Preface寒假里我接受了下學期講授漢語言文學專業英語這樣一個任務，于是便開始了這方面的準備工作。首先是落實教材，經過多種渠道查閱，到目前為止新聞學、經濟學、法學等很多專業都已經有了自己的專業英語教材，而漢語言文學專業還不曾出現一本這樣的的英語教材，因此必須自己動手來編選一本這樣的教材。漢語言文學專業英語為何物？在此之前可以說我們很多人都很模糊，我個人的教育履歷也不曾接受過這方面的課程和學習，因此只能根據相關資料以及個人的理解、思考來完成。首先是專業詞匯編選，開始我想把專業詞匯按照相關課程分類細化，這樣會讓學生更明晰，但是真正做起來很難只得放棄，因為課程交叉很緊密，一個單詞可能在很多課程中出現。最后我只好根據專業特點把詞匯主要分為兩個方面，一是語言學詞匯，一是文學詞匯，這其實也就囊括了整個漢語言文學專業的課程，這兩類詞匯以字母順序排列，以附錄形式出現，以供學生查閱、識記。按照院里要求，完成這項工作其實也就算完成了任務。但是我總覺得作為一本講義和一門課程，作為英語學習，僅有這樣一本詞匯手冊是遠遠不夠的，必須有相關的文章作為支撐。于是我便開始了文章的編選，做這樣一件工作很是艱難的，一方面文章很多如何遴選和分類，二是確定的文章網上搜不到只得敲擊鍵盤一個字母一個字母的完成，這些都需要大量的時間。最后我將文章分為四大類四個單元，即語言學理論、文學理論、中國文學、外國文學。根據課時和教學實際每類只選兩篇代表性文章，借助這些文章一方面學習了英語，更重要的是我試圖讓學生初步了解自己所學的專業，懂得她的特點和魅力，養成自己對專業的興趣，為后面的專業學習奠定根底。由于時間限制，每篇文章所需要的要素只得在講課中完成。最后所附的書目一方面說明我所借鑒的資料，另一方面也是提供應學生的學習參考書。整個寒假的大局部時間都耗在了這樣一件工作上，由于沒有現成的教材可借鑒，也由于時間的限制，更由于自己一個人孤軍奮戰和水平所限，呈現在大家眼前的這本姑且稱之為教材的文本無疑顯得不夠成熟和亟待完善，因此需要更多人的批評和指教。我當然希望這樣一本不成熟的講義能對學生的專業英語學習有所幫助。UnitOne:TheoryofLinguisticsText1LanguageandLiteratureEdwardSapirLanguagesaremoretousthansystemsofthought-transferenceTheyareinvisiblegarmentsthatdrapethemselvesaboutourspiritandgiveapredeterminedformtoallitssymbolicexpression．Whentheexpressionisofunusualsignificance，wecallit1iterature.Artissopersonalanexpressionthatwedonotliketofeelthatitisboundtopredeterminedformofanysort．Thepossibilitiesofindividualexpressionareinfinite，languageinparticularisthemostfluidofmediumsYetsomelimitationtheremustbetothisfreedom，someresistanceofthemedium．IngreatartthereistheillusionofabsolutefreedomTheformalrestraintsimposedbythematerial--paint，black，andwhite，marble，pianotones，orwhateveritmaybe—arenotperceived；itisasthoughtherewerealimitlessmarginofelbow-roombetweentheartist’sfullestutilizationofformandthemostthatthematerialisinnatelycapableof.Theartisthasintuitivelysurrenderedtotheinescapabletyrannyofthematerial，madeitsbrutenaturefuseeasilywithhisconception.Thematerial“disappears’’preciselybecausethereisnothingintheartist’sconceptiontoindicatethatanyothermaterialexistsForthetimebeing，he，andwewithhim，moveintheartisticmediumasafishmovesinthewater，obliviousoftheexistenceofanalienatmosphereNosooner,however，doestheartisttransgressthelawofhismediumthanwerealizewithastartthatthereisamediumtoobey.LanguageisthemediumofliteratureasmarbleorbronzeorclayarethematerialsofthesculptorSinceeverylanguagehasitsdistinctivepeculiarities，theinnateformallimitations--andpossibilities--ofoneliteratureareneverquitethesameasthoseofanotherTheliteraturefashionedoutoftheformsandsubstanceofalanguagehasthecolorandthetextureofitsmatrixTheliteraryartistmayneverbeconsciousofjusthowheishinderedorhelpedorotherwiseguidedbythematrix，butwhenitisaquestionoftranslatinghisworkintoanotherlanguage，thenatureoftheoriginalmatrixmanifestsitselfatonce.Allhiseffectshavebeencalculated,orintuitivelyfelt，withreferencetotheformal“genius’’ofhisownlanguage；theycannotbecarriedoverwithoutlossormodification.Croceisthereforeperfectlyrightinsayingthataworkofliteraryartcanneverbetranslated．Neverthelessliteraturedoesgetitselftranslated，sometimeswithastonishingadequacy.Thisbringsupthequestionwhetherintheartofliteraturetherearenotintertwinedtwodistinctkindsorlevelsofart——ageneralizednon—linguisticart．whichcanbetransferredwithoutlossintoanalienlinguisticmedium，andaspecificallylinguisticartthatisnottransferable1believethedistinctionisentirelyvalid，thoughwenevergetthetwolevelspureinpractice．