Poetics 12 (1983) 397-417

North-Holland

397

HOW A LITERARY WORK BECOMES

A MASTERPIECE:
ON THE
THREEFOLD SELECTION PRACTISED BY LITERARY CRITICISM
C.J. VAN REES *

The institution criticism has the authority to legitimize texts as literary texts of a specific rank.
Amongst
the institutions
in the literary field only criticism is presumed competent
to assign
specific qualities to literary texts, to assess their value and to decide on the legitimate ways of
discussing texts.
In order to be regarded as being of high quality, a text has to pass through the selection filters
of three distinct types of critics: journalistic
reviewers, essayists and academic critics. Differences
between them pertain to their different
temporal
positions vis-a-vis literary texts and to the
vastness of the selection made from literary works of this century or of earlier periods. On balance.
the contributions
which these types of critics make to the ranking process are complementary;
this
has a strengthening
effect on criticisms relative autonomy and on its dominant position within the
literary field.
Contrary to criticisms claims. the grading process to which a text is subjected is not founded
on any specific insight enabling a critic to recognize intrinsic textual properties which would justify
its classification
as a literary text of a certain standard. Social acceptance of a critics discourse as a
plausible account of the nature and quality of a literary text depends on a certain number of
factors whose institutionally
determined
nature generally remains obscured. These factors consider, first. the critics stance within one of the three types of criticism,
and secondly, his
proficiency in couching his discourse in compliance with the normative premises and the essentialist definitions derived from the conception of literature currently prevalent among his peers.

1. Introduction
In the complex process of production,
distribution
and consumption
of literature, criticism plays a significant part. Each of these three areas is influenced
by it.
First. literary criticism is itself a mode of reception
(consumption)
of
literature.
Perusal of a critics discourse by the literature-oriented
reading
For their thoughtful comments and suggestions on an earlier draft of this paper I am indebted to
J.J.A. Mooij and, particularly,
H. Verdaasdonk.
A third intellectual debt I owe to P. Bourdieu for
particular
points indicated in the text. Anne M. MacDonald
has corrected my English and has
been very helpful in solving different editing problems. Shortcomings
should be attributed to the
author alone.
Dept. of Language
and Literature.
Authors address:
C.J. van Rees, Tilburg University,
SLE-A108
Hogeschoollaan
225, PO Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands.
l

0304-422X/83/$3.00

Q 1983, Elsevier Science Publishers

B.V. (North-Holland)

398

C.J. LOI Rees / How a lrtera~ work becomes a masterpiece

public might not only stimulate them to purchase the book, but also lead to
their acceptance of the discourse as a basis for their conception of what is to be
considered as important
in the text and for their judgment
as to whether this
text is more successful than others, etc.
Indirectly
a critics discourse is even related to the production
of literary
texts. Together with the readers of literary publishing
houses. literary critics
can be considered
as the co-producers
of a text as a literary text: what is
decisive in texts valorization
and in its being awarded more or less quality is
the number of critical discourses written on this text and not. as is currently
assumed, its allegedly intrinsic properties.
A texts qualification
as literary
fiction depends on the recognition
of the publisher
and of the author as
producers of specific types of texts, viz. literary texts. The reputation
of a
publisher as a specialized provider of literary texts determines the perception
of a text as an object of cultural value: a text very rarely earns its literary
status by an explicit decision on the part of a certain number of critics. Of
course, the term literary
(or literariness)
points to the symbolic surplus
value of a text as compared with non-literary
fiction.
Finally, the critics discourse affects the distribution
of literary texts via e.g.
the bookselling
trade and public libraries. Booksellers and book selectors in
public libraries can at least partly assess the saleability or lendability of a title,
recently published
or due to appear in the short term, in the light of the
interest displayed by literary critics in earlier works by the same author.
In order to clarify the status of literary criticism as an institution within the
literary field. some issues will be raised on the nature and function of criticism.
These issues relate to the image Lvhich criticism propagates of its own activities.
This self-image, which is very influential
and widely recognized, has hardly
ever been questioned. Yet, it will be argued here that it requires radical change.
On the one hand, the study of literature Lvrongly abstracts from a lot of social
factors which are in fact determinants
of its own activities. On the other hand
it greatly overrates the extent to which literary theory can provide a sound
cognitive contribution
to the award of literariness and of high literary value to
literary texts. Due to this overrating, the institutional
nature of the grounds for
the critics competence to present both of these awards as legitimate remains
undetected (11.
2. Three branches

of criticism

The number of viewpoints from which types of criticism can be distinguished

is
legion. This paper will proceed on the basis of an existing distinction,
viz. that
[l] See the Introduction
to this issue for references to various currents known as institutional
analysis and for arguments sustaining the view that the approach developed by Bourdieu - see,
for example, Bourdieu 1979. 1980a - is preferable to the one put forth in Dickie (1974) and
Aagaard-Mogensen
(1976).

