西方文学批评理论 PPT
西方文论课件ppt
CHAPTER 04
现代主义文论
定义与特点
定义
现代主义文论是20世纪初至中期的 主要文学理论思潮，它强调文学的创 新、实验和个体表达。
反传统
反对传统文学形式和规范，寻求新的 表达方式和结构。
形式主义
重视文学形式和语言，认为形式与内 容同等重要。
主观主义
强调个体经验和主观感受，认为文学 是个人情感和思想的表达。
和评价标准。
崇尚理性
强调理性、秩序和规范，主张文学作 品应该符合普遍的道德和审美标准。
强调模仿
认为文学创作应该模仿古人的优秀作 品，追求完美的艺术形式。
代表人物与作品
代表人物
亚里士多德、贺拉斯等。
代表作品
《诗学》、《论诗》等。
对后世的影响
对文艺复兴的影响
古典主义文论为文艺复兴时期的 文学创作提供了重要的理论支持 ，推动了欧洲文学的复兴和发展 。
特点
浪漫主义文论主张文学作品的创造性 和个性，强调情感、想象和自然的美 ，反对理性主义和机械主义，重视个 人经验和直觉。
代表人物与作品
代表人物
威廉·布莱克、华兹华斯、雪莱、雨 果等。
代表作品
《抒情歌谣集》、《德国狂欢节》、 《浮士德》等。
对后世的影响
对现代主义文论的影响
浪漫主义文论为现代主义文论提供了重要的 思想基础，推动了文学批评和理论的变革。
现代主义文论对文学语言和形式 的探索，对后来的文学理论产生 了深远的影响。
CHAPTER 05
后现代主义文论
定义与特点
定义
后现代主义文论是一种文学批评理论，它对现代主义的局限性和缺点提出了质疑，并试 图超越现代主义的理论框架。
特点
西方现代文学理论批评叙事学
西方现代文学理论批评:叙事学（narratology）又译“叙述学”，20世纪60年代西方出现的一种文学批评理论。
“叙事学”一词始见于法国国立科学研究中心研究员茨维坦.托多洛夫1969年发表的《〈十日谈〉语法》一书，“这部著作属于一门尚未存在的科学，我们暂且将这门科学取名为叙事学，即关于叙事作品的科学”（托多洛夫《〈十日谈〉语法》）。
法国叙事学家杰拉尔德.普兰斯说：“叙事学是对叙事文的形式和功能的研究”（《叙事学》）。
荷兰叙事学家米克.巴尔认为“叙事学是叙事文本的理论”（《叙述学：叙事理论导论》）。
美国叙事学家西摩.查特曼将叙事学视为“叙事文的结构研究”。
（《故事与话语》）新版《罗伯特法语词典》对叙事学所下的定义是：“关于叙事作品、叙述、叙述结构以及叙事性的理论。
”有关叙事学的界说还散见于其他论著和辞典，其定义虽不尽一致，但将叙事学看作对叙事文内在形式进行研究的理论这一点是共同的。
在法国，“叙事学”还有许多别称，比如“叙事作品结构分析”、“叙事作品语法”、“叙述符号学”、“叙事作品话语”、“叙事作品诗学”、“散文诗学”等。
叙事学的产生与现代语言学、俄国形式主义有密切关系。
费迪南.德.索绪尔《普通语言学教程》主张将语言学的研究对象转向语言而不是言语，并认为语言是一个不受外界条件制约的封闭的符号系统，这一符号系统的意义取决于其内部各成分之间的关系。
这些观念为叙事学提供了直接的参照和借鉴。
俄国形式主义倡导的文学的“科学性研究”，提出的“文学性”问题以及“材料与手法”、“本事与情节”等概念的区别，对叙事学也产生了深刻影响。
尤其是俄国民俗学家弗拉基米尔.普罗普首创的俄国民间故事的研究方法，更是刺激了结构主义叙事学家对叙事作品结构分析的兴趣和思考。
法国是叙事学的诞生地，结构主义叙事学家罗兰.巴特、托多洛夫、A.J.格雷马斯、克劳德.布雷蒙、热拉尔.热奈特等对叙事结构、叙述话语等作了严格、系统的研究和探索。
正是在结构主义叙事学的理论框架中形成了叙事学。
新编西方文论教程(第二版)PPT2
紧张的消除”。
三、精神紧张的消除
在文艺作品中，常常出现惨烈的故事与痛苦的场景，尤其是 在战争、犯罪、灾难之类题材的作品中这类作品的审美意义 何在？对此，在文艺理论史上占据主导地位的见解是亚里士 多德的．悲剧净化”说、康德的“崇高体验”说，等等。与
弗莱一方面强调文学的自足性，一方面又强调文学与文化、社会背景不 可分割，表面看来似乎是矛盾的，但实际上从弗莱的总体表述来看，他 的文艺观原本就包含两层意思。
Bruce McEwen（2000）提出，压力是“一个或一 第一些，对文体学是有在威整胁个的文事化背件景，上并形引成起的独身立体的或系行统为，它上有的自反己应的”发展运
学要素可依凭，弗的原型论也最受欢迎。
本章关键词
俄狄浦斯情结(Oedipus complex)：源出于古希腊悲剧《俄狄浦斯王 》，意为儿子生来即存在的对母亲的占有欲望，对父亲的嫉妒甚至怨 恨。弗洛伊德借用这一概念，强调人的性本能的普遍性和根深蒂固， 并认为这是人类罪恶感的来源，也是在多子女家庭中影响个人生活的 重要因素之一。
作B为ru艺ce术M的c现E象w是en有（启2发0的00。）当提前出的许，多压作力品是缺“乏一生个命或力和一 艺些术对性体，有与威单纯胁直的白事书件写，私人并经引验起、身缺体乏升或华行不为无上关的系。反应”
三、精神紧张的消除
弗洛伊德由本能欲望出发，不仅分析了文艺创作的奥妙，还 进而分析了文艺作品魅力构成的原因。他认为文艺作品之所 以会令人着迷，给人以享受和满足，根本原因在于欣赏者从 艺术作品中得到了本能欲望的满足。
第 七 讲 英美 新批评
二、新批评的文本细读方法
语义分析是新批评在方法论上的特点。新批评自 己把这种语义分析称为‚细读‛。 ‚细读‛，是指对文学文本、尤其是文本的语言 、语义，作尽可能详尽的分析和解释，通过这样 的解读，达到对文本蕴意的理解和感受。
LOGO
细读法close reading
LOGO
卞之琳：《断章》
优秀诗作的深层意蕴是不可穷尽的，可以从多个 层面使诗歌衍生出不同的含义来。不同的读者读 同一首诗，由于生活环境、文化传统、艺术观念 、鉴赏心境等的不同，会形成不同的审美期待， 产生全然不同的发现。 《断章》的魅力就在于这首诗的主旨朦胧性和 不确定性。（含混）
中国现代文学批评与新批评的关系
瑞恰兹曾6次到中国，在清华大学和北京大学任教 ，是中国外国文学教学的先驱。 燕卜荪1937～1940年、1947～1952在北大任教， 培养了王佐良等知名学者。 中国学者朱自清、钱锺书、郭绍虞、陈寅恪等人 都曾经用新批评的理论和方法研究过中国古典文 学。
LOGO
LOGO
（二）语境
新批评的语境和语言学说的语境不完全一样。 语言学的语境是指上下文，强调词语或句子的含 义只有在上下文中才能确定。 新批评的语境还指与文本词语‚同时再现的事件 的名称‛。 上下文构成的语境是共时性的、在现场的，新批 评的语境对文本而言是历时性的、不在现场的。 历GO
卞之琳：《断章》
李健吾先生认为，这首诗在‚装饰‛两字上做文 章，诗面呈浮的是不在意，暗地里却埋着说不尽 的悲哀——人生不过是互相装饰。
LOGO
卞之琳：《断章》
有人认为是一首热爱生活的积极乐观诗作。 有人认为是距离产生美的诗作等。
LOGO
细读分析举例之一：
主要的英美文学批评理论
一、英美新批评派英美新批评派是 3 o一 4 o年代形式主义流派的代表,是由俄国形式主义派生出来的。
前后经历三代批评家,其早期代表人物是英国人休姆,美国诗人庞德及诗人T· S·艾略特;第二代批评家有英国的燕卜荪,美国的兰色姆,泰特,布鲁克斯等;而第三代批评家主要是第二次世界大战后在美国出现的一些学者,主要代表人物是韦勒克和沃伦。
英美新批评派文论的特点主要表现在以文学作品为本体,着重研究文学作品。
新批评派认为2 0世纪以前的文论家机械地运用社会“起因研究法”,因袭生物学或病理学的概念、范畴来研究文学作品终归是“隔靴搔痒”,不得要领。
文学作品自身的特点.文学作品的美感效应,以及作品的想象世界是不能忽视的。
新批评派的文论家大都认为,文论家没有必要左顾右盼,文学的本体是作品,忽视作品研究的评论家,不可能达到文学研究的终极境界。
在韦勒克和沃论合著的.被称为新批评派总结的《文学理论》一书中,作者把文学研究分解成外部研究和内部研究。
认为文学和传记,文学和心理学,文学和社会.文学和思想。
文学和其他艺术之间的关系属于文学的外部研究。
文学批评不应该依附于哲学和历史,批评的着眼点应投向文学本身。
而在此之前,历史批评.道德批评、社会学批评在西方批评论坛占据主流地位。
新批评派认为文学批评应从文学作品的“本体”和语言结构角度进行批评,“本体论”可以说是新批评的理论核心。
新批评提倡本体的研究,认为文学的本体即作品。
作品本身是文学活动的本源与目的,作家的创作从作品出来,又回到作品中去,文学作品是一个自存自足的实体,无需外界的一切给予。
新批评认为文学批评不是作家的生平实录.不是复述作品的内容梗概,不是研究作品的历史背景,不是对作品的语义求证,不是评价作品的道德内容.更不是一般的书评,而是研究诗之所以为诗的“艺术技巧”。
新批评之新就在于它不同于以往的各种批评,批评的对象和重点已经从作品以外的历史背景,作家生平,作品的故事梗概等,移到了作品本身。
第十二章 英美新批评文论 (《西方文学理论》PPT课件)
第一节 艾略特、瑞恰慈和燕卜逊
4、【客观对应物】
为了做到“逃避感情”和“逃避个性”，艾略特在《哈 姆雷特》一文中，提到了著名的“客观对应物”的观点， 认为应该寻找客观对应物来表达作者的感情，借以成为 诊治浪漫主义情感放纵的药方。
客观对应物是指，诗人寻找到的把自身情感外在转化后 的某种媒介。
艾略特提出“客观对应物”的概念，是试图克服19世纪 文学中出现的主观主义与客观主义的对立，也是浪漫主 义与现实主义的对立。
西方文学理论
英美新批评文论
概述
一、【英美新批评】
英美新批评，也被称为“本体论批评”“文本批 评”“客观主义批评”等，是20世纪20年代肇始于英国、 30年代至60年代兴盛于美国的文学理论与批评流派。
它将文学批评的重点由时代合作者转向作品，认为文学 作品是一个独立的整体，倡导对文本的形式结构和意义 进行细读，推崇“科学化的”解读和客观主义批评。
概述
四、【英美新批评的代表人物】 英国： 艾略特、瑞恰慈、燕卜荪。 美国： 兰色姆、退特、布鲁克斯。
第一节 艾略特、瑞恰慈和燕卜荪
一、非个性与客观对应物
1、【艾略特】
艾略特是20世纪最有影响的诗人和批评家之一，出生于 美国，定居于英国。
注重对具体诗人的评价和鉴赏，也注重对文学全面、整 体的思考。
“张力”是新批评用来进行文本意义结构分析的一个概 念，由退特在《论诗的张力》一文中提出，用来概括诗 的突出性质和考察、评价诗的意义创造。
推特所说的张力是逻辑术语，是逻辑术语的外延和内涵 去掉前缀形成的，外延和内涵原本分别指概念的适用范 围和在概念中反映出的对象的本质属性。在退特的引申 中，外延指的是诗的一项之间概念上的联系，内涵指的 是诗歌的感情色彩或联想意义等，
第七章 浪漫主义文论 (《西方文学理论》PPT课件)
柯勒律治（1772— 1834）,英国著名浪漫 主义诗人和批评家。 其文论著作主要有 《文学生涯》、《莎 士比亚评论集》等。
第二节 华兹华斯与柯勒律治
（1）论想象
①他给“想象”确定的两个 内涵是统一的精神与融合的 魔力
想象是将作家的主动性与对 象的被动性在相当的深度与 限度上加以综合的“中间力 量”。
“诗人之作诗只受到一种限制，那就是，他必须 把直接的快感授给一个人，使之获得所期望于他 的见识。”
——华兹华斯：《〈抒情歌谣集〉序言》
第二节 华兹华斯与柯勒律治
（3）论诗的语言
①力主诗歌应该运用日常乡间语言。
