 – 188: On characterization (the four ages of man). Lines 189 – 219: On the gods, chorus and music (in tragic drama). Lines 220 – 250: On style (especially in satyr plays). Lines 251 – 274: On metre and versification.
Lines 275 – 294: Tragedy and comedy, Greek and Roman poets. Lines 295 – 332: How to be a good poet (talent versus art). Lines 333 – 365: Combine instruction with pleasure. Lines 366 – 407: Avoid mediocrity (errors are permissible if there are compensating pleasures). Lines 408 – 437: Study and talent are both needed, but beware of the flattery of critics. Lines 438 – 476: Know your faults and keep your wits. Analysis| Back to Top of Page | The actual purpose of the “Ars Poetica” has puzzled critics.
As a treatise, it is far from systematic and, whereas Aristotle’s “Poetics” is analytical and descriptive, Horace is impressionistic, personal and allusive. The transitions from one subject to another seem to occur abruptly, and the subjects are arranged quite haphazardly. Its concentration on the epic and dramatic forms also seems somewhat irrelevant to the contemporary Roman literary scene of his day. However, the lively autobiographical approach of the “Ars Poetica” and its expression of personal standards in literature make it unique as a work of criticism in the ancient world.
A few quotes in particular from the work have passed into common literary parlance, including: “in medias res” (literally, “in the middle of things”, describing a popular narrative technique that appears frequently in ancient epics and remains popular to this day, where the narrative starts in the middle of the story and the characters, setting and conflict are introduced through a series of flashbacks or through characters relating past events to each other); “bonus dormitat Homerus” (literally, “the good Homer nods”, an indication that even the most skilled poet can make continuity errors); “purpureus pannus” (literally, “the purple patch”, describing passages, or sometimes entire literary works, written in prose so overly extravagant, ornate or flowery as to break the flow and draw attention to itself); and “ut pictura poesis” (literally “as painting, so poetry”), meaning that poetry merits the same careful interpretation that was reserved for painting in Horace’s day). In later ages, the work exercised a great influence on Renaissance European literature, notably on French drama through Nicholas Boileau’s “L’Art Poetique” of 1674, which was written in imitation of Horace’s work. It was first translated into English by Ben Jonson in 1640. Literary criticismFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search Literature| Major forms| Novel · Poem · Drama
Short story · Novella| Genres| Epic · Lyric · Drama Romance · Satire Tragedy · Comedy Tragicomedy| Media| Performance (play) · Book| Techniques| Prose · Verse| History and lists| Outline of literature Index of terms History · Modern history Books · Writers Literary awards · Poetry awards| Discussion| Criticism · Theory · Magazines| Literary criticism is the study, evaluation, and interpretation of literature. Modern literary criticism is often informed by literary theory, which is the philosophical discussion of its methods and goals. Though the two activities are closely related, literary critics are not always, and have not always been, theorists.
Whether or not literary criticism should be considered a separate field of inquiry from literary theory, or conversely from book reviewing, is a matter of some controversy. For example, the Johns Hopkins Guide to Literary thinking and Criticism draws no distinction between literary theory and literary criticism, and almost always uses the terms together to describe the same concept. Some critics consider literary criticism a practical application of literary theory, because criticism always deals directly with particular literary works, while theory may be more general or abstract. Literary criticism is often published in essay or book form. Academic literary critics teach in literature departments and publish in academic journals, and more popular critics publish their riticism in broadly circulating periodicals such as the Times Literary Supplement, the New York Times Book Review, the New York Review of Books, the London Review of Books, The Nation, and The New Yorker. Contents[hide] * 1 History of literary criticism * 1. 1 Classical and medieval criticism * 1. 1. 1 Key texts * 1. 2 Renaissance criticism * 1. 2. 1 Key texts * 1. 3 Enlightenment criticism * 1. 3. 1 Key texts * 1. 4 19th-century criticism * 1. 4. 1 Key texts * 1. 5 The New Criticism * 1. 6 Theory * 1. 6. 1 Key 20th-century texts * 1. 7 History of the Book * 1. The current state of literary criticism * 2 Questions to the value of academic criticism * 3 See also * 4 References * 5 External links|  History of literary criticism Classical and medieval criticismLiterary criticism has probably existed for as long as literature. In the 4th century BC Aristotle wrote the Poetics, a typology and description of literary forms with many specific criticisms of contemporary works of art. Poetics developed for the first time the concepts of mimesis and catharsis, which are still crucial in literary study. Plato’s attacks on poetry as imitative, secondary, and false were formative as well. Around the same time, Bharata Muni, in his Natya Shastra, wrote literary criticism on ancient Indian literature and Sanskrit drama.