C.J. ran Rees / How a la-ray

work becomes a masrerprece

399

between journalistic.
essayistic and academic criticism. I shall try to demonstrate that this distinction is bound up with a specific interrelationship
between
these forms of criticism [2].
My analysis aims in the first place to specify the autonomy
of literary
criticism as an institution
and to clarify the type of legitimizing
competence
held by each of these three types of critics. A critics legitimizing competence
might be provisionally
described as his socially accepted qualification
to force.
by means of his discourse, public recognition of a text as a literary text which
has a certain degree of quality, compared with other literary texts. Among the
various ways in which this recognition
may be made manifest, I mention the
following. Other critics will also review and/or
analyze this text or will be
inclined to discuss new works by the author in question; a substantial
part of
the reading public interested in literature will purchase and discuss the text;
the author uill obtain financial support by way of grants or literary awards,
thus enabling him to devote his time to the writing of new work; publishing
houses (either his ovvn or a new one) will not only ensure that his works remain
obtainable
but will also be more inclined to publish a new manuscript
at short
notice; his work will be anthologized,
included in the curricula of schools and
universities
and treated by historians
of literature;
booksellers
and book
selectors in public libraries will feel obliged to have this work in stock.
It is never possible to assess in absolute terms any critics qualification,
since
legitimizing competence is clearly a relative question depending on a multiplicity of factors. Regardless of the branch of criticism to which they belong. all
critics make use of a conception
of literature in formulating
their discourse.
Any conception of literature contains a set of normative premises and definitions which are believed to specify the nature and function of literature as well
as the techniques by means of which a text is supposed to realize its function
and to have specific effects on the reader [3]. Journalistic,
essayistic and
academic critics shon a difference in legitimizing competence. The question of
(21 Current classifications
of criticism are defective since they are. on the whole. based either on
pseudomethodological
distinctions
or on equivocal
thematic
criteria.
the relevance of which
remains unclear. Thus, the main objection to be raised against existing classifications
is that
various types of criticism are distinguished
in a rather arbitrary ad hoc manner without recognition
of, let alone allowance for. the normative,
literary conceptual
nature of the premises which are
selected as criteria for this distinction. This is true not only of Watsons tripartition in leg,islative,
descriptive
and theoretical
criticism (Watson 1973: 3ff.). based as it is on the illusion that
only literary studies dating from earlier than 1800 would be normative, whereas later approaches
would have gained objectivity and scientificity; it is also true of the type of classification
proposed,
for example, by Rogerson (1974). It is not contended that the latter title or the review by Abrams
in the same encyclopaedia
(Abrams
1974) lacks any informatory
function with regard to the
contents
formerly assigned to such notions as criticism.
In this respect Wellek (1981) for
example, might be useful in a study of the ambiguity of this notion in different languages.
[3] See for example Verdaasdonk
1981a. Van Rees 1981. Section 5 below contains some indications regarding the use which can be made of a conception
of literature.

400

C.J. can Rees / How a litermy work becomes a masrerpiece

whether this difference should be seen as a result of the existence of distinct

types of conceptions of literature and/or of the various ways in which a given
conception
of literature is used will be discussed later in this paper. However,
these differences do not prevent inclusion of the three types of critics in one
and the same institution,
viz. that of literary criticism. This follows from the
fact that the three types of criticism fundamentally
agree both on the purpose
which they pursue and on the way in which they should carry it out. First. each
of the three strives to make descriptive,
interpretative
and evaluative statements on literary texts. Secondly, the activities of the three types of critics all
lead to a hierarchical classification
of these texts according to their (literary)
quality. It is one thing for a text to be recognized as literary; it is another for it
to qualify as a masterpiece, i.e. as being of high quality. As regards this last
point it should be noted that the contributions
made by the three distinct types
of critics conzpIement each other: it depends to a great extent on the interest
shown by all types of critics whether or not a text will be ranked among the
great literary masterpieces. The fact that a text is included in the curricula of
schools and universities, is inserted in anthologies and is discussed in histories
of literature could be considered as proof that it belongs to the ranks of the
masterpieces and that, in the eyes of society, its value is enduring [4].

3. Autonomization

of the literary field and criticisms relative autonomy

In order to be appreciated as literary and of a high standard, a text has to pass

through the selection filters of a publishing
house and of the three forms of
criticism.
During the last few centuries
these institutions
have gradually
undergone
important changes. Since the beginning of the nineteenth
century,
the organizations
active in the areas of production,
distribution
and consumption of literary texts have grown increasingly independent
of each other, partly
as a result of their autonomization
with respect to political and clerical forces
and partly as a result of the growth in the reading public [.5]. Only as recently
and masterpieces:
a work which journalistic
criticism
(41 There are, of course. masterpieces
tends to stamp as a masterpiece will not necessarily obtain this same status within essayistic nor a
fortiori in academic criticism. Besides it should be noted that a title, which for its literary
publishing house was a resounding commercial success but which was not acclaimed by renowned
critics, will have no chance of obtaining the status of enduring value.
[S] In the history of literary and art criticism some attention
has already been given to the
conditions under which this transformation
took place. Cultural sociologists have pointed to the
fact that the various production,
distribution
and consumption
organizations
have gradually freed
themselves from influences exercised since the invention of the art of printing until late in the
eighteenth
century by clerical and temporal
authorities
(see, for example. Schiicking 1944).
Williams (1971: 145-270).
among others, indicates how interdependent
factors, such as the
introduction
of compulsory education, the growth of literacy, the expansion of the reading public
and the rise of the (popular) press, furthered the production,
distribution
and consumption
of

