Orientation of Critical Theories M.H. ABRAMS

 Lesson -1

 Orientation of Critical Theories M.H. ABRAMS

 1.0 Objectives 

After reading this lesson, you will be able to:

 ● account for the historical development of critical theories/lenses to approach literature 

● provide a critical summary of the prescribed text in lucid and comprehensive terms. 

● discuss the theoretical nuances of the text. 

● Identify a range of questions that can be discussed within the scope of the prescribed text.

 1.1 Introduction

 Today we tend to think of the work of art in terms of the artist, who, acting through his powers of imagination, wilfully brings into being his creation. But this artist-cantered interpretation of the text is 6 really a more recent development, first seen in the early nineteenth century. In this lesson you will see how Abrams demonstrates in the "Orientation of Critical Theories" chapter of his book The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic theory and the Critical Tradition (1953), the dominant modes of thinking about art have, throughout history, been rather different. From Plato until the late 18th century the artist was thought to play a back-seat role in the creation of art. He was regarded as no more than "a mirror," reflecting nature either as it exists or as it is perfected or enhanced through the mirror. This artist-as-mirror conception remained dominant until the advent of the Romantic era (Abrams sets the date around 1800), when the artist began to make his transformation from “mirror” to “lamp” ―- a lamp that actively participates in the object it illuminates.

 1.2 Introducing the Author and his Work M.H. Abrams, 

in full Meyer Howard Abrams, (born July 23, 1912, Long Branch, New Jersey, U.S.—died April 21, 2015, Ithaca, New York), American literary critic who revolutionized the study of the Romantic period in English literature through ground-breaking analysis. He also served as general editor (1962–2000) for the first seven editions of The Norton Anthology of English Literature. Abrams wrote his first book, The Milk of Paradise: The Effects of Opium Visions on the Works of De Quincey, Crabbe, Francis Thompson, and Coleridge (1934), while an undergraduate. With his second work, The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition (1953), an expanded version of his Ph.D. dissertation, he joined the front rank of Romantic-literature scholars. The book’stitle denotes the two metaphors by which Abrams characterized 18th- and 19th-century English literature, respectively—the former as a cool, intellectual reflection of outward reality and the latter as an illumination shed by artists upon their inner and outer worlds. Natural Supernaturalism (1971) explores a broader reach of the Romantic sensibility, including its religious implications and itsinfluence on modern literature. Further critical essays by Abrams on Romantic topics were collected in The Correspondent Breeze (1984). From his collections Literature and Belief (1958) and In Search of Literary Theory (1972) to his A Glossary of Literary Terms (1957; 8th ed., 2005), Abrams was consistently concerned with analyzing literary theory and criticism. His introductory chapter to The Mirror and the Lamp was influential in distinguishing four critical “orientations” by which literary works are examined: the mimetic, which sees artworks as imitating the world and human life; the pragmatic, which sees artworks in their achievement of effects on an audience; the expressive, which sees artworks primarily in relation to their producers; and the objective, which looks at the relationships between the parts of the artwork itself.

