1. What is Poetics?
Author(s): Stein Haugom Olsen
Reviewed work(s):
Source: The Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 105 (Oct., 1976), pp. 338-351
Published by: Wiley-Blackwell for The Philosophical Quarterly
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2218864 .
Accessed: 23/09/2012 13:38
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Wiley-Blackwell and The Philosophical Quarterly are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to The Philosophical Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org

2. 338
WHAT IS POETICS?
BY STEIN HAUGOMOLSEN
I
The conceptionof poetics as an objective and systematic, indeed, or,
even a "scientific"study of literature has gained wide currency among
theorists and criticssince the last war. Primarily this has been due to the
of
influence the "semantic"poeticswhichfollowed upon the New Criticism,
but morerecently structuralist
the poeticsin France has developedsimilar
ideas. Structuralism semanticpoeticsdo indeed draw theirideas from
and
verydifferent sources,but theysharea commonassumption whichmay be
can
called the axiom of objectivity.This assumption be formulated roughly
as follows: literary
the workis a piece ofdiscourse text) possessing
(a certain
characteristics whichmake it what it is: a literary work. As a piece of dis-
courseit is accessibleto all the speakersof the language;its qualities can
be observedand classified interested
by observers, and if, in a particular
case, thereis dispute about what these qualities are, it can be settledby
reference the textitself. Thus a systematic
to (thestructuralists "scien-
say
tific")studyof literary worksis possible;a studywhichwillultimately lead
to a fullunderstanding the qualities whichmake a text into a literary
of
work. The text is accordedan object-like status. In the semantic theory it
is labelled "artefact". In scientific(structuralist) poetics,textsare "pheno-
mena" to be studiedscientifically.
The axiom of objectivity manifests itselfdifferently the two different
in
theories.The pointofdeparture the scientific
for poeticsis that all discourse
is structured.This structuring goes beyondthe rule-governed combination
of wordsinto sentences. Largerpieces of discoursecan also be seen to be
structured.In particular,the sequences of sentencesor texts which we
as
recognize literary workshave characteristic structural properties.These
properties analogousto the structural
are properties of sentences, and they
a
constitute higher-order languagewithits own unitsand grammar.Poetics
identifies unitsof this languageand describes rules of combination.
the the
It becomesin this way a "linguistics" this higher-order
of language.
For example, describing the structure a plot, it is possible to use
of
categories analogousto those of noun,adjective and verb used in linguistic
description (the episodedescribed fromThe Decameron):
is
Prenonsun exemple qui nous permettra d'illustrer "parties du
ces
discours"narratif.Peronnelle re9oitson amanten l'absencedu mari,
pauvre ma9on. Mais un jour celui-cirentre bonneheure. Peron-
de
nelle cache l'amant dans un tonneau;le mari une foisentre,elle lui
dit que quelqu'un voulait acheterle tonneau et que ce quelqu'un

3. WHAT IS POETICS? 339
est maintenant trainde l'examiner. Le marila croitet se rejouit
en
de la vente. I1 va racier le tonneau pour le nettoyer; pendant ce
temps,l'amant fait l'amour a Peronnellequi a passe sa tete et ses
bras dans l'ouverture tonneauet l'a ainsi bouche (VII, 2).
du
Peronnelle, l'amant et le mari sont les agents de cette histoire.
Tous les trois sont des noms propresnarratifs, bien que les deux
derniers soientpas nommes;nous pouvonsles designer
ne par X, Y
et Z. Les mots de l'amant et du mari nous indiquentde plus un
certainetat (c'est la legalitede la relationavec Peronnelle est ici
qui
en cause); ils fonctionnent donc commedes adjectifs.Ces adjectifs
decriventl'equilibreinitial: Peronnelleest 1'epouse du ma9on, elle
n'a pas le droitde fairel'amour avec d'autreshommes.1
In the furtheranalysisthe theorist identifies "verbs" in the plot which
two
structure the action; and he can conclude "Ainsi l'analyse du recit nous
permetd'isolerdes unitesformelles presentent analogiesfrappantes
qui des
avec les partiesdu discours:nompropre, verbe,adjectif".2The formal units
in questionhereare found thetext. Theirpresence a givenon whichthe
in is
theorist can build. Higher-order like
structures these are not always found
on the surfaceof texts. They may have to be reconstructed fromthe data
whichthe text offers. The data, however, givenin the same way as the
are
data forotherscientific theoriesare given. The theoryis "empirical".
