intention

1

W.K.韦姆萨特和门罗·比尔兹利:意图谬误

TheIntentionalFallacy1

t,Jr.

MonroeBeardsley

I

Theclaimoftheauthor's"intention"uponthecritic'sjudgmenthas

beenchallengedinanumberofrecentdiscussions,notablyinthedebate

entitledThePersonalHeresy[1939],betweenProfessorLewisand

eemsdoubtfulifthisclaimandmostofitsromantic

nt

writers,inashortarticleentitled"Intention"foraDictionary2ofliterary

criticism,raidtheissuebutwereunabletopursueitsimplicationsat

edthatthedesignorintentionoftheauthorisneither

availablenordesirableasastandardforjudgingthesuccessofaworkof

literaryart,anditemstousthatthisisaprinciplewhichgoesdeepinto

rinciplewhich

acceptedorrejectedpointstothepolaroppositesofclassical"imitation"

ilsmanyspecifictruthsaboutinspiration,

authenticity,biography,literaryhistoryandscholarship,andaboutsome

trendsofcontemporarypoetry,shardly

aproblemofliterarycriticisminwhichthecritic'sapproachwillnotbe

2

qualifiedbyhisviewof"intention".

"Intention",asweshallutheterm,correspondstowhathe

intendedinaformulawhichmoreorlesxplicitlyhashadwide

acceptance."Inordertojudgethepoet'sperformance,wemustknow

whatheintended."Intentionisdesignorplanintheauthor'smind.

Intentionhasobviousaffinitiesfortheauthor'sattitudetowardshiswork,

thewayhefelt,whatmadehimwrite.

Webeginourdiscussionwithariesofpropositionssummarized

andabstractedtoadegreewheretheyemtousaxiomatic.

dsofa

poem,asProfessorStollhasremarked,comeoutofahead,notoutofa

nsistonthedesigningintellectasacauofapoemisnotto

grantthedesignorintentionasastandardbywhichthecriticistojudge

theworthofthepoet'sperformance.

taskhowacriticexpectstogetananswertothequestion

etofindoutwhatthepoettriedtodo?Ifthe

poetsucceededindoingit,thenthepoemitlfshowswhathewastrying

hepoetdidnotsucceed,thenthepoemisnotadequate

evidence,andthecriticmustgooutsidethepoem—forevidenceofan

intentionthatdidnotbecomeeffectiveinthepoem."Onlyonecaveat

mustbeborneinmind,"saysaneminentintentionalist3inamoment

whenhistheoryrepudiatesitlf;"thepoet'saimmustbejudgedatthe

3

momentofthecreativeact,thatistosay,bytheartofthepoemitlf".

lybecauanartifactworksthatweinferthe

intentionofanartificer."Apoemshouldnotmeanbutbe."Apoemcanbe

onlythroughitsmeaning—sinceitsmediumiswords—yetitis,simplyis,

inthenthatwehavenoexcuforinquiringwhatpartisintendedor

isafeatofstylebywhichacomplexofmeaningishandled

succeedsbecauallormostofwhatissaidorimplied

isrelevant;whatisirrelevanthasbeenexcluded,likelumpsfrompudding

and"bugs"respectpoetrydiffersfrompractical

messages,whicharesuccessfulifandonlyifwecorrectlyinferthe

emoreabstractthanpoetry.

ningofapoemmaycertainlybeapersonalone,inthe

nthatapoemexpressapersonalityorstateofsoulratherthana

nashortlyricpoemisdramatic,the

responofaspeaker(nomatterhowabstractlyconceived)toasituation

(nomatterhowuniversalized).Weoughttoimputethethoughtsand

attitudesofthepoemimmediatelytothedramaticspeaker,andiftothe

authoratall,onlybyanactofbiographicalinference.

saninwhichanauthor,byrevision,maybetter

nded

towriteabetterwork,orabetterworkofacertainkind,andnowhas

4

ollowsthathisformerconcreteintentionwasnothis

intention,"He'sthemanwewereinarchof,that'strue,"saysHardy's

rusticconstable,"andyethe'

manwewereinarchofwasnotthemanwewanted."