 1.3 Summary of the Text 

The essay Orientation of Critical Theories’ is the first chapter of the book The Mirror and the Lamp by M.H. Abrams. In the book Abrams speaks about the two ways in which literature or literary theories try to interpret the human mind – first the mind as a mirror that reflects the external objects and second as a lamp that throws light at the objects it sees. The first approach is related to the mimetic theories ofcriticismandthesecondapproachisrelatedtotheromanticidealofthepowerofthemindtointerpretwhat it sees. In this essay Abrams speaks about how different critical theories tend to display an orientation towards a particular element of a work of art by dividing these theories based upon their orientations. 7 This essay is divided by Abrams into five parts. The first part deals with the coordinates of art criticism. Abrams says that any critical theory consists of four elements with the help of which they comprehend art. The first element is the work of art and the second element is the artist. The third element is the source of the work, the objects or situations that the work describes or reflects or has some relation to. This is commonly referred to as ‘nature’ but Abrams uses themore inclusive term ‘universe’. The fourth element is the audience. Abrams arranges these four elements in a triangular diagram with the work of art at the centre and the universe, audience and the artist as the three coordinates. He says that any critical theory while dealing with all the four elements shows a significant orientation towards only one of these elements and judges the value of the work by focusing on one element as its principal criteria. Thus all critical theories can be divided into four broad categories depending upon their orientation towards the elements. The first category deals with the importance of the universe in the work of art. The second category deals with the influence of the work on its audience. The third orients towards the artist’s role in the process of creation of the work of art and the fourth category deals with the work as a singular entity. Abrams however says that the four elements vary according to the theories in which they appear. The second part of the essay deals with mimetic theories. The critical theories that deal with mimesis are oriented towards the universe and its role in the work of art. This theory first appeared in Plato’sRepublic. Plato’s theory of mimesis operates upon three categories – the ideal world, the physical world and the world of art. This theory holds that the physical world is an imitation of the Ideal world and art is an imitation of the physical world. Thus art is twice removed from reality. This idea is famously explained by Socrates in the tenth book of the Republic where he says that there are threebeds– one the idea of the bed, second a physical bed made by the carpenter who imitates the ideal bed and the third is the bed painted by the artist. The bed of the artist is twice removed from the idea of the bed. Thus according to this theory all works are judged on the basis of their relation to Ideas. Since ideas are considered true and beautiful the distance of art from ideas emphasizes its distance from beauty and truth. Aristotle’s Poetics is the next great work of criticism with a mimetic orientation. Aristotle defines poetry as imitation. He also distinguishes between different kinds of imitation based on the objects imitated, themanner of imitation, and the medium of imitation. With the help of these distinctions Aristotle is able to separate poetry from other art forms and then make distinctions between different kinds of poetry - epic, drama, tragedy and comedy. Similarly while focusing on tragedy Aristotle breaks it into distinct individual parts - plot, characters, thought, temperament, diction etc. - which constitute the whole.Aristotle's criticism thus not only concerns art as art but also poetry as poetry, and each kind of poetry according to its individual characteristics. Thus it is seen that Aristotle's criticism also displays a slight orientation towards the work itself. Another characteristic feature of Poetics is that it evaluates art or specifically tragedy based on its effect upon the audience. Thus Aristotle's criticism is very flexible and cannot be easily classified into one form of orientation. Nevertheless, the mimetic orientation remains the most prominent in Aristotle's criticism. It is however important to note that Aristotle's criticism does not pay much attention to the role of the poet's individual feelings or emotions in the creation of a work of art. In Poetics the poet appears only to be advised about how plot is to be constructed and how diction is to be chosen. Plato on the other hand considers the poet from the political point of view. In the third part of the essay Abrams speaks about the theories that display an orientation towards the relationship of the work of art to its audience. Abrams terms these theories as pragmatic theories. Pragmatic theories view the arts as a means of achieving an end and judges the value of art based upon its success in achieving that end. For pragmatic critics poetry is a means to achieve certain 8 responses from its readers. Sir Philip Sidney's ‘An Apology for Poetry’ is the first text that displays pragmatic criticism. According to Sidney the purpose of poetry is to teach and delight. Sidney judges the value of poetry by analysing its effect upon its audience. He says that poets are different from historians because they communicate what may be or should be rather than what has been or shall be. Sidney raises the poet above philosophers and historians because it is only the poet who is the most successful in communicating with his audience. This is because he combines the fact of the historian and the morals of the philosopher and disguises it in a form that not only teaches but also delights. The classical theory of rhetoric can be viewed as the origin of pragmatic theories as rhetoric is universally regarded as a powerful instrument of persuasion among an audience. Horace discusses this theory in his work ArsPoetica. Horace advises poets to write poetry with the aim to blend usefulness with pleasure. To teach, to please and to move are the three aesthetic effects to be achieved upon a reader. Pragmatic criticism is mostly concerned with formulating rules, guidelines and methods for achieving the desired effects upon the audience. The rules are often derived from the qualities present in classical literary works which have stood the test of time or from an understanding of psychology. These rules help the artist in the process of creation and the critic in the process of evaluation. Most eighteenth century critics believed in the strength of these rules. Therefore, describing and demonstrating rules and guidelines became a popular trend in the critical texts of that time. Richard Herd’s 'Dissertation of the idea of universal poetry' is another critical text concerning pragmatic criticism. According to Hurd universal poetry is the art whose purpose is to provide the maximum amount of pleasure possible. In order to achieve this effect Hurd proposes three properties - figurative language, fiction andversification. According to Hurd, since the aim of poetry is to gratify the mind of the reader, knowledge of the mind is important while establishing these rules. Johnson’s "Preface to Shakespeare" is one of the most important texts dealing with pragmatic criticism. Johnson combines the mimetic criteria of evaluation with the aesthetic effects upon the audience in order to judge works of art. Johnson says that Shakespeare holds before his readers a faithful mirror of manner and life. But Johnson also states that the aim of poetry is to instruct as well as please. Therefore, the fact that Shakespeare has survived the test of time as a poet whose works are read for little reason other than pleasure is proof that a work of art that truly imitates nature will continue to please its audience for a long time. Shakespeare's ability to hold up a mirror of life to his audience is the major criteria upon which Johnson judges the effect of his works on the audience. Abrams notes that the pragmatic orientation has been the principal aesthetic attitude of western criticism beginning from Horace up to the eighteenth century. However with the development of science and increased knowledge of psychology particularly after the influence of the works of Hobbes and Locke in the seventeen century, the poet and his mental capacities gradually became the focal point of criticism and the orientation of critical theories turned from the audience to the artist. The fourth part of the essay deals with the critical theories oriented towards the relation between the work and the artist which Abrams calls the expressive theory of art. The expressive orientation is found in the works of Longinus in his discussions of the sublime which according to Longinus has its sources in the poet's thoughts and emotions. However Abrams considers the year 1800 marked by the publication of Wordsworth's Preface to the Lyrical Ballads as the date when the expressive orientation begins to surface in English literary criticism. The expressive theories are a product of the Romantic Movement which emphasized on the power of the poet's mind. According to the expressive theory a work of art is an external manifestation of internal thoughts and feelings. The creative process is a result of the impulses of feeling combined with the poet's thoughts and perceptions which is the primary source of his works. The poet also converts aspects of the external world into poetry with the help of his mind. The poet’s mind therefore is the central point of attention in an expressive theory. The expressive 9 theories evaluate poetry by trying to figure out whether the diction and figures of speech are a natural outcome of the poet's emotions or a deliberate effort. The expressive theory tries to answer the questions of sincerity and authenticity of poetry along with the poem's correspondence to the actual feeling and state of the poet's mind. The work of art is no longer viewed as a mirror of the universe but as an insight to the poet's mind. In the fifth and last part of the essay Abrams discusses the objective theories of criticism which isolate a work of art and evaluate it as an independent entity. The orientation of objective theories is thus towards the work of art alone irrespective of its source, artist or audience. One of the early attempts at objective criticism is seen in Aristotle's Poetics. Aristotle tries to analyse tragedy by considering it as anindividual whole consisting of parts such as plot and characters. The objective orientation begins to emerge significantly in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Some critics triedtounderstand a poem as a 'heterocosm' i.e. a whole, independent world complete in itself. This aim of critics to consider a work or poem as a singular element without any external reference is termed by historians as ' art for art's sake'. Thus it is seen that Abrams divides critical theories into four categories based upon their orientation - first the mimetic theories which orient towards the universe, secondly the pragmatic theories concerning the audience, thirdly the expressive theories focusing on the artist and finally the objective theories revolving around the work of art itself. However towards the end of the essay Abrams returns to Romanticism and its expressive theories. This is because it is during the Romantic period that the critical theories begin to view the mind of the poet not as a mirror of nature but as a 'lamp' which sheds light on its own creation. Abrams' return to Romanticism justifies the purpose of his book where he tries to explain the two ways in which a poet's mind is interpreted- as a mirror and as a lamp. 

