This website is dedicated to English Literature, Literary Criticism, Literary Theory, English Language and its teaching and learning.
“Literary Theory, Criticism, and History” by Rene Wellek: Summary and Critique
“Literary Theory, Criticism, and History” by René Wellek first appeared in The Sewanee Review in Winter 1960, published by Johns Hopkins University Press.
Introduction: “Literary Theory, Criticism, and History” by Rene Wellek
“Literary Theory, Criticism, and History” by René Wellek first appeared in The Sewanee Review in Winter 1960, published by Johns Hopkins University Press. In this seminal article, Wellek distinguishes the interrelated but distinct fields of literary theory, criticism, and history. He advocates for their collaboration, emphasizing that literary theory involves the principles and criteria of literature, criticism deals with the interpretation and evaluation of individual works, and history examines literature in its temporal and cultural contexts. Wellek critiques efforts to subsume these disciplines into one or reduce them to purely historical or critical endeavors, defending the necessity of theoretical inquiry in understanding literature as a systematic art form. The work remains a cornerstone in literary studies, urging a balanced approach to evaluating literature’s aesthetic, historical, and theoretical dimensions. This piece underscores the importance of integrating these perspectives to enrich the study and appreciation of literary works, advancing the broader discourse in humanities.
Summary of “Literary Theory, Criticism, and History” by Rene Wellek
Key Themes and Insights:
Distinction of Literary Disciplines Wellek emphasizes the differentiation among literary theory, literary criticism, and literary history, asserting their interdependence but distinct roles. Literary theory explores the principles and criteria of literature, criticism interprets and evaluates works, and history situates literature in its historical context (pp. 1-3).
Collaboration Between Disciplines Wellek argues that the three disciplines—literary theory, criticism, and history—“implicate each other so thoroughly as to make inconceivable literary theory without criticism or history, or criticism without theory or history” (p. 2).
Critique of Terminological Confusion The article critiques the terminological inconsistencies across languages. For example, the German term “Literaturwissenschaft” retains a broad meaning, while English terms like “literary theory” and “poetics” have narrower or misleading connotations (pp. 3-4).
Theory’s Role in Literary Studies Literary theory is positioned as vital to understanding literature as a systematic and intellectual pursuit. Wellek defends theory against efforts to subordinate it to history or criticism (p. 5).
Response to Northrop Frye Wellek acknowledges Northrop Frye’s contributions to literary theory but critiques Frye’s attempt to isolate literary theory as the supreme discipline while diminishing the roles of criticism and history (pp. 6-7).
Rejection of Pure Historicism Wellek refutes extreme historicism, which he sees as overly relativistic and prone to antiquarian pedantry. He argues for integrating history into literary analysis without reducing literature to historical artifacts (pp. 8-10).
Defending Close Reading While acknowledging the flaws of close reading, Wellek asserts its indispensability for advancing literary understanding, calling it a fundamental tool for interpretation (p. 11).
Against Absolute Relativism Wellek criticizes complete relativism, arguing that it leads to skepticism and undermines meaningful evaluation. He advocates for a balanced approach that recognizes universal aesthetic values while accounting for historical and cultural contexts (pp. 14-15).
Vision for Unified Literary Study Wellek concludes by advocating a unified literary approach where theory, criticism, and history coexist and inform each other. He likens literature to an “imaginary museum” that transcends time and space, asserting humanity’s defiance of impermanence (pp. 18-19).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Literary Theory, Criticism, and History” by Rene Wellek
Term/Concept
Definition/Explanation
Key Reference/Explanation in Text
Literary Theory
The study of principles, categories, and criteria of literature; the systematic framework for understanding literature.
“Literary theory” is the study of the principles of literature, its categories, criteria, and the like (p. 2).
Literary Criticism
Analysis and evaluation of specific literary works; focuses on interpretation and judgment of individual texts.
“Literary criticism” (primarily static in approach) is distinct yet related to literary theory and history (p. 2).
Literary History
Situates literature within historical and cultural contexts, analyzing its evolution and chronological order.
“History” examines literature as a series of works arranged in a chronological order and as integral parts of the historical process (p. 2).
Historicism
The approach that emphasizes understanding literature within its historical and cultural context, often critiqued for relativism.