Later classical and medieval criticism often focused on religious texts, and the several long religious traditions of hermeneutics and textual exegesis have had a profound influence on the study of secular texts. This was particularly the case for the literary traditions of the three Abrahamic religions: Jewish literature, Christian literature and Islamic literature. Literary criticism was also employed in other forms of medieval Arabic literature and Arabic poetry from the 9th century, notably by Al-Jahiz in his al-Bayan wa-‘l-tabyin and al-Hayawan, and by Abdullah ibn al-Mu’tazz in his Kitab al-Badi.  Key texts * Plato: Ion, Republic, Cratylus * Aristotle: Poetics, Rhetoric * Horace: Art of Poetry * Longinus: On the Sublime * Plotinus: On the Intellectual Beauty * St.
Augustine: On Christian Doctrine * Boethius: The Consolation of Philosophy * Aquinas: The Nature and Domain of Sacred Doctrine * Dante: The Banquet, Letter to Can Grande Della Scala * Boccaccio: Life of Dante, Genealogy of the Gentile Gods * Bharata Muni: Natya Shastra * Al-Jahiz: al-Bayan wa-‘l-tabyin, al-Hayawan * Abdullah ibn al-Mu’tazz: Kitab al-Badi * Rajashekhara: Inquiry into Literature * Valmiki: The Invention of Poetry (from the Ramayana) * Anandavardhana: Light on Suggestion * Cao Pi: A Discourse on Literature * Lu Ji: Rhymeprose on Literature * Liu Xie: The Literary Mind * Wang Changling: A Discussion of Literature and Meaning * Sikong Tu: The Twenty-Four Classes of Poetry Renaissance criticismThe literary criticism of the Renaissance developed classical ideas of unity of form and content into literary neoclassicism, proclaiming literature as central to culture, entrusting the poet and the author with preservation of a long literary tradition.
The birth of Renaissance criticism was in 1498, with the recovery of classic texts, most notably, Giorgio Valla’s Latin translation of Aristotle’s Poetics. The work of Aristotle, especially Poetics, was the most important influence upon literary criticism until the late eighteenth century. Lodovico Castelvetro was one of the most influential Renaissance critics who wrote commentaries on Aristotle’s Poetics in 1570.  Key texts * Lodovico Castelvetro: The Poetics of Aristotle Translated and Explained * Philip Sidney: An Apology for Poetry * Jacopo Mazzoni: On the Defense of the Comedy of Dante * Torquato Tasso: Discourses on the Heroic Poem * Francis Bacon: The Advancement of Learning * Henry Reynolds: Mythomystes Enlightenment criticism | This section requires expansion.  Key texts * Thomas Hobbes: Answer to Davenant’s preface to Gondibert * Pierre Corneille: Of the Three Unities of Action, Time, and Place * John Dryden: An Essay of Dramatic Poesy * Nicolas Boileau-Despreaux: The Art of Poetry * John Locke: An Essay Concerning Human Understanding * John Dennis: The Advancement and Reformation of Modern Poetry * Alexander Pope: An Essay on Criticism * Joseph Addison: On the Pleasures of the Imagination (Spectator essays) * Giambattista Vico: The New Science * Edmund Burke: A Philosophical Inquiry into the Origins of Our Ideas of the Sublime and the Beautiful * David Hume: Of the Standard of Taste * Samuel Johnson: On Fiction, Rasselas, Preface to Shakespeare * Edward Young: Conjectures on Original Composition * Gotthold Ephraim Lessing: Laocoon * Joshua Reynolds: Discourses on Art * Denis Diderot: The Paradox of Acting * Immanuel Kant: Critique of Judgment * Mary Wollstonecraft: A Vindication of the Rights of Woman * William Blake: The Marriage of Heaven or Hell, Letter to Thomas Butts, Annotations to Reynolds’ Discourses, A Descriptive