The centralinsightwhichthe semantictheorydevelopsin some detail
is based on a distinction betweenthe primary and secondarymeaningsof
wordsand sentences. The notionof primary meaningis taken forgranted
in thetheory.It is the way in whichone wouldnormally understand word.
a
A wordmayhave severalprimary meanings whichmakeit useful different
in
typesof context. It also has secondary meanings.These are the associations
whichit evokes; what it suggests a receiver virtueof its connections
to by
to certaintypesofobjects,events, or
situations, linguistic frames.Secondary
meaningis also called "connotation"or "impliedmeaning",and it is held
to be one of the semanticproperties a term. Like primary
of meaningit
attaches to the word and will be discoverableby a competent speakerof
the language.
In ordinarylanguage such primarymeaningsand connotations a of
wordas may lead to misunderstanding are irrelevant the messageare
or to
suppressed. Ordinary languageis "transparent": is used to attain a goal
it
is
and attention concentrated thisgoal and neveron the linguistic
on means.
Literary discoursediffersfrom ordinary languageby making ofsecondary
use
meaning. Primarymeaningswhich are not requiredby the contextand
connotations allowed to come into play and enrichthe meaningof the
are
words and sentencesemployed. Ambiguities and paradoxes both of single
termsand of wholephrasesare used in literature give languagewhat has
to
1Tzvetan Todorov, "La grammaire du recit" (1968), in Tzvetan Todorov, Poetique
de la prose (Paris, 1971), p. 122.
2Ibid.

4. 340 STEIN HAUGOM OLSEN
been called "semanticdensity". To bringout the secondary meanings a
of
passage one uses the techniquecalled "explication".Here is an exampleof
how a theorist deals withsomelinesfrom Macbeth:
Besides,thisDuncan
Hath bornehis faculties meek,hath been
so
So clearin his greatoffice,that his virtues
Will plead like angelstrumpet-tongu'd against
The deep damnation his takingoff;
of
And pity,like a naked new-born babe,
Striding blast,or heaven's cherubim,
the hors'd
Upon the sightless of
couriers the air,
Shall blowthe horrid deed in everyeye,
That tearsshall drownthe wind.
Pity is like the naked babe, the most sensitiveand helplessthing;
yet, almost as soon as the comparison announced,the symbolof
is
weakness begins to turn into a symbol of strength; the babe,
for
thoughnewborn, pictured "Striding blast" like an elemental
is as the
force-like "heaven's cherubim".... The finaland climacticap-
pearanceofthe babe symbolmerges the contradictory
all elements of
the symbol.For, withMacduff's statement about his birth, naked
the
babe risesbefore Macbethas not onlythe future that eludes calcula-
tion,but as avenging angel as well.3
Here "pity" is described ambiguous,
as the
involving ideas of bothhelpless-
ness and power. The ambiguity builton the secondary
is meanings con-
or
notations whichBrookstakes to be the properties the expressions
of 'naked
new-born babe', 'striding hors'd upon the
the blast', 'heaven's cherubim,
sightless couriers the air'. Thus we have a classiccase ofsemantic
of density,
ambiguity giving riseto ambiguity.
Scientificpoetics accepts structuralpatterns as given; the semantic
theory takes the givenfactsto be secondary meanings phrasesand words.
of
In both cases it is a question of an unarguedassumptionthat these are
objectiveproperties texts. Whentheymeetwithobjections, response
of the
of these theories is to producearguments the "look-and-see"type,i.e.,
of
moreand moreempirical data are collectedwhichwill show that literature
does have secondary meaningsor poetic structures.The basic questionof
the appropriateness and adequacy of this type of "look-and-see"response
are
is not discussedat all. It is simplyaccepted that these features there
to be observed.
II
Scientificpoetics and the more puristversionsof the semantictheory
as
do not look upon themselves just anotherliterary theory. They do not
simply attempt to answer the traditionalproblemsof poetics; they also
want to definea disciplinewhichhas its own methodsand poses its own
3Cleanth Brooks, The Well WroughtUrn (New York, 1947), p. 45.

5. WHAT IS POETICS? 341
questions;theythus necessarily limitthe theorist's concerns prescribing
by
both what are relevantproblemsand the appropriate methodsforsolving
them.
Naturally,to accept the axiom of objectivitywill have serious con-
sequencesforthe conception poeticswhichemerges.If literary
of discourse
is distinguished from other types of discourseeither by local semantic
features by structural
or properties whichare objectivelyobservable, then
the task of the theorist will be to describeand classify these features and
theirinternalrelationships.The structuralist be engagedin mapping
will
semiological structures onto literary works. And semantic will
theorists try
to show in what ways language can be semantically dense. However,the
mostimportant consequence the axiom of objectivity
of concerns what the
theorist could notbe doingif he wantedto keep within literary theory. He
could not concern himself withthe relationship betweenliterary worksand
the world,betweenliterary worksand theirauthorsor literary worksand
theirreaders. If he did, he would then be taking a step outside literary
theoryand into psychology, sociology, history ideas, etc.). A poetics
or (of
based on the axiom of objectivity will have no tools fordealingwiththese
typesofrelationships, indeed,willit recognize
nor, any questionsconcerning
themas fallingwithinpoetics. This consequence bound to bringpoetics
is
intotrouble.