Critiqued for leading to “antiquarian pedantry” and devaluing the universal aspects of art (pp. 8-10).
Close Reading
A detailed, focused analysis of a text’s structure and meaning, emphasizing the text itself over external context.
“Close reading… is surely here to stay, as any branch of knowledge can advance and has advanced only by careful inspection” (p. 11).
Systematic Knowledge
Literature studied as a coherent system, with its principles and values interconnected.
“A theory of literature… must ultimately aim at systematic knowledge about literature” (p. 5).
Implicitly supports the interaction between the critic and the text, emphasizing judgment and interpretation by the reader.
“The critic must analyze, interpret, and evaluate it; he must, in short, be a critic in order to be a historian” (p. 14).
Aesthetic Theory
Critiques relativism and reasserts the need for universal aesthetic standards for evaluating literature.
“There is a hierarchy of viewpoints… evaluation grows out of understanding: correct evaluation out of correct understanding” (p. 17).
Interdisciplinary Literary Studies
Proposes collaboration between literary theory, criticism, and history to enrich literary analysis and interpretation.
“The three disciplines… implicate each other thoroughly, making inconceivable one without the others” (p. 2).
Philosophical Hermeneutics
Addresses the role of the critic’s subjectivity and argues for objective standards to counteract extreme relativism.
“Men can correct their biases… rise above temporal and local limitations, aim at objectivity, arrive at some knowledge and truth” (p. 14).
Canon Formation
Engages with the debates around the literary canon, arguing for the acknowledgment of universally recognized classics.
“There is… a very wide agreement on the great classics: the main canon of literature” (p. 16).
Universal Humanism
Advocates for the universality of literature, asserting that works from diverse cultures resonate with shared human experiences.
“There is a common humanity which makes every art remote in time and place… accessible and enjoyable to us” (p. 18).
Examples of Critiques Through “Literary Theory, Criticism, and History” by Rene Wellek
Literary Work
Type of Critique
Application of Wellek’s Concepts
Reference from Article
Milton’s Poetry
Evaluation and ranking of works based on their intellectual and aesthetic richness.
Wellek critiques the rejection of value judgments in Frye’s Anatomy of Criticism, emphasizing that Milton offers deeper intellectual engagement than lesser poets like Blackmore.
“Milton is a more rewarding and suggestive poet to work with than Blackmore” (p. 6).
Shakespeare’s Plays
Balancing historical context with intrinsic textual analysis for interpretation.
Wellek critiques pure historical readings that ignore a work’s intrinsic values, emphasizing the interplay between history and criticism in understanding Shakespeare.
“We cannot simply interpret Hamlet in terms of the hypothetical views of Shakespeare or his audience” (p. 15).
Marvell’s “Horatian Ode”
Historical context as a supplementary tool for understanding, not as definitive.
Discussing Cleanth Brooks’s interpretation, Wellek shows how historical information aids textual understanding while maintaining the poem’s autonomy as a work of art.
“The poem has to be read as a poem… historical evidence cannot finally determine what the poem says” (p. 7).
Herbert’s “Sacrifice”
Critique of misinterpretations stemming from arbitrary or speculative readings.
Wellek highlights the need for a balance between historical context and textual fidelity, critiquing Empson’s overly speculative analysis of Herbert’s poem.
“Miss Tuve seems right in insisting that ‘I must climb the tree’ means only ‘I must ascend the cross'” (p. 9).
Criticism Against “Literary Theory, Criticism, and History” by Rene Wellek
Ambiguity in Defining Disciplinary Boundaries While Wellek emphasizes the distinctions among literary theory, criticism, and history, critics argue that his definitions are sometimes vague and that these disciplines are more fluid in practice than he acknowledges.
Overemphasis on Systematic Knowledge Critics of structuralist or formalist approaches might argue that Wellek’s focus on “systematic knowledge” risks reducing literature to abstract principles, neglecting its emotional, cultural, and individual significance.
Limited Engagement with Postmodern and Non-Western Perspectives Wellek’s framework heavily relies on Western aesthetic and philosophical traditions, potentially marginalizing postmodern theories or non-Western literary approaches.