1.4 Critical Analysis of the Text 

This is the first chapter of the book, The Mirror and the Lamp, by Abrams. Abrams explains the title of the book thus: “The title of the book identifies two common and antithetical metaphors of the mind”.One of the metaphors compares the mind to a reflector (mirror). The other (lamp) is a radiant projector, which gives light to others. From Plato to the 18th century, creative writers considered mind as a mere reflector of external realities. But during the Romantic period this idea changed and minds is considered as something that illuminates and gives a new appearance to external realities. The principal object of Abram’s study is the suppression of the first idea by the second. The first chapter also gives a brief survey of criticism. Thus the essay is a very good introduction to modern criticism. Abrams says that today art is considered in relation to the artist. Its relation to external nature or to the audience is not given much importance. The field of aesthetic studies is very confusing. I.A. Richards gave the heading “The Chaos of Critical Theories” to the first chapter of his book, Principles of Literary Criticism. A good deal of the confusion is caused because of the belief that criticism is a physical or psychological science. The aim of criticism is not to establish correlations between facts. On the other hand it aims to establish principles that will help us to explain interpret and evaluate the aesthetic facts. Aesthetic facts are different from reality. They are not true in the strict scientific sense. Literary theory, Abrams holds, can be divided into four categories: mimetic theories, which focus on the relationship between text and universe (by "universe" he means all things of the world apart from audience, text and author); pragmatic theories, which are interested in the relationship between text and audience; expressive theories, which are concerned with the text-author relationship; and objective theories, the most recent classification, which focus on analysis of the text in isolation. Because nothing exists other than universe, text, author and audience, any form of theory must fit into one of these four categories, or be a combination of several. 10 