"Isnotacritic,"asksProfessorStoll,"ajudge,whodoesnotexplore

hisownconsciousness,butdeterminestheauthor'smeaningorintention,

asifthepoemwereawill,acontract,ortheconstitution?Thepoemis

notthecritic'sown."Hehasaccuratelydiagnodtwoformsof

irresponsibility,

poemisnotthecritic'sownandnottheauthor's(itisdetachedfromthe

authoratbirthandgoesabouttheworldbeyondhispowertointendabout

itorcontrolit).bodiedin

language,thepeculiarposssionofthepublic,anditisaboutthehuman

being,saidaboutthepoemis

subjecttothesamescrutinyasanystatementlinguisticsorinthegeneral

scienceofpsychology.

AcriticofourDictionaryarticle,aswamy,has

arguedthattherearetwokindsofinquiryaboutaworkofart:(1)whether

theartistachievedhisintentions;(2)whethertheworkofart"oughtever

tohavebeenundertakenatall"andso"whetheritisworthprerving".

Number(2),Coomaraswamymaintains,isnot"criticismofanyworkof

artquaworkofart",butisrathermoralcriticism;number(1)isartistic

5

aintainthat(2)neednotbemoralcriticism:thatthere

isanotherwayofdecidingwhetherworksofartareworthprervingand

whether,inan,they"ought"tohavebeenundertaken,andthisisthe

wayofobjectivecriticismofworksofartassuch,thewaywhichenables

ul

murderisanexamplewhichCoomaraswamyus,andinhissystemthe

differencebetweenmurderandthepoemissimplya"moral"one,notan

"artistic"one,sinceeachifcarriedoutaccordingtoplanis"artistically"

tainthat(2)isaninquiryofmoreworththan(1),and

since(2)andnot(1)iscapableofdistinguishingpoetryfrommurder,the

name"artisticcriticism"isproperlygivento(2).

II

Itisnotsomuchahistoricalstatementasadefinitiontosaythatthe

hetoricianofthefirst

:"Sublimityistheechoofagreatsoul",orwhenhe

tellsusthat"Homerentersintothesublimeactionsofhisheroes"and

"sharesthefullinspirationofthecombat",weshallnotbesurpridto

findthisrhetoricianconsideredasadistantharbingerofromanticismand

wishtoargue

whetherLonginusshouldbecalledromantic,buttherecanhardlybea

6

doubtthatinoneimportantwayheis.

Goethe'sthreequestionsfor"constructivecriticism"are"Whatdid

theauthortouttodo?Washisplanreasonableandnsible,andhow

fardidhesucceedincarryingitout?"Ifoneleavesoutthemiddle

question,onehasineffectthesystemofCroce4—theculminationand

utifulisthe

successfulintuitionexpression,andtheuglyistheunsuccessful;the

intuitionorprivatepartofartistheaestheticfact,andthemediumor

publicpartisnotthesubjectofaestheticatall.

TheMadonnaofCimabueisstillintheChurchofSantaMaria

Novella;butdoesshespeaktothevisitoroftodayastotheFlorentinesof

thethirteenthcentury?

Historicalinterpretationlabours...toreintegrateinusthe

psychologicalconditionswhichhavechangedinthecourofhistory.

It...enablesustoeaworkofart(aphysicalobject)asitsauthor

sawitinthemomentofproduction.5

ThefirstitalicsareCroce's,hotofCroce's

chpassagesasa

7

pointofdepartureacriticmaywriteaniceanalysisofthemeaningor

"spirit"ofaplaybyShakespeareorCorneille—aprocessthatinvolves

clohistoricalstudybutremainsaestheticcriticism—orhemay,with

equalplausibility,produceanessayinsociology,biography,orother

kindsofnon-aesthetichistory.

III

Iwenttothepoets;tragic,dithyrambic,andallsorts...Itookthemsome

ofthemostelaboratepassagesintheirownwritings,andaskedwhatwas

themeaningofthem...Willyoubelieveme?...thereishardlyaperson

prentwhowouldnothavetalkedbetterabouttheirpoetrythantheydid

newthatnotbywisdomdopoetswritepoetry,butby

asortofgeniusandinspiration.