For whileit is true that a literary workis a type of whichthe tokens
are physicalobjects (the copiesof the text) and whichcan therefore some in
respects be characterized an object,it is impossible ignore factthat
as to the
the conceptof a literary workalso involvesassumptions about value. To
give something the title"literary work"is to place it within regionof our
a
concerns whichhas an established claim on our timeand attention.It is to
see it as attempting yield a certainpay-off
to whichis conventionally ex-
pected of texts classed in this way. The notionof pay-off can, of course,
only be understood termsof a relationship
in betweenliterary worksand
the aims and purposesof a group of people. Literatureas an institution
of culture founded the perception
is on that it is valuable. The achievement
of thisvalue is dependent upon therebeingperformances be appreciated;
to
and performances createdby men and judged by them. It is on this
are
interplay betweencreation and judgement that the conceptof literary value
depends. To cut off literary
the workfrom readersand authorsis to cut it
offfrom any meaningful function can fulfil.To treatit as an objectrather
it
than as a performance of
may help to gain objectivity description but it
means losing the chance of characterizing aestheticdimensionof the
the
work. Sever the connection betweenliterature and value and you make
the conceptof a "literary work"uninteresting.
One must suspect,then,that the axiom of objectivity radicallyin-
is
adequate as a basis fora conception poetics. I shalltryin thenextsection
of
to showthat this is the case.

6. 342 STEIN HAUGOM OLSEN
III
If "the actual objectsof poeticsare the particular regularities that occur
in literary texts and that determine the specific of
effects poetry",4 then
therearises a problemof relevance. The question"Given a literary work,
which features patterns relevant thestatusofthistextas a literary
and are to
work?" an
requires answer before objectiveanalysiscan getoff ground.
the the
Some features relevantto this status and othersare not. How are we
are
to choose a description whichincludesonly the relevantfeatures?If one
acceptsthe axiom of objectivity answeris that no decisionis necessary
the
because the structures given. One does actuallyknowwhat "particular
are
regularities" give poetic effects and these are the intuitions poetics must
build on:
A meaningful investigation that attempts describethis systemPS
to
[poeticstructure] mustthus growout of the effects and judgements
that come about through the maximallyadequate understanding of
a poetictext.5
The questionof how one arrivesat a "maximallyadequate understanding"
of a poetic text, and what constitutes such an understanding, not taken
is
to be a questionof poetics. And, furthermore, is regardedas a question
it
whichwill have no bearingon the possible conclusions a poetic theory.
of
Interpretation is givena place in literary activity butit is seenas theoretically
innocuous. It is given the status roughlyof pre-theoretical observations
whichmay be givendirection once theory introduced whichwill still
is but
remainobservations.
There are in actual fact wide disagreements about the correctinter-
pretation of mostliterary works. This alone is reasonenoughto rejectthe
assumptionthat poetic structuresare given throughshared intuitions.
Interpretative judgements are based on arguments and can be challenged
through arguments.If an investigation into poeticstructure to be based
is
on interpretative judgements, thenthe questionof how suchjudgements can
be evaluatedmustbe brought theforefront literary
to of theory, thusshifting
to
its whole focus fromobjectivelygiven structures the process of inter-
pretation. Otherwise the theorymust resignitselfto producing arbitrary
results.
Perhaps,to get out of the cornerinto whichhe has boxed himself by
insisting that he relieson interpretative judgements, scientific
the theorist
will now make the following move: thoughinterpretative judgements con-
cerning the same workare widelydifferent, may say, it remainsa fact
he
that all these interpretative judgements rest on sets of structural patterns
and regularities whichare independent any one interpretation which
of and
can be described by the theorist. ". . . une description scientifique doit
4Manfred Bierwisch, "Poetics and Linguistics", in Donald C. Freeman (ed.), Linguis-
tics and LiteraryStyle (New York, 1970), pp. 98-9. Originallypublished as "Poetik und
Linguistik", in Helmut Kreuzer and Rul Gunzenhauser (edd.), Mathematikund Dich-
tung (Munich, 1965, 1967).
5Bierwisch,p. 109.