“我也采用了这些乡下人的语 言（当然清除了其中那些似乎 是真正的缺点，清除了一切经 常会而且必然会使人厌恶或唾 弃的因素），因为此等人时时 刻刻都接触到最精彩的语言所 从出的最精彩的事物。”
——弗·施莱格尔：《文学史讲演》
第一节 施莱格尔兄弟和海涅
（2）在文学的内容方面， 弗·施莱格尔要求文学反映 时代，艺术应该发挥认识功 能。
他所说的对时代的反映、对 生命和社会的认识，都是经 过主观化了的认识，现实仅 仅是观念的化身，观念始终 是第一位的。
第一节 施莱格尔兄弟和海涅
“浪漫主义的诗是包罗万象的 进步的诗。它的使命不仅在于 把一切独特的诗的样式重新合 并在一起，使诗同哲学和雄辩 术沟通起来，它力求而且应该 把诗和散文、天才和批评、人 为的诗和自然的诗时而掺杂起 来、时而融合起来。
——柯勒律治：《文学传记》
第二节 华兹华斯与柯勒律治
“良知是诗才的躯体，幻 想是它的衣衫，运动是它 的生命，而想象则是它的 灵魂”
——柯勒律治：《文学传记》
第2讲,西方文论
第一、本体论批评
• 艾略特的非个人化理论 • 兰瑟姆的本体论批评 • 维姆萨特与比尔兹利的《意图谬误》、《情感 谬误》
艾略特的“非个人化”理论 （depersonalization）
诗不是放纵感情， 而是逃避感情，不是 表现个性，而是逃避 个性。
《传统与个人才能》
• 整个文学是个有机整体每一部具体的作品也是一个有机整体文 学家受到文学传统的深刻影响，不可能脱离文学传统而真正具 有个性 • 文学家应当消灭个性。 “艺术家的过程就是不停的自我牺牲，持续的个性泯灭。” “艺术家越高明，他个人的情感和创作的大脑之间分离得就越 彻底”。 “在氧气和二氧化硫发生化学反应生成硫酸的过程中，白金作 为催化剂，既不可或缺又本身不受任何影响。诗人创作时他的 思想犹如白金，既是创作的源泉又不介入作品中去。” • 非个人化还应当逃避文学家个人的情感。诗和其它文学作品是 表现情感的， “这种感情只活在诗里，而不存在于诗人的经历中。艺术的感 情是非个人的。”
俄国形式主义
时间： • 1915-1930 两个中心： • 莫斯科语言学学会 • 诗歌语言研究会 （奥波亚兹） 历史沿革： 俄国形式主义——捷克布拉格学派——法国结 构主义
两个重要代表人物
罗曼· 雅各布森 1896-1982
Viktor Shklovsky 1893-1984
文学性（literariness）
• 诗歌语言VS.实用语言 用新的术语置换西方传统文论中形式与内容的二元对立 材料和手法 故事和情节 彻底颠覆了西方传统文论中形式与内容的二元对立。 形式主义者认为：文学是形式的艺术。第一、内容不能 决定形式，内容不能创造形式；第二、形式有不受内 容支配的独立自主性；第三、形式可以决定内容，创 造内容。内容是形式的内容。
西方现代文学理论批评 故事(story,histoire)
西方现代文学理论批评: 故事（story，histoire）通常的理解如英国小说家兼批评家E.M.佛斯特所说：“故事是叙述按时间顺序排列的事件——午餐跟在早餐之后，星期二在星期一之后，腐烂在死亡之后，等等。
作为故事，只能有一个优点，那就是使听众想要知道接下去会发生什么事情。
反过来说，故事也只能有一个缺点，那就是使听众不想知道接下去会发生什么事情了……故事是最低级、最简单的文学有机体。
”（《小说面面观》）在现代叙事理论中，“故事指的是被一个叙述文本所唤起的各种事件和情况。
同情节（在俄国形式主义者和其他人那里）相反，它指的是处于时间先后顺序中的各种事件，而不管情节中对各种事件的重新安排。
”（罗伯特.史柯尔斯《符号学与解释》）也就是说，故事是未经任何叙述行为加工处理过的“客观的”事件和情况，相当于俄国形式主义所说的“本事”；或者“是指从作品文本的特定排列中抽取出来并按时间顺序重新构造的一些被叙述的事件，包括这些事件的参与者”。
（施洛米丝.里蒙-凯南《叙事虚构作品：当代诗学》）故事又是一个区分性概念。
热拉尔.热奈特认为，故事“由处于时间和因果秩序之中的、尚未被形诸语言的事件构成”，以区别于“叙述”和“叙事”；西摩.查特曼认为：“‘故事’包括事件、人物、背景，以及它们的安排”，以区别于“叙述话语”（转引自华莱士.马丁《当代叙事学》）。
故事与它如何被表达、被叙述并无直接的关系，正如克劳德.布雷蒙所说：“一个故事的题材可以充当一部芭蕾舞剧的剧情；一部长篇小说的题材可以搬到舞台或银幕上；一部电影可以讲给没有看过的人听。
一个人读到的是文字，看见的是形象，辨认的是姿势，而通过这些，了解到的却是一个故事，而且可能是同一个故事。
”（《叙述信息》）因此，施洛米丝.里蒙-凯南说：“故事是一种抽象形式，它来自：1.所讨论的作品文本的特定文体；2.作品文本所采用的语言；3.媒介或符号系统。
从故事着手而不是从记载故事的作品文本着手，我们便可以看清这样一个事实：故事是可以从一种媒介到另一种媒介，从一种语言到另一种语言，甚至在同一种语言内部转移的。
《英美新批评》课件
在全球化语境下的应用与发展
全球化语境为英美新批评提供了更广阔的应用和发展空间。 新批评理论在分析世界各地的文学作品时，能够提供一种跨 文化和跨语言的批评视角，促进文学的国际交流和理解。
新批评理论在全球化语境下，将更加注重比较文学的研究， 通过比较不同文化背景下的文学作品，揭示文学的普遍性和 差异性，推动文学的多样性和创新性。
对文学批评的贡献与影响
英美新批评对文学批评的贡献在于提供了一种注重文本细读和作品内在结构的分析方法。这种方法强 调对文本的独立性和自足性，推动了文学批评从外部研究转向内部研究。
比较诗学研究
新批评注重比较诗学研究，通过比较不同文化中的诗学思想和理论，揭示诗学的共性和 差异，推动诗学的交流和发展。
05 英美新批评的局限与挑战
CHAPTER
对形式主义的过度强调
要点一
总结词
过度关注文本的形式和结构，忽视作品的社会、历史和文 化背景。
要点二
详细描述
英美新批评派过于强调文本的形式和结构，将文学作品视 为独立的、自足的艺术品，忽视了作品所处的社会、历史 和文化背景对作品的影响。这种倾向导致了对文本的孤立 解读，限制了对作品更全面、深入的理解。
特点
英美新批评强调文学作品的独立性和完整性，认为文学作品是一个独立的符号系统，具有自身的价值 和意义。同时，它也注重对文本的语言、结构、意象等方面的细致分析，以揭示文本的深层含义和艺 术价值。
英美新批评的发展历程
起源
英美新批评起源于20世纪20年代的英国， 主要代表人物有I.A.理查兹、T.S.艾略特等。
二十世纪西方文艺批评理论
Twentieth Century Western Critical Theories 二十世纪西方文艺批评理论Zhu Gang朱刚上海外语教育出版社，20012005年第四次印刷IntroductionThis sourcebook comes out of a need for basic texts of the twentieth century Western literary and cultural theories. The current volume is meant solely for pedagogical purposes, i.e., for graduate courses on contemporary Western literary theory. Each unit forms a critical “school” (in the broad sense), starting with a critical survey of the school under discussion. For each critic, the sourcebook provides a sketchy introduction, a selection of the critic‟s work, some necessary notes to the texts (reduced to the minimum for a smooth reading.), followed by study questions based on the essay selected for better understanding and class discussion, and finally books and articles recommended for further reading.The book chooses to examine in a roughly chronological order some major Western critical theories of the twentieth century, from Russian Formalism in the early decades to, for instance, the Cultural Studies in the nineties. In addition to a close reading of some carefully selected texts and a survey of current knowledge in this field, the course seeks to introduce students to the major approaches to literature, to show what kind of knowledge is involved and what forms of inquiry exist in this area, how different means of analysis are used, and what their strengths and weaknesses are.The chief objective of the book is to raise the students‟ awareness of the imp ortance of being critical and of the critical theory, discuss with them some influential speculations on and critical approaches to literature, and use them in textual analysis. It will concentrate on a number of questions, such as the locus of literary meaning, the status of the text, the role of the reader, the function of language in literary exegesis, the referentiality of literature, and the relation of literature and society. These questions are of general interest to the students of literature, and of special help to MA students working on their dissertation.The selection of critics (the so-called “canon”) has been made on the bases of their representative