Literaturemovesinlanguageasamedium，butthatmediumcomprisestwolayers，thelatentcontentoflanguage--ourintuitiverecordofexperience--andtheparticularconformationofagivenlanguage--thespecifichowofourrecordofexperienceLiteraturethatdrawsitssustenancemainly—neverentirely--fromthelower,sayaplayofShakespeare’s，istranslatablewithouttoogreatalossofcharacterIfitmovesintheupperratherthaninthelowerlevel—afairexampleisalyricofSwinburne’s。一itisasgoodasuntranslatable．Bothtypesofliteraryexpressionmaybegreatormediocre.Thereisreallynomysteryinthedistinction.Itcanbeclarifiedalittlebycomprisingliteraturewithscience.Ascientifictruthisimpersonal，initsessenceitisuntincturedbytheparticularlinguisticmediuminwhichitfindsexpression.ItcanasreadilydeliveritsmessageinChineseasinEnglish.Neverthelessitmusthavesomeexpression，andthatexpressionmustneedsbealinguisticone.Indeedtheapprehensionofthescientifictruthisitselfalinguisticprocess，forthoughtisnothingbutlanguagedenudedofitsoutwardgarb.Thepropermediumofscientificexpressionisthereforeageneralizedlanguagethatmaybedefinedasasymbolicalgebraofwhichallknownlanguagesaretranslations.Onecanadequatelytranslatescientificliteraturebecausetheoriginalscientificexpressionisitselfatranslation.Literaryexpressionispersonalandconcrete，butthisdoesnotmeanthatitssignificanceisaltogetherboundupwiththeaccidentalqualitiesofthemedium.Atrulydeepsymbolism，forinstance，doesnotdependontheverbalassociationsofaparticularlanguagebutrestssecurelyonanintuitivebasisthatunderliesalllinguisticexpression.Theartist’s“intuition”，touseCroce’sterm，isimmediatelyfashionedoutofageneralizedhumanexperience--thoughtandfeeling--ofwhichhisownindividualexperienceisahighlypersonalizedselection.Thethoughtrelationsinthisdeeperlevelhavenospecificlinguisticvesture；therhythmsarefree，notbound，inthefirstinstance，tothetraditionalrhythmsoftheartist’slanguage.Certainartistswhosespiritmoveslargelyinthenon-linguistic〔better,inthegeneralizedlinguistic〕layerevenfindacertaindifficultyingettingthemselvesexpressedintherigidlysettermsoftheiracceptedidiom．Onefeelsthattheyareunconsciouslystrivingforageneralizedartlanguage，aliteraryalgebra，thatisrelatedtothesumofallknownlanguagesasaperfectmathematicalsymbolismisrelatedtoalltheroundaboutreportsofmathematicalrelationsthatnormalspeechiscapableofconveying.Theirartexpressionisfrequentlystrained，itsoundsattimeslikeatranslationfromanunknownoriginal--which，indeed，ispreciselywhatitis．Theseartists-WhitmansandBrownings--impressusratherbythegreatnessoftheirspiritthanthefelicityoftheirart．Theirrelativefailureisofthegreatestdiagnosticvalueasanindexofthepervasivepresenceinliteratureofalarger,moreintuitivelinguisticmediumthananyparticularlanguage.Nevertheless，humanexpressionbeingwhatitis，thegreatest--orshallwesaythemostsatisfying--literaryartists，theShakespearesandHeines，arethosewhohaveknownsubconsciouslytofitortrimthedeeperintuitiontotheprovincialaccentsoftheirdailyspeech.Inthemthereisnoeffectofstrain．Theirpersonal“intuition”appearsasacompletedsynthesisoftheabsoluteartofintuitionandtheinnate，specializedartofthelinguisticmedium.WithHeine，forinstance，oneisundertheillusionthattheuniversespeaksGerman.Thematerial“disappears”.Everylanguageisitselfacollectiveartofexpression．