Catalogue, A Vision of the Last Judgment, On Homer’s Poetry * Friedrich Schiller: Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man * Friedrich Schlegel: Critical Fragments, Athenaeum Fragments, On Incomprehensibility 19th-century criticismThe British Romantic movement of the early nineteenth century introduced new aesthetic ideas to literary study, including the idea that the object of literature need not always be beautiful, noble, or perfect, but that literature itself could elevate a common subject to the level of the sublime. German Romanticism, which followed closely after the late development of German classicism, emphasized an aesthetic of fragmentation that can appear startlingly modern to the reader of English literature, and valued Witz – that is, “wit” or “humor” of a certain sort – more highly than the serious Anglophone Romanticism. The late nineteenth century brought renown to authors known more for critical writing than for their own literary work, such as Matthew Arnold. edit] Key texts * William Wordsworth: Preface to the Second Edition of Lyrical Ballads * Anne Louise Germaine de Stael: Literature in its Relation to Social Institutions * Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling: On the Relation of the Plastic Arts to Nature * Samuel Taylor Coleridge: Shakespeare’s Judgment Equal to His Genius, On the Principles of Genial Criticism, The Statesman’s Manual, Biographia Literaria * Wilhelm von Humboldt: Collected Works * John Keats: letters to Benjamin Bailey, George ; Thomas Keats, John Taylor, and Richard Woodhouse * Arthur Schopenhauer: The World as Will and Idea * Thomas Love Peacock: The Four Ages of Poetry * Percy Bysshe Shelley: A Defense of Poetry * Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: Conversations with Eckermann, Maxim No. 279 * Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: The Philosophy of Fine Art * Thomas Carlyle: Symbols * John Stuart Mill: What is Poetry? * Ralph Waldo Emerson: The Poet * Charles Augustin Sainte-Beuve: What Is a Classic? Edgar Allan Poe: The Poetic Principle * Matthew Arnold: Preface to the 1853 Edition of Poems, The Function of Criticism at the Present Time, The Study of Poetry * Hippolyte Taine: History of English Literature * Charles Baudelaire: The Salon of 1859 * Karl Marx: The German Ideology, A Contribution of the Critique of Political Economy * Friedrich Nietzsche: The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music, Truth and Falsity in an Ultramoral Sense * Walter Pater: Studies in the History of the Renaissance * Emile Zola: The Experimental Novel * Anatole France: The Adventures of the Soul * Oscar Wilde: The Decay of Lying * Stephane Mallarme: The Evolution of Literature, The Book: A Spiritual Mystery, Mystery in Literature * Leo Tolstoy: What is Art? edit] The New CriticismHowever important all of these aesthetic movements were as antecedents, current ideas about literary criticism derive almost entirely from the new direction taken in the early twentieth century. Early in the century the school of criticism known as Russian Formalism, and slightly later the New Criticism in Britain and America, came to dominate the study and discussion of literature. Both schools emphasized the close reading of texts, elevating it far above generalizing discussion and speculation about either authorial intention (to say nothing of the author’s psychology or biography, which became almost taboo subjects) or reader response.
This emphasis on form and precise attention to “the words themselves” has persisted, after the decline of these critical doctrines themselves.  TheoryIn 1957 Northrop Frye published the influential Anatomy of Criticism. In his works Frye noted that some critics tend to embrace an ideology, and to judge literary pieces on the basis of their adherence to such ideology. This has been a highly influential viewpoint among modern conservative thinkers. E. Michael Jones in Degenerate Moderns argues that Stanley Fish was influenced by his adulterous affairs to reject classic literature that condemned adultery. In the British and American literary establishment, the New Criticism was more or less dominant until the late 1960s.
