(E-content developed by Dr N A Jarandikar)
Nature
of Criticism
The term criticism
derives from the Greek term ‘kritikos’, which was used in the 4th
century B.C. It means “a judgement of literature”. In the 2nd
century A.D. its place was taken by the term ‘criticus’, aimed at the interpretation
of texts of writers in Greek or Latin. In English, Dryden used it in the modern
sense in his preface to ‘The State of Innocence’ (1677). He writes: “Criticism,
as it was first instituted by Aristotle, was meant a standard of judging well.”
Today, the term literary criticism aims at the study of works of literature
with emphasis on their evaluation.
- To some people criticism appears
to be secondary, parasitic and inferior to creation.
- It is stated that the creative
artist is personal and subjective, whereas a critic is impersonal,
dispassionate, and detached.
- Though the creative and critical
faculties are logically distinct, psychologically they are interfused with
each other.
- There is a kind of criticism which
exists before art itself just as there is a kind of criticism which
follows art, taking art as its subject-matter.
- Thus, there is no antipathy but
close affinity between the critic and the creative artist. “Both poet and
critic draw their light from the sun of beauty and truth, and we may be
glad of both.” (Grierson)
- A good critic has the same
interest at heart as the artist possesses. His never failing sympathy and
intuition qualify him to speak on behalf of the artist. Alexander Pope
beautifully says, “Both must alike from Heaven derive their light, These
born to judge, as well as those to write.”
- Is literary criticism an art or an
exact science? Critics like I. A. Richards and Prof. Moulton aim at
scientific accuracy and scientific impartiality in their literary
criticism.
- According to D. H. Lawrence,
criticism can never be a science. In first place, criticism is ‘much too
personal’, and secondly, it is concerned with ‘values that science
ignores’.
* * * * *
Comments
Post a Comment