C.J. van Rees / How (I Irterar) work becomes (I masterpiece

401

as the nineteenth century have journalistic

and academic criticism developed as
relatively autonomous
segments of criticism.
English, French and German
reviews which appeared
in the eighteenth
century were devoted to general
cultural matters;
the discussion
of literature
only occupied a small place.
Reviews and magazines regularly providing the reading public with information on recently published
texts date, at the earliest, from the nineteenth
century [6]. Literary reviews propounding
a literary program of their own, both
through the selection of new literary texts and by means of critical essays, date
from an even more recent period. It is true that literary studies on an academic
level - particularly
histories of literature
- can already be found at the
beginning of the nineteenth century, but the professional pursuit of criticism at
the university
began to develop seriously only as a result of the growing
importance
attached to the national patrimony,
and in view of the need to
train (high school) teachers [7].
One of the implications
of this autonomization
was that the three forms of
criticism distinguished
above had to acquire for themselves the statutory power

various kinds of literature and other reading matter. This growth was undeniably accompanied
by
a differentiation
in types of reading public, that of literary fiction. of non-literary
fiction and of
non-fiction
(see. in particular.
Altick (1957) for a well-documented
social history of the mass
reading public). Although a watertight compartmentalization
of the reading public is not possible
this differentiation
was undoubtedly
reinforced as, becoming increasingly independent.
an institution such as that of literary criticism - with literary education following in its wake - attained a
position from where it could use its legitimizing competence
to emphasize the legitimacy of a
specific body of texts, designated above as literary fiction.
[6] See Graham (1966) for a general survey of English literary periodicals:
in addition, see the
discussion of the eighteenth century reviewing situation in Spector (1966) and especially in Roper
(1978). Cox (1937) is devoted to the criticism of literature - reviewing, primary criticism - in the
Edinburgh Reciew, the Quarterly Review and Blackwoods Magazine during the first half of the
nineteenth century; Bevington (1941). Everett (1939, esp. 232-279) and Marchand (1941: 98ff.)
also comprise a general, comparative
section on the reviewing situation. See Kramer (1970) on the
conditions promoting criticism as an occupation.
Sutherland (1978: 84-102) contains some useful
observations
on the present reviewing establishment,
especially in England.
[7] Nowadays,
literary scholars are so used to the current tripartition
of criticism and to its
institutionalized
connection
with literary education
at various levels that, being unaware of the
surprisingly
recent character of the present situation, they risk seeing it as being centuries old. See
Altick (1957: 173-187) on the role of English literature in nineteenth-century
secondary education.
Cowley (1958: 14) rightly points to the fact that only since the 1920s have American academic
critics been seriously concerned
with providing the American reading public - particularly
the
students following a literary education - with a certain number of masterpieces
from nineteenthcentury American literature which would rate as equivalent to those long enjoyed in European
countries. See Wellek (1963) on the decay of American philological scholarship,
which dominated
the university scene around 1900, into useless antiquarianism
and on its gradual replacement by
the movement of new criticism which arose outside of the university (cf. also Wellek 1977: 615).
Xlulhern (1979) contains useful information
on the English situation and on the role of a review
such as Scrutiny. Refer to Janssens (1968) for consideration
of the American literary review in the
first half of our century.

402

C.J. cm Rees / How a Ittera~

work becomes u ntasrerprece

allowing each of them to make a specific kind of decision. This resulted in a

demarcation
of domains with respect to both the literature of previous periods
_ which became almost the sole province of academic criticism - and to the
supply of contemporary
literature.
The literary field is made up of the
institutions
functioning
within it. Its autonomy and. equally, that of each type
of criticism are merely relative; each type of criticism and, more generally, each
institution
in the field partly owes its specificity to the network of relations it
maintains
with the other organisations
active in the field (Bourdieu 1980b:
209; Schmidt 1982: 60).
As regards the incorrect account which literary criticism gives of itself, it is
most noticeable and significant
that it lays claim to a far greater amount of
autonomy
than can be substantiated
given the nature of the methodological
and epistemological
premises actually underlying
its activities. Yet both from
the division of tasks between the different types of criticism and from the
respect shown by the other institutions
for the results of these activities. it
appears that this claim is in fact acknowledged.
Such acknovvledgment
implies
that, in the face of other institutions
in the field, each segment of criticism
decides with respect to the repertory coming within its scope:

(9

which texts are held to be legitimate forms of literary fiction:

to which rank a particular
text is entitled in the hierarchy of literary
works;
(iii) which statements
on these texts represent proper ways of dealing with
literature, viz. which do justice to the text under discussion.
(ii)

Despite the respect shown for criticisms activities, there is no question of a

status quo. Between the institutions
- and not only between the members of
one particular institution
- a continuous
struggle is carried on, albeit often on
the level of subterfuge (cf. Bourdieu 1977: 7, 19f.. 1980a: 265. 276f.). This
contest is not about the competency
to decide which texts are literary and
which are not. In the literary field the question of whether or not a published
text is literary
is hardly ever the issue between or within particular institutions, not even within criticism whose interest in a text actually implies its
literary status. What is at stake is the rank to which a literary text is entitled in
the hierarchy of literary texts. In comparing the contributions
of the different
institutions
to the process in which this question is settled, one is forced to
conclude that, both in the short and in the long term, criticism dictates the
course of this process.
4. Time interval and scope of repertory
Their common aim and way of achieving
subsuming
the three forms of criticism

this end provided us with a basis for

within one institution.
This should,

C.J. can Rees / HOW a literary work becomes

a masterpiece

403

however, not mask the ways in which they differ. In fact, these differences
determine the type of legitimizing
competence
associated with each of these
forms of criticism. What is the nature of these differences?
In the first instance,
I wish to point out two rather radical differences
regarding the conditions
under which a critic selects a text as a subject for
discourse. These differences relate to:
(i)

the time interval between a texts publication

of a critics discourse,
(ii) the scope of the field from which a particular
by a critic.