ThatreiteratedmistrustofthepoetswhichwehearfromSocrates

mayhavebeenpartofarigorouslyasceticviewinwhichwehardlywish

toparticipate,yetPlato'sSocratessawatruthaboutthepoeticmind

whichtheworldnolongercommonlyes—somuchcriticism,andthat

themostinspirationalandmostaffectionatelyremembered,has

proceededfromthepoetsthemlves.

Certainlythepoetshavehadsomethingtosaythatthecriticand

8

professorcouldnotsay;theirmessagehasbeenmoreexciting:thatpoetry

shouldcomeasnaturallyasleavestoatree,thatpoetryisthelavaofthe

imagination,s

necessarythatwerealizethecharacterandauthorityofsuchtestimony.

Thereisonlyafineshadeofdifferencebetweensuchexpressionsanda

wardYoung,

ThomasCarlyle,WalterPater6:

Iknowtwogoldenrulesfromethics,whicharenolessgoldenin

Composition,

thegrandcretforfindingreadersandretainingthem:lethimwho

wouldmoveandconvinceothers,befirstmovedandconvincedhimlf.

Horace'srule,Sivismeflere,isapplicableinawidernthanthe

ypoettoeverywriters,wemightsay:Betrue,ifyou

wouldbebelieved.

Truth!therecanbenomerit,nocraftatall,ther,

allbeautyisinthelongrunonlyfinenessoftruth,orwhatwecalle-

xpression,thefineraccommodationofspeechtothatvisionwithin.

AndHousman'slittlehandbooktothepoeticmindyieldsthis

illustration:

Havingdrunkapintofbeeratluncheon—beerisadativetothebrain,

andmyafternoonsaretheleastintellectualportionofmylife—Iwould

9

talong,thinkingof

nothinginparticular,onlylookingatthingsaroundmeandfollowingthe

progressoftheasons,therewouldflowintomymind,withsuddenand

unaccountableemotion,sometimesalineortwoofver,sometimesa

wholestanzaatonce.

a

confessionofhowpoemswerewrittenwhichwoulddoasadefinitionof

poetryjustaswellas"emotionrecollectedintranquility"—andwhichthe

pintofbeer,relax,gowalking,thinkonnothinginparticular,lookat

things,surrenderyourlftoyourlf,archforthetruthinyourown

soul,listentothesoundofyourowninsidevoice,discoverandexpress

thevraievérité["truetruth"].

youngimaginationfiredbyWordsworthandCarlyleisprobablyclorto

thevergeofproducingapoemthanthemindofthestudentwhohasbeen

ofinspiringpoets,oratleastof

incitingsomethinglikepoetryinyoungpersons,hasprobablygone

fcreativewritingsuchas

thoissuedfromtheLincolnSchoolareinterestingevidenceofwhata

childcando.7Allthis,however,wouldappeartobelongtoanart

paratefromcriticism—toapsychologicaldiscipline,asystemof

10

lf-development,ayoga,whichtheyoungpoetperhapsdoeswellto

notice,butwhichissomethingdifferentfromthepublicartofevaluating

poems.

ColeridgeandArnoldwerebettercriticsthanmostpoetshavebeen,

andifthecriticaltendencydriedupthepoetryinArnoldandperhapsin

Coleridge,itisnotinconsistentwithourargument,whichisthat

dge

hasgivenustheclassic"anodyne"story,andtellswhathecanaboutthe

genesisofapoemwhichhecallsa"psychologicalcuriosity",buthis

definitionsofpoetryandofthepoeticquality"imagination"aretobe

foundelwhereandinquiteotherterms.

Itwouldbeconvenientifthepasswordsoftheintentionalschool,

"sincerity","fidelity","spontaneity","authenticity","genuineness",

"originality",couldbeequatedwithtermssuchas"integrity","relevance",

"unity","function","maturity","subtlety","adequacy",andothermore

precitermsofevaluation—inshort,if"expression"alwaysmeant

sisnotso.

"Aesthetic"art,saysProfessorCurtDucas,aningenioustheorist

ofexpression,istheconsciousobjectificationoffeelings,inwhichan

istcorrectstheobjectification

smaymeanthattheearlierattemptwas

notsuccessfulinobjectifyingthelf,or"itmayalsomeanthatitwasa

11

successfulobjectificationofalfwhich,whenitconfrontedusclearly,

wedisownedandrepudiatedinfavourofanother".Whatisthestandard

bywhichwedisownoracceptthelf?ProfessorDucasdoesnotsay.

