Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T11:37:11.805Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Use of Moral Concepts in Literary Criticism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2009

Eric Gilman
Affiliation:
Hatfield College of Technology, Hatfield, Herts

Extract

It is probable that few critics, if directly challenged, would admit to believing that a work of literature which was, in some sense, morally objectionable was therefore necessarily totally lacking in literary merit. Nevertheless, it is not uncommon for a man—in the language he uses, in the conclusions he draws, in his obiter dicta—to seem yet to hold a view which, in its bald statement, he has denied. Certainly, those critics who most vehemently wish to dissociate themselves from any claims that art exists for art's sake, or that there are peculiarly ‘aesthetic’ criteria, and who believe that such claims lead to irresponsibility, such critics often use moral concepts extensively in their criticism. Furthermore, they often do this in such a way as to suggest that if a work is morally objectionable, then there is no way of redeeming it aesthetically; for, it would seem, moral criticism exhausts the critical possibilities; no aesthetic saving graces are allowed.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 305 note 1 Determinations, p. 2.Google Scholar

page 305 note 2 See The Great Tradition, p. 42Google Scholar et passim. See also Fiction and the Reading Public, pp. 73 and 233Google Scholar et passim.

page 306 note 1 p. 201.

page 309 note 1 Richards might not use ‘morally’; he might say ‘valuationally’. He prefers to talk about ‘maladjustment’ rather than ‘moral inferiority’ but it seems to come to much the same thing.

page 306 note 2 Principles of Literacy Criticism, p. 234.Google Scholar

page 306 note 3 Ibid.

page 311 note 1 Principles of Literary Criticism, p. 204.Google Scholar

page 311 note 2 p. 32.

page 311 note 3 Fiction and the Reading Public, p. 211.Google Scholar

page 312 note 1 p. 229.

page 313 note 1 p. 230.

page 315 note 1 Experiment In Criticism, p. 127.Google Scholar

page 317 note 1 The Common Pursuit, p. 228.Google Scholar

page 318 note 1 D. H. Lawrence: Novelist, p. 30.Google Scholar

page 318 note 2 Ibid., p. 77.

page 318 note 3 Ibid., p. 133.

page 319 note 1 D. H. Lawrence: Novelist, p. 26.Google Scholar