and its becoming

the object

text is selected for discussion

The distinct phases of the process by means of which a text acquires a

permanent,
high-ranking
position in the literary hierarchy correspond
to the
degree of interest displayed in this text by one of the three distinct types of
criticism: at the moment of its publication,
text T cannot simultaneously form
the subject of discussion by a reviewer, an essayist and an academic critic. This
is due to the fact that these types of critics generally occupy different positions
in time with regard to a newly published
literary work. This difference in
temporal position means that not all types of critic are allowed to discuss a text
Tat the moment of its publication.
In a purely temporal sense, the work of the
journalist,
the essayist and the academic critic can be designated as primary,
secondary
and tertiary
criticism. Whatever this terminology
might suggest, it does not alter the specific and indispensable
nature of the contribution
made by each type of critic. The respective
types of criticism
form the
complementary
parts of a selection process which is, at the same time, a
ranking process by means of which a text, when compared with other texts,
grows in importance and eventually may obtain the status of masterpiece. With
the transition
from primary to tertiary criticism the filters involved become
.increasingly fine. Passing through these filters requires a long period of time; a
work which does not pass through all filters fades into obscurity. One of the
conditions for not being relegated to oblivion is that an author should succeed
in regularly enlarging the body of his work; a further condition is that some of
his works should continuously
hold the attention of literary critics.
From the stock of contemporary
texts discussed at any given time by daily
and weekly reviewers only a small number reach at a later stage the repertories
of essayists and academic critics. In contrast to this, the number of noncontemporary
authors belonging to the repertories of essayists and academic
critics is substantial.
For daily and weekly reviewers non-contemporary
authors
are at best relevant as a general background
providing pegs for drawing global
parallels with a contemporary
author. The journalistic
critic has to show great
restraint in his references to non-contemporary
authors. This reserve is institutionally determined.

404

C.J. c;an Rees / HOW a luerar) work becomes u masterpiece

There are different ways to objectify the prestige which the work of a
non-contemporary
- classic - author enjoys at the level of essayistic and.
particularly,
academic criticism. A reliable gauge for measuring this prestige is
the extent to which the work is included in the literature curricula of colleges
and universities in the western world [8]. The degree to which the work, c.q.
elements thereof, form the topic of (inter)national
discussions between critics
or scholars also enables a works literary prestige within academic circles to be
measured.
In addition to the purely temporal distinction which has been made between
primary,
secondary
and tertiary criticism, these types of criticism show a
difference
in respect to the social prestige each enjoys. Of course, this
hierarchical
difference
does not detract from the fact that each form of
criticism has its own specific task. However, the three forms of criticism are
interdependent
when it comes to the attribution
of quality to literary texts. On
the one hand, only in a very few cases since the nineteenth
century have there
been instances of a work, which was not prominent
in press reviews, nevertheless forming the subject of scrutiny by academic critics [9]. On the other hand.
attention being given to a text by academic critics is a necessary prerequisite if
it is to be assigned the status of timeless masterpiece.
Thus, works consecrated by academic criticism do hold the highest rank in the canon of literary
texts. Furthermore,
the vastness of the domain from which texts are selected
leads to a difference in the cultural prestige attached to each distinct form of
criticism. In general, the broadness of a critics repertory is seen as indicative
of how widely read and knowledgeable
he is; but the vastness as well as the
unexplored
nature of the terrain from which primary criticism selects the

(81 The following argument, derived from Knapton and Evans (1967). shows a manner of evading
serious questions which is current not only in studies on literary education but also in the more
genuine forms of (academic) criticism. The initial question: Why teach literature at all? (1967: 6)
is refined thus: What is the very best thing that it [literature] can do for students? The authors
answer this question by means of a dubious postulate: The best thing a work of literature, or any
work of art, can do is to provide the experience of itself as a work of art (1967: 6); this experience
experience. On the authority of critics. philosophers.
poets, essayists,
is qualified as aesthetic
novelists and dramatists
from the past, this experience is believed to exercise a salutary effect on
the inner being (1967: 6). Only first-rate works are to be selected because first-rate works can
provide the most potent aesthetic experiences. That is why they are first-rate (1967: 10). In order
to the best judgment,
authority should be extensively
to compile a list of these works according
consulted; this authority consists of a consensus including critics. scholars, literary historians, and
literate general readers (...) of many years and generations
(...). We can be most sure of the
oldest works, less sure of the later, and not at all sure of the latest (1967: 10-11). In the same vein
are some of the papers collected in Smith (1971). particularly
those by Maxime Greene and by
James Zigerell; more sophisticated
is the way in which. in the same collection, the problem of
curriculum design is stated by Stanley Madeja and Harry Kelly and by Alan Purves.
[9] The recently discovered work of a classic author from the past is a too obvious exception. In
some areas of academic criticism a scholar may consider any scribble by his author as relevant.