Whateveritmaybe,however,thisstandardisanelementinthedefinition

luationof

theworkofartremainspublic;theworkismeasuredagainstsomething

outsidetheauthor.

IV

Thereiscriticismofpoetryandthereisauthorpsychology,which

whenappliedtotheprentorfuturetakestheformofinspirational

promotion;butauthorpsychologycanbehistoricaltoo,andthenwehave

literarybiography,alegitimateandattractivestudyinitlf,oneapproach,

asProfessorTillyardwouldargue,topersonality,thepoembeingonlya

nlyitneednotbewithaderogatorypurpothat

onepointsoutpersonalstudies,asdistinctfrompoeticstudies,inthe

reisdangerofconfusingpersonal

andpoeticstudies;andthereisthefaultofwritingthepersonalasifit

werepoetic.

Thereisadifferencebetweeninternalandexternalevidenceforthe

paradoxisonlyverbalandsuperficialthat

12

whatis(1)internalisalsopublic:itisdiscoveredthroughthemantics

andsyntaxofapoem,throughourhabitualknowledgeofthelanguage,

throughgrammars,dictionaries,andalltheliteraturewhichisthesource

ofdictionaries,ingeneralthroughallthatmakesalanguageandculture;

whilewhatis(2)externalisprivateoridiosyncratic;notapartofthe

workasalinguisticfact:itconsistsofrevelations(injournals,for

example,orlettersorreportedconversations)abouthoworwhythepoet

wrotethepoem—towhatlady,whilesittingonwhatlawn,oratthedeath

s(3)anintermediatekindofevidence

aboutthecharacteroftheauthororaboutprivateormi-private

meaningsattachedtowordsortopicsbyanauthororbyacoterieof

ningofwordsisthehistoryofwords,and

thebiographyofanauthor,hisuofaword,andtheassociationswhich

thewordhadforhim,arepartoftheword'shistoryandmeaning.8But

thethreetypesofevidence,especially(2)and(3),shadeintooneanother

sosubtlythatitisnotalwayasytodrawalinebetweenexamples,and

ofbiographicalevidence

neednotinvolveintentionalism,becauwhileitmaybeevidenceof

whattheauthorintended,itmayalsobeevidenceofthemeaningofhis

therhand,it

iticwhoisconcernedwithevidenceoftype

(1)andmoderatelywiththatoftype(3)willinthelongrunproducea

13

differentsortofcommentfromthatofthecriticwhoisconcernedwith(2)

andwith(3)whereitshadesinto(2).

ThewholeglitteringparadeofProfessorLowes'RoadtoXanadu,

forinstance,runsalongtheborderbetweentypes(2)and(3)orboldly

traverstheromanticregionof(2)."'KublaKhan',"saysProfessor

Lowes,"isthefabricofavision,buteveryimagethatroupinits

ouldemthatthereis

nothinghaphazardorfortuitousintheirreturn."Thisisnotquite

clear—notevenwhenProfessorLowexplainsthattherewereclusters

ofassociations,likehookedatoms,whichweredrawnintocomplex

relationwithotherclustersinthedeepwellofColeridge'smemory,and

ewasnothing

"haphazardorfortuitous"inthewaytheimagesreturnedtothesurface,

thatmaymean(1)thatColeridgecouldnotproducewhathedidnothave,

thathewaslimitedinhiscreationbywhathehadreadorotherwi

experienced,or(2)thathavingreceivedcertainclustersofassociations,

hewasboundtoreturntheminjustthewayhedid,andthatthevalueof

thepoemmaybedescribedintermsoftheexperiencesonwhichhehad

terpairofpropositions(asortofHartleyanassociationism

whichColeridgehimlfrepudiatedintheBiographia)maynotbe

erecertainlyothercombinations,otherpoems,wor

orbetter,thatmighthavebeenwrittenbymenwhohadreadBartramand

14

swillbetruenomatterhowmany

timesweareabletoaddtothebrilliantcomplexofColeridge'sreading.

