A Primer of Recent Critical Theories

Abstract

Modern American teachers and scholars of literature have traditionally conceived of literary studies as a separate discipline consisting of four distinct specialties: textual bibliography, linguistics, literary history, and literary criticism. All professional students of English and American literature have been expected to know, therefore, at least the basic textual works, for instance, of McKerrow and Bowers, the landmark linguistic studies of Baugh, Jakobson and Halle, and Chomsky, the standard historical surveys of David Daiches, Tucker Brooke et al., and Robert Spiller et al., and the orthodox critical analyses of Brooks and Warren and their New Critical brethren. Any scholar could add considerably to this list of important works and authors. But the point is that most academics can tentatively assent to the currency of this fourfold scheme. No doubt, as soon as priority is assigned to one or another of these four fields of study, dissension emerges. If the textual scholar claims first importance by observing that literary history and criticism depend on accurate texts, the literary critic forcefully replies that texts constitute mere paper unless they are read with discernment, whereupon the historian insists that discernment depends on familiarity with previous literary accomplishments, and the linguist hastens to respond that all questions are moot until the language of a work is fully understood. And so it goes. Amid all this traditional disharmony, we now witness the claims for priority by especially vociferous champions of comparative literature, interdisciplinary studies, and literary theory, and we hear contentions from countless others who seek preeminence. Most of these new voices are not really new, for the main currents of critical study always were flanked by the marginal groves and grottos of special interest. What is new about the present situation is the unprecedented babel from the persons on the fringes calling for top billing. First among all these people are the theorists. They too seek high places. The difference, however, is that they have succeeded far more than others. Without question, theories of literature and criticism have always had a special, though minor, place in the study of literature. We are all familiar at least with the major theories of Plato, Aristotle, Longinus, and Horace, and most of us have studied at least