character and their availability in Chinese university libraries. The works selected are among the most discussed by Chinese literary scholars and are helpful to students in interpreting literary texts. The assortment of critics into schools is unavoidably arbitrary. Barthes, for instance, should be more properly put under “Deconstruction”, and Said may also belong to “Cultural Studies.” The best policy is to pay more attention to the ideas expressed in the essays than to the labels assigned them. Owing to limits of space, the selections are too short, and the notes too scanty, to ensure good understanding. It is recommended that MA students who are going to write on theory or Ph.D. students of literature read the original work in its entirety.To understand our field of inquiry, a concise, tentative definition of terminology is necessary at the outset, however insufficient any such definition may seem to be today.First and foremost, what is literature? The question is extremely difficult to answer since literature seems to include everything verbally or orally recorded. But this is an important question because contemporary critical theory started with efforts at such a definition. That definition is a negative one: i.e., what is it that sets literature apart from non-literature? In other words, contemporary literary theory started with identifying specific qualities that make a piece of work literary, and all contemporary approaches to literature are answers, in one way or another, to the question of what literature is.Next, what is “theory”? As a field of intellectual inquiry, theory may be taken to be “a body of generalizations and principles, or an ideal or hypothetical set of facts and circumstances, developed in association with practice in a field of activity and forming its content as an intellectual discipline.” In other words, “theory” deals with things on abstract level (generalizations and principles), not in their concrete forms, though this abstraction is based on the actual practices. For instance, literary “theory”develops out of interpretation of concrete works of art. I t is an independent “discipline” because it has its own nature, scope of investigation, and methodology, though it is more and more difficult to identify what these really are. Most importantly, “theory” invites criticism and inquiry, itself being “ideal or hypothetical.”What is literary theory then? Simply put, it is “speculative discourse on literature and on practice of literature.” It may include reflections on or analysis of general principles and categories of literature, such as its nature and function; its relation to other aspects of culture; the purpose, procedures and validity of literary criticism; relation of literary text to their authors and historical contexts; or the production of literary meaning.But what is the difference between “literary theory” and “literary criticism?” A most concise answer would be: one is concerned with “theory” while the other “practice.” Wellek in fact defines “criticism” as “study of concrete works of art.” “Criticism,” we might say, includes “describing, interpreting and evaluating the meaning and effect that literary works have for competent but not necessarily academic readers.” Since “criticism” deals with the experience of reading, it is “not exclusively academic, but often personal and subjective.”A similar though in many ways different concept is aesthetics. The discipline is concerned with literature from a “philosophical” point of view, stressing its relation to the general concepts of art, beauty and value. It has limited relevance to practic al literary study or “criticism,” but has strong affinities with “critical theory” as both tend to take the work of art as “autonomous” and look for its specificities.“Scholarship” is a somewhat different concept. It goes beyond the reader‟s experienc e by referring to factors external to this experience, such as the genesis of the work or its textual transmission. It is often too positivistic to be “theoretical,” asking for detachment and rigor of a specialist.Finally, “critical theory” in this bo ok is used in its broad sense, an umbrella term for various critical approaches to literature and culture in the twentieth century. Its narrower sense refers to the Frankfurt School tradition, seen generally as “responses to the specifically emancipatory i nterest that enters the order of aesthetic and social pracitces.” It is to be noted that much of Frankfurt tradition has merged with recent “literary theory” as the “generic term” when the latter becomes more and more “critical” in nature.Some suggestions for how to read critical theory:i. Always keep at an arm‟s length from the theorists and theories. Always read with a critical eye open.ii. Always think of theory in relation to concrete literary works of art and try to