The microscope of wit : I.A. Richards and English literary criticism : a thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in English at Massey University

Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis. Permission is given for

a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and

private study only. The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without

the permission of the Author.

THE rUCROSCOPE OF 1VI·r.

I .A. RI CHARDS AND ENGLISH LI TEIL\RY CRITI CISJ.'ol

A t hesis presented in part ial fulfilnent of t he requirenents for t he degree of Doctor of Philo s ophy in Englis h at Mas sey University.

Jo l1n David NeedhQD 1973.

The Microscope of Wit. I.A. Richards and English Literary Criticism

J.D. Needham.

ABSTRACT

This thesis examines some aspects of the analytical approach to poetry which is associated with such critics as I.A. Richards and F.R.

Leavis. It also examines the resemblances between this approach and that which in eighteenth century literary criticism appears as a preoccupation with "propriety" in poetic language.

I.A. Richards is discussed first and �t greatest length since he is the most persistently theoretical of the critics with whom this thesis deals, and consequently affords an opportunity for an exposition of the principles which underlie tbis analytical approach.

This exposition is followed by an account of some fundamental features of the doctrine of "proprietyn, illustrated chiefly from Dr.

Johnson's Shakespeare criticism. It is suggested that key ideas of Richards', such as "complexity" and "realisation" correspond with central ideas in eighteenth century liternry criticism. This corres­

pondence reveals itself as an interest in the fact that words in poetry interconnect with each other in complex ways. I.A. Richards' term

(

developed most thoroughly in Coleridge on Imagination) for such interconnection is "interinanimation". The corresponding eighteenth century term is ;'propriety".

The thesis then examines the literary criticism of T.S. Eliot, F.R. Leavis and ^W. Empson. The ideas they hold in common with I.A.

Richards are outlined, and then what may be called the distinctive features of their respective approaches are disc�ssed.

The emphasis, throughout the thesis, is upon some methods of analysing poetic language and upon the principles which underlie such methods. The thesis does not attempt to give a complete account of the critics with whom it deals, nor to examine the question of what influence they may have exerted upon each other,

PREFACE

I n the followi ng thesis I an, broadly speaking, intere sted i n sane ne thods of a nalyzing poetic l anguage and in the principles whi ch li e behind such enalysis. I e:xaeine the work of I . 11. Richo.rds ,

T . S. Eli o t , F.R. Leavis and l'l. Eopson, whose naBes aro ass oc::.ate d wi th what ni ght be callE; d , for the s ake of conve nience, the

" C anbridge school of cri tici sn".

I begin with an account of I . A. Richards , because he is the oast persi stently theorotict�l of the cri ti cs I have nen ti oned, a nd thus affords the best oppor tuni ty for a basi c outline . I exm1ine his work at sane length, sinc e I d i s agree with the nai n co nclusi o ns of Dr. ^J. S chiller1s I . A. Richards 1 Theory of Li terature , and, to a lesser extent, wi th \•l.H. N. Hot opf ¹ s detailed e xar:1i n2.ti on of Richards i n Language, Thought and Conprehension. A Case Study of the Writings of ^I.A. Ri chard s . I argue thE>.t the notion of " i nteri nani:o.o.ti on" , devel oped chiefly in Coleri dge on Inngi nation, i s Richards 1 nost useful co ntribution to thinking about the analys is of poe tic language , and that his work be fore and after Col eridge o n Ioagination is less sati sfactory.

I then try to show the s i nilari ti es beh;e e n Richards 1 not i o n

of " i nt erinaninati on" and t he eighteenth century conc ept o f "pro priety of di c ti o n" , and to sugge st th at these sinilari ti es are fundaBent al . I rely for evide nce chiefly o n Dr. Johns o n1s Shakespearean cri ti c is o.

iii.

A cor:rp,'J.rison of Richnrds 1ri th Johnson is, _I think, useful because it illuninates the "traditi ono.lity" of th e nodorn critics and the

11I!loderni ty'1 of the e ighteenth century cri tics. I nlso hope� though I do not deal nt greo..t length cvith Johnson's Shakespearean criticisn, to have done enough to show th,"lt the doninant nodern view, which finds Johnson unperceptive, noeds to be revised.

I then use the core of opinion, 'vhich I have argued is cannon to Johnson and Richards, to look at Eliot, Lenvis and Enpson. In each case I outline first the presence of that conuon core, and then discuss the distinctive features which nccor::tpnny it.

