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 a t Mas sey University.

Jo l1n David Nee d hQD

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 poe t i c l anguage and in the principles whi ch

li e behind such enalysis . I e:xaeine the work o f I . 11. Richo.rds ,

T . S. Eli o t , F.R. Leavis and l'l. Eopson, who s e naBes aro ass oc::.a te d

wi th what ni ght be callE; d , for the s ake of c onve nienc e , the

" C anbridge school of cri tici sn".

I b egin w i th 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 aff o rds 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 o f Li t erature , and, t o a

l esser extent, wi th \•l. H. N. Hot opf 1 s detailed e xar:1i n2.ti on o f 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" ,

d e vel o ped chiefly in C o leri 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 i s less

s ati sfactory.

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

of " i nt erinani nati on" and t he eighteenth century conc ept o f "pro priety

of di c ti o n" , and t o 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 "traditiono.lity" of the nodorn critics and the

11I!loderni ty'1 of the eighteenth 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 diction" 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 11realizationn 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 " distinctiv e features" of nodcrn criticiso revolve largely

nround whnt one micht cc.ll tho idee. cf fruitful conflict, 1-rherecs

the bir�s of eight e enth 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 t ic 9 Shakospcctrc 1 s

11bold" use: of lr..ngungo is .�. c cntretl point for nck.ir[�tion; wor•Js aro

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

s lightly nodified. Tho o ld neaninc nnd the nov1 context reGct upon

each other in a vm.y vihich resEmbles the process of notaphor, but

vlithout any of the fornal feo.tures of netaphor. This conflict

behmen the old neaning and the now gives Shnkcspcare 1 s lr.ngu::cge its

vitetlity, or, to revert to the l::.ne;ur.gc I used 11bovo, the \'lOrds o.re

pn.rticulclrly complex (sinc e; they involve a subtle interplay bet1won

the nor context :end the old LtOD.ning ) nnd thus "rcnlize" their subject.

The e iehtoenth 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 dis locntos the old nco.n ing thc�t t he vlOrd disintegrc:.te s.

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

consid ero.ble comuni ty of interest in 11inturimmination", n.nd in

relnt e d issues. I have tried to bring out this coumunit y of interest

not only in ny chnpters on some :1-spects of "propriety", but also

in occasional ref eren ces , througho ut 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 27

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 i nterests 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 doctrin e 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. 239

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. Roali so.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. 318

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. 360

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