C.J. LOII Rees / HOW a literary

work becomes o masterpiece

405

literary texts to be discussed have a negative effect on the prestige of journalistic criticism.
The task assigned to primary criticism is to report on the entire contemporary output of literary publishing
houses. This is, of course, an impossible
task and primary critics come nowhere near to realizing it. However, the body
of texts selected is very comprehensive
[lo]. It far exceeds the small number of
texts produced by the corps dtlite of highly esteemed contemporary
authors.
Consequently.
primary
critics are obliged to turn their attention
to less
renowned authors. This attention is incidental in nature: not all critics discuss
works by these authors. not all of their works are reviewed. This indicates that
the writings in question are regarded as being of rather modest value. It should
be pointed out that less renowned authors are given much less chance by their
publishers to build up an extensive body of work [ll]. Nevertheless,
reviewing
a work by a less renowned author fulfils the function of setting a very global
average standard by means of which the rarity value, i.e. the high quality, of
renowned authors can be gauged. A journalistic
critic always works within a
well-defined
framework when selecting texts for a review (cf. Bourdieu 1977:
14f.. 1980a: 271f.). Most of the texts which he discusses originate
from a
publishing
firm whose output usually attracts the attention of literary critics.
In the case of a debutant
the name of the publishing
firm is more or less a
deciding factor in whether or not his work will be reviewed. Of course other
indicators may also be of significance, notably the literary journal in which any
of his previous work appeared.
On account of its comprehensive
repertory and of the small number of texts
from this repertory u-hich at a later stage reach the repertory of secondary and
[lo] In the context of this paper I will not consider more closely the question of how a positive or
negative value judgment
is brought about. However, my analysis of the factors determining
a
critics legitimizing competence
(below, section 5) does provide some preliminaries
relevant for
nature of a critics activities,
empirical research on this point: insight into the field-bound
particularly
into the literary conceptual character of statements on a literary text. is indispensable
in answering such questions. By considering
a book for a review, a primary critic implies that, on
the strength of indicators
such as the name of the publishing
house and/or
of the author, he
attaches potential importance
to it. By writing a positive review the critic emphasizes that, in his
opinion, the book in question is indeed of significance.
In a negative review he is implying that he
feels it desemes to be rejected. A critics legitimizing
competence
and his status in the field
determine. first. the way in which he formulates his opinion and secondly, the importance
which
the field and the reading public will attach to his view. For the publishing
house very negative
reviews are at least indicative of the fact that other work by the same author will not be analysed in
detail by this reviewer. Negative as the review of a work may be, as long as the edition exists, the
book derives from being selected for review a further confirmation
of its literary status. If
follow-up in the form of sales and of new work fails to materialize, the author in question can only
boast of a transitory reputation as a writer of literary fiction.
[ll] If the work of less renowned writers is reviewed at all, this will usually only be long after its
date of publication.
In the case of topwriters, on the contrary, they are more and more frequently
being interviewed in the daily and weekly press long before their new work is published.

406

C.J. CCIRRees / How a Ittera~

work becomes u

masterpiece

tertiary criticism, primary criticism is sometimes reproached with being superficial and with paying insufficient
attention to important works. Essayists and
academic critics, who are precisely the ones who level this reproach,
are
therewith implicitly claiming that they have more adequate selection criteria.
As has already been seen, the selection made by secondary
and tertiary
criticism amounts to a narrowing down of the space allotted to contemporary
authors in the repertory of highly esteemed literary texts. Hoaever, this result
is not due to a better developed selection capacity on the part of secondary and
tertiary criticism. Critics have in the past tried to justify their agreement with
the selection made by former generations
by appealing
to the age-old but
hypostatizing
phrase time has decided; this phrase, however. illustrates the
institutional
consensus on the quality of a limited number of literary works as
a factor determining
the decision on the part of subsequent
generations
of
critics to select precisely those works for discussion. The various ways in which
a consensus was reached might be studied by the history of criticism. What
should be emphasized is, first, that there are no satisfactory
epistemological
and methodological
grounds for the claim by any type of criticism to possess a
better selection capacity; secondly, that the epistemological
foundations
of all
forms of literary studies are in the same way and to the same extent problematic, since all forms are inevitably
based on a conception
of literature, a
body of normative statements
about the alleged nature of a literary text. As
these statements
do not lend themselves to an unequivocal
application
to
literary texts, there is no reason for assuming one of the three distinct forms of
criticism to be more scientific or better founded. Whoever claims that the
journalistic
critic makes a mistake in recommending
or rejecting works which
essayists and academic critics later neglect or. as the case may be, esteem does
so erroneously. What is at stake here is not so much a difference in aesthetic
criteria, in purity of taste or something of that sort. but first and foremost a
different stance within the literary field, which implies a different degree of
precision in the verbalization
of the aesthetic norms on the basis of which the
three kinds of criticism assign quality to a literary work [12].
In epistemological
and methodological
respects no form of literary criticism
can be regarded as better founded
than another; in default of conclusive
criteria, neither type of critic can justify his value judgments
except by having
recourse to a particular conception
of literature and by referring to the norms
current in this conception. Of course, critics are able to formulate in a more or
less precise and detailed manner the arguments which they adduce as the basis
of their value judgments.
The consensus of opinion displayed by a group of
[I21 For the rest it will occur rarely, that is only in the case of authors who have published a rather
limited body of work, that primary criticism rejects what is later on recognized as a masterpiece.
Since the nineteenth century, when journalistic
and academic criticism began to develop, it may be
taken as a general rule that academic criticism does not concern itself with a (relatively recent)
author whose work did not receive the undivided attention of journalistic
criticism.