Thereisconcealedinitaparticularsetofestheticfactors--phonetic，rhythmic，symbolic，morphological--whichitdoesnotcompletelysharewithanyotherlanguage．Thesefactorsmayeithermergetheirpotencieswiththoseofthatunknown，absolutelanguagetowhichIhavereferred—thisisthemethodofShakespeareandHeine--ortheymayweaveaprivate，technicalartfabricoftheirown，theinnateartofthelanguageintensifiedorsublimated．Thelattertype，themoretechnically‘‘literary’’artofSwinburneandofhostsofdelicate“minor”poets，istoofragileforendurance．Itisbuiltoutofspiritualizedmaterial，notoutofspirit.ThesuccessesoftheSwinburnesareasvaluablefordiagnosticpurposesasthesemi-failuresoftheBrownings．Theyshowtowhatextentliteraryartmayleanonthecollectiveartofthelanguageitself.Themoreextremetechnicalpractitionersmaysoover-individualizethiscollectiveartastomakeitalmostunendurable．Oneisnotalwaysthankfultohaveone’sfleshandbloodfrozentoivory．Text2Sign,Signified,SignifierFerdinanddeSaussureSomepeopleregardlanguage，whenreducedtoitselement,asanaming-processonly—a1istofwords，eachcorrespondingtothethingthatitnames.Forexample：Thisconceptionisopentocriticismatseveralpoints.Itassumesthatready-madeideasexistbeforewords；itdoesnottelluswhetheranameisvocalorpsychologicalinnature〔arbor，forinstance，canbeconsideredfromeitherviewpoint)；finally,itletsusassumethatthelinkingofanameandathingisaverysimpleoperation--anassumptionthatisanythingbuttrue.Butthisrathernaiveapproachcanbringusnearthetruthbyshowingusthatthelinguisticunitisadoubleentity,oneformedbytheassociationoftwoterms.Wehaveseeninconsideringthespeaking-circuitthatbothtermsinvolvedinthelinguisticsignarepsychologicalandareunitedinthebrainbyanassociatedbond.Thispointmustbeemphasized.Thelinguisticsignunites，notathingandaname，butaconceptandasound-image.The1atterisnotthematerialsound，apurelyphysicalthing，butthepsychologicalimprintofthesound，theimpressionthatitmakesonoursense.Thesound-imageissensory,andifIhappentocallit“material”，itisonlyinthatsense,andbywayofopposingittotheothertermoftheassociation，theconcept，whichisgenerallymoreabstract.Thepsychologicalcharacterofoursound—imagesbecomesapparentwhenweobserveourownspeech．Withoutmovingourlipsortongue，wecantalktoourselvesorrecitementallyaselectionofverse.Becauseweregardthewordsofourlanguageassound-images,wemustavoidspeakingofthe“phonemes”thatmakeupthewords.Thisterm，whichsuggestsvocalactivity；isapplicabletothespokenwordonly,totherealizationoftheinnerimageindiscourse.Wecanavoidthatmisunderstandingbyspeakingofthesoundsandsyllablesofawordprovidedwerememberthatthenamesrefertothesound—image.Thelinguisticsignisthenatwo—sidedpsychologicalentitythatcanberepresentedbythedrawing：Thetwoelementsareintimatelyunited，andeachrecallstheother.WhetherwetrytofindthemeaningoftheLatinwordarbororthewordthatLatinusestodesignatetheconcept“tree”．itisclearthatonlytheassociationssanctionedbythatlanguageappeartoustoconformtoreality,andwedisregardwhateverothersmightbeimagined．Ourdefinitionofthelinguisticsignposesanimportantquestionofterminology．