Incertainflourishes(suchasthentencewehavequoted)andinchapter

headingslike"TheShapingSpirit","TheMagicalSynthesis",

"ImaginationCreatrix",itmaybethatProfessorLowespretendstosay

sacertaindeceptive

variationinthefancychaptertitles;oneexpectstopassontoanew

stageintheargument,andonefinds—moreandmoresources,moreand

moreabout"thestreamynatureofassociation".

"WohinderWeg?"quotesProfessorLowesforthemottoofhisbook.

"KeinWeg!InsUnbetretene."Precilybecauthewayisunbetreten,

weshouldsay,m'sTravelscontaina

gooddealofthehistoryofcertainwordsandofcertainromantic

Floridianconceptionsthatappearin"KublaKhan".Andagooddealof

thathistoryhaspasdandwasthenpassingintotheverystuffofour

sapersonwhohasreadBartramappreciatesthepoem

,bylookingupthevocabularyof"Kubla

Khan"intheOxfordEnglishDictionary,orbyreadingsomeoftheother

bookstherequoted,ould

emtopertainlittletothepoemtoknowthatColeridgehadread

sagrossbodyoflife,ofnsoryandmentalexperience,

whichliesbehindandinsomencauverypoem,butcanneverbe

15

andneednotbeknownintheverbalandhenceintellectualcomposition

theobjectsofourmanifoldexperience,for

everyunity,thereisanactionofthemindwhichcutsoffroots,melts

awaycontext—orindeedweshouldneverhaveobjectsorideasor

anythingtotalkabout.

ItisprobablethatthereisnothinginProfessorLowes'vastbook

whichcoulddetractfromanyone'sappreciationofeither"TheAncient

Mariner"or"KublaKhan".Wenextprentacawherepreoccupation

withevidenceoftype(3)hasgonesofarastodistortacritic'sviewofa

poem(yetacanotsoobviousasthothataboundinourcritical

journals).

Inawell-knownpoembyJohnDonne["AValediction:Forbidding

Mourning"]appearsthisquatrain:

Movingofth'earthbringsharmesandfeares,

Menreckonwhatitdidandmeant,

Buttrepidationofthespheares,

Thoughgreaterfarre,isinnocent.

ArecentcriticinanelaboratetreatmentofDonne'slearninghas

16

writtenofthisquatrainasfollows:

Hetouchestheemotionalpulofthesituationbyaskilfulallusiontothe

newandtheoldastronomy...Ofthenewastronomy,the"movingofthe

earth"isthemostradicalprinciple;oftheold,the"trepidationofthe

spheres"isthemotionofthegreatestcomplexity...Thepoetmustexhort

hislovetoquietnessandcalmuponhisdeparture;andforthispurpo

thefigurebaduponthelattermotion(trepidation),longabsorbedinto

thetraditionalastronomy,fittinglysuggeststhetensionofthemoment

withoutarousingthe"harmesandfeares"implicitinthefigureofthe

movingearth.

Theargumentisplausibleandrestsonawellsubstantiatedthesisthat

Donnewasdeeplyinterestedinthenewastronomyanditsrepercussions

ousworksDonneshowshisfamiliarity

withKepler'sDeStellaNova,withGalileo'sSideriusNuncius,with

WilliamGilbert'sDeMagnete,andwithClavius'commentaryontheDe

rstothenewscienceinhisSermonat

Paul'irstAnniversary

hesaysthe"newphilosophycallsindoubt".IntheElegyonPrinceHenry

17

hesaysthatthe"leastmovingofthecentre"makes"theworldtoshake".

Itisdifficulttoanswerargumentlikethis,andimpossibletoanswer

snoreasonwhyDonnemightnot

havewrittenastanzainwhichthetwokindsofcelestialmotionstoodfor

ebecomefullofastronomical

ideasandeDonneonlyagainstthebackgroundofthenewscience,we

textitlfremainstobedealtwith,the

mayobrve:(1)

thatthemovementoftheearthaccordingtotheCopernicantheoryisa

celestialmotion,smoothandregular,andwhileitmightcaureligiousor

philosophicfears,itcouldnotbeassociatedwiththecrudityand

earthinessofthekindofcommotionwhichthespeakerinthepoem

wishestodiscourage;(2)thatthereisanothermovingoftheearth,an

earthquake,whichhasjustthequalitiesandistobeassociatedwiththe

tear-floodsandsigh-tempestsofthecondstanzaofthepoem;(3)that

"trepidation"isanappropriateoppositeofearthquake,becaueachisa

shakingorvibratorymotion;and"trepidationofthespheres"is"greater

far"thananearthquake,butnotmuchgreater(iftwosuchmotionscanbe

comparedastogreatness)thantheannualmotionoftheearth;(4)that

reckoningwhatit"didandmeant"showsthattheeventhaspasd,like

anearthquake,notliketheincessantcelestialmovementoftheearth.