I should like here to Rdd a brief prelininE'.ry corment on the

n coDDon core" and the "distinctivu features11•

The eighteenth century doctrine of 11propriety of dicti on" and Richnrds' concept of 1'intorinanimation" both refer to the ideal of interconnoctednoss in poetic language; in the work of a good poet all the aspects of a given word should interconnGct to an unusual degree Ni th all the aspects of the other vwrds in the context.

"Aspects" here noans the senses, the connotntions and the physical qualities of the words. In the language of nodern criticisn, this is a "conplex" use of words, which constitutes n 11realizati onn of whatever the poet is talking about. In the lnnguage of eighteenth century cri tic ism, "propriety of clic tion" ensures thn t the verbal oediun attracts no attention to itself--that it becones transparent, so that the reader feels he is in the presence not of words, but of things and experiences. That is what I have called the "cannon core".

iv.

The " dist^inctive features" of nodcrn cr^{iticiso revo}l^ve l^arge^ly

nround whnt one mi^cht cc.ll ^{tho idee.} cf fruitful ^{conflict, 1-rherecs}

the bir�s of eighteenth century cri ticiso r-:..:vcc:.ls itself in ·"- hv�vy

enphasis upon consonance. One cc.n bri0fly illustrate ^{this by}

conlX',ring nodorn Sh,.,_kespeo.ruan cri tic isi!l with eighteenth century Shakespearec.n criticis::1. For the oodc:rn cri tic9 Shakospcctrc 1 s 11bold" use: of lr..ngungo is .�. ccn^tretl point for nck.ir[�tion; wor•Js aro

interconnected in such a vmy that their 11nomal;' uc:mings n.re

slightly nodified. Tho old ^nea^{ninc nnd the nov1} c^on^text reGct upon each other in a vm.y vihich resEmbles the process of notaphor, but vlithout any of the f^orna^l feo.tures of netap^hor. This conflict behmen the old neaⁿⁱng ^and t^{he now gives} Shnkcspcare

1

s l^{r.ngu::cge its} vitetlity, or, to ^revert to the l::.ne;ur.gc I used 11bovo, the \'lOrds o.re pn.r^ticulclrly complex

(

^since; they involve a subtle interplay bet1won the nor context :end ^the old ^LtOD.ning

)

^nnd thus "rcnlize" their subject.

The eiehtoenth century critic is loss c.dniring thnn hj_s noclcrn

counterpnrt; he is anxious

(

^{and somctioes} over-anxious

)

^{to detect}

the point at �vhich "boldness" becones "license11-at v1hich the new context so dislocntos the old nco.ning thc�t t he vlOrd disintegrc:.te s.

Nevertheless, the eighteenth century ^and the nodorn critic h?.vc a

c^onsidero.ble comuni ty of interes^{t in} 11inturimmination", n.nd in

relnted issues. I have tried to bring out this coumunity of interest not only in ny chnpter^{s on some} :1-spects of "propriety", but also

in occasional references, throughout the thesis, to Dr. Johnson.

v.

Richarc:.s is tho cri tic 1vi th -vrhon I (leo.l nt greatest leneth and I hnvo attenpted to trace the dovelopoent of his ijoas. Hy accounts of Eliot, Loavis and Johnson �re briefur ani nore general, ancl I do not nttcnpt to describe nny rlovelopocn t in thoir critical thinking.

In the cnse of Er.1pson I restrict o.y discussion to Seven Types of Anbiguity. In vievr of the fnct that the chronology of the vrorks

I discuss has not been nt the ce:ntre of interest, I ha.vo arrnnged all the entries in oy bibliography alphabetically.

Since oy approach, though it does not enter into the question of nutual inf'luence, involves coopnrisons bot1-roen the crit ics with whoTI I deal, I have set out a rather rletc.ilocl table of contents,

describing briefly the sections into 1vhich I have divided oach chapter.

I hope that this vrill oa..."k:e cross-reference :uore oo.sy.

I vTOuld like to thnnk Professor R. G. Frean, of the English

Department at Massey University, for his m1stinted assistance and his unvarying patience. I woulll also like to thank Mrd. "f.iaureen

11acDonald for her typing, and !lirs. Margaret Brogden for invaluable help in getting the nanuscript into its present foro.

Preface Cho.pter

1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Meaning of Meaning

I. Richnrds' context theory of neaning.

II. Referentio.l and e;:.10tivo language.

II I. Sur.!EW.ry.

Principles of Literary Criticisn

I. Richards' general theory of conplexity.

II. Richards' "hypnotic11 theory of poetry.

III. The reasons for Richards' interest in a

"hypnotic11 theory.

Page ii.

