The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition

Abrams begins by defining the critical attitude of his contemporaries and offers an overview of literary and aesthetic criticism. Abrams references critiques of aesthetic theory that treat it as a “pseudo-philosophy” (4) and begins to answer those criticisms. He offers a definition of criticism that distinguishes the practice from hard science and psychology. Rather than seeking to offer verifiable evidence, as science does, criticism should instead offer diverse insights that create a series of illuminations into the function and purpose of an artwork. The diversity and disagreement within critical theory often enhance not only the field of theory, but the art that comes after and in response to the theory.

Abrams explains that tracing the history of literary criticism is challenging precisely because of the diversity of thought inherent in criticism. To help streamline this process, Abrams attempts to identify a common frame of reference and to examine the most common differences between the major theories. He outlines four elements of art: the work itself (i.e., the poem, painting, piece of music, etc.); the artist; a subject related to the real world, which Abrams names “universe” (6); and the audience. Abrams argues that every critical theory focuses on one of these four elements, but believes that effective analysis requires considering each “co-ordinate” as a multifaceted variable.

Abrams then describes four schools of thought in art criticism and philosophy. He begins with Mimetic Theory, which is partly based on Platonic and Aristotelian thought and considers the work of art an imitation of the natural world or an ideal world. Plato’s treatment separates poetry from philosophy or the natural world, suggesting that poetry is unable to offer accurate representations of the real or ideal world.

Aristotle defines different forms of art and offers the first definition of poetry as self-contained and self-defined. He also argues that poetry can reflect aspects of the real world, even if it is not a direct, strictly accurate imitation. The many references to Aristotelian thought in literary theory, from the Classical period through the 18th century, demonstrate the pervasiveness and continuity of this perspective of poetry as imitating the universe. However, Abrams points out that literary thought in the Renaissance did shift its focus from imitation and the universe to a stronger emphasis on rules of composition and the audience.

The next major critical movement Abrams describes is Pragmatic Theory, starting with Sir Philip Sidney (1554-1586) in the 1580s. In Sidney’s thought, and in the later, related theories of John Dryden (1631-1700) and Alexander Pope (1688-1744), the mimetic theory is considered a given, but the focus of literary analysis shifts to the effect on the audience rather than the imitation of the universe in the work. The point of the artwork is to provide the audience with pleasure and to teach the audience something about morality and/or human nature. Abrams’s discussion of Samuel Johnson’s Preface to Shakespeare (1765) shows how mimesis is used as a criterion of artistic excellence, but only in respect to the response from the audience and the value to that same audience.

Abrams argues that the pragmatic focus on the audience shifted, in the middle of the 18th century, to the poet’s ability to understand and speak to that audience. This gave rise to Expressive Theory, “in which the artist himself becomes the major element generating both the artistic product and the criteria by which it is to be judged” (22). Abrams uses William Wordsworth’s “Preface to The Lyrical Ballads” to illustrate this shift to Expressive Theory in criticism: The primary concern becomes whether the poem is true to the internal truth of the poet, rather than measuring the poem against the natural world or the response of the audience.

Abrams advances this general definition with a short discussion of John Stuart Mill’s 1833 work on poetry, “What is Poetry?”. Mill entirely rejects the natural or material world as a criterion by which to judge poetry. Instead, he argues that the best poetry naturally springs spontaneously as an outpouring of the poet’s feeling, and that objects, characters, and description serve only to provide a vehicle for that feeling. The audience, likewise, becomes not only less important, but inconsequential. If poetry is written for an audience, Mill argues, it becomes rhetoric or argument, and ceases to be poetry.

The focus on the artist and the definition of a poem as an outpouring of feeling led to the Objective Theory, as developed by T. S. Eliot, John Crowe Ransom, René Wellek, and others. Objective Theory dominated literary criticism in America during the early to mid-20th century. The primary focus of Objective Theory is the poem itself, considered in a kind of vacuum. The artist, universe, and audience are all to be ignored and the poem analyzed only on its own merits. These theories arise in part out of Immanuel Kant’s (1724-1804) philosophy that argued art was an end in itself, rather than a means to an end.

Abrams closes his survey of literary theories by placing the literary discussions of Wordsworth, Coleridge, Mill, Keble, and Hunt in contrast to Johnson’s Preface and other foundational works of the 16th and 17th centuries. The movement from audience to artist, then, is the primary concern of Abrams’s book.

Abrams turns to Plato’s The Republic to reintroduce the concept of art as a mirror of the natural world, or Universe. He explains the Mirror metaphor of art, which defines art as providing a reflection or imitation of reality. Abrams extends “metaphor” from a literary term to a concept that embodies anything that reaches beyond the literal and physical. Abrams then slightly redefines a fact as something that can be created, not merely found. He explains that Plato’s definition of art regarded art as fundamentally a poor reflection—a clouded mirror—of real life and/or the ideal, which led Plato to denigrate its utility. Aristotle later adapted Plato’s theory by arguing that a poem is “an end in itself” (34), arguing that art can be an accurate reflection of certain aspects or elements of life, thereby expanding the potential value of art as a mirror.

In criticism following Aristotle and Plato from the 16th to the 18th centuries, there are several interpretations of art as mirror that veer more towards Plato or towards Aristotle. The primary difference between interpretations of the mirror idea lies in the distinction between imitation and reflection. The use of the “mirror” as a descriptor of art led to scholarly focus on the individual work and author, the experience of the reader, and how well the work reflected truth. Abrams argues that the limitations of Aristotle’s categories and the metaphor of the mirror result in many critics ignoring key elements of artistic value.

The idea of the poem or artwork as a mirror reflecting life invites the question of what, precisely, the mirror is reflecting. Classical or Neo-classical scholars argued that poetry reflects highlighted elements of nature and the universe, and as such presents and elevates a given object. Aristotelian critics argued the elements of the universe reflected in poetry are drawn from sense perception, while Platonic critics argued that the goal of poetry is to reflect the ideal “Form” that exists in its own right and is only accessible in the mind.

18th-century thinkers in the mimetic tradition turned to Aristotle to define good art as a mirror rather than a reproduction. They believed that depictions of nature, or the real world, should focus on elements that are beautiful, harmonious, universal, and uniform. However, at the same time, there was a reaction against this categorization, with Abrams quoting Edward Young (1683-1765) and the 18th-century philosopher and theologian Reverend J. Moir as demonstrating a desire for original and unfamiliar ideas, descriptions, and depictions within art. Even though there is a schism between these two schools of thought in the 18th century, Abrams reminds the reader that both of these approaches place primary importance on art as a mirror or reflection of the physical world.

However, an interpretation of Plato through Plotinus had earlier become popular in Renaissance Italy, forming a transcendentalist approach to literary criticism. In this approach, art mirrors the purity of ideas, lifting art well above realism to be a vehicle towards Form. Plato’s definition of Form or Ideal is that it exists independent of humanity, and can only be accessed by people within the mind. Abrams points out that literary criticism must decide whether Form comes from the mind, or exists independently, as that determination decides the import of the poet in the analysis of poetry.

The transcendental view either takes the position that the human mind can, in the process of making and experiencing art, access some of the true Form/Ideal, or that the Form is in the individual mind or soul of the artist. The second view leads to discussions of art as reflecting the inner truth of the artist, which signals a shift from focusing on nature/universe to focusing on the poet.