7. WHAT IS POETICS? 343
pouvoir rendrecompte de toutes les lecturescoh6rentes possibles. Sans
pour autant enoncerexplicitement chaque lecture, les
elle d6finit conditions
de chacune."6 A scientific poeticsis not basedon interpretative judgements
of different degreesof competence exceptin the sensethat it triesto explain
their source. The theorist"can and must explicate those consciously or
unconsciously followed regularitiesthat lead to the understanding poetic
of
structure to a judgement poeticality".7
and of Theseregularities, theorist
the
will claim, can be describedin a consistent, coherentand comprehensive
vocabularywhichclearlyidentifies properties the structural
the of patterns
and regularities. And it is the task of "scientific" poetics to develop such
descriptions.
In fact, this move leaves the scientific theoryno betteroffthan if it
on
wereto base itself interpretative judgements.For whilean interpretation
cannotcreatethe factson whichit is based, it does pick out whichfactsare
artistically relevant and makeclearin whatwaytheyare relevant creating
by
a description thesefacts. Thus the artistically
of relevant structuralproper-
ties describedin an interpretation become the productof that particular
interpretation. There is no given structure facts in a work which are
of
artistically relevant except as they are given throughan interpretation.
This recreative aspect ofthe literaryactivitycan be observedat everystage
of interpretation it is possible to illustrateit by choosingalmost at
and
randomfromthe vast criticalcorpuswhichhas arisenin connection with
every branchof Westernliterature.Note, forexample,how Auden in the
following argument, whichI quote in extenso, identifies patternof facts
a
fromOthello connecting
by themin a description and how the description
createsthe pattern a
from set ofpreviously unconnected "facts"in the work.
In Othello, thanksto Iago's manipulations, Cassio and Desdemona
behave in a way whichwould make it not altogether unreasonable
forOthelloto suspectthat theywerein love witheach other, but the
timefactor of
rulesout the possibility adultery havingbeen actually
committed.Some criticshave taken the double timein the play to
be merelya dramaturgical device forspeedingthe action whichthe
audience in the theatrewill never notice. I believe,however,that
Shakespearemeant the audienceto noticeit as, in The Merchant of
Venice,he meant them to notice the discrepancy betweenBelmont
timeand Venicetime.
for
If Othellohad simplybeen jealous of the feelings Cassio he
imagined Desdemona to have, he would have been sane enough,
guilty worstofa lack oftrustin his wife. But Othellois not merely
at
jealous of feelings which mightexist; he demands proofof an act
whichcould not have taken place, and the effect him of believing
on
in this physicalimpossibility goes far beyondwishing kill her: it
to
is not onlyhis wifewho has betrayed himbut the wholeuniverse; life
has becomemeaningless, occupationis gone.
his
6Fran9ois Rastier, "Syst6matique des isotopies", in A. J. Greimas (ed.), Essais de
semiotiquepoetique (Paris, 1972), p. 96.
7Manfred Bierwisch, op. cit., p. 108.

8. 344 STEIN HAUGOM OLSEN
This reactionmightbe expectedif Othelloand Desdemona were
a pair like Romeo and Julietor Antonyand Cleopatrawhose love
was an all-absorbing Tristan-Isolde kind of passion,but Shakespeare
takes care to inform that it was not.
us
When Othelloasks leave to take Desdemonawithhimto Cyprus,
the
he stresses spiritual element his love.
of
I therefore it not
beg
To please the palate of my appetite;
Nor to complywithheat,the youngaffects
In me defunct, propersatisfaction;
and
But to be freeand bounteousofhermind.
Though the imageryin whichhe expresseshis jealousy is sexual-
what other kind of imagerycould he use--Othello's marriageis
important him less as a sexual relationship
to than as a symbolof
beingloved and acceptedin the Venetiancommunity. The monster
in his own mind too hideous to be shownis the fear he has so far
repressed that he is only valued forhis social usefulness the City.
to
But forhis occupationhe would be treatedas a black barbarian.8
In the first part of this argument Auden remarks upon the fact that critics
have simplynot consideredthe double time-scheme Othello have a
in to
proper as
artisticfunction distinguished froma merelydramaturgical one.
He thengoes on to place the doubletime-scheme together withother features
of the play, showing how thesefactstogether forma pattern. At the same
time he rejects certaindescriptions whichwould not allow the patternto
be formed (Othellois not "simplyjealous", he is not simply guilty "a lack
of
of trustin his wife"); and he puts forward otherdescriptions whichmake
the double time-scheme instrumental bringing the particular
in out nature
of Othello'sjealousy. In the last part of the argument supports first
he his
description, whichassigneda place to the doubletime-scheme a
within larger
pattern, showing
by how further factsin the play fallintothe same pattern.
