Suchergebnisse

Literature was never central to Brownson's interests; indeed at times it was something he tolerated somewhat impatiently.* He wrote about it regularly, however, and during his career filled over a thousand closely packed octavo pages on the subject. He could even use the cant of the journalist reviewer with professional facility. Of a novel called Thorneberry Abbey, for instance, he says, "It has one or two literary faults … efforts at fine writing, and wearisome descriptions of natural scenery, which … only interrupt the narrative." With variations in the details, this kind of formal gesture is repeated almost every time he reviews a novel. Moreover, the passage on Thorneberry Abbey appears towards the very end of a long review, introduced by the following candid admission: "But we have forgotten the little book before us." What precedes the remark is not primarily a literary discussion but rather a warning to Catholics against the dangers of unwary compromises with Protestantism. What follows the remark is literary in a perfunctory and conventional way and is quickly dropped in favor of more polemic discussion. Although this procedure is not true of every piece of criticism by Brownson, something like it happens often enough to make it characteristic. When he was accused of such irrelevance later in life, he defended himself vigorously: "The book introduced is regarded as little more than an occasion or a text for an original discussion of some questions which the author wishes to treat.… Books are worthy of no great consideration for their own sake, and literature itself is never respectable as an end, and is valuable only as a means to an end." In spite of this method, however, Brownson raised important critical questions and left a substantial amount of literary material.

Two recent Shakespeare interpretations by pol'al theorists (H. V. Jaffa on `King Lear', Amer. Polit. Sci. Rev., Jun, 1957 & Bloom [See SA A0625]) raise serious questions about the proper application of pol'al theory to literary texts. Bloom abstracts from the text concepts so tenuous & remote that they assume an independent existence & distort what they are intended to illuminate. Jaffa builds his interpretation on deductions from largely a priori principles, achieving an imposing internal coherence at the cost of ignoring the carefully patterned texture of the play. Both authors approach their texts from premises partly extra-poetic & partly prescriptive, instead of submitting, as the interpreter must, to the unique fact which a true poem is. IPSA.

Language (lang) instruction is an important part of current Middle East (ME) area programs in US U's, but there is dissatisfaction with the results. The ME constitutes a linguistic area, with 3 major langs (Arabic, Turkish, Persian) & several important minor ones (Hebrew, Pashto, Kurdish, Azerbaijani, Armenian, Berber). Each has its own teaching problems. Basic competence in lang is defined. US needs & interests in the ME indicate that: (1) a few Amer's need advanced competence in one or more ME langs, (2) ME area specialists require basic competence in at least one major lang, generally Arabic, & (3) others have more specialized goals. ME lang instruction has been in the Orientalist tradition, with graduate study of older texts in a humanistic context. Newer patterns emphasize spoken lang & non-literary texts, & include undergraduate programs & intensive summer programs. Improved teaching materials have appeared; the current problems are agreement on goals & development of competent teaching staffs. AA.

The Marxian sociol of literature forms the methodological basis of this study. Focus is on 2 questions: (1) What type of groups find a means of expression in literature? (2) What is the function of literature in these groups? Does their structure explain the importance of literature as a form of expression that is necessary for them? These questions are examined by taking an analysis of the literary texts as a starting point. The results thus obtained are then interpreted against the background of historical reality. The following theses are presented with the aid of a review of French love poetry up to the time of the Renaissance: Every work of literature is the center of a group which is based on its common attitude towards the work. This group constitutes the horizon set as a matter of course for the author in his act of writing & thus determines the structure of the work. The concrete structure of the groups, which in this case act as carriers of love poetry, can best be understood as the result of an effort to adapt certain essential & very simple aspirations of group life to the change of soc conditions which make their realization more difficult. The group may not be defined by econ or soc criteria, but must be taken as a system of meaningful relationships, which provides the basis for the view which the individual has of himself & of his relationship to others. This group creates the context in which the symbolic forms (of religion & great literature) will form an intelligible whole. In this sense the group therefore constitutes the necessary intermediary level between econ & pol'al conditions & the symbolic forms. AA.