C.J. LCDI
Rees / How a literaT work becomes (1 masrerpiece

407

critics concerning
the value to be attached to a given work depends to a
considerable
extent on their knowledge of and on their agreement with earlier
judgments
passed on work by the same author or from the same publishing
house. This does not, however. imply that it is impossible for a critic to take an
opposing view. But this too is institutionally
determined.
That is to say, such
opposing views cannot be held too frequently by the same critic with respect to
works which are highly esteemed or not considered to be worth while by the
majority of critics. In too frequently displaying an attitude of dissent concerning a multiplicity of authors whose merit is held to be beyond doubt. a critic is
disqualifying
himself.
Essayists publish their discourses on literature in literary reviews in particular. At least in their twentieth-century
format, these do not normally concern
The nineteenth-century
situation
was
themselves
with recent publications.
quite different since the function of primary criticism - to provide information
on recent publications
- was mainly exercised in reviews and magazines. When
compared
with primary criticism, secondary
criticism has in addition
the
following distinctive features. A critical essay in a quarterly or monthly review
comprises a far greater number of words; it fairly often devotes attention
to
highly esteemed literary works. but most important
is that it is published in a
medium other than a daily or weekly paper. Literary reviews are generally kept
for reference. Historians
of literature frequently
make use of the articles in
these reviews. In dealing with contemporary
authors, an essay will nearly
always cover work which primary critics have by common consent spoken of
positively: only occasionally will it cover that part of the work of an otherwise
celebrated
author which journalistic
reviewers have, until then, judged less
favourably or to which they have not paid sufficient attention. Twentieth-century criticism also numbers a great many successful attempts on the part of
essayists to reassess the work of past authors which they considered had until
then been either underrated
or overrated
by academic
criticism:
such a
reassessment
is based on a conception
of literature different to the one then
prevalent. Without holding an academic position in the field, an essayist may
thus directly impel academic criticism to adjust its system of values; for
journalistic
critics such a feat seems to be out of the question.
Academic criticism is the concern of people with a university
education,
publishing
their findings in reviews specializing
in scholarly publications.
A
first characteristic
trait of an academic critics discourse is that it always deals
with the work of a renowned author from the (recent) past; secondly, it is
always based on an explicit appeal to a conception
of literature
currently
favored by an important group of academic critics [13]. Since the terminologi[13] As uill be argued

periodical
particular

below, the concerted action of critics within the framework of a specific

has to be viewed as a most important
indicator of the fact that these critics share a
conception of literature, even although this may remain inexplicit.

C.J. can Rees / How a litermy ~.ork becomes u masterptecr

408

cal apparatus bound up with this conception

of literature is presented as an
indispensable
theoretical
framework
for making relevant
assertions regarding a text. academic discourses may come across as being rather technical
to the non-initiated
reader. An academic critics reputation
is made if he
succeeds in coining certain terms. His colleagues ail1 be all the more inclined
to adopt not only the proposed terminology
but also the premises implicit in
these terms. if a critic applies this framework in his comprehensive
analysis of
a famous masterpiece. Genettes system of narratological
terms and his interpretative discourse on Prousts A la recherche du remps perdu (Genette 1980)
have won him such a reputation
[14].
In the foregoing I have stated that differences between the three types of
literary criticism pertain to their different temporal positions vis-a-vis literary
texts and to the vastness of the choice made from literary works of this century
or of earlier periods. Is there also a difference in the way critics use conceptions of literature?
Academic
criticism is generally
viewed as the best developed
form of
applied poetics; as such it is believed to be directly related to theoretical
poetics, which is supposed to have a monopoly of so-called theory formation.
The conceptions
of literature held by all literary critics as the most advanced
are indeed developed by academic scholars. However, these conceptions
of
literature are not adopted by primary criticism, the more so since reviewers
tend to address themselves to the largest section of the reading public interested in literature and not in the first place to an audience of scholars. Of
course, this does not alter the fact that even this largest section comprises
mainly those with a higher level of education.
Undeniably,
different types of
critics do make a different appeal to a conception of literature: this difference
can affect the legitimizing competence
that various forms of criticism may lay
claim to. However, in order to appreciate such differences it is necessary to
take into consideration
the grounds on which any critic in the field acquires
legitimizing competence.

5. Grounds

for a critics legitimizing

competence

Critics produce a great number of interpretative

and evaluative statements on
literary texts that result in a ranking thereof according to quality. This grading
process is socially recognized: precisely those texts which criticism has publicly
selected become the subject of valorization
even beyond the immediate domain
of criticism; this appears, for example, in literary education curricula and in
the policy of publishing
houses. From this recognition
one may infer that
criticism has the authority to legitimize texts as literary texts of a specific rank.
[14] See my analysis

of Genettes

study in Van Rees (1981).

Cf. can Ret-s / How a

litermy

work becomes a masrerpiece

409

But contrary to what criticism itself claims, this ranking is nor based on any
specific insight or capacity enabling a critic to recognize and signalize certain
intrinsic textual properties in a given text which would justify its classification
as a literary text of a certain standard.
What in our Western society is called knowledge
of literature is ambiguous. Owing to this, the alleged knowledge itself is also valorized in many ways.
Anyone who is taken to be a connoisseur of literature is believed to have read a
comprehensive
repertory of literary masterpieces. Both the knowledge - in the
sense of erudition
- and the objects of this knowledge are highly esteemed
(Bourdieu 1979: 255ff.). Among the group of people with a higher education a
small subgroup
can be distinguished
by its ability to produce elaborate
discourses on these texts. These discourses only apparently give evidence of the
personal (subjective)
commitment
to a given text or set of texts. In order to
be accepted as legitimate, these discourses have in fact to satisfy a number of
conditions.
These pertain to the terminology
employed,
the argumentative
strategies connected with the normative
premises concerning
the nature and
function
of literature,
and the selection of works suitable for discussion.
Deciding factors in the recognition of these discourses, i.e. in their valorization
as evidence of connoisseurship
in litteris, are their submission
to institutional
forums and their passing the scrutiny
thereof. The valorization
of critical
statements,
that appears from their endorsement
by the other members of the
critical community
and by the target groups of the institution
criticism,
enforces the thesis that only this institution
is competent
to assign specific
qualities to literary texts, to assess their value and to decide on the legitimate
ways of discussing
texts. This has, of course, the effect of strengthening
criticisms dominant position with respect to the other institutions
in the field.
The claim of scientificity
is for academic scholars, of course, a powerful
weapon in the intra-institutional
fight for hegemony.
Another factor which
enhances criticisms dominant
position is the fact that it addresses itself to an
elite. On the strength of this specific nature of its public, criticism can sustain
its pretension
of addressing
itself to connoisseurs
and of applying
their
standards. Since these standards are believed to be those of real connoisseurs,
they are by definition
accepted as appropriate
to the work of art, i.e. as
genuineb artistic standards [15].
From a conception of literature - preferably from a generally accepted one
_ a critic takes a certain standpoint
regarding
the nature and function
of
literature. Moreover, he takes from it a terminology
which is given out as a
[15] In a paper yet to be submitted for publication
I have analyzed a certain number of textually
oriented literary theories developed in post-war Anglo-American
criticism; these theories appear to
be based on a set of five postulates relating, inter alia, to the alleged task of literary criticism (to
do justice to the text as a literary text) and to its alleged method of exposing a texts so-called
intrinsic literary properties on the basis of genuine literary criteria: under close scrutiny, these boil
down to the hypostatization
of the text as a self-regulating
agency.