Around that time Anglo-American university literature departments began to witness a rise of a more explicitly philosophical literary theory, influenced by structuralism, then post-structuralism, and other kinds of Continental philosophy. It continued until the mid-1980s, when interest in “theory” peaked. Many later critics, though undoubtedly still influenced by theoretical work, have been comfortable simply interpreting literature rather than writing explicitly about methodology and philosophical presumptions.  Key 20th-century texts * Benedetto Croce: Aesthetic * A. C. Bradley: Poetry for Poetry’s Sake * Sigmund Freud: Creative Writers and Daydreaming * Ferdinand de Saussure: Course in General Linguistics * Claude Levi-Strauss: The Structural Study of Myth * T. E.
Hulme: Romanticism and Classicism; Bergson’s Theory of Art * Walter Benjamin: On Language as Such and On the Language of Man * Viktor Shklovsky: Art as Technique * T. S. Eliot: Tradition and the Individual Talent; Hamlet and His Problems * Irving Babbitt: Romantic Melancholy * Carl Jung: On the Relation of Analytical Psychology to Poetry * Leon Trotsky: The Formalist School of Poetry and Marxism * Boris Eikhenbaum: The Theory of the “Formal Method” * Virginia Woolf: A Room of One’s Own * I. A. Richards: Practical Criticism * Mikhail Bakhtin: Epic and Novel: Toward a Methodology for the Study of the Novel * Georges Bataille: The Notion of Expenditure * John Crowe Ransom: Poetry: A Note in Ontology; Criticism as Pure Speculation * R. P.
Blackmur: A Critic’s Job of Work * Jacques Lacan: The Mirror Stage as Formative of the Function of the I as Revealed in Psychoanalytic Experience; The Agency of the Letter in the Unconscious or Reason Since Freud * Gyorgy Lukacs: The Ideal of the Harmonious Man in Bourgeois Aesthetics; Art and Objective Truth * Paul Valery: Poetry and Abstract Thought * Kenneth Burke: Literature and Equipment for Living * Ernst Cassirer: Art * W. K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley: The Intentional Fallacy, The Affective Fallacy * Cleanth Brooks: The Heresy of Paraphrase; Irony as a Principle of Structure * Jan Mukarovsky: Standard Language and Poetic Language * Jean-Paul Sartre: Why Write? Simone de Beauvoir: The Second Sex * Ronald Crane: Toward a More Adequate Criticism of Poetic Structure * Philip Wheelwright: The Burning Fountain * Theodor Adorno: Cultural Criticism and Society; Aesthetic Theory * Roman Jakobson: The Metaphoric and Metonymic Poles * Northrop Frye: Anatomy of Criticism; The Critical Path * Gaston Bachelard: The Poetics of Space * Ernst Gombrich: Art and Illusion * Martin Heidegger: The Nature of Language; Language in the Poem; Holderlin and the Essence of Poetry * E. D. Hirsch, Jr. : Objective Interpretation * Noam Chomsky: Aspects of the Theory of Syntax * Jacques Derrida: Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences * Roland Barthes: The Structuralist Activity; The Death of the Author * Michel Foucault: Truth and Power; What Is an Author? The Discourse on Language * Hans Robert Jauss: Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory * Georges Poulet: Phenomenology of Reading * Raymond Williams: The Country and the City * Julia Kristeva: From One Identity to Another; Women’s Time * Paul de Man: Semiology and Rhetoric; The Rhetoric of Temporality * Harold Bloom: The Dialectics of Poetic Tradition; Poetry, Revisionism, Repression * Chinua Achebe: Colonialist Criticism * Stanley Fish: Normal Circumstances, Literal Language, Direct Speech Acts, the Ordinary, the Everyday, the Obvious, What Goes Without Saying, and Other Special Cases; Is There a Text in This Class? Edward Said: The World, the Text, and the Critic; Secular Criticism * Elaine Showalter: Toward a Feminist Poetics * Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar: Infection in the Sentence; The Madwoman in the Attic * Murray Krieger: “A Waking Dream”: The Symbolic Alternative to Allegory * Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari: Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Psychoanalysis * Rene Girard: The Sacrificial Crisis * Helene Cixous: The Laugh of the Medusa * Jonathan Culler: Beyond Interpretation * Geoffrey Hartman: Literary Commentary as Literature * Wolfgang Iser: The Repertoire * Hayden White: The Historical Text as Literary Artifact * Hans-Georg Gadamer: Truth and Method * Paul Ricoeur: The Metaphorical Process as Cognition, Imagination, and Feeling * M. H. Abrams: How to Do Things with Texts * J.