PerhapsaknowledgeofDonne'sinterestinthenewsciencemayadd

18

anothershadeofmeaning,anovertonetothestanzainquestion,though

thegeocentricand

heliocentricantithesisthecoreofthemetaphoristodisregardtheEnglish

language,topreferprivateevidencetopublic,externaltointernal.

V

Ifthedistinctionbetweenkindsofevidencehasimplicationsforthe

historicalcritic,ithasthemnolessforthecontemporarypoetandhis

,sinceeveryruleforapoetisbutanothersideofajudgmentbya

critic,andsincethepastistherealmofthescholarandcritic,andthe

futureandprentthatofthepoetandthecriticalleadersoftaste,wemay

saythattheproblemsarisinginliteraryscholarshipfromtheintentional

fallacyarematchedbyotherswhichariintheworldorprogressive

experiment.

Thequestionof"allusiveness",forexample,asacutelypodbythe

poetryofEliot,iscertainlyonewhereafaljudgmentislikelyto

quencyanddepthofliterary

allusioninthepoetryofEliotandothershasdrivensomanyinpursuitof

fullmeaningstotheGoldenBoughandtheElizabethandramathatithas

becomeakindofcommonplacetosuppothatwedonotknowwhata

poetmeansunlesswehavetracedhiminhisreading—asupposition

19

ndtakenbyF.O.

Matthiesnisasoundoneandpartiallyforestallsthedifficulty.

Ifonereadsthewithanattentiveearandisnsitivetotheirsudden

shiftsinmovement,thecontrastbetweentheactualThamesandthe

idealizedvisionofitduringanagebeforeitflowedthrougha

megalopolisissharplyconveyedbythatmovementitlf,whetherornot

onerecognizestherefraintobefromSpenr.

Eliot'sallusionsworkwhenweknowthem—andtoagreatextenteven

whenwedonotknowthem,throughtheirsuggestivepower.

Butsometimeswefindallusionssupportedbynotes,anditisanice

questionwhetherthenotesfunctionmoreasguidestonduswherewe

maybeeducated,ormoreasindicationsinthemlvesaboutthecharacter

oftheallusions."Nearlyeverythingofimportance...thatisappositeto

anappreciationof'TheWasteLand',"writesMatthiesnofMiss

Weston'sbook[FromRitualtoRomance],"hasbeenincorporatedintothe

structureofthepoemitlf,orintoEliot'snotes."Andwithsuchan

admissionitmaybegintoappearthatitwouldnotmuchmatterifEliot

inventedhissources(asSirWalterScottinventedchapterepigraphsfrom

20

"oldplays"and"anonymous"authors,orasColeridgewrotemarginal

glossforTheAncientMariner).AllusionstoDante,Webster,Marvell,

orBaudelairedoubtlessgainsomethingbecauthewriterxisted,but

itisdoubtfulwhetherthesamecanbesaidforanallusiontoanobscure

Elizabethan:

Thesoundofhornsandmotors,whichshallbring

SweeneytoMrsPorterinthespring.

"mentofBees,"saysEliot,

Whenofasudden,listening,youshallhear,

Anoiofhornsandhunting,whichshallbring

ActaeontoDianainthespring,

Whereallshallehernakedskin.

Theironyiscompletedbythequotationitlf;hadEliot,asisquite

conceivable,compodthelinestofurnishhisownbackground,there

victionmaygrowasonereads

Eliot'snextnote:"Idonotknowtheoriginoftheballadfromwhichthe

linesaretaken:itwasreportedtomefromSydney,Australia."The

importantwordinthisnote—onMrsPorterandherdaughterwhowashed

theirfeetinsodawater—is"ballad".Andifoneshouldfeelfromthelines

21

themlvestheir"ballad"quality,therewouldbelittleneedforthenote.

