Once More—What Is Literature?

Abstract

stage or another of their professional careers. Yet it is difficult, not only for the language-teacher,' but for even the most widely read literary scholar or critic, to arrive at a satisfactory definition of literature. Ever since Aristotle's Poetics and the pseudo-Longinus' On the Sublime, there has been extensive but inconclusive discussion of its nature. In recent times, the most widely influential treatments have been those of Wellek and Warren (1948) and of Northrup Frye (1957). The former provide a thorough discussion and, in essence, a confirmation of the general consensus, that to have literary status, a work must show some special excellence in both content and form. Frye revives the mediaeval method of exegesis in terms of levels of meaning (literal, allegorical, moral, and anagogical), infusing them with Jungian psychology and interpretation in terms of myth and archetype. Yet even these influential theories have not received anything resembling universal acceptance, as witness especially the recent extensive analysis and strongly negative criticism of Bennison Gray (1969, 1975). It is therefore not out of place to take up once more this vexata quaestio and attempt a new elucidation on the basis of certain further considerations which have hitherto not generally been taken into account.