Reason & Imagination - A Study of Form and Meaning - In Four Poems

Sep 28, 2026

Uploaded by Aldword

A study of form and meaning in four poems, presenting a central argument that imagination and reason are closely related rather than separate abstractions. The preface outlines how poetic language is inseparable from discursive use, how literature both makes and says something, and why translation into conceptual terms may only partially succeed. It defends historical interpretation against approaches that treat poems as self-contained, arguing that literary understanding may require traveling beyond the text while remaining committed to literature itself.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryLiterature

FormatPDF

Pages164

Reading Time4 h 13 min

AccessFree to download

Preface

Central unity: imagination and reason

Language in literature and translation

Four poems and their philosophical concerns

Imagination as agent of reason

Literary criticism and historical interpretation

Mitchell College Library.New London,Conn. # Reason &Imagination UNIVERSITY OF HULL PUBLICATIONS Reason&Imagination! A STUDY OF FORM AND MEANING IN FOUR POEMS R.L.BRETT # GLASGOw NEW YORK TORONTO MELBOURNE WELLINGTONBOMBAY CALCUTTA MADRAS KARACHI KUALA LUMPURCAPE TOWN IBADAN NAIROBI ACCRA Oxford University Press I960 First edition I960 Reprinted I961 L0775 375 Mitcheil Coilege LibraryNew London,Conn. # Preface Mx aim in the following pages has not been to write a series ofseparate essays,though it may be found that each of my chapterswill stand on its own feet without support from the others.What I have tried to do has been marked,in my own mind atany rate,by a certain unity.The central argument,the threadthatlinks all the chapters,is the conviction that the imaginationand the reason are related.There will be those who regard'imagination'and ‘reason'as meaningless abstractions,mereechoes of an outdated faculty psychology.For them the argu-ment may be put in more fashionable terminology.Mycontention is that the literary use of language is not in thefinal analysis separable from its discursive use;language is oneand indivisible.The theory popular today,that literature is notpropositional,that it makes something but does not say any-thing,is only a part of the truth.For I believe that a work ofliterature in making something also says something;that it com-municates knowledge.It may be that a literary work can neverbe adequately translated into discursive terms,that there isno exact conceptual counterpart for the symbolic language ofliterature.But the truth of this does not entail that the attemptat translation is useless.For there may be partial success evenwhere full victory is denied us.If it were otherwise,the critic'stask would be not only difficult but impossible. I have endeavoured to support and illustrate this argumentby a discussion of four poems.All of these are concernedwith ideas and in that sense may be said to be ‘philosophical'.In discussing them I have attempted to show how poetrycan express thought;how the imagination may become,inColeridge's phrase,'the agent of the Reason’.The way in whichthe imagination operates varies from poem to poem,but ineach one it will be found,I believe,to reflect the philosophicalpreoccupations of its author and age.Symbol and concept go PREFACE hand in hand,though this does not mean that the relationshipbetween them is necessarily one of cause and effect.It is morelikely that changes in poetic idiom and changes in philosophyare parallel developments in man's perpetual search for newforms in which to express his experience.But in any event mypurpose has been not to establish causal connexions so muchas to let one development throw light on the other. If it is possible to do this,it must follow that many of theNew Critics are wrong when they insist on divorcing the ‘in-side'from the ‘outside'of a poem.No poem can be regardedin an absolute sense as self-contained or self-explanatory.Toestablish its meaning we may have to wander far outside theconfines of the poem itself.Provided thejourney is undertakenfor the sake of literature and brings us back to where westarted,in the poem,a variety of routes is open to us.But notall routes meet this proviso,and the one perhaps most popularwith literary travellers today is to be suspected for this reason.Modern critics,once started,have a habit of making for theunconscious mind,but for many it proves,I think,a blindalley.Lost amid the archetypes,they never regain contactwith the poem.The path I have chosen is a more traditionalone.Resisting the admonishments of the New Critics and theblandishments of the Jungians I have turned back to historicalinterpretation.My essay is,indeed,impenitently old fashionedin holding historical scholarship to be a necessary part ofliterary criticism.But though the method may be traditionalI hope the results may not lack novelty. My debts to scholars in the various fields into which

FAQs

What is the central argument presented in the preface?

The preface argues that imagination and reason are related and form a single, connected faculty rather than meaningless abstractions.

How does the author relate literary language to discursive language?

The author contends that the literary use of language is not separable from its discursive use, and that literature communicates knowledge even while it cannot be fully rendered in purely conceptual terms.

Why does the author prefer historical interpretation?

The author holds that meaningful interpretation may require looking beyond the poem’s confines and therefore defends historical scholarship as a necessary part of literary criticism.

Sep 28, 2026

Uploaded by Aldword