1.4.1. Mimetic Theories

 The first category of mimetic theories forms the oldest and is, according to Abrams, the “mostprimitive” of the four categories. According to this theory, the artist is an imitator of aspects of the observable universe. In The Republic, Plato divides his universe into three realms: the realm of ideas, the realm of particulars, and the realm of reflections of particulars (i.e., art and other "shadows"). The realm of reflections of particulars is the furthest removed from the realm of ideas (i.e., "ultimate truth"), and is therefore the lowest ranking of the three realms. Consequently, its practice, namely, mimetic art, is heldin low regard. Plato's mentor Socrates seemed to agree with Plato's thesis, as he too ranked the third realm― mimetic art― at the bottom. In his famous analogy of the three beds, Socrates refers to the first bed, Bed 1, as the bed of the gods, or of the realm of ideas. Bed 2 is the bed I lie in, the carpenter’s bed, which is the bed of the realm of particulars. Bed 3, the bed in the painting, is a representation of a representation of the ideal bed. Thus, being twice removed from the ideal bed, it is the most "untrue" of the three. Aristotle points out, however, that the value of Bed 3 (the painter’s bed) is not dependent upon its relation to Bed 1 (the bed of the gods or ideal truth). Art, rather, is independent and should be assessed on its own terms. Aristotle thus frees the text from its relation to the universe to which Plato and Socrates bound it, while still acknowledging the text's imitative relation to universe. Aristotle shows that it is the "manner of imitation" and not the relation to truth which is important in art and that aesthetic evaluation should be based on the assessment of both the "manner of imitation" and the emotional effect produced in the audience. 

1.4.2. Pragmatic Theories 

The second type of theories is pragmatic theories, which are concerned with the relation between text and audience. According to Abrams, these theories have constituted the dominant mode of analysis from Horace to the early 19th century, and much of its terminology is borrowed from ancient rhetoric. Horace argued in his ArsPoeticathat the three functions of poetry are to teach, to please, and to move. Cicero, the Church Fathers, and the Italian guides all developed a theory of poetry through this reinterpretation of Aristotle, and it was Sir Philip Sydney who in his Apologie for Poetry expanded Aristotle's theories into a specifically didactic theory of poetry. Sydney argues that poets differ from historians in that, unlike historians who deal only with what has been, poets also deal with what may be, and that such moral utopianism is what makes poetry, specifically epic poetry, and superior to history. The 18th-century critics, always itching to extract from specific works some a priori rule, began to prescribe guidelines that they hoped would assist future poets. Dryden dabbles in this sort of rulebook-criticism, explaining certain “universals” for “pleasing” in poetry. Other examples are to be found in the aesthetic “rulebooks” of Richard Hurd and in the writings of Charles Bateaux. Samuel Johnson, however, was sceptical of such “rulebooks,” and expressed a mistrust of a priori laws in his work, “A Preface to Shakespeare,” which proved to be a “monumental work of neoclassical criticism.” In it, he praises Shakespeare’s talent for imitation; but, above all, he commends Shakespeare’s ability to “instruct by pleasing.” Next, it was the psychological introspection of Hobbes and Locke which paved the way for the third,artist-cantered approach to the text. 11 