use theory in textual interpretation.iii. Always think of theory in terms of the social reality that has produced it. Marxist perspective in this respect turns out to be helpful.The following reference books are recommended for the course. They are anthologies where more relevant texts are to be found, and introductory works on the theories to be discussed. These books may also appear in the “Further Reading.”Anthologies:Adams, Hazard ed. (1971), Critical Theory Since Plato.New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. Adams, Hazard & Leroy Searle (1986). Critical Theory Since 1965, Tallahassee: University Presses of Florida,Bate, Walter Jackson ed., Criticism: The Major Texts, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers, San Diego etc., 1970Borklund, Elmer, Contemporary Literary Critics, 2nd ed., Macmillan Publishers Limited, Hong Kong, 1982Davis, Robert Con eds. (1998) Contemporary Literary Criticism: Literary and Cultural Studies. New York: LongmanFokkema, D.W. & Elrud Kunne-Ibsch (1977). Theories of Literature in the Twentieth Century. London: C. Hurst & CompanyHandy, William J. & Westbrook, Max eds., Twentieth Century Criticism, The Major Statesments, The Free Press, New York, 1974Kaplan, Charles ed., Criticism: The Major Statements, St. Martin‟s Press, New York, 1975Latimer, Dan ed., Contemporary Critical Theory, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers, San Diego etc.Lodge, David (1972). 20th Century Literary Criticism, London: Longman Group Ltd.Newton, K. M. (1988). Twentieth-Century Literary Theory, A Reader, London: MacMillan Education Ltd.---(1992) Theory into Practice, A Reader in Modern Literary Criticism. NY: St. Martin‟s P.Rivkin, Lulie & Michael Ryan eds. (1998) Literary Theory: An Anthology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Inc.Trilling, Lionel ed., Literary Criticism, An Introductory Reader, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., New York etc., 1970Introduction:Culler, Jonathan (1997). Literary Theory. Oxford & New York: Oxford UPEagleton, Terry (1985). Literary Theory, An Introduction. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P.Jefferson, Ann & David Robey eds. (1986) Modern Literary Theory---A Comparative Introduction. New Jersey: Barnes & Noble BooksLeitch, Vincent B (1988). American Literary Criticism, from the 30s to the 80s. New York: Columbia UPSelden, Raman (1989). A Reader’s Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory. New York & London: Harvester WheatsheafSpikes, Michael P. (1997) Understanding Contemporary American Literary theory. Columbia: U of South Carolina PWebster, Roger (1996). Studying Literary Theory, An Introduction. London & New York: Arnold I would like to express my gratitude to the MA and Ph.D. students in my class all these years for their valuable contribution to this book. My thanks go in particular to Ms Zhu Xuefeng, Miss Tang Xiaomen and Miss Shen Xiaoni for their support in the preparation of the manuscript.Z. G.School of Foreign StudiesNanjing UniversityJan. 2001Contents PageIntroduction i Unit 1 Russian Formalism 11. V. Shklovsky, Art as Technique 32. J. Mukarovsky, Standard Language and Poetic Language 93. B. Eik enbaum, The Theory of the “Formal Method” 134. L. Trotsky, The Formalist School of Poetry and Marxism 17 Unit 2 Anglo-American New Criticism 231. T. S. Eliot, Tradition and the Individual Talent 252. W. K. Wimsatt, Jr. and M.C. Beardsley, The Intentional Fallacy 293. The Affective Fallacy 324. C. Brooks, Irony as a Principle of Structure 345. A. Tate, Tension in Poetry 38 Unit 3 Marxist Criticism 431. T. Eagleton, Literature and History 452. G. Lukács, Critical Realism and Socialist Realism 543. R. Williams: Determination 574. F. Jameson, Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act 615. The Prison-House of Language 65 Unit 4 Psychoanalytical Criticism 691. S. Freud, The Structures of the Mind 712. The Oedipus Complex 783. The Interpretation of Dreams 824. Creative Writers and Daydreaming 845. L. Trilling, Freud and Literature 886. J. Lacan, The Mirror Stage 91 Unit 5 Myth and Archetypal Criticism 961. C. G. Jung, The Principal Archetypes 982. The Concept of the Collective Unconscious 1023. N. Frye, The Archetypes of Literature 106Unit 6 Structuralism 1121. F. de Saussure, Nature of the Linguistic Sign 1142. C. Lévi-Strauss, The Structural Study of Myth 1173. R. Barthes, The Structuralist Activity 1214. T. Todorov, Definition of Poetics 125 Unit 7 Reader Criticism 1291. W. Iser, The Act of Reading 1312. H.R. Jauss, Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory 1353. S. Fish, Why No One‟s Afraid of Wolfgang Iser 1384. N.N. Holland, Reading and Identity 1415. D. Bleich, The Subjective Character of Critical Interpretation 145 Unit 8 Deconstruction 1501. J. Derrida, Structure, Sign, and Play 1522. Différance 1553. J. Hillis