Ultimately,theinquirymustfocusontheintegrityofsuchnotesasparts

ofthepoem,forwheretheyconstitutespecialinformationaboutthe

meaningofphrasinthepoem,theyoughttobesubjecttothesame

esn

believesthenoteswerethepriceEliot"hadtopayinordertoavoidwhat

hewouldhaveconsideredmufflingtheenergyofhispoembyextended

connectinglinksinthetextitlf".Butitmaybequestionedwhetherthe

nhas

plausiblyarguedthatTennyson's"TheSailorBoy"wouldbebetterifhalf

thestanzaswereomitted,andthebestversionsofballadslike"SirPatrick

Spenr"owetheirpowertotheveryaudacitywithwhichtheminstrel

enifa

poetfindshecannottakesomuchforgrantedinamorereconditecontext

andratherthanwriteinformatively,suppliesnotes?Itcanbesaidin

favourofthisplanthatatleastthenotesdonotpretendtobedramatic,as

therhand,thenotesmaylooklike

unassimilatedmateriallyingloobesidethepoem,necessaryforthe

meaningoftheverbalcontext,butnotintegrated,sothatthesymbol

standsincomplete.

Wemeantosuggestbytheaboveanalysisthatwhereasnotestendto

emtojustifythemlvesaxternalindexestotheauthor'sintention,

22

yettheyoughttobejudgedlikeanyotherpartsofacomposition(verbal

arrangementspecialtoaparticularcontext),andwhensojudgedtheir

realityaspartsofthepoem,ortheirimaginativeintegrationwiththerest

ofthepoem,esn,forinstance,esthat

Eliot'stitlesforpoemsandhipigraphsareinformativeapparatus,like

leheisworriedbysomeofthenotesandthinksthat

Eliot"appearstobemockinghimlfforwritingthenoteatthesametime

thathewantstoconveysomethingbyit",Matthiesnbelievesthat"the

device"ofepigraphs"isnotatallopentotheobjectionofnotbeing

sufficientlystructural"."Theintention,"hesays,"istoenablethepoetto

cureacondendexpressioninthepoemitlf.""Ineachcathe

epigraphisdesignedtoformanintegralpartoftheeffectofthepoem."

AndEliothimlf,inhisnotes,hasjustifiedhispoeticpracticeinterms

ofintention.

TheHangedMan,amemberofthetraditionalpack,fitsmypurpoin

twoways:becauheisassociatedinmymindwiththeHangedGodof

Frazer,andbecauIassociatehimwiththehoodedfigureinthepassage

ofthedisciplestoEmmausinPartV...ThemanwithThreeStaves(an

authenticmemberoftheTarotpack)Iassociate,quitearbitrarily,withthe

FisherKinghimlf.

23

Andperhapsheistobetakenmoreriouslyhere,whenoffguardina

note,thanwheninhisNortonLectureshecommentsonthedifficultyof

sayingwhatapoemmeansandaddsplayfullythathethinksofprefixing

toacondeditionofAshWednesdaysomelinesfromDonJuan:

Idon'tpretendthatIquiteunderstand

MyownmeaningwhenIwouldbeveryfine;

ButthefactisthatIhavenothingplanned

Unlessitweretobeamomentmerry.

IfEliotandothercontemporarypoetshaveanycharacteristicfault,itmay

beinplanningtoomuch.

Allusivenessinpoetryisoneofveralcriticalissuesbywhichwe

haveillustratedthemoreabstractissueofintentionalism,butitmaybe

ticpracticeallusiveness

wouldappeartobeinsomerecentpoemsanextremecorollaryofthe

romanticintentionalistassumption,andasacriticalissueitchallenges

andbringstolightinaspecialwaythebasicpremiofintentionalism.

