Present Trends in American and German Literary Criticism

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size NotesAcademic Illusions in the Field of Letters and the Arts, Chicago, 1933.New York, 1949, quoted hereafter as Theory.—Wellek contributed a chapter on literary history and Warren a chapter on literary criticism to the collaborative volume Literary Scholarship (Chapel Hill, 1941), ed. Norman Foerster (pp. 91–130; pp. 134–74) to which no reference is made in this essay, since they express similar or identical thoughts in Theory. Further Wellek’s and Warren’s statement in the preface was ignored, according to which Wellek is for some chapters, and Warren for other chapters “primarily responsible” (p. vi). The opinions expressed in Theory are interpreted as the opinions of Wellek and Warren.Dilthey’s Einleitung in di e Geisteswissenschaften (footnote 11) is mentioned (pp. 5,299); his “Erlebnis” theory is discussed (pp. 80,115,309); he is called along with Unger a “temperate, distinguished thinker” (p. 286).Unger’s (footnotes 18, 19) problem-theory is discussed in detail (pp. 112–16, 318–19).Pongs’s interpretation of the metaphor is discussed in detail (pp . 210–13, 332–34).Ingarden’s analysis of the work of art is discussed (pp. 152, 157, 323, 341). Though lngarden is of Polish descent, his belonging to the Edmund Husserl School and the publication of his work .Das literarische Kunstwerk (Halle, 1931) in German—the work was published later in Polish—have brought him at least into the orbit of German literary criticism.“Deutsche Literaturgeschichte als Geistesgeschichte,” PMLA, LX (1945), 913.Hans Walter Häusermann, Studien zur englischen Literaturkritik, 1910–1930, Bochum, 1938.Ernst Robert Curtius, Kritische Essays zur europäischen Literatur, Bern, 1950; Hans Hennecke, Dichtung und Dasein, Berlin, 1950.Many attempts notwithstanding, one has not yet succeeded in translating “Geisteswissenschaften.” Since it is a very important concept in the field of the humanities and the social sciences, it should be accepted in the English vocabulary as words like “Weltanschauung” and “Zeitgeist” have already been accepted.Gesammelte Schriften: Einleitung in die Geisteswissenschaften, I (Leipzig-Berlin, 1922), 5. The book was published for the first time in 1883.Einleitung in die Geisteswissenechaften, p. xviii.Ibid., p. 5.Ibid., p. 9.Ibid., p. 4.lt is recognized that Dilthey produced an abundance of ideas but never a system.This very convincing subdivision is taken from Dictionary of World Literature, ed. Joseph T. Shipley (New York, 1943), pp. 279–83.Rudolf Unger, Gesammelte Schriften, I: Aufsätze zur Prinzipienlehre der Literaturgeschichte (Berlin, 1929), 190.A thorough history of the “geisteswissenschaftlich” period ha.s not yet been written. Compare Erich Rothacker, Einleitung in die Geisteswissenschaften (Tübingen, 1920), who tracesthe “Geisteswissenschaften” back to sources in the nineteenth century; Rudolf Unger, I: Aufsätze zur Prinzipienlehre der Literaturgeschichte; II: Aufsätze zur Literatur- und Geistesgeschichte (Berlin, 1929), whose writings represent the highest scientific level in this period; Philosophie der Literaturwissenechaft, ed. Emil Ermatinger (Berlin, 1930), which gives a good cross section of the problems and the scholars (variety in approach); Julius Petersen, Die Wissenechaft von der Dichtung, Erster Band: Werk und Dichter (Berlin, 1939), which givesa historical sur­ vey for the first time (pp. 40–47).J. E. Spingarn, The New Criticism, New York, 1911.Boston, New York, 1928, pp. 223, 235, 259.Bernard Smith, Forces in American Criticism, New York, 1939. This book is a history of American literary criticism written by a young American critic who employed, especially in the last chapters (vii, viii, ix), the Marxist method.Compare the twelve essays in the anthology Criticism in America, New York, 1924.Compare the writings of critics like Irving Babbitt and especially Van Wyck Brooks.American literary criticism: Stanley Edgar Hyman, The Armed Vision (New York, 1948), pp. 409–17; Robert Wooster Stallman, Critiques and Essays in Criticism, 1920–1948 (New York, 1949), pp. 519–71; Robert Wooster Stallman, The Critic’s Notebook (Minneapolis, 1950), pp. 255–93; PMLA American Bibliography LXIII, B (1948), LXIV, B (May, 1949), LXV, 3, B (April, 1950), LXVI, 3, B (April, 1951). German literary criticism: Josef Körner, Bibliographisches Handbuch des deutschen Schrifttums (Bern, 1949), 3d ed. International literary criticism: Norman Foerster et al., Literary Scholarship (Chapel Hill, 1941), pp. 239–55; Wolfgang Kayser, Das Sprachliche Kunstwerk (Bern, 1948), pp. 319–418; Theory, pp. 299–387; Max Wehrli, Allgemeine Literaturwissenschaft (Bern, 1951), though with strong emphasis on German literary criticism.Quoted hereafter as Kunstwerk..Theory, p. v; Kunstwerk, p. 19 (a good survey of poetics, pp. 19–21).Oskar Walzel, Gehalt und Gestalt im dichterischen Kunstwerk, Potsdam, 1923; Julius Petersen, Die Wissenschaft von der Dichtung (footnote 19).Emil Winkler, Das dichterische Kunstwerk, Heidelberg, 1924; Emil Ermatinger, Das dichterische Kumtwerk, Leipzig, Berlin, 1939.Theory, pp. 65–135.Theory, pp. 139–282.Kunstwerk, pp. 221–25.Compare also Kunstwerk, p. 5 (a longer and stronger statement).Kunstwerk, pp. 47, 69, 74, 188–89, 224–25, 287.Theory, p. 108.Kunstwerk, pp. 5, 6, 35, 161, 238.Kunstwerk, pp. 289–300.Kunstwerk, pp. 290–93.Also pp. 157–58.Theory, pp. 235–47; Kunstwerk, pp. 189–212, 331–88.Compare table in Wilhelm Elton, A Glossary of New Criticism, Chicago, 1949; also pp. 3–7; Robert Wooster Stallman, “The New Critics” in Critiques and Essays in Criticism (footnote 25), pp. 488–506.T. S. Eliot, Selected Essays, 1917–1932, New York, 1932; I. A. Richards, Principles of Literary Criticism, New York, 1925, and Practical Criticism: A Study of Literary Judgment, New York, 1929.John Crowe Ransom, The New Criticism (Norfolk, 1941), chapter iv.In enumerating the most outstanding New Critics, Barrett leaves out Cleanth Brooks and Allen Tate.The Kenyon Review, XI (Winter, 1949), 4.Compare the discussions of William Barrett, Kenneth Burke, Malcolm Cowley, Robert G. Davis, Allen Tate, and Hiram Haydn in The American Scholar, XX (1950–51), 86–104, 218–231; also “My Credo: A Symposium of Critics,” in Kenyon Review, XII and XIII (1950 and 1951); Leslie A. Fiedler, “Toward an Amateur Criticism,” XII, 561–74; Herbert Read, “The Critic as Man of Feeling,” XII, 576–80; Richard Chase, “Art, Nature, Politics,” XII, 580–94; William Empson, “The Verbal Analysis,” XII, 594–601; Cleanth Brooks, “The Formalist Critics,” XIII, 72–81; Douglas Bush, “The Humanist Critic,” XIII, 81–92; Northrop Frye, “The Archetypes of Literature,” XIII, 92–110; Stephen Spender, “On the Function of Criticism,” XIII, 207–17; Arthur Mizener, “Not in Cold Blood,” XIII, 218–25; Austin Warren, “The Tee.eher as a Critic,” XIII, 226–30.Melvin Rader, ” Isolationist and Contextualist Esthetics : Conflict and Resolution,” Journal of Philosophy, XLIV (1947), 393–407.Harriet Jeffrey, “Some Problems in the Philosophy of Art Criticism,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, V (1947), 296–301.Compare the pro and contra : Archibald MacLeish, Poetry and Opinion, Urbana, 1950; Frank H. Ellis, “Gray’s Elegy: The Biographical Problem in Literary Criticism,” PMLA, LXVI (1951), 971–1008; A. S. P. Woodhouse, “The Historical Criticism of Milton,” PMLA, LXVI (1951), 1033–44; Manfred Kridl, “The Integral Method of Literary Scholarship : Theses for Discussion,” Comparative Literature, III (1951), 18–31.Examples: historical, Van Wyck Brooks, Makers and Finders: A History of the Writer in America, 1800–1915, 5 volumes (New York, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1947, 1952); psychological, Charles Neider, The Frozen Sea, New York, 1948; humanistic, F. 0. Matthiessen, American Renaissance, New York, 1941; sociological, David Daiches, A Study of Literature for Readers and Critics, Ithaca, New