Miller, The Critic as Host 1584. A. P. Debicki, New Criticism and Deconstruction 1635. M. H. Abrams, The Deconstructive Angel 166 Unit 9 Feminist Criticism 1701. T. Moi, Sexual/ Textual Politics 1722. E. Showalter, A Literature of Their Own 1763. Representing Ophelia 1804. J. Kristeva, About Chinese Women 185 Unit 10 New Historicism 1921. M. Foucault, The Structures of Punishment 1942. S. Greenblatt, The Improvisation of Power 1973. J. Tompkins, Sentimental Power 2014. N. Armstrong and L. Tennenhouse, Representing Violence 206 Unit 11 Post-Colonial Studies 2121. A. Gramsci, The Prison Notebooks 2142. F. Fanon, Black Skin White Masks 2173. E. Said, Orientalism 2204. G. Viswanathan, Masks of Conquest 224 Unit 12 Gender Studies 2301. V. L. Bullough, Homosexuality, A History 2322. A. Jagose, Queer Theory, An Introduction 2363. M. Wittig, One Is Not Born a Woman 2394. E. K. Sedgwick, Epistemology of the Closet 2435. J. Butler, Gender Trouble 246Unit 13 Cultural Studies 2521. R. Hoggart, The Uses of Literacy 2542. S. Hall, Cultural Studies: Two Paradigms 2573. R. Williams, The Future of Cultural Studies 2614. M. Gottdiener, Disneyland: A Utopian Urban Space 2655. D. Wright, Racism in School Textbooks 271Unit 1 Russian FormalismIn the heyday of high modernism emerged a group of college students and young faculty in Moscow and Petersburg, Russia, whose interest was claimed to be literature per se. They were few in number, but their unmistakable insistence on the ideal status of literary study and stubborn pursuit for its realization has marked the beginning of a new era, and produced profound influence on the subsequent development of contemporary Western critical theory.It is generally believed that Formalism started in 1914 when Viktor Shklovsky publis hed “The Resurrection of the Word,” and ended with his essay “A Monument to Scientific Error” in 1930. Organizationally the formalists centered around two different though interrelated groups. One was “The Society for the Study of Poetic Language” (Opojaz), founded in 1916 by Shklovsky, Boris Eikhenbaum, Yury Tynyanov and others, whose interest was the general principles governing literature and distinguishing it from other forms of verbal expression. The other group was the Moscow Linguistic Circle, founded in 1915 by linguists like Roman Jakobson, which based literary study on linguistics by insisting on the differentiation between poetic and practical language.In spite of the apparent differences in their theoretical assumptions and critical practice, the two groups share one thing in common, namely, to “place the study of literature on a scientific footing by defining its object and establishing its own methods and procedures.” In other words, they were united in an effort to find the internal laws and principles that make a piece of literature literary, or the FORM of literature (hence the label of “formalism”, though Eikhenbaum for political reasons would rather prefer the word “specificity”) (Bennett 1979: 10).“Form” is a negative word, met hodologically, if not ideologically. That is, the formalists argued at the beginning for a strict separation of form and content and made repeated efforts to discredit the latter as a proper object of literary study by concentrating exclusively on the former. This radical separation posed difficult problems, theoretical as well as ideological, for the later formalists, and forced them to make compromises. The former “extra-aesthetic” materials (historical, biographical, sociological, or psychological) were treated as quasi-formal and put back again into the category of “form” in terms of foreground/ background. Here content was called upon only as a means of foregrounding form, and therefore had lost the value of its own ontological existence.For Shkl ovsky, there must be a quality which made form “formal” or literature “literary.” Here he and other formalists faced a difficult task of defining the peculiarity of literature. This peculiarity had been talked about ever since Aristotle in vague terms like “poetry” or “work of art,” simply because it seemed to defy any concrete explication. But for the formalist a concrete and unmistakable concept had to be found, so that the object of discussion (literature) might be put in a more clearly definedtheoretical framework. Shklovsky made a wise breakthrough by turning to language, as literature is basically a verbal art. He argued that literature differs from non literature for a quality called “literariness,” (though other formalists such as the Muscovites wou ld express it in different terms) manifested in its peculiar use of language, as “the language of poetry is ... a difficult, roughened, impeded language.” It is to be noted that this does not mean “poetic” language is necessarily a difficult language. The emphasis here, Shklovsky argued, is on the process of experience