Resistance to Radical Historicism While Wellek critiques extreme historicism, some scholars argue that his stance underestimates the importance of socio-political and cultural contexts in shaping literature.
Dismissal of Relativism Wellek’s critique of relativism is seen by some as overly rigid, dismissing the valuable insights that historical and cultural relativism can provide in understanding diverse literary traditions.
Neglect of Reader-Response and Subjectivity His focus on systematic and objective analysis has been criticized for neglecting the subjective experience of readers and the variability of interpretations across audiences.
Potential Hierarchization of Literary Disciplines Critics suggest that Wellek implicitly prioritizes theory over criticism and history, despite his stated intention to treat all three disciplines as equally significant.
Resistance to New Theoretical Trends Wellek’s arguments appear rooted in mid-20th-century literary debates, potentially limiting their relevance to later theoretical developments such as post-structuralism and feminist theory.
Insufficient Attention to Popular or Marginalized Literatures His focus on canonical works and “great classics” has been criticized for excluding popular, marginalized, or experimental literary forms from scholarly consideration.
Representative Quotations from “Literary Theory, Criticism, and History” by Rene Wellek with Explanation
“Literary theory is the study of the principles of literature, its categories, criteria, and the like.”
This defines literary theory as the systematic exploration of the structures and norms that govern literature, laying a foundation for analytical and evaluative approaches in literary studies.
“Literary theory without criticism or history, or criticism without theory or history, or history without theory and criticism, is inconceivable.”
Wellek emphasizes the interdependence of the three disciplines, arguing that they are essential and inseparable for a holistic understanding of literature.
“The term ‘literary theory’ is preferable to ‘science of literature’ because ‘science’ in English has become limited to natural science.”
Wellek critiques the term “science of literature” for its misleading implications, preferring “literary theory” as it better encapsulates the humanistic and evaluative aspects of studying literature.
“Criticism is conceptual knowledge, or aims at such knowledge. It must ultimately aim at systematic knowledge about literature, at literary theory.”
Criticism, for Wellek, is not mere opinion but a structured, systematic pursuit of knowledge that contributes to the development of literary theory.
“A literary work of art is a verbal structure of a certain coherence and wholeness.”
This quotation reflects Wellek’s formalist leanings, asserting that literature must be studied as a coherent verbal artifact, independent of external biographical or historical contexts.
“The assumption of one eternal, narrowly defined standard had to be abandoned…but complete relativism is equally untenable.”
Wellek rejects both absolutism and extreme relativism, advocating for a balanced approach that recognizes enduring aesthetic standards while allowing for historical and cultural variability.
“Close reading has led to pedantries and aberrations…but it is surely here to stay.”
While acknowledging the limitations and excesses of close reading, Wellek defends its necessity as a methodological cornerstone of literary analysis.
“History cannot absorb or replace theory, while theory should not even dream of absorbing history.”
Wellek underlines the distinct but complementary roles of history and theory, advocating for their collaborative yet independent contributions to literary studies.
“Evaluation grows out of understanding: correct evaluation out of correct understanding.”
This highlights Wellek’s belief in the foundational role of interpretive accuracy in making sound evaluative judgments about literature.
“Literature…is a chorus of voices—articulate throughout the ages—which asserts man’s defiance of time and destiny.”
Wellek celebrates the timeless and universal nature of literature, portraying it as a collective human achievement that transcends historical and cultural boundaries.
Suggested Readings: “Literary Theory, Criticism, and History” by Rene Wellek
Rowlett, John L., editor. “Reviewing Criticism: Literary Theory.” Genre Theory and Historical Change: Theoretical Essays of Ralph Cohen, University of Virginia Press, 2017, pp. 122–36. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1v2xtv6.12. Accessed 16 Nov. 2024.
Galinsky, Hans. “Literary Criticism in Literary History: A Comparative View of the ‘Uses of the Past’ in Recent American and European Histories of American Literature.” Comparative Literature Studies, vol. 1, no. 1, 1964, pp. 31–40. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40245625. Accessed 16 Nov. 2024.
TOBER, KARL. “THE MEANING AND PURPOSE OF LITERARY CRITICISM.” Colloquia Germanica, vol. 1, 1967, pp. 121–41. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23980066. Accessed 16 Nov. 2024.