410

C.J. can Rees / HOWa Irrerar) work becomes a mosrerpiece

descriptive instrument
allowing the critic to identify all kinds of alleged textual
properties. The main reason for rejecting conceptions
of literature as reliable
tools for analysing
literary texts is that conceptions
of literature
constitute
normative systems. Discourses based on such systems evade by definition
any
test.
Conceptions
of literature achieve their - alleged - status as reliable tools for
the description and evaluation of literary texts, first. by being restricted in their
application
to a rather small repertory of texts. Due to this it is necessarily
implied that a connection
exists between these frameworks and the texts under
discussion:
the frameworks
are deemed to be eminently
applicable
to these
texts. Secondly, these frameworks acquire for all participants
in the field the
requisite degree of plausibility
and reliability by a critics resorting to certain
argumentative
manoeuvres;
it should be noted that these bear evidence of
criticisms commitment
to an instrumentalist
epistemology,
relating to or even
originating
from that exemplified in certain Aristotelian
writings (161.
With an intensity which is hardly comparable
to that displayed in other
disciplines,
literary studies have up to the present day built on conceptions
which have been handed down from antiquity. This interest in tradition is of
course perfectly comprehensible
for a discipline
ahich sees itself as being
historically oriented. However, it is not at all clear that the types of problem
raised and the types of procedure
put forward to solve them should be
determined
by an old fashioned
epistemology
and methodology.
So-called
theoretical
research in poetics is mainly devoted to the revision of existing
conceptions
of literature or the substitution
of new ones for old ones. The
nature of conceptions
of literature rules out the possibility of this work being
regarded as the adjustment
of a conception
of literature in compliance
with
methodological
norms of testability and intersubjective
transmissibility.
It is
significant
that such revisions are not infrequently
prompted by conceptions
(16) That the epistemology
underlying this research is connected with, and even originates from.
the one stated in certain Aristotelian
writings is argued in Van Rees and Verdaasdonk
(1978:
27-33) and Van Rees (1979). This commitment
explains why. for instance, academic literary
scholars stick to other rules of scientificity than those current in modern empirical research and
why they shirk any principled discussion of its foundations.
In this respect the sociology of literary
studies is to be viewed as a legitimate section of the sociology of literature, as outlined in the
Introduction
to this issue. That this departure
from common practice in empirical research is
is partly due to the functioning
of other
socially not only tolerated
but even sanctioned,
institutions,
particularly
that of the institution literary education.
It should be observed that literary education creates the conditions under which a new (future)
reading public learns to identify the texts belonging to the body of legitimate (literary) fiction and
the legitimate ways of discussing
these texts; through literary education
these readers become
acquainted
with simplified versions of prevalent conceptions
of literature and with existing views
of the canon; thus these potential readers learn to independently
process discourses by literary
critics relating to these and other texts - and to concern themselves with a selection of the works
discussed. even - indeed especially - after active schooling in literature has come to an end.