rather than on its final product, “the process of perception is an aesthetic end in itself and must be prolonged.”A.S. Pushkin and Maxim Gorky reversed the traditional literary/ ordinary language and therefore “roughened” their language by intentionally making it easier (Lemon & Reis 1965: 22, 12). Similar cases are numerous in different literatures. The Chinese poets in Tang Dynasty such as Li Po pushed for a plain and terse poetic language as a reaction to the dominant ornate poetic style. Similarly, William Wordsworth and Samuel Taylor Coleridge in the English Romanticism used “common language of the common people” for the “spontaneous overflow” of feelings as against the mannerism of the proceeding century.What follows then is the means by which this “literariness” is to be achieved. The formalists started with verbal art, but for a general theory of “specificity” applicable to all forms of art (painting, dancing, photography, architecture, etc.), they had to come to terms with a more universal principle for the “artfulness” of art. Hence the concept of “defamiliarization” (It is said that Shklovsky originally used “OCTPAHHEИE,” or “estrangement” in Russian. But the typesetter mistakenly turned the word into “OCTPAHEИE,” meaning “sharpening,” a beautiful mistake as it now comes to mean “to defamiliarize so as to sharpen”).Shklovsky may not be the first to raise the idea of defamiliarization, P.B. Shelley for instance says in “A Defence of Poetry” that poetry “makes familiar objects be as if they were not familiar.” But it is the Formalists who first made it, by a systemati c account, a poetic principle.If the Opojaz critics looked for “literariness” in the process of reading experience with individual texts, the Moscow linguists turned to more concrete rhetorical devices in structure, rhyme and rhythm for “poeticity.” Roman Jakobson, for instance, in “The Metaphoric and Metonymic Poles” believes that linguistic signs may be clustered around the poles of metaphor and metonymy. Realism in its emphasis on reflection is more metonymic while the avant guard literature is more metaphorical, or poetical.There is one important difference, however, between the Opojaz critics and their linguistic counterparts. While Shklovsky took “laying bare devices” at the expense of all the other literary constituents, Jakobson and Muk arovsky tried to be more inclusive in their idea of “foreground/ background”: a work of art is constituted not by the sheer number of devices, but by devices arranged in a hierarchy. In order to “foreground” a temporarily stable “dominant device,” all the other components of the work have to be present and work together. While Shklovsky finds it hard to account for change in literary form since this form is mechanical and static, and an increased number of devices would eventually lead to the disappearance of any noticeable device, the dynamic network of literary work proposed by the Russian linguists generates a theory of literary historiography: any change in literature is explained by the rearrangement of literary device, with the obsolete device retreating into the background to be foregrounded again, in a different form perhaps, in the future.Later Opojaz critics tried to redress the error they had made. Shklovsky, for instance, talks about literary history in terms of the relation of literary forms: the hegemonic form takes on the traces of the previously dominant form, which may expect to win back the dominance again. Here Shklovsky to a certain extent solves the problem of defamiliarization eventually turned into automatization. Tynyanov also t alks about the change in literary form in terms of “breaks”: literary forms replace one another more by struggle and breakthroughs than by direct inheritance. The idea is interesting because it in a way anticipates Thomas S. Kuhn‟s idea of paradigm shifts and Michel Foucault‟s idea of history. The idea of breakthrough may also account for the particular period when Russian Formalism flourished, a period in which Russian literature tried to break away from the European literary tradition, and Russian criticism to deviate from symbolism, realism, and naturalism.The most severe criticism of Formalism came from Marxism. Trotsky‟s remark that “the form of art is, to a certain and very large degree, independent, but the artist who creates this form, and the spectator who is enjoying it, are not empty machines” is a valid and forceful criticism. Bakhtin was also keen to point out that “if, when we isolate the ideological object, we lose sight of the social connections which penetrate it (of which it is the most subtle manifestation), if we detach it from the system of social interaction, then nothing of the ideological object will remain” (Bakhtin & Medvedev 1985: 77). The formalist idolization of an autonomous text was later described by