Againhe achieveshisendby offering certain and
descriptions rejecting others.
The quoted passage is described havingthe function makingclear the
as of
spiritual natureof Othello'slove. The description Othello'slove as sexual
of
is rejected spiteofhisuse ofsexualimagery describe and it is described
in to it,
insteadas beinga craving trust. All the incidents
for and linguisticfeatures
referred by Auden are to be foundin Othello, they are identified
to but as
an
constituting artistically relevantstructuralpatternonly throughthis
interpretative description.
The movement all interpretative
in judgement like this: fromhypo-
is
thesisto the evidenceor patternwhichsupports hypothesis.Such facts
the
a
as do not form pattern in
whichcan be described thehypothesis simply are
ignored. Different interpretations may, and do, identify differentpatterns
in the same text, though,of course, there will be overlappingbetween
interpretations this respect. But overlapping
in does not mean that the
8W. H. Auden, "The Joker in the Pack", in W. H. Auden, The Dyer's Hand and
OtherEssays (London, 1963), pp. 265-6.

9. WHAT IS POETICS? 345
patterns questioncould be identified artistic
in as structures independently of
any interpretation. This argument also worksthe otherway round: when
the criticidentifies patternand assignsto it no description
a whichties it
to someinterpretative hypothesis about the work, thenhe has not described
a poetic or an artistic structure, simplyan arbitrarily
but chosenone. The
only way he can prove that he has singledout an artisticstructure by is
bringing together the collectionof facts he wants to identify a pattern
as
undera description whichwilltie it to an interpretative hypothesis concern-
ing the artistic purpose of the workin question.
To reinforce argument the logical primacyof interpretation
the for it
a
will be illuminating consider case of structural
to description whichis not
governedby an interpretative hypothesis and whichis therefore critically
uninteresting, givingno insightwhatever into the artisticproperties the
of
workwhichit describes. The following passage is the firstparagraphin a
linguistic analysis ofthreeprosepassagesfrom threedifferent novelswritten
by JohnBraine,Dylan Thomas,and AngusWilson:
(a) Nominalgroups. In DT [Dylan Thomas],all 49 nominalgroups
have lexicalitemas head: thereare no pronouns othergrammatical
or
heads. Oftheseonly11 have any lexicalmodification qualification,
or
and of a total of 5 lexical modifiers only "empty" has the value
"epithet" in the groupstructure.By contrast JB [JohnBraine],
in
whichhas 36 nominalgroupsof which4 have grammatical heads, of
the remaining withlexical heads 16 have modifier qualifier
32 or (or
both) and 22 have deictics. Likewisein AW [AngusWilson],with
37 nominalgroupsof which9 have grammatical heads, 12 of the 28
with lexical heads are lexically modified qualifiedand 15 have
or
deictics. The DT passage is a heap of mainlysimplenominalgroups
(that is, ones consisting a noun only),with also some heapingof
of
clauses; in AW and JB we have the compound nominalgroupas the
centreof attention.All thisis obvious;but the factthat it is obvious
does not excuse us fromstatingit accurately. Nor is it usefulto
countitemsor patterns a
without linguistic analysisto identify what
is to be counted.9
In additionto this,two otherdescriptive categories employed, first
are the
concerning "lexical sets" and the second"cohesion".
The difficulty this description that it gives reallyno clue to the
with is
criticalpurposeof the comparison.It makes no judgementas to whether
or not the identified patterns mightpossiblyhave an artistic function.The
reasonforthisis that one cannotpinpoint artistic function through any sort
of tabulation. Linguisticfacts and patternsby themselves,as they are
described here,are just linguistic, not artistic
and facts. Thereis no clue in
this collectionof facts to what competent judgementcan be made which
will make us see them as part of an artisticpatternor about what poetic
effecttheycan justifiably said to contribute This is whythe descrip-
be to.
9M. A. K. Halliday, "Descriptive Linguistics in Literary Studies", in G. I. Duthie
(ed.), English Studies Today (Edinburgh, 1964). Reprinted in Donald C. Freeman (ed.),
op. cit., pp. 64-5.

10. 346 STEIN HAUGOM OLSEN
tion is critically A
uninteresting. description like this must necessarily be
generatedand limitedby linguistic interests theyare defined
as withinthe
academicdiscipline linguistics, thereis no reasonto believethat this
of and
type of description to
should enable the theorist pick out artistically func-
tionalpatterns.