Hillis Miller: The Critic as Host * Clifford Geertz: Blurred Genres: The Refiguration of Social Thought * Filippo Tommaso Marinetti: The Foundation and Manifesto of Futurism * Tristan Tzara: Unpretentious Proclamation * Andre Breton: The Surrealist Manifesto; The Declaration of January 27, 1925 * Mina Loy: Feminist Manifesto * Yokomitsu Riichi: Sensation and New Sensation * Oswald de Andrade: Cannibalist Manifesto * Andre Breton, Leon Trotsky and Diego Rivera: Manifesto: Towards a Free Revolutionary Art * Hu Shih: Some Modest Proposals for the Reform of Literature History of the BookRelated to other forms of literary criticism, the history of the book is a field of interdisciplinary inquiry drawing on the methods of bibliography, cultural history, history of literature, and media theory. Principally concerned with the production, circulation, and reception of texts and their material forms, book history seeks to connect forms of textuality with their material aspects.
Among the issues within the history of literature with which book history can be seen to intersect are: the development of authorship as a profession, the formation of reading audiences, the constraints of censorship and copyright, and the economics of literary form.  The current state of literary criticismToday interest in literary theory and Continental philosophy coexists in university literature departments with a more conservative literary criticism of which the New Critics would probably have approved. Disagreements over the goals and methods of literary criticism, which characterized both sides taken by critics during the “rise” of theory, have declined. Many critics feel that they now have a great plurality of methods and approaches from which to choose.
Some critics work largely with theoretical texts, while others read traditional literature; interest in the literary canon is still great, but many critics are also interested in minority and women’s literatures, while some critics influenced by cultural studies read popular texts like comic books or pulp/genre fiction. Ecocritics have drawn connections between literature and the natural sciences. Many literary critics also work in film criticism or media studies. Some write intellectual history; others bring the results and methods of social history to bear on reading literature.  Questions to the value of academic criticismThe value of literary criticism has been questioned by some prominent artists. Vladimir Nabokov argued that good readers don’t read books, and particularly literary masterpieces, “for the academic purpose of indulging in generalizations”. 3] Stephen Joyce, grandson of James Joyce, at a 1986 academic conference of Joyceans in Copenhagen, said “If my grandfather was here, he would have died laughing … Dubliners and A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man can be picked up, read, and enjoyed by virtually anybody without scholarly guides, theories, and intricate explanations, as can Ulysses, if you forget about all the hue and cry. ” And he questioned if anything is added to the legacy of Joyce’s art, by the 261 books of literary criticism stored by the Library of Congress; he The Art of Poetry“Ars Poetica” by Vincent Huidobro is an open style poem, which concerns the key elements of a poem, and what emotions should be evoked while reading this type of melodic literature.
The poems key theme throughout each and every stanza deals with the type of images the mind should create while a poem is being read, and also the capabilities these images present towards the mind and its imaginative skills. Huidobro states in the last two lines of the first stanza, “Let all the eye sees be created / and the soul of the listener tremble” (Huidobro 4-5). I feel that this excerpt states the poems focus very well in that, when reading a poem the audience should either be drawn to creating a very vivid image of all which is occurring in the composition or moved to an intense dramatic state through the poem’s experience and explicit imagery. Vincent Huidobro’s, “Ars
Poetica” captures the essence of poetry extremely well for he not only relays what effects a good poem should have on the audience but he does in the fashion of a poem almost seemingly in jest. I have read one to many poems, that seem to create an image, which only exists in the writers mind and is inevitably impossible to create in o He then goes on to state that a poem, in the minds of the readers, should cause them to “invent new worlds” (Huidobro 7). Poetry can certainly be a scary type literature but when one genuinely tries to gain a more educated knowledge of understanding it all which is scary will one day become that which is enlightening.