Icallthecombinationofaconceptandasound—imageasign,butincurrentusagethetermgenerallydesignatesonlyasound-image，aword，forexample(arbor，etc).Onetendstoforgetthatarboriscalledasignonlybecauseitcarriestheconcept“tree”，withtheresultthattheideaofthesensorypartimpliestheideaofthewhole.Ambiguitywoulddisappearifthethreenotionsinvolvedhereweredesignatedbythreenames，eachsuggestingandopposingtheothers.Iproposetoretainthewordsign[signe]todesignatethewholeandtoreplaceconceptandsound-Imagerespectivelybysignified[signifie]andsignifier[significant]；thelasttwotermshavetheadvantageofindicatingtheoppositionthatseparatesthemfromeachotherandfromthewholeofwhichtheyareparts.Asregardssign，ifIamsatisfiedwithit，thisissimplybecauseIdonotknowofanywordtoreplaceit，theordinarylanguagesuggestingnoother.Thelinguisticsign，asdefined，hastwoprimordialcharacteristics．InenunciatingthemIamalsopositingthebasicprinciplesofanystudyofthistype．Principlel：TheArbitraryNatureoftheSignThebondbetweenthesignifierandthesignifiedisarbitrary．SinceImeanbysignthewholethatresultsfromtheassociationofthesignifierwiththesignified，Icansimplysay：thelinguisticsignisarbitrary．Theideaof“sister”isnotlinkedbyanyinnerrelationshiptothesuccessionofsoundss-o-rwhichservesasitssignifierinFrench；thatitcouldberepresentedequallybyjustanyothersequenceisprovedbydifferencesamonglanguagesandbytheveryexistenceofdifferentlanguages：thesignified“ox”hasasitssignifierb-o-f，(boeuf)ononesideoftheborderando-k-s(Ocbs)ontheother.Noonedisputestheprincipleofthearbitrarynatureofthesign，butitisofteneasiertodiscoveratruththantoassigntoititsproperplacePrinciple1dominatesallthelinguisticsoflanguage；itsconsequencesarenumberless.Itistruethatnotallofthemareequallyobviousatfirstglance；onlyaftermanydetoursdoesonediscoverthem,andwiththemtheprimordialimportanceoftheprinciple.Oneremarkinpassing：whensemiologybecomesorganizedasascience，thequestionwillarisewhetherornotitproperlyincludesmodesofexpressionbasedoncompletelynaturalsigns，suchaspantomime.Supposingthatthenewsciencewelcomesthem，itsmainconcernwillstillbethewholegroupofsystemsgroundedonthearbitrarinessofthesign.Infact，everymeansofexpressionusedinsocietyisbased，inprinciple，oncollectivebehavioror--whatamountstothesamething—onconvention．Politeformulas，forinstance，thoughoftenimbuedwithacertainnaturalexpressiveness(asinthecaseofaChinesewhogreetshisemperorbybowingdowntothegroundninetimes),arenonethelessfixedbyrule；itisthisruleandnottheintrinsicvalueofthegesturesthatobligedonetousethem.Signsthatarewhollyarbitraryrealizebetterthantheotherstheidealofthesemiologicalprocess；thatiswhylanguage,themostcomplexanduniversalofallsystemsofexpression，isalsothemostcharacteristic；inthissenselinguisticscallbecomethemaster-patternforallbranchesofsemiologyalthoughlanguageisonlyoneparticularsemiologicalsystem.Thewordsymbolhasbeenusedtodesignatethelinguisticsign，ormorespecifically,whatisherecalledthesignifier.PrincipleIinparticularweighsagainsttheuseofthisterm．0necharacteristicofthesymbolisthatitisneverwhollyarbitrary,itisnotempty,forthereistherudimentofanaturalbondbetweenthesignifierandthesignified．Thesymbolofjustice，apairofscales，couldnotbereplacedbyjustanyothersymbol，suchasachariot.Thewordarbitraryalsocallsforcomment．Thetermshouldnotimplythatthechoiceofthesignifierisleftentirelytothespeaker(weshallseebelowthattheindividualdoesnothavethepowertochangeasigninanywayonceithasbecomeestablishedinthelinguisticcommunity)；Imeanthatitisunmotivated，i.e.arbitraryinthatitactuallyhasnonaturalconnectionwiththesignified．