Fredric Jameson as f alling into the “prison house of language.” In the same light, the British Marxist Terry Eagleton deconstructs the idea of an ordinary language shared by the whole community, since “[any] actual language consists of a highly complex range of discourses, differentiated according to class, region, gender, status and so on” (Eagleton 1985: 5). Even formalists themselves realized that isolation of literariness might create more problems than they claimed to have solved. Tynyanov, for instance, observed in 1924 that it was almost impossible to make an absolute definition of literature; Eikhenbaum also admitted in 1929 that the relation between and the function of the constituents of literature were changing all the time (Todorov 1988: 86).Erroneous as it was and notorious as it has now become, the heritage of Formalism is too large to be overlooked. The post-structuralist Stanley Fish redefines formalism in terms of “beliefs,” and the sixteen formalistic beliefs he has listed cover almost every aspect of our life (Fish 1989: 6). Fokkema also observes that almost every literary theory in Europe is inspired by Formalism in one way or another (Fokkema & Kunne-Ibsch 1977:11). After the most dismantling attack on formalism in the seventieth and eightieth, more and more critics realize today that “we find in the activity of the Opojaz group the challenge in their trying to make out of literary studies a homogeneous domain... As we observe, they succeeded to a very large extent. For this reason alone, it is important to accept the most enriching part of their heritage and to continue it, rather than to grasp its weak points and to criticize them. The latter is always the easiest task” (Matejka & Pomorska, 1978: 279)There are many ways to account for the rise of Russian formalism. The turbulent years under Tsarism had turned some literary scholars away from any political commitment, for instance; the European influences such as aestheticism, intuitionism and Saussurean linguistics had found ready followers in Russia to the ivory tower of language; and the early twentieth century scientism had a special appeal to the Formalists. Yet one is not to forget the Russian critical heritage which had “foregrounded” Formalism. “Formalism was, it is true, the first critical m ovement in Russia which attacked in systematic fashion the problems of rhythm and meter, of style and composition. But the interest in literary craft was not in itself a novel phenomenon in Russian critical thought...a rich indigenous tradition of form-con sciousness [goes] back as far as the Middle Ages” (Erlich 1965: 20). Russian Formalism formally ended in early 1930s, but Jakobson and his colleagues went on with their research, first in Prague and then in the US. In spite of the apparent similarities between Formalism and Anglo-American New Criticism, there is little evidence of mutual influence. However, RenéWellek, a major New Critic, collaborated with Jakobson in the Prague group in the 1930s. Formalism did not attract any critical attention from the Western academia until Erlich‟s publication of Russian Formalism, History - Doctrine in 1955 and Todorov‟s publication in 1965 of an anthology of Russian formalists, Theory of Literature, which enhanced the awareness of language and linguistic model for the French structuralists. Formalism had strong impact on the structuralism in the Soviet Union in the 1960s, especially the Tartu-Moscow group. Similar impact was also found in Czechoslovakia and Poland.Art as Technique(Viktor Borisovich Shklovsky, 1893-1984)Shklovsky is the leading Russian formalist theoretician and novelist. Graduate from St.Petersburg U and teacher at the Institute of Art History, he organized Opojaz andbecame its charter member, having “touched most of the fundamentals of Formalisttheory” and being “often the first to define a problem, and frequently [pointing] to itssolution.” Within a decade he proposed some of the most enduring concepts ofFormalism, such as defamiliarization (ostranenie), literariness, story/ plot (fabula/siuzhet), material/ device and laying bare of device. He is best remembered for hisanalysis of plot composition in terms of repetition, tautology, parallelism, double-plotting, opposition and false ending. From 1930s, he made more conventionalsociological studies on Tolstoy, and re-emerged in the 1960s with the reprints of hisearlier works and memoirs of Opojaz. “Art as Technique” (1917), a primary documentof the early Formalists, is often regarded as its manifesto. It “announces a break withth e only other …aesthetic‟ approach available at that time and in that place,” and “offersa theory of both the methodology of criticism and the purpose of art” by highlightingsome concepts central to the theoretical stance of the school in general, such asdefamiliarization and the distinction between poetic and ordinary language.