Now, the above description givenby a well-known
is linguistician witha
full command of a coherentdescriptivevocabulary made to serve in a
general descriptionof language; and who furthermore sticks closely to
patterns identifiable withthe tools oflinguistics who does not introduce
and
covert interpretative judgementsin order to make his description seem
relevant the contextofliterary
in studies. This is whythe above description
so glaringly shows the absurdityof the claim that artisticstructures are
given in a piece of literary discoursebecause such discourseis structured
differently othertypesof language. And in all fairness Halliday one
from to
must say that he does not make any extravagantclaims forlinguistics in
literary studies. However,when literary theorists the scientific
of school
describepoetic structures, theyveryoftenimplythat this description on is
a par with the type of description given by Halliday, while they really
introducecovertinterpretative judgementsto make the description criti-
cally interesting. Consideragain the description given of the storyfrom
The Decameron quoted above in the first section. This description of a
is
moresophisticated kindthan that givenby Halliday. Beforethe structural
description even startedTodorov has alreadyservedup to the readera
is
selectivesummary the story,
of the interpretative implications whichhe
of
continues develop throughout so-calledstructural
to the description.This
interpretative movemakesthedescription interesting for literary
the student,
but his interest disappointed. For the initialinterpretative
is move is not
carried beyondthe summary description the passage and no justification
of
forthe interpretative description is offered. the same timeit is claimed
At
that this is a description formalunitsfound in the plot. This double
of
move of initiating interpretation thenclaiming it the statusof a
an and for
straight description createsthe appearance of objectivitywhile seemingly
retaining claimto critical
the interest the description. factit achieves
for In
neither criticalinterest objectivity.
nor
It is clear that the same problem of
arisesforthe description secondary
meaning as for structural patterns. Granting, for the sake of argument,
the assumptionthat secondarymeaningsactually belong to a term or a
sentenceand are not generatedby the context,there still must be some
way of tellingwhichsecondary meanings relevantin the context. One
are
cannot just go ahead and describeall the secondarymeaningsof all the
expressions a piece of discourseand expect to have identified poetic
in its
features,for among all the possible secondarymeaningswhich may be
described only some will be relevantin the particular contextin whichthe
expression occurs. To see this,it is instructive compareCleanthBrooks'
to

11. WHAT IS POETICS? 347
"description" the passage fromMacbeth
of (quoted above) witha "descrip-
tion" providedby Helen Gardner. Gardnerfirst takes issue with Brooks'
assignment of the connotations powerful and avenging angel to the word
'cherubim'. These, she says, are just Brooks' personalassociations. If the
term'cherubim' any connotations all, it is thoseofpassive,contemplat-
has at
ing, beautiful, innocent.This new set of secondarymeaningsrequires a
different description the passage from
of that whichBrooksgives it:
The final image ofthewinddropping therainbeginsis thetermina-
as
tion of the whole sequence of ideas and images. It is to this close
that theyhurry.The passage ends withtears stilling blast. The
the
finalcondemnation the deed is not that the doer of it will meet
of
withpunishment, even that the doer of it will stand condemned;
not
but that even indignation the murderwill be swallowedup in
at
universal pityfor victim.The wholeworld
the willknow,and knowing
it willnot cursebut weep. The babe, naked and new-born, most the
helplessof all things, the cherubim, innocent and beautiful, call out
the pity and the love by whichMacbethis judged. It is not terror
of heaven's vengeancewhich makes him pause; but the terrorof
moral isolation.10
How can one decide which set of associationsconnectedto the term
'cherubim' the correct
is one?The hollowness the "look-and-see"
of argument
is apparent a case likethis,whentwocritics
in offercompeting interpretations
of the same term in the same context. No attemptto call to mind the
connotations the termwill have any effect
of sincethe criticsargueforthe
relevanceof different connotations. This problem cannotbe solvedby refer-
ence to further we
factsabout the termitself. Therefore need some reason
forpreferring description
one to the other.
The naturalcourseis to invokethe artistic purposeof the workand try
to find out whichconnotations relevantto this purpose. Brooks may
are
insistthat the connotations mentions properties the term,
he are of but this
if
is uninteresting he cannotoffer someargument show that they contri-
to
bute to the artistic natureof the work. In fact,the wholeof Brooks'essay
on "the nakedbabe" is an attempt use the quotedpassage as a convenient
to
point "of entryinto the largersymbolswhichdominatethe play".1 Both
Brooks and Gardnertry to establish their descriptionsby relating the
passage to what Gardnercalls the "imaginative centre'"12of the play. For
Gardner this centreis to be foundin the visionthat the murder Duncanof
places Macbethoutsidethe feeling pity,one ofthe strongest,
of profoundest
and most distinctively human feelings, and thus places Macbeth outside
humanity itself:
It is the judgement the humanheartthat Macbethfearshere,and
of
the punishment whichthe speechforeshadows not that he will be
is
cut down by Macduff, that havingmurdered own humanity
but his
10Helen Gardner, The Business of Criticism (London, 1959), pp. 59-60.