UnitTwo:TheoryofLiteratureText1SomeCoordinatesofArtCriticismM.H.AbramsThediversityofaesthetictheories，however,makesthetaskofthehistorianaverydifficultone.Itisnotonlythatanswerstosuchquestionsas“Whatisart?”or“whatispoetry?”disagree.Thefactisthatmanytheoriesofartcannotreadilybecomparedatall,becausetheylackacommongroundonwhichtomeetandclash.Theyseemincommensurablebecausestatedindiverseterms，orinidenticaltermswithdiversesignification，orbecausetheyareanintegralpartoflargersystemsofthoughtwhichdifferinassumptionsandprocedure.Asaresultitishardtofindwheretheyagree，wheredisagree，oreven，whatthepointsatissueare.Ourfirstneed，then，istofindaframeofreferencesimpleenoughtobereadilymanageable，yetflexibleenoughsothat，withoutundueviolencetoanyonesetofstatementsaboutart，itwilltranslateasmanysetsaspossibleontoasingleplaneofdiscourse．Mostwritersboldenoughtoundertakethehistoryofaesthetictheoryhaveachievedthisendbysilentlytranslatingthebasictermsofalltheoriesintotheirownfavoritephilosophicalvocabulary,butthisprocedureundulydistortsitssubjectmatter，andmerelymultipliesthecomplicationstobeunraveledThemorepromisingmethodistoadoptananalyticschemewhichavoidsimposingitsownphilosophy,byutilizingthosekeydistinctionswhicharealreadycommontothelargestpossiblenumberofthetheoriestobecompared，andthentoapplytheschemewarily,inconstantreadinesstointroducesuchfurtherdistinctionsasseemtobeneededforthepurposeinhand.Fourelementsinthetotalsituationofaworkofartarediscriminatedandmadesalient，byoneoranothersynonym，inalmostalltheorieswhichaimtobecomprehensive.First，thereisthework，theartisticproductitself.Andsincethisisahumanproduct，anartifact,thesecondcommonelementistheartificer，theartist.Third，theworkistakentohaveasubjectwhich，directlyordeviously,isderivedfromexistingthings—tobeabout，orsignify,orreflectsomethingwhicheitheris，orbearssomerelationto，anobjectivestateofaffairs．Thisthirdelement，whetherheldtoconsistofpeopleandactions，ideasandfeelings，materialthingsandevents，orsuper-sensibleessences，hasfrequentlybeendenotedbythatword-of-all-work，‘nature”;butletususethemoreneutralandcomprehensiveterm，universe，instead.Forthefinalelementwehavetheaudience：the1isteners，spectators，orreaderstowhomtheworkisaddressed,ortowhoseattention，atanyrate，itbecomesavailable.Onthisframeworkofartist，work，universe，andaudienceIwishtospreadoutvarioustheoriesforcomparisonToemphasizetheartificialityofthedevice，andatthesametimemakeiteasiertovisualizetheanalyses，letusarrangethefourcoordinatesinaconvenientpattern.Atrianglewilldo，withtheworkofart，thethingtobeexplained，inthecenter.UNIVERSE↑WORK↙↘ARTISTAUDIENCEAlthoughanyreasonablyadequatetheorytakessomeaccountofallfourelements．almostalltheories，asweshallsee，exhibitadiscernibleorientationtowardoneonly.Thatis,acritictendstoderivefromoneofthesetermshisprincipalcategoriesfordefining，classifying，andanalyzingaworkofart，aswellasthemajorcriteriabywhichhejudgesitsvalue.Applicationofthisanalyticscheme，therefore，willsortattemptstoexplainthenatureandworthofaworkofartintofourbroadclasses.Threewillexplaintheworkofartprincipallybyrelatingittoanotherthing：theuniverse，theaudience，ortheartist.Thefourthwillexplaintheworkbyconsideringitinisolation，asanautonomouswhole，whosesignificanceandvaluearedeterminedwithoutanyreferencebeyonditself．Tofindthemajororientationofacriticaltheory,however,isonlythebeginningofanadequateanalysis．