1 6 9

14 23

29 IV. Richards' failure to reconcile his "hypnotic"

theory �1i th his general theory of conplexi ty. 33 V. The two kinds of poetry which correspond

v·Ti th the hro theories. 36

VI. Unsatisfactory features of the "hypnotic"

theory. 42

Practical .Criticisn

I. Further developnents of tho general theory of conplexi ty.

II. Conploxity in poetic la�guage: the ideo. of interconnections bctueen the "parts" of words.

III. Problons raised by Richards' use of a

"stinulus/response11 account of poetry and by his over-all intentions in Practical

51

57

Criticis8. 79

Coleridgo on Imagination

I. Richards ¹ "stinulus/responso" account

replaced by a "creative" account. 85 II. "Interinnnimation"

(n

d8velopnent of the idea

of interconnections between th.e parts of words).90

Chapter

4

Chapter

5

Chapter

6

Chapter

7

III. Richards 1 philosophical uses of the idea of intorinanination.

IV. Richards1 litor�ry uses of the idea of

vii.

Page

104

i ntorinaninntion.

1 1 8

V. Richards' views on the analysis of poetic

language.

1 2 7

The Philoso:12h:t: of Rhetoric

I. Interinanination as "acti vi ty1'.

II. Uses of the idea of activity.

III. Dangers of the idea of activity.

IV. Dr. Schiller's account of Richards as an illustration of these dangers. The confusion of Richards' philosophical interests with his

1 34 1 43 1 48

literary interests.

150

V. Tho extent of Richards' own confusion of

these interests.

1 58

VI. Further developnents of the idea of activity.

1 62

VII. These dcvelopnents criticized.

172 Conplexity

and Sono Aspects of tho Doctrine of

Propriety in Poetic Language I. Introductory

II. Richards cor:!pare'l 1-1i th eighteenth century

1 85

critics: intorinanination and propriety.

1 96

III. "Particulari tya as the basis of the doctrine

of propriety.

200

IV. S ono eighteenth century critical terns

associated with the doctrine of propriety.

2 1 0

V. "Particularity17 and an enotive theory of

poetry.

2 1 9

VI. This enotive theory and an eighteenth century

view of the noral function of poetry.

2 3 9

Con plexity and the Doctrine of Propriety in Johnson's

Shakespeare

Criticisn

I. Johnson's approach to Shakespeare's poetry.

II. Jobnson, propriety and the dranatic use of metaphor.

III. Jobnson, propriety and the non-dramatic use of netaphor.

IV. _{Johnson, propriety} and "licentious" diction.

v.

Stllili1ary.

249 255

266

273

287

Chapter

8

Chapter 9

The Idea of Conplexity in the Criticisn of T.S. Eliot

viii.

Page

I. Eliot .:md Richarcls: couplcxity and realisation. 290

II. Roalis^o.tion .::mcl the noral function of poetry. 293

III. Distinctive feo.tures of Eliot's ideo. of conplexi ty

(

11dislocation" of lnnguGgc, 1'wi t"

and 11SugGostiveness"

)

^{. 296}

IV. Dislocation of lnnguo.ge.

V. Suggestiveness.

299

308

VI. Wit.

31 8

VII. Those distincti Ye fc)ntures and Eliot 1 s iclea

of "sinplicity" in poetic language. 322 VIII.Conplexity. sinplicity and the dissociation

of sensibility. 326

IX. Conplexi ty. simplicity and "verbal nusic11•

331

x. SUl:lDary.

The Ideo. of Conplexity in the Criticisn of F.R. Loo.vis

I. Dr. Lonvis and Richards: couplexity, realisation and self-realisation.

II. Realisation and Dr. Leavis' discussion of

338

St. f.lawr. 344

III. Distinctive features of Dr. Loavis' iden of conploxity

(

"exploration", "1-rit" and

"disparity';

)

: exploration.

3

60 IV. Exploration and public and private inagory. 376

V. vli t. 380

VI. Disparity.

391

VII. The direct effects of language

(

^sound,

articulation and rhythm

)

.::md "particularity". 401

VIII.Dangers of the criterion of particularity. 408

IX. Sunnary. 4

1

₆

Chapter 10 W. Eopoon: Ccnplexity and lunbisuity

I. Interinanimation, propriety and Ernpson's first type of ambiguity.

II. Enpson's other types of aubiguity.

I II. S'l.l!:mary.

�19 427 440

Bibliography T.S. Eliot V. Eopson Dr. Johnson F. R. IJoavis LA. Richllrcls General

ix.·

Page

441 442

444

445

4-47

4L', 9