11Brooks,op. cit., p. 30.
12Gardner, cit., p. 62.
op.

12. 348 STEIN HAUGOM OLSEN
he will enter into a world of appalling loneliness,of meaningless
activity, unlovedhimself, unable to love.13
and
For his part,Brooksfinds that "the babe signifies future
the whichMacbeth
would controland cannot control".14In theirdifferent ways these hypo-
theses providea generalization the importof the cherubim
of passage for
the play as a whole,and thus each makes an attemptto integrate in an it
overall artisticvision.
Gardner supports "reading"she givesof the term'cherubim'
the also by
a reference historical,
to non-linguistic facts:
Dionysius the Areopagite,who established the hierarchyof the
angels, sourceofthepopularangelology theMiddleAges,ranked
the of
the cherubimamong the higherorders,as angels of the presence.
They stood about the throne,contemplating gloryof God, not
the
active,as werethe lowerorders, fulfil will on earth.15
to his
Since the questionof historical evidencein literary criticism receiveda
has
lot of attention, is worthobserving
it herethat thereis no special problem
concerning relevance thistypeofinformation.
the of Exactly the same type
of problemarises in connection with the relevanceof connotations any of
sort. Onlyif one has alreadyacceptedthe axiom of objectivity will one see
historical information of a different
as orderfrom that of connotations.
An interpretative judgement is not the resultof a mechanicaldecoding
procedure whichcan be applied to any given structural facts. The judge-
mentitselfis recreative and involvesan imaginative leap whichconsistsin
identifying it
a patternby assigning artistic function.Interpretative judge-
mentsare the sole means a critichas of identifying artisticfeatures
the of
a literary work. This means that evaluation of interpretative judgements
be
must ultimately comparative, since thereis no way of challenging an
interpretative judgement except through anothersuch judgement.A wide-
spread comparative activitylike this will sanctionthe use of certainrough
and readypredicates whichcan be used in a given case to givean "absolute"
judgement, but thisshouldnotlead thetheorist think
to thatthesepredicates
have any meaning except within framework the comparative
the of activity.
Evaluation of interpretative judgementsbeing ultimatelya comparative
activity, is logically
it impossible that thereshouldbe a finalinterpretation
of a work. It is always possiblethat even an extremely good interpretation
should one day be challengedand replacedby a completely different one.
It is therefore logicallyimpossible that thereshouldbe any set of structural
properties secondarymeaningswhichare theproperties a work. The
or of
axiom of objectivity musttherefore rejectedand one can expectto solve
be
no problems substancein literary
of theory acceptingstructural
by features
and secondary meanings as "given" facts.
30p. cit., p. 61.
'40p. cit., p. 42.
10Op.cit., p. 56.

13. WHAT IS POETICS? 349
IV
The ultimatebasis on whicha reader'sappreciation a literary
of work
restsis not objectively given secondarymeaningsand structural patterns.
It restson a method(interpretation) assigning
of artisticrelevanceto parts
of a workidentified through the method. Thoughthe examplesabove have
all been of one particulartype of interpretation, far I have made no
so
attempt to characterize method. Indeed, to describeit theoretically,
the to
define aims and methods(beyondsayingthat it is concerned
its withartistic
significance), would be an attemptto workout a particular literary theory,
a task beyondmy presentconcerns. In this articleI have considered not
so much the inadequacy of two theoriesof literature the inadequacy of
as
the commonconceptof poeticsthey advocate. In line withthis argument
I shall now tryto use the notionofinterpretation establisha requirement
to
whichany theoryof literature must fulfil.The requirement concernsthe
place in literarytheoryof the concept of intention which was dismissed
from poeticsby the theories based on the axiom of objectivity.
Every interpretative hypothesis may be understood an answerto a
as
question "What are the reasons for the presenceof . . . in the work?",
wherethe blank is to be filledby a description a part of the work. In
of
this
actual criticism question receivesdifferent formulations, theonegiven
but
above is adequate formypresent purpose. An answerto this question cannot
give just any reason, forliterary interpretation requires that the hypothesis
mustultimately defended reference artistic
be by to or
significance purpose.
