Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-767nl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T00:40:23.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Evolution of Literary Study, 1883–1983

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2020

Karl Kroeber
Karl Kroeber*
Affiliation:
Columbia University, New York, New York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

I was appalled by the invitation to write this essay. Although I have always urged students to become aware of the way they read, of why they read in that silly fashion, and of how they might read more rewardingly, I have never bothered much with the history of my profession. I have written principally on Romantic poetry and nineteenth-century fiction. So the MLA seemed to have adopted the position of Senator Roman Hruska, who, defending one of President Nixon's feebler choices for the Supreme Court, argued that even if what was charged against the nominee was true, nonetheless mediocre minds had as much right as any other group to be represented on the Court. My hesitation at serving as token incompetent was increased by the unanimous advice of qualified modernists, distinguished critical theorists, and kindly strangers on upper Broadway that the task was impossible within the space allotted.

Type
Research Article
Information
PMLA , Volume 99 , Issue 3: Centennial Issue , May 1984 , pp. 326 - 339
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Works Cited

Babbitt, Irving. Literature and the American College. Boston: Houghton, 1908.Google Scholar
Bate, Walter Jackson. “The Crisis in English Studies.” Harvard Magazine Sept.-Oct. 1982, 46–53.Google Scholar
Brower, Reuben, Vendler, Helen, and Hollander, John, eds. I. A. Richards: Essays in His Honor. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1973.Google Scholar
Clifford, James L. From Puzzles to Portraits: Problems of a Literary Biographer. Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 1970.Google Scholar
Collingwood, R. G. Speculum Mentis; or, The Map of Knowledge. Oxford: Clarendon, 1924.Google Scholar
Culler, Jonathan. “Semiotics and Deconstruction.” Poetics Today 1.1–2 (1979): 138–41.Google Scholar
Dobbie, Elliott V. K., ed. Beowulf and Judith. Vol. 4 of Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records. New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1953.Google Scholar
Ellis, John. “The Logic of the Question What Is Criticism?” In What Is Criticism? Ed. Hernadi, Paul. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press, 1981, 15–29.Google Scholar
Frye, Northrop. Anatomy of Criticism. New York: Atheneum, 1966.Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, Louis. Prolegomena to a Theory of Language. Trans. Whitfield, Francis J. Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1961.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. “Linguistics and Poetics.” In Style in Language. Ed. Sebeok, T. A. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1960, 350–77.Google Scholar
Knapp, Steven, and Michaels, Walter Benn. “Against Theory.” Critical Inquiry 8.1 (1982): 723–42.Google Scholar
Leavis, F. R. “Literary Criticism and Philosophy: A Reply.” Scrutiny 6 (1937): 59–70.Google Scholar
Mailloux, Steven. Interpretive Conventions: The Reader in the Study of American Fiction. Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press, 1982.Google Scholar
Potter, Stephen. The Muse in Chains: A Study in Education. London: Cape, 1937.Google Scholar
Reed, Mark L. Wordsworth: The Chronology of the Early Years, 1770–1799. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1967.Google Scholar
Reed, Mark L. Wordsworth: The Chronology of the Middle Years, 1800–1815. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1970.Google Scholar
Richards, I. A. Practical Criticism. New York: Harcourt, 1929.Google Scholar
Richards, I. A. Principles of Criticism. 5th ed. New York: Harcourt, 1934.Google Scholar
Schoenbaum, Samuel. Shakespeare's Lives. Oxford: Clarendon, 1970.Google Scholar
Scholes, Robert. Structuralism in Literature. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1974.Google Scholar
Spingarn, J. E. Creative Criticism and Other Essays. New York: Harcourt, 1931.Google Scholar
Stade, George. “Fat-Cheeks Hefted a Snake: On the Origins and Institutionalization of Literature.” Proc. of the General Education Seminar of Columbia Univ., Bridges and Boundaries in the Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences. 1980–81. New York: Columbia Univ. Committee on General Education, 1982, 9: 92–99.Google Scholar
Tanselle, G. T. “The Editorial Problem of Final Authorial Intention.” Studies in Bibliography 29 (1976): 167–211.Google Scholar
Tanselle, G. T. “External Fact as an Editorial Problem.” Studies in Bibliography 32 (1979): 1–47.Google Scholar
Tanselle, G. T. “Recent Editorial Discussion and the Central Questions of Editing.” Studies in Bibliography 34 (1981): 23–65.Google Scholar
Tillyard, E. M. W. The Muse Unchained. London: Bowes & Bowes, 1958.Google Scholar
Time. Rev. of The Waste Land. 3 March 1923, 12.Google Scholar
Tolstoy, Leo. The Death of Ivan Ilych and Other Stories. Trans. Maude, Aylmer. New York: Signet, 1960.Google Scholar
Weber, Max. From Max Weber. Trans. Gerth, H. H. and Wright Mills, C. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1976.Google Scholar
Wellek, René. “Literary Criticism and Philosophy.” Scrutiny 5 (1937): 375–83.Google Scholar
Wellek, René. “Respect for Tradition.” Times Literary Supplement, 10 Dec. 1982, 1356.Google Scholar
Wilde, Oscar. “The Critic as Artist.” In The Complete Works of Oscar Wilde. New York: Doubleday, 1923, 5: 107–237.Google Scholar
Woolf, Virginia. The Diary of Virginia Woolf. Vol. 1. Ed. Bell, Anne Olivier. New York: Harcourt, 1977.Google Scholar