近代英文学における二つの批評の伝統 [in Japanese] Two Critical Traditions in Modern English Literature [in Japanese]
Access this Article
Search this Article
Part I Chapter 1 Tradition of Romantic Criticism The romantic criticism is the genial criticism which contemplates the objects by their own lights, while the classical criticism is concerned with the judgement of them with the extraneous standards. Such sympathy with the beautiful objects by the former leads to Platonic aesthetic contemplation in which means and end are identified, while the latter is Aristotelian in that it values the end more than the means. Chapter 2 Coleridge and Pater-concerning imagination Coleridge's theories of imagination, except his first one under the Hartleian influence, are based on the idealistic organicism, while Pater's is grounded on the sensationalistic mechanism. Now besides that, Pater has the idealistic one which is Kantian and Schellingian, and in this respect agrees with Coleridge. But their idealistic theories differ in that, while Pater's are more Hegelian and 'half-sensuous', Coleridge's are more Kantian and solely idealistic. In conclusion, Coleridge's theories are chiefly exclusively organicistic and idealistic, whereas Pater's are, in more important aspect, mechanistic and, even when idealistic, are greatly sensationalistic. Chapter 3 Coleridge and Pater-absolutist and relativist Coleridge regarded Shakespeare's genius as absolute, while Pater regarded it as relative. Or the former considered justice as absolute regardless of its circumstances, while the latter considered it as relative depending on them. So the one posited the absolute existence transcending time, while the other emphasized the relative spirit which traces change and growth. But they agree more often in that they are idealists who try to see their own reflections in the past. In this respect, they are both relativists as compared with the classicists. But Pater goes further in this point. So they may be called absolutist and relativist only as romantics. Chapter 4 Pater and Read-aesthetic, ethic and sociological critics As aesthetic critics Pater and Read set store by the art in which the form and the matter are inseparable, and call it 'good art', but while Pater considers it as solely appealing to the senses, Read considers it as appealing to the intuition as well. As ethic critics they value 'great art' which depends solely on the matter, but while the one is analytical, the other is intuitive. And as a sociological critic Pater considers art as the product of the 'environment', but with the science of his age he can not solve the problem that it is the product of the genius as well. It is Read who adopts the modern psychoanalysis, that can solve it. In short, Read is the critic who brought Pater's theory up to date. Chapter 5 Pater and Read-humanistic and abstract arts Pater and Read are the representative critics of such opposed arts as humanistic and abstract ones. But practically their views of art are not so opposed. With regard to 'humanism' and 'religious attitude' which T. E. Hulme considers as underlying these two, both critics agree in that they value Greek humanism. Also regarding their views of art themselves, Pater's humanistic views anticipate Read's abstract ones in that they both prize the irrational elements and assert 'vitality' and the 'force expression'. In this sense, Read is a good successor to Pater. Chapter 6 Read and Coleridge-concerning imagination and organic form Comparing Read's theory of imagination and organic form with Coleridge's, we find that, while Coleridge's emphasizes both the unconscious and conscious parts of imagination, and prizes both the personal and impersonal elements in art, Read's asserts only the unconscious part of imagination, and values only the personal element in art. Coleridge's is superior to Read's in this respect, if not in others. Perhaps conscious of this fact, recently Read has retracted the former theory and agreed with Coleridge's. But such conversion of his means only that from his emphasizing one aspect of Coleridge's to his asserting both aspects of it. His theory is always based on Coleridge's. He is the most distinguished disciple of Coleridge in modern times. Chapter 7 The achievement of Read Uutil 1930 Read is in accord with the classical tendencies of Eliot and Hulme, but since that time he becomes romantic, and in all criticisms of literature, art, society and education he harmonizes Coleridge's organicism and absolutism with Pater's mechanism and relativism. It is partly thanks to such modern philosophers as Bergson, Whitehead and Santayana, and partly owing to his birth and growth at Yorkshire farm and his first experiences at Victoria and Albert Museum, but, above them all, due to his return to the native tradition of such romantics as Blake, Wordsworth, Keats Thoreau and Whitman, that he can do this. At any rate, the achivement of Read is to unite again these two romantic criticisms which were originally one. Hellenism, the other prizes the Middle Ages and Christianity, owing to their difference in the consciousness of the connection between the present and the past. But they agree in that they look over Europe with curiosity and free play of mind, know the best and try to make it current widely. It is in this very point that they make the unique tradition of classical criticism in modern English literature. Chapter 2 Arnold and Eliot-concerning romantic poets We consider four romantic poets whom Arnold and Eliot discuss in common, separating them into two groups, Byron and Shelley as Satanists and Wordsworth and Keats as naturalists. Comparing their discussions, they differ in that, while the former considered Wordsworth, for example, as a man who 'plunged himself in the inward life', the latter regards him as a man who 'meddles with social affairs', and unlike the former reveres him because of 'his place in the pattern of history'. But they agree in that they are ethical criticisms about the matter, especially about the ideas. Chapter 3 Arnold and Eliot-concerning the standard of judgment Comparing Arnold and Eliot in their_ way of selecting the standards, we find that, while Arnold selected Homer, Dante, Shakespeare and Milton as the best in the world, irrespective of their historical relations to English literature, Eliot selected Shakespeare and Dryden as contributory to the developement of English literature and rejected Milton as not so contributory, to say nothing of Dante of foreign literature. Arnold and Eliot, though differing thus in their way of selecting the standards, agree in that they are the classical critics who use them.
- Memoirs of the Faculty of Letters,Osaka University
Memoirs of the Faculty of Letters,Osaka University (15), 1-197, 1969-12
Faculty of Letters, Osaka University