The structuralist & genetic conception of the sociol of literature, originated by George Lukacs, is analyzed. 5 basic principles of genetic structuralist sociol are enumerated. They are viewed as indicating that, (1) in the case of the sociol of literature, the res worker must seek to discover a structure which accounts for practically the whole of the text, & he must add nothing to it. (2) He must not overestimate the importance of the individual in the explanation, whether individual or collective, for which the mental structure which governs the work has a functional & signif character. (3) What are commonly called 'influences' have no explanatory value & at the very most constitute a factor & a problem which the res worker must explain. 'In short, comprehension is a problem of the internal coherence of the text, which presupposes that the text, the whole of the text & nothing but the text is taken literally & that, within it, one seeks an overall signif structure.' Several examples are provided, among them analyses of portions LES PENSEES (Thoughts) of B. Pascal & the tragedies of J. Racine. Starting from a text which for him represents a mass of empirical data similar to those by which any other sociol'st who undertakes a piece of res is faced, the sociol'at of literature must first tackle the problem of ascertaining how far those data constitute a signif object, a structure on which positive res can be carried out with fruitful results. The diff's are pointed out between the structuralist sociol of literature & the traditional explanation offered by psychoanalysis or literary history. Traditional methods are concerned with the content of literary works & the relationship between that content & the collective consciousness, or the ways in which men think & behave in daily life. The sociol'al explanations of the Lukacsian Sch pose the problem of the work as a unitary structure of the laws which govern its universe & of the link between that structured universe & the form in which it is expressed. Lastly, the possibility of extending res is discussed by taking as a starting point Julia Kristeva's study on Bakhtin (Critique No.239). E. Weiman.

Bertrand de Jouvenel is one of a very small group of writers in our own time who make a serious effort to develop political theory in the grand style. In the English-speaking world, where so many of the interesting political problems have been solved (at least superficially), political theory is dead. In the Communist countries it is imprisoned. Elsewhere it is moribund. In the West, this is the age of textual criticism and historical analysis, when the student of political theory makes his way by rediscovering some deservedly obscure text or reinterpreting a familiar one. Political theory (like literary criticism) is reduced to living off capital—other people's capital at that.

An historical definition of the sociol of literature is presented. The situation & development of this field are examined mainly in the US, France, & the Federal Republic of Germany. In the US it is held that sociol'al literary criticism has evolved, perhaps more than anywhere else, in accordance with the soc situation. The approaches of the following critics are noted: V. F. Calverton, R. H. Pearce, L. Lowenthal, I. Watt, K. Burke, & R. Wellek & A. Warren. It is stated that the enormous Amer production of sociol'al works obviously comprises numerous notes on literature, but these notes do not at all compensate for the general dearth which is so obvious in this field. In Germany, there is felt to be a philosophical & sociol'al tradition which is directed to a much greater extent towards the sociol of literature. Certain Marxian writers, such as F. Mehring, are mentioned in this connection. Another approach is the use of the concept of form as applied to society & its cultural productions. G. Lukacs adopts an intermediate approach: his work, Kantian at the start, then Hegelian & Marxian, represents the corpus of the most complete sociol of literature yet produced by a single author. Cited are THE SOUL AND FORMS (Berlin, 1911) & THEORY OF THE NOVEL (Paris, 1963). After WWII it is mainly around the Frankfurt Sch that the sociol of literature developed. Mentioned are T. W. Adorno, W. Benjamin, L. Schuking, E. Auerbach & E. Kohler. In France, a little-known precursor of the French sociol'al tradition is J. M. Guyau, who in 1889 affirmed the structuralist nature of criticism. Other forerunners are J. Bedier, G. Lanson & L. Febvre. It is felt that the sociol of literature has found its most coherent expression in L. Goldmann, who holds that the sociol of literature has in view the understanding of the meaning of a work. This means clarifying the total network of meanings which internal analysis of a work reveals by an explanation & inserting this network in a whole of wider signif: the soc group. In conclusion, the works cited seem to indicate 2 directions for res: (a) a microsociol'al study of groups which comprise a world vision, whose aim must be the study of the actual conditions operating between creative groups & individuals, & (2) a more scrupulous reading of texts which would include the symptomatological structures. E. Weiman.