To approacha text as a literary workis to examineit forits artistic signifi-
cance. This means that the interpretative questionmust be answeredby
reference something
to beyondthe elementof the workidentified the by
description in the blank. It is not enoughto describe element having
the as
such and such properties, it is always possibleto ask fora justification
for
forseeingthese as artisticproperties.In some typesof literary theory the
reasonsto be given in answerto almost everyinterpretative questionare
sought not only outsidethe identified element, but outsidethe workitself.
Thus Dickens, defending the prefaceto Bleak House his description
in of
the Courtof Chancery, says "everything in
set forth thesepages concerning
is
the Courtof Chancery substantially true,and withinthe truth". Other,
moresophisticated, theories requirereference the worldoutsidethe work
to
only at somepoint. Aristotle goes to sometroublein the Poeticsto describe
what features plot a good tragedymusthave, and he brings reference
of in
to the worldoutsideonlyby setting an ultimategoal of the artistic
up con-
struction:". .. the poet's job is to producepleasure springing frompity
and fearvia mimesis"(1453b 12). Theories thissophisticated
of typeconstrue
the answerto the interpretative questionas an attemptto assign a place
withina largerstructure, postulatedthroughan overall interpretation of
the work,to the elementidentified throughthe question. Thus when a
criticsays about the openingof Twelfth Nightthat Orsino'sfamousfirst

14. 350 STEIN HAUGOM OLSEN
speech-
If musicbe the foodof love, play on;
Give me excessof it-
together with what followsin the briefopeningscene, reveals his
attitudein love as a blend of sentiment and artifice,true dedication
and elaborate self-centredness; is at once an eloquent statement
it
a
and, by implication, criticism the play's courtly
of romantic theme16
he gives, first, description a part of the play ("Orsino's famousfirst
a of
speech . . . togetherwith what followsin the openingscene"); next the
reason forits presenceby re-describing part ("reveals his attitudein
this
love as a blendof sentiment and artifice,truededicationand elaborateself-
and
centredness"); finally reasonforthe presence the features
a of identified
in the seconddescription giventhrough new description
is a whichconnects
themto the themeofthe play ("it is at once an eloquentstatement and, by
a of
implication, criticism the play's courtly romantic theme").
The method of answeringan interpretative question by relatingthe
identified element otherpartsofthe workthrough seriesof descriptions
to a
of ascendingorder,subsuming moreand moreparts of the work,is widely
accepted as illuminating criticism.There are, indeed,good reasonsboth of
a logical and of a historical kind to thinkthat this is what constitutes an
illuminating literaryexplanation. But thisfactshouldnot blindthe theorist
to a further questionwhichthe criticis not bound to ask, but whichthe
theorist cannotleave unanswered.Having reachedan illuminating overall
interpretation a work,attributing
of certainproperties it, one may still
to
ask "What is the reason why these properties in the work?". When
are
this questionis repeated at this level, it is not a criticalquestion but a
questionabout the nature of artistic significance: why do these properties,
ascribed to the work by this interpretation, make the work artistically
interesting?
The reasonwhythe answerto this questionhas to make some reference
to the worldoutsidethe workhas alreadybeen suggested.Artistic signifi-
cance is a value. As a value it mustnecessarily understood
be withreference
to humanpurposesand ends. So the reasonswhichjustify the assumption
that certainproperties a workare artistically
of interesting must have to
do withthe way in whichthese properties relatedto certainpurposes
are
and ends. This is a purelyconceptualpoint. Nothingneed be said about
how theseends and purposesare to be specified.That is the task of literary
theory. What literary theoryis not freeto do is to disguiseor ignorethe
factthat it is involvedin specifying purposesand ends. The questionwhy
are
certainfeatures artistically interesting to be answered termsof the
is in
purposes they can be seenas serving.Everyinterpretative question, evenifit
can be answeredby a structural description or a description "meaning",
of
is in the end made significant only because it asks how an elementserves
16Derek Traversi, An Approach to Shakespeare, Vol. I: Henry VI to TwelfthNight
(London, 1968), p. 303.

15. WHAT IS POETICS? 351
a
the intendedartisticpurpose. To understand literary workis to under-
stand a goal-directed effortmade by a creatingintellect. The subject of
literary theory the natureofthe effort the goal. This conclusion
is and does
not rule out any of the traditional theoriesof literature, it does place
but
literary theoryunderan obligationwhichobjectivistpoeticshas soughtto
avoid. Poeticsmustdeal withthe role ofintention and assignto it a proper
place in literaryunderstanding. Sincethewholenotionofliterary interpreta-
tion restson the conceptsof purposeand ends, it is impossible exorcize
to
the problemof intention from literary theory. Intentionhas a place in the
understanding and appreciation the literary
of work; for
the problem literary
theory is to assignit the correctplace.
University Bergen
of