“Art is thinking in images.” This maxim, which even high school students parrot, is nevertheless the starting point for the erudite philologist who is beginning to put together some kind of systematic literary theory. The idea, originated in part by Potebnya, has spread. “Without imagery there is no art, and in particular no poetry,” Potebnya writes. And elsewhere, “poetry, as well as prose, is first and foremost a special way of thinking and knowing.”Poetry is a special way of thinking; it is precisely, a way of thinking in images, a way which permits what is generally called “economy of mental effort,” a way which makes for “a sensation of the relative ease of the process.” Aesthetic feeling is the reaction to this economy. This is how the academician Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky, who undoubtedly read the works of Potebnya attentively, almost certainly understood and faithfully summarized the ideas of his teacher. Potebnya and his numerous disciples consider poetry a special kind of thinking--- thinking by means of images; they feel that the purpose of imagery is to help channel various objects and activities into groups and to clarify the unknown by means of the known.Nevertheless, the definition “Art is thinking in images,” which means (I omit the usual middle terms of the argument) that art is the making of symbols, has survived the downfall of the theory which supported it. It survives chiefly in the wake of Symbolism, especially among the theorists of the Symbolist movement.Many still believe, then, that thinking in images---thinking, in specific scenes of “roads and landscape” and “furrows and boundaries”1--- is the chief characteristic of 1An illusion to Vyacheslav Ivanov‟s Furrows and Boundaries (Moscow, 1916), a major statement of Symbolist theory.。
文学批评PPT课件(29页)
11
（三）社会历史批评
· 强调文学与社会生活的关系，认为文学是再 现生活并为一定的社会历史环境所形成的， 因而文学作品的主要价值在于它的社会认识 功用和历史意义
· 分析、理解和评价作品，必须将作品产生的 时代背景、历史条件以及作家的生活经历等 与作品联系起来考察
批评模式的区别。 5. 立足中国的社会历史语境，简析文化批评出现的必然性
与合理性。
29
——约翰· 马勒：《心理学和文学》
16
（八）心理学批评
弗洛伊德的精神分析学派：
· 本我、自我、超我的三分心理结构 · 本能冲动凭借艺术创造达到“升华”
格式塔心理学派的完形心理学：
· 图形和背景、邻近原则、类似原则、良好完形原则 和闭合原则等
· 整体不等于部分的总和，整体是先于部分而决定各 个部分的性质和意义的
9
（一）伦理道德批评
伦理道德批评是以一定的道德意识及 其由之而形成的伦理关系作为规范来评价 作品，以善、恶为基本范畴来决定对批评 对象的取舍。这种批评着重于对文学作品 的道德意识性质和品位的评价，实现作品 的伦理价值及道德教化作用。
10
（二）伦理道德批评
伦理道德批评具有历史的久远性
· 传统 孔子：“诗三百，一言以蔽之，曰：思无邪。” 柏拉图：“作品须对我们有益；须只模仿好人的 言语，并且遵守我们原来替保卫者们 设计教育时所定的规范。”
7
（二）文学批评的思想标准和艺术标准
思想性
· 高度的真实性 · 进步的倾向性 · 积极健康的情感性
艺术性
·文体的评价 ·艺术形象的评价 ·意蕴批评
8
第二节 文学批评的模式
西方现代文学理论批评 形式主义批评
西方现代文学理论批评:形式主义批评（formalist criticism）英美批评家通常用这个术语指称“新批评派”的理论与实践。
1951年克林思.布鲁克斯在论辩中直言不讳地承认新批评派是“形式主义批评家”，“主要关注的是作品本身”。
他说：“为了对作品本身作出评价，形式主义批评家提出两点假设：一、假定作者的真正意图就是他在作品中实际表现出的意图；也就是说，只有作者在作品中实现了的意图才能算数，至于作者写作时怎样设想，或者作者现在回忆起当初如何设想，都不能作为依据；二、假定阅读作品的是一位理想读者，也就是说，不去注意不同读者对作品的各种不同的理解，而是努力找到一个中心立足点，以它为基准来研究诗歌或小说的结构。
”（《形式主义批评家》）威尔弗雷德.L.古尔灵等则说：“形式主义批评的唯一目的是发现和解释文学作品的形式。
这种批评方法把文学本身看作是独立的，因此文学作品以外的考虑，如作者的生平、作者所处的时代、作品对社会、政治、经济和心理等方面的意义，相对来说是不重要的。
”“形式主义批评家所研究的核心问题可以简述为：文学作品是什么？文学作品的形式和效果是怎样的？这些形式和效果是如何实现的？这些问题的答案都应该直接来自作品文本。
”（《文学批评方法手册》）这种批评被认为是“当代最有影响的批评模式”。
（魏伯.司各特《文艺批评的五种模式》）西方现代文学理论批评:俄国形式主义（Russian Formalism）“形式主义一词从它的对手加给它的贬义来说，指的是1915年到1930年期间在俄国出现的一种文学批评潮流。
形式主义理论是结构语言学的起始，至少是布拉格语言学会所代表的潮流的起始。
”（茨维坦.托多洛夫《俄苏形式主义文论选编说明》）这个批评潮流是由维克托.什克洛夫斯基、鲍里斯.艾亨鲍姆、尤里.图尼亚诺夫、奥西普.勃里克等人组成的彼得格勒诗歌语言研究会和由罗曼.雅各布森、鲍里斯.托马舍夫斯基等人组成的莫斯科语言学学会来推动的。
第九章 19世纪末20世纪初文论 (《西方文学理论》PPT课件)
丹纳的其他观点：
丹纳第一次把作家纳入一个更大的范围之内研究其创作 的动力学和因果关系。作家和艺术家的特色，不再仅仅 归之于神秘难以言说的天才，而属于自然和社会总体结 构之一部分。
三、 诗歌语言论
瓦雷里（1871-1945）是法国著名的 诗人和哲学家，1925年被选为法兰 西的院士。瓦雷里年轻时与马拉美 交往密切，深受前辈诗人的影响， 并成为马拉美哲学最杰出的继承人。 其代表作有诗集《海滨墓园》和五 卷《文艺杂谈》。
与马拉美一样，瓦雷里也对浪漫主义的诗歌感情论和灵 感论颇为怀疑。在诗歌形式上，他完全支持古典主义的 和谐、固定的形式、格律和各种限制。
阿波罗是古希腊神话中的太阳 神，是主神宙斯与暗夜女神勒 托所生之子。他代表的是优雅、 单纯和理性，是梦幻的爱，犹 如人们常常在憧憬和幻想中建 造一个完美理想的乐园。
狄奥尼索斯是古希腊的 牧羊神和酒神，代表的 是酒醉、非理性、冲动 与狂欢。现代典型的酒 神精神的表现场景是足 球场和狂欢节等，狂欢 的人在巨大的悲喜的冲 击之下激动不已，融入 到群体之中。
关于日神精神：
日神阿波罗代表的是梦境。人类在梦境制造美好的幻象， 给我们带来宁静的快感，体现了个体的原则，它的表现 形式是幻想和外观，故而日神代表造型艺术。日神精神 代表的是属于个人梦幻的世界，当个体的原则突然被打 破的时候，人们就会投入一种“忘我”的境地，在群体 的喜悦之中感受到沉醉的狂喜。
关于酒神精神： 酒神艺术的代表是音乐，因为音乐没有形象，应和的是
内心的节奏，它的表现形式是狂喜和忘我。在狂喜中， “随着激情的高涨，主观逐渐化入浑然忘我之境”。
第三章 文艺复兴文论 (《西方文学理论》PPT课件)
字面意义和寓言意义
但丁认为，《圣经》中的这句诗是多义的，除了字面意 义之外，还有另外三种意义，即讽喻意义、道德意义和 神秘意义，这三种意义可以归并为一种，统一命名为讽 喻意义或寓言意义。
在但丁之前，象征寓意理论早已流行，并主要用来解释 《圣经》。如阿奎那就曾指出，《圣经》具有字面义、 寓言义、道德义和神秘义四种意义。
各种文化的影响
首先是古希腊罗马文化的影响。1453年，东罗马帝国灭 亡，大批学者携带着古希腊的学术资料逃到意大利，15、 16世纪在罗马废墟上又发掘出许多古希腊罗马时期的艺 术珍品，这些与中世纪神学迥然有异的古代学术著作和 艺术品“在惊讶的西方面前展示了一个新世界——希腊 古代；在它的光辉的形象面前，中世纪的幽灵消逝了； 意大利出现了出人意料的艺术繁荣”。
但丁继承了上述观点，但又力图摆脱神学的烦琐，将诗 的意义简化归并为两种，即字面意义和寓言意义。
对《神曲》寓意的解释
在中世纪，神学家或《圣经》的阐释者通常认 为，只有《圣经》或基督教文学才具有多义性 和寓言性，一般的世俗文学则只具有字面意义。
但丁则明确指出，自己以意大利俗语创作的 《神曲》同样是多义的，同样具有寓言性。
文学的辉煌成就
这一时期的文学创作渗透着强烈的人文主义精神，各国 文学逐渐从神学观念中解放出来，普遍关注世俗生活， 生机勃勃的人取代了神和教士成为文学的主角。
这一时期的文学创作还体现了欧洲各主要国家的民族觉 醒意识与民族独立要求，绝大多数人文主义作家自觉以 本国、本民族语言进行创作，奠定了欧洲各主要国家民 族语言和民族文学的基础。
一、对《诗学》的阐释
在《亚里士多德〈诗学〉的诠释》中，卡斯特尔维屈罗 对亚里士多德的《诗学》进行了逐章逐节的评述。他的 评述既是对亚里士多德文学思想的阐发，也包含着他自 己的独创性见解。