24

ThefollowinginstancefromthepoetryofEliotmayrvetoepitomize

t's"Love

Prufrock",towardstheend,occurstheline:"Ihave

heardthemermaidssinging,eachtoeach",andthisbearsacertain

remblancetoalineinasongbyJohnDonne,"Teachmetoheare

Mermaidessinging",sothatforthereaderacquaintedtoacertaindegree

withDonne'spoetry,thecriticalquestionaris:IsEliot'slineanallusion

toDonne's?IsPrufrockthinkingaboutDonne?IsEliotthinkingabout

Donne?Wesuggestthattherearetworadicallydifferentwaysoflooking

s(1)thewayofpoeticanalysisand

exegesis,whichinquireswhetheritmakesanynifEliot-Prufrockis

rlierpartofthepoem,whenPrufrockasks

"Wouldithavebeenworthwhile,...Tohavesqueezedtheuniverinto

aball",hiswordstakehalftheirsadnessandironyfromcertainenergetic

andpassionatelinesofMarvell"ToHisCoyMistress".Buttheexegetical

inquirermaywonderwhethermermaidsconsideredas"strangesights"(to

hearthemisinDonne'spoemanalogoustogettingwithchildamandrake

root)havemuchtodowithPrufrock'smermaids,whichemtobe

symbolsofromanceanddynamism,andwhichincidentallyhaveliterary

authentication,iftheyneedit,inalineofasonnetbyGérarddeNerval.

Thismethodofinquirymayleadtotheconclusionthatthegiven

remblancebetweenEliotandDonneiswithoutsignificanceandis

25

betternotthoughtof,orthemethodmayhavethedisadvantageof

heless,wesubmitthatthisisthe

trueandobjectivewayofcriticism,ascontrastedtowhatthevery

uncertaintyofexegesismighttemptacondkindofcritictoundertake;

(2)thewayofbiographicalorgeneticinquiry,inwhich,takingadvantage

ofthefactthatEliotisstillalive,andinthespiritofamanwhowould

ttleabet,thecriticwritestoEliotandaskswhathemeant,orifhehad

lnothereweightheprobabilities—whetherEliot

wouldanswerthathemeantnothingatall,hadnothingatallinmind—a

sufficientlygoodanswertosuchaquestion—orinanunguardedmoment

mightfurnishaclearand,withinitslimit,ntis

thatsuchananswertosuchaninquirywouldhavenothingtodowiththe

poem"Prufrock";alinquiries,

unlikebets,alinquiriesarenotttledby

consultingtheoracle.

注释：

在这篇文章里，作者认为，由于诗不再是诗人自己的，而是属于公众

的，所以任何把诗人意图作为理解诗的途径的严肃思考都搞错了对

26

象。诗的意义在于它的内在形式，其存在是一种美学现象。诗的外在

的“个人的或特质的”方面，提供关于诗创作方面的信息，对另一个语

境可能有某种意义，但在文学批评中对“作为语言行为的作品”的意义

却毫无价值。这种严格依附于文本细读的做法，实际上脱离了传记和

历史信息，构成了新批评的原则。

指施波莱（y）编的《世界文学词典》（1942），本文作者为

该词典撰写了“意图”（intention）这一条目。

指美国著名批评家斯宾加恩（JoelEliasSpingarn,1875—1939）。

克罗齐（BenedettoCroce,1866—1952）：意大利哲学家，以其对美学

的贡献著称。他最重要的美学观点是：直觉和表现是一致的，不存在

任何不表现出来的直觉。

克罗齐在他的《阿里奥斯托、莎士比亚和康奈利》（1920）的第七章“实

际个性和诗的个性”以及在他的《诗辩》（1933）里，对感情生成论进

行了有力的抨击，但其美学动机显然是出于一种认识上的意图论。

扬格（EdwardYoung,1683—1765）：英国作家、评论家，他的著作在

浪漫主义时期产生了重大影响，这主要表现在两个方面：从作品与读

者的关系转向作者与其作品的关系；从强调对文学陈述的规则和传统

27

的讨论转向对原创性和生就的“天才”的兴趣。

卡莱尔（ThomasCarlyle,1795—1881）：英国作家、评论家，他强调

象征的“隐蔽和揭示”作用，区分外在象征和内在象征，提出了象征的

社会意义，对象征形式的发展做出了贡献。

佩特（WalterPater,1839—1894）：英国批评家，常常被称为唯美主义

之父，他在《文艺复兴史研究》中提出了印象主义批评的主要原则。

激发诗歌的技巧显然是后来者居上。

一首诗写出之后，词的历史可以产生某些意义。如果这些意义适合原

始模式，它们不应该因顾及意图而被排除。