Abstract
Anyone who reads, even sketchily, in modern, literary criticism is certain to be struck by one thought: that the theories and opinions of serious critics differ to an almost incredible extent. A book, for example, like Wellek and Warren's Theory of Literature — which aims at propounding a new theory by the summary, contrast, and elimination of other theories — is testimony enough to these differences.|However, valuable and erudite as that book is, one can search it in vain for a satisfactory explanation of the cause of or reason for such critical diversity. The authors' complaint about the lack of a "literary theory, an organon of methods," by which individual works of literary art can be characterized in universal terms is probably true, but not too helpful. Their discussion of the importance, to "the intrinsic study of literature," of understanding the "mode of existence" or "ontological situs" of a literary work simply raises the further question: can literary art be explained fully in terms of its nature and function alone? Likewise, what they have to say of metaphor, convincing as it is, leads to further wondering. For example, they state:|"Our own view ... sees the meaning and function of literature as centrally present in metaphor and myth There are such activities as metaphoric and mythic thinking, a thinking by means of metaphors, a thinking in poetic narrative or vision. All these terms call our attention to the aspects of a literary work which exactly bridge and bind together old divisive components, 'form' and ‘matter.' These terms look in both directions; that is, they indicate the pull of poetry toward 'picture' and 'world' on the one hand and toward religion or Weltanschauung on the other."|But what account, in poetic theory, is to be taken of the reality that evokes the poetic impulse? Is it to be considered valuable only to the extent that It provides grist for the artistic mill? What, in other words is the connection between literary theory and philosophy or Weltanschauung?