Foronething，thesefourcoordinatesarenotconstants,butvariables；theydifferinsignificanceaccordingtothetheoryinwhichtheyoccur．TakewhatIhavecalledtheuniverseasanexample．Inanyonetheory,theaspectsofnaturewhichanartistissaidtoimitate，orisexhortedtoimitate，maybeeitherparticularsortypes，andtheymaybeonlythebeautifulorthemoralaspectsoftheworld，orelseanyaspectwithoutdiscrimination．Itmaybemaintainedthattheartist’sworldisthatofimaginativeintuition，orofcommonsense，orofnaturalscience：andthisworldmaybeheldtoinclude，ornottoinclude，gods，witches，chimeras，andPlatonicIdeas.Consequently,theorieswhichagreeinassigningtotherepresenteduniversetheprimarycontroloveralegitimateworkofartmayvaryfromrecommendingthemostuncompromisingrealismtothemostremoteidealismEachofourotherterms，ASweshallsee，alsovaries，bothinmeaningandfunctioning，accordingtothecriticaltheoryinwhichitoccurs，themethodofreasoningwhichthetheoristcharacteristicallyuses，andtheexplicitorimplicit“world-view’’ofwhichthesetheoriesareanintegralpart．Itwouldbepossible，ofcourse，todevisemorecomplexmethodsofanalysiswhich，eveninapreliminaryclassification，wouldmakemoresubtledistinctions.Bymultiplyingdifferentiate，however，wesharpenourcapacitytodiscriminateattheexpensebothofeasymanageabilityandtheabilitytomakebroadinitialgeneralizations．Forourhistoricalpurpose，theschemeIhaveproposedhasthisimportantvirtue，thatitwillenableUStobringouttheoneessentialattributewhichmostearlynineteenthcenturytheorieshadincommon：thepersistentrecoursetothepoettoexplainthenatureandcriteriaofpoetry．Historianshaverecentlybeeninstructedtospeakonlyof“romanticisms”，intheplural，butfromourpointofvantagethereturnsouttobeonedistinctivelyromanticcriticism，althoughthisremainsaunityamidvariety.Text2TheFunctionofLiteratureReneWellekThenatureandthefunctionofliteraturemust，inanycoherentdiscourse，becorrelative.Theuseofpoetryfollowsfromitsnature：everyobjectorclassofobjectsismostefficientlyandrationallyusedforwhatitis，oriscentrally.Itacquiresasecondaryuseonlywhenitsprimefunctionhaslapsed：theoldspinningwheelbecomesanornament，oraspecimeninamuseum；thesquarepiano，nolongercapableofmusic，ismadeintoausefuldesk.Similarly,thenatureofanobjectfollowsfromitsuse：itiswhatitdoes.Anartifacthasthestructurepropertotheperformanceofitsfunction,togetherwithwhateveraccessoriestimeandmaterialsmaymakeitpossible，andtastemaythinkitdesirable，toadd．Theremaybemuchinanyliteraryworkwhichisunnecessarytoitsliteraryfunction，thoughinterestingordefensibleonothergrounds.Haveconceptionsofthenatureandthefunctionofliteraturechangedinthecourseofhistory?Thequestionisnoteasytoanswer.Ifonegoesfarenoughback，onecansayyes；onecanreachatimewhenliterature，philosophy,andreligionexistundifferentiated：amongtheGreeks，AeschylusandHesiodwouldperhapsbeinstances.ButPlatocanalreadyspeakofthequarrelbetweenthepoetsandthephilosophersasanancientquarrelandmeanbyitsomethingintelligibletous．Wemustnot，ontheotherhand，exaggeratethedifferencemadebydoctrinesof“artforart’ssake”attheendofthenineteenthcenturyormorerecentdoctrinesof‘'purepoetry”.The‘‘didacticheresy”,asPoecalledthebeliefinpoetryasaninstrumentofedification,isnottobeequatedwiththetraditionalRenaissancedoctrinethatthepoempleasesandteachesorteachesthroughpleasing．