I believe that this consequently helped his love for poetry grow as he critiqued and enjoyed the poetry which was available to him. ne’s head through the poems content alone. One can see clearly here of Vincent”tms emphasis on imagination and poetry and how they go hand in hand. On the other hand, I believe that if every poem, personal or not, were constructed to the form presented in “Ars Poetica” there would not be such hatred towards poems because of the mere perplexity they bestow on the reader. Vincent Huidobro has a ce to have a preconceived idea of what their preferences are and this will more than likely leak over into more diverse forms of poetry and literature.
We should all keep an open mind with poetry for it is so vastly prevalent in society. This statement reads that poems should unlock your most powerful imaginative skills causing one to brew up complex thoughts to form something so complex even to the equivalent of an entirely new world, which in reality is only attainable by a powerful God. Huidobro then goes on through the poem that by the end he declares of a poet as being a “little God” (Huidobro 18). A good poet who possesses the talent of captivating a readers mind causing them to be completely enthralled in the poem even enough to create images in their head which does not exist is what Huidobro”tms model of an ultimate poet is capable of achieving.
Reading Huidobro”tms statement in line one, one can clearly see that it cries out to all poets for them to initiate, to all, a sen| | | | Give a critical summary of Ars Poetica. Horace lived in the glorious Augustan Era which was the period of Roman civilization and culture. Poetry flourished in his age and was considered something good and noble and not something pernicious and unhealthy. Horace wrote both creative and critical pieces. He was the greatest exponent of classicism. He also composed Satires, Epodes, Odes, Rpistles; and his Ars Poetica, like Pope’s Essay in Criticism, is in verse. It is a poetic letter written to his friend Piso and his two sons as a piece of advice on poetic composition.
Horace called it Epistle to the Pisos but it was Quintilian who names it Ars Poetica. Because of the admirable conciseness of his critical observations and the extremely quotable quality of his lines, Horace was exalted to the position of a lawgiver by Dante, Vida, Boileau and Pope. Abercrombie rightly says, “Perhaps no poem of comparable length has provided so many phrases that have become the common property of international culture. ” Ars Poetica exercised a tremendous influence during the Middle Ages and the Neo-classical age. It was the Bible of classicism in England. The main ideas contained in Ars Poetica are summarized below :— Function and Nature of Poetry
Though not a systematic treatise on criticism, this poem can be divided into three parts : (a) poesis (subject matter); (b) poema (form), and (c) poeta (the poet). Its main topics of discussion are poetry, poetic style, and drama. Pope rightly says about Horace, ‘his precepts teach but what his works inspire. ‘ He is deeply influenced by the Greeks. He recommends: “my friends, study the great originals of Greece; dream of them by night and ponder them by day. ” Horace nowhere calls poetry a process of imitation like Plato and Aristotle. Mere imitation, according to him, is not enough for a poet often uses fiction and mingles facts with fancy.
To him the function of poetry was both to delight and instruct : ‘Poets desire either to improve or to please, or to unite the agreeable and the profitabl ; and that ‘it is not enough for poems to have beauty; they must also be pleasing and lead the listener’s soul whither they will. ‘ The subject-matter of Poetryh The subject-matter of poetry should be simple, i. e. , from familiar material, and uniform, that is full of wholeness. He says that he who chooses his subject wisely, will find that neither words nor lucid arrangement will fail him, for sound judgment is the basis and source of good writing. Poetic Diction Horace will always be remembered for his theory of poetic diction. Poetic diction, he says, can never be altogether established and stationary affair.