York, 1948; synthetic, Stanley Edgar Hyman, The Armed Vision, New York, 1948.R. S. Crane, “Cleanth Brooks; or, the Bankruptcy of Critical Monism,” Modern Philology, XLV (1947–48), 226–45; compare also: Douglas Bush, “The New Criticism: Same Old-fashioned Queries,” PMLA, LXIV (1948–49), 13–21. The systematic approach of the “Chicago School” is presented in the book just published: R. S. Crane and others, Critics and Criticism, Chicago, 1952.Robert Graham Davis, “The New Criticism and the Democratic Tradition,” The American Scholar XIX (1949–50), 9–19.In Lewis Mumford and others, The Arts in Renewal (Philadelphia, 1951), pp. 32–66.Compare, as very similar to Grabo, James A. Michener’s essay in The Arts in Renewal (footnote 53): “The Conscience of the Contemporary Novel,” pp. 107–40.This essay does not deal with the “interlude” of national-socialist literary criticism. Compare: Petersen, Die Wissenschaft von der Dichtung (footnote 19), pp. 47–50; Wehrli, Allgemeine Literaturwissenschaft (footnote 25), pp. 18–21.The most outstanding scholars besides Staiger and Kayser are R. Allewyn, Erich Auerbach, Romano Guardini, Max Kommerell, Clemens Lugowski, Kurt May, Johannes Pfeifer, Wolfgang Schadewaldt. Compare for more details Wehrli, All gemeine Literaturwissenschaft (footnote 25), who gives a “kommentierender, bibliographischer Bericht” (p. 4). Frank Wood’s paper on “German Parallels to the New Criticism,” The Modem Language Forum, XXXVI (1951), 8–20, is less a study of the general trend than of certain important details. Compare also W. H. Bruford, Literary Interpretation in Germany (New York, 1952), which was not considered, since it was published after the completion of this essay.Besides the already mentioned Die Zeit als Einbildungskraft des Dichters, Meisterwerke deutscher Sprache, Zürich, 1943, and Grundbegriffe der Poetik, Zürich, 1946.Wehrli, Allgemeine Literaturwissenschaft (footnote 25), p. 54.Die Zeit als Einbildungskraft des Dichters, p. 70.lbid., pp. 69–70; Grundbegriffe der Poetik, p. 237.Written in a private letter addressed to me on June 29, 1951.“Methodische Probleme der Interpretation,” Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift, Neue Folge, 1, Heft 2 (1951), pp. 81–92. Compare also Kurt May, “Über den gegenwärtigen Stand einer deutschen Literaturwissenschaft,” Trivium, V (1947), 293–303.I do not agree with Hennecke in excluding George’s disciples from the other subdivisions of the Dilthey School. I follow Shipley (footnote 17) who includes the George group rightly as one of the subdivisions of the Dilthey School. Dilthey’s “Erlebnis” theory has had a decisive influence on Friedrich Gundolf and others.Dichtung und Dasein, p. 180.A good example is Sinn und Form: Beiträge zur Literatur, Herausgeber Johannes R. Becher und Paul Wiegler, Sonderheft Bertolt Brecht, Berlin, 1949: Herbert Ihering, “Der Volkscharakter,” pp. 5–10; Bert Brecht, “Kleines Organon für das Theater,‘! pp. 11–41; Ernst Niekisch, “Heldendämmerung,” pp. 170–80.Compare the selections from the English journal Scrutiny in The Importance of Scrutiny, ed. Eric Bentley, New York, 1948; also Eric Bentley, “A Note on the New Criticism,‘’ The Virginia Quarterly Review, XXIV (1948), 418–30.Theory, p. 140; Wehrli, Allgemeine Literaturwissenschaft (footnote 25), p. 23.Olga Bvadac “Aesthetic Trends in Russia and Czechoslovakia,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, IX (1950), 97–105.The research done for this essay was made possible by a. Gra.nt-in-Aid provided by the Carnegie Program for the Promotion of Research and Creative Activity at Fisk University

Art · Art history · Criticism · German · German Literature · Linguistics · Literary criticism · Literature · German Literature and Culture Studies · Literature and Cultural Memory · Philosophy · Poetry Analysis and Criticism

• What Is Oppositional Criticism? Politics and German Literary Criticism from Fascism to the Cold War

  Henry J Schmidt•Poetics Today•1988

  Add to list