Onthewhole，thereadingofahistoryofaestheticsorpoeticsleavesonewiththeimpressionthatthenatureandthefunctionofliterature，sofarastheycanbeputintolargegeneralconceptualterms，forcomparisonandcontrastwithotherhumanactivitiesandvalues，havenotbasicallychanged.ThehistoryofaestheticsmightalmostbesummarizedasadialecticinwhichthethesisandcounterthesisareHorace’sdulceandutile：poetryissweetanduseful.Eitheradjectiveseparatelyrepresentsapolarmisconceptionwithregardtothefunctionofpoetry--probablyitiseasiertocorrelatedulceetutileonthebasisoffunctionthanonthatofnature.Theviewthatpoetryispleasure(analogoustoanyotherpleasure)answerstotheviewthatpoetryisinstruction(analogoustoanytextbook).Theviewthatallpoetryis，orshouldbe，propagandaisansweredbytheviewthatitis，orshouldbe，puresoundandimage--arabesquewithoutreferencetotheworldofhumanemotions.Theopposingthesesreachtheirsubtlestversions,perhaps．intheviewsthatartis“play”andthatitis“work'’(the“craft”offiction，the“work”ofart).Neitherview,inisolation,canpossiblyseemacceptable.Toldthatpoetryis“play”，spontaneousamusement，wefeelthatjusticehasbeendoneneithertothecare，skill，andplanningoftheartistnortotheseriousnessandimportanceofthepoem；buttoldthatpoetryis“work’’or“craft”，wefeeltheviolencedonetoitsjoyandwhatKantcalledits“purposelessness”.wemustdescribethefunctionofartinsuchawayastodojusticeatoncetothedulceandtheutile.TheHoratianformulaitselfoffersahelpfulstartif,rememberingthatprecisionintheuseofcriticaltermsisveryrecent，wegivetheHoratiantermsanextensiongenerousenoughtoencompassRomanandRenaissancecreativepractice.TheusefulnessofartneednotbethoughttolieintheenforcementofsuchamorallessonasLeBossuheldtobeHomer’sreasonforwritingtheIliad,orevensuchasHegelfoundinhisfavoritetragedy,Antigone.‘‘Useful’’isequivalentto“notawasteoftime”，notaformof‘‘passingthetime”，somethingdeservingofseriousattention.‘‘Sweet’’isequivalentto“notabore”,‘‘notaduty”,‘‘itsownreward”.Canweusethisdoublecriterionasabasisofdefinitionofliterature，orisitratheracriterionofgreatliterature?Inolderdiscussions，thedistinctionsbetweengreat，good，and“subliterary”literaturerarelyappear.Theremayberealdoubtwhethersubliteraryliterature(thepulpmagazine)is“useful”or“instructive”.Itiscommonlythoughtofassheer“escape”and“amusement”.Butthequestionhastobeansweredintermsofsubliteraryreaders,notinthoseofreadersof“goodliterature”.MortimerAdler，atleast，wouldfindsomerudimentarydesireforknowledgeintheinterestoftheleastintellectualnovelreader.Andasfor“escape”,KennethBurkehasremindedushowfacileachargethatmaybecome.Thedreamofescapemay“assistareadertoclarifyhisdislikeoftheenvironmentinwhichheisplaced.Theartistcanbecome‘subversive’bymerelysinging,inallinnocence,ofrespitebytheMississippi”.Inanswertoourquestion．itisprobablethatallartis“sweet’’and“useful”toitsappropriateusers：thatwhatitarticulatesissuperiortotheirownselfinducedreverieorreflection；thatitgivesthempleasurebytheskillwithwhichitarticulateswhattheytaketobesomethingliketheirownreverieorreflectionandbythereleasetheyexperiencethroughthisarticulation.Whenaworkofliteraturefunctionssuccessfully,thetwo“notes”ofpleasureandutilityshouldnotmerelycoexistbutcoalesce.Thepleasureofliterature，weneedtomaintain，isnotonepreferenceamongalonglistofpossiblepleasuresbutisa“higherpleasure”becauseitispleasureinahigherkindofactivity,i.e.,non-acquisitivecont