The function of language in poetry is to express; but man’s experience, which poetry exists to express, is continually changing, since it is continually adding to itself. With the growth of experience, the language of poetry must keep pace, if it is to be truly expressive. Language is like a tree; and its words are like leaves. As the years go on, the old leaves fall, and new leaves take their place; but the tree remains the same. Horace’s observations on poetic diction are like those of Aristotle. Following Aristotle, he also emphasises the right choice of words and their effective arrangement in composition. A poet is free to use both familiar and new words.
New words continually go on coming to the poet like new leaves to the tree. The poet must not rely wholly on the vocabulary of his predecessors; he must coin new words too. His Observations on Style Horace wished that the writer should observe the settled forms and shades of style in poetry. He pointed out some of the shortcomings of style. ‘I endeavour to be brief and become obscure; sinew and spirit desert the searcher after polish : one striving for grandeur becomes bombastic; whosoever is excessively cautious and fearful of the tempest crawls along the ground; and he who yearns after too prodigal a variety in his theme— he paints a dolphin in the forest, or a wild boar amid the waves.
If the poet does not have genuine artistry, the effort to avoid an imperfection leads him into graver butchery. Metres and their appropriateness ‘Homer has shown us in what metre may best be written the deeds of kings and great captains, and sombre war. Verses of unequal length were first used for laments, later also for the sentiment that attends granted beseechings. The Muse has given to the lyre the celebration of the gods and their offspring, the victorious boxer, the horse, first in the race, the amorous yearnings of youth, and the unrestrained pleasures of wine. If one does not know and cannot observe the conventions and forms of poems, he does not deserve to be called a poet.
Comic material, for instance, is not to be treated in the verses of tragedy ; similarly, it would be outrageous to narrate the feast of Thyestes in verse proper to common daily life and almost to comedy. ‘ Sincerity of Emotion ‘It is not enough for poems to have beauty; they must also be pleasing and lead the listener’s soul whither they will. If you would have me weep, you must first express grief yourself Views on Drama In Ars Poetica the treatment of drama is desultory. No systematic theory of drama is presented on a larger basis. Only fragmentary and casual views are expressed, e. g. ‘Either follow tradition or invent a story which is consistent. But the conventional features of traditional characters should be preserved. ‘If in your tale you represent the renowned Achilles, let him appear restless, passionate, inexorable and dauntless. ‘ ‘If you commit a new theme on the stage and venture to create a new character, ct the first impression be preserved to the end, and let his nature be consistent. ‘Let not Medea murder her children in front of the audience nor impious Atreus cook human flesh in the public nor Procne be changed into bird. Let a play be neither shorter nor longer than five acts and let no god intervene unless some problem arises that demands to be solved. The number of actors should not be more than three and the chorus should form an integral part of the action and its songs should advance and subserve the interest of the plot. ‘Let it support the good and give them kindly counsel, restrain the wrathful and favour those who fear to sin; let it praise the fare of a simple table, salutary justice and Law and Peace with open gates’. Horace studies drama under three heads : plot, characterization and style. Plot should be borrowed from familiar material; the chorus should be an integral part of the plot; characters should behave consistently and naturally; iambic metre was most suitable for drama. Dramatic speech should observe propriety : it should suit the character, its sex, its age; its station in life, its circumstances, its moods. A god will speak differently from a mortal, a man from a woman, an aged man from a heated youth, a prosperous merchant from a poor farmer, a man in grief from a man in joy, an angry-fellow from a playful one. f you utter words ill-suited to your part, I shall either doze or smile. ‘ In all this Horace closely follows Aristotle. | Ars Poetica A Poem by Archibald MacLeish (1892-1982) A Study Guide| Cummings Guides Home.. |.. Contact This Site . Type of Work| Text of the Poem| Explanatory Notes| Theme| Structure and Content| Figures of Speech| Rhyme| Meter| Source| Study Questions| Writing Topics| Biography| Source MacLeish derived inspiration for “Ars Poetica” from a book of epistles by the ancient Roman poet Horace (65-8 B. C. ). Originally entitled Epistle to the Pisos, the book later came to be known as Ars Poetica. It offers advice to young poets. |