1.4.3. Expressive Theories (Two Centuries of the Self) 

By 1800, we begin to see “the displacement of mimetic and pragmatic by the expressive view of art,” a phenomenon due in part to the writings of Longinus, Bacon, Wordsworth, and, later, the radical Romantics of the 1830s. With this new “expressive view” of art, the primary duty of the artist was no longer to serve as a mirror reflecting outer things, but instead to externalize the internal, and make one's “inner life” the primary subject of art. The external world, when it does happen to sneak into the work, is expressed only as heavily filtered noumena. It is around this time in the early 19th century that the “mirror,” which had hitherto been the conventional symbol for the artist, becomes the “lamp.” The danger of such an inward turn is, of course, that it can lead to the cult of subjectivity and emotion, and that the criteria for art is degraded to the reductive: Is the text a sincere, genuine, and accurate reflection of the inner mind of the poet? Such fears are to be realized in later Romantic poetry, much of which abounds in solipsism, bathos, and excessive introspection. The most extreme tenets of Romanticism of this era are perhaps best exemplified in the following assertions made by John Stewart Mills in his Romantic manifestos: “What is Poetry?” & “The Two Kinds of Poetry” published in 1883. Mills upturns the old ranking as laid down by Aristotle, arguing that: the lyrical form usurps the dramatic; spontaneity is far more valuable than form or conceit; imitation of the external world is not important (rather, the external world is merely a tool used to express the internal state of mind of the poet); and finally, the presence of an audience is entirely unnecessary. To give an overview of the evolution of Western aesthetics up to this point, Abrams provides the following rough timeline. In the age of Plato and Aristotle, poets were mimetic poets, and their personal roles and intrusions were kept to a minimum. In the Hellenistic and Roman eras, poets were pragmatic, and they sought to satisfy the public, abide by the rules of decorum, and apply techniques borrowed from rhetoric. From 1800 to 1900, poets, specifically those of England and Germany, were triumphant and self-affirming figures whose task was to express to the world their inner genius. Finally, from the early 1900s through the present, the objective theories, such as those expounded by T.S. Eliot, the New Critics and others, have been most prominent. (Abram's last point, however, seems debatable given the fact of the New Critics' decline in the second half of the 20th century.) 

1.4.4. Objective Theories

 Though extremely rare in pre-20th-century history, this fourth alternative― to view the text in isolation― has been the dominant mode for criticism for at least half of the 20th century. Proponents of this theory trace its origins to the central section of Aristotle’s Poetics, where tragedy is regarded as an object in itself, and where the work's internal elements (plot, character, thought, diction, melody andspectacle, in order of importance) are described as working together in perfect unison to produce in the audience a “catharsis” of pity and fear. The important point, the objective theorists point out, is that these qualities are treated by Aristotle as inherent in the work itself, and that the work is praised to the extent that these internal elements work together cohesively. Still, some might counter that Aristotle’s Poetics, with its careful attention paid to the effect produced upon the audience, in fact more closely fits the criteria of the pragmatic theories than of the objective theories. As translations into Latin were scarce, Aristotle’s influence disappeared for centuries until the Renaissance, when we see the re-emergence of his ideas in new forms. Yet it is not until the 1780s in Germany that we see a significant objective theory brought forth. During this period from 1780-1820, and in large part as a consequence of Kant’s writings, an “art-for-art’s-sake” movement began to emerge. Under this new theory, the poem came to be considered a “heterocosm” which functions 12 independently and according to its own set of rules. But it is not until the first half of the 20th century― with its High Modernism, Chicago Neo-Aristotelianism, and other schools― that this art-for-art's-sake movement would place the objective theories in a position of ascendancy over the other critical orientations. 

1.5 Summary

 In this lesson you read how M.H. Abrams summed up the theories of literary criticism and classified them into categories. Further, how the criteria of classification are based on the relative emphasis placed on the four components - the art, the maker, the subject and the audience. The difference among various theories of art lies largely in the varying emphasis that is placed on one or more of the four elements. This will help the critic in analyzing a work of art. Explaining this M.H. Abrams says, “That is, a critic tends to derive from one of these terms his principal categories for defining, classifying, and analyzing a work of art, as well as the major criteria by which he judges its value.” You also read on how Abrams clearly identifies himself as a critical theorist, not a philosopher, not a psychologist, not a scientist. From his perspective, the purpose and function of critical theory is not to discover some "verifiable truth" but to "establish principles enabling us to justify, order, and clarify our interpretation and appraisal of the aesthetic. 1.6 Glossary 1. Mimesis: When art imitates life, it is mimesis. The word is Greek and means “imitation” (though in the sense of “re-presentation” rather than of “copying”). Plato and Aristotle spoke of mimesis as the re-presentation of nature. 2. Pragmatic: Pragmatic criticism is concerned, first and foremost, with the ethical impact any literary text has upon an audience. Regardless of art's other merits or failings, the primary responsibility or function of art is social in nature. Assessing, fulfilling, and shaping the needs, wants, and desires of an audience should be the first task of an artist. 3. Objectivity: Being objective suggests that you are concerned about facts and are not influenced by personal feelings or biases. Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination. 4. Expressive Criticism: Expressive criticism describes poetry as an expression, as an over-flow of a poet's feelings. Expressive criticism is unlike many other forms of criticism in that it does not focus on the style of writing, or grammar, or diction; it focuses on what is being said by the author.