C.J. uan Rees / HOW a literary work becomes

masterpiece

411

current in one of the human sciences - and in this area exclusively. Formalized
theories are not considered to be inspirational.
As transformational
generative
grammar
grew more abstract and formalized,
it lost its attractiveness
for
literary studies which, like semiotics, have continued
to make do with structural linguistics.
Following the Russian formalists, current forms of criticism emphasize both
the techniques which are believed to be applied in a text and the presumed
effect of these techniques on the reader. In recording a particular technique A
in a given text, a critic is implying that a property A has to be assigned to the
text. The presence of property A is held to be a necessary cause for considering a text to be literary. Whether, by virtue of the presence of a particular
technique,
a text is valued positively
(as a masterpiece)
or negatively
(as
old-fashioned
or conventional)
depends on the conception
of literature used,
i.e. on the type of valorizing account it gives of this technique. A conception of
literature also makes it possible to use terms by means of which judgment can
be passed on a texts quality, as compared with that of other texts. Besides
abstract terms with a technical aura which are supposed to designate particular
literary values (complexity,
sincerity), the titles of renowned literary works
are used in attempts to endorse a judgment.
This appeal to the canon - the
corpus of literary works ranking among the most renowned
of the literary
hierarchy - always implies a number of implicit comparisons:
any work to
which high quality is attributed
is supposed to conform to as well as to differ
significantly
from the unchallenged
masterpiece
to which reference is made.
Criticism embodies an endless series of attempts to specify the analogies and
differences which are supposed to exist between masterpieces. In support of his
statements
concerning
properties and techniques ascribed to the text, a critic
frequently adduces quotations
which are believed to exemplify the properties
at issue. That the quotation usually fails to supply such a support is apparent
from the unresolvable
dissension between critics, not only with respect to the
types of properties which are assumed to be ascribable to a particular quotation, but also concerning
the distinct and even contrasting
quotations adduced
as evidence of a particular
technique and/or
value judgment
(Verdaasdonk
1981a: 30ff.). These cases of disagreement
are not resolvable on intersubjective
grounds; they can only be concealed - and thus arbitrarily
eliminated
- by
totally committing
oneself to a specific conception
of literature,
thereby
declaring inadmissible
any argument based on another conception of literature.
From this one can conclude, first, that the terminology
of any conception
of
literature
is referentially
inadequate,
secondly
that literary norms greatly
diverge, and finally that, without being relevant evidence in support of a value
judgment,
a quotation
functions
as a rhetorical
device allowing a critic to
ignore the two previously mentioned problems.
critics frequently
resort to other
In using a conception
of literature,
argumentative
strategies, such as argument
by analogy, dialectic reasoning,

412

C.J. cm Rees / How a Irterar,v work becomes u nmterprece

tacit shifts of meaning and introduction

of ad hoc definitions.
hlthough none
of these procedures are peculiar to a conception of literature, the persistent use
made of them in critical discourses account largely for the non-empirical
character of these discourses (see Verdaasdonk
1981a: 115ff.. 1981b: 458).
The normative
character of conceptions
of literature
implies, first. that
neutral
and objective sounding terms, which seem appropriate for descriptive purposes, are only apparently
neutral. That this mere semblance is taken
seriously by all participants
in the literary field is mainly due to the fact that
the conditions underlying
the use of a literary conceptual terminology
remain
unspecified. None of the factors determining
the applicability
of a given term
are ever indicated. This precludes, of course, both identification
of the possible
textual referent of a given term and testing of its applicability
in a given
context. Consequently,
these terms have to be qualified as referentially opaque
and inadequate
for the purpose for which they are intended (Lan Rees 1981:
61). At the same time, houever, the normative character of critical statements
remains to a great extent obscured. Yet, it is evident that the use of such a
terminology
can only yield normative
statements.
Since critics take seriously
the apparent neutrality of their conceptual system. they are induced to assume
a close link between the textual properties (techniques)
they believe themselves able to point out. on the one hand, and their value judgment,
on the
other. However, the releoance which the allegedly descriptive facts are believ,ed
to have for any value judgment
must be postulared beforeharzd. Blurring the
institutionally
bound
nature of their position
and competence,
critics of
literature take for granted a descriptive-evaluative
continuum
lvhich lacks any
foundation
except the a priori consensus amon g the adherents of a particular
conception
of literature
on the validity of the norms embodied
by this
conception [17]. Thus, in order to obtain a ready ear for his discourse, a critic
has to commit himself to one of the existing conceptions
of literature and to
defer to its norms.
Due to their referential inadequacy critical statements have in methodological and epistemological
respects to be rejected as untenable. For the adherents
of a particular conception of literature, however, these statements might seem
plausible. Between the plausibility
for adepts of a particular conception
of
literature and the validity of arguments lies an unbridgeable
gulf. If the adepts
are at all aware of the existence of such a gap, they are inclined to cover it up
by mixing up rhetorical and epistemological
notions, by using plausible
and
valid as interchangeable
concepts.
The target group of the institution
criticism may give credence to the connection
suggested betiveen stipulated
[17] Lycan and Machamer (1973) provide an important
analysis of the alleged descriptive-evaluative continuum;
Cohen (1975) correctly points out some issues relating to this analysis. In a less
direct manner, Radford and Minogue (1975) also correctly question the continuum assumption.

C.J. van Rees / How

Irrero~

413

work becomes n nrasrerpiece

properties and a given value judgment;

such credence may appear from the
attention devoted by the reading public to works valorized by criticism. As has
been argued, this credence is not induced by the identification
of any intrinsic
textual property which would justify the judgment
in question.
Factors determining
this credence are rather the critics authority over his public. the
degree of consensus among critics, the extent to which a critical judgment
is
believed to be compatible
with the reputation
already enjoyed by an author,
and foremost a critics proficiency in employing a conception of literature.
A conception
of literature undeniably
is entitled to an instrumental
status
since it provides the materials which allow critics to construct their interpretative and evaluative discourses on literary texts. From the fact that a conception
of literature can never be a descriptive
device. one may conclude
that an
interpretation
can never be based on a descriptive identification
of textual
properties. As regards value judgments,
it may further be observed that they
can never be justified by an appeal to intrinsically
literary standards on the
basis of which the value of these alleged properties could be measured. This
does not alter the fact that literary texts owe their reputation
in the first place
to the discourses in which critics stipulatively
assign certain properties to these
texts and more or less explicitly pass their value judgment
on these texts. We
are undeniably
faced here with a great number of unsolved problems. One of
these is linked to the fact that, not infrequently
and in spite of the diverging
conceptions
of literature
they adhere to, critics agree upon the selection of
textual fragments which they think relevant in substantiating
statements on the
nature, structure and quality of a literary text. From such an agreement one
should not infer too rashly that in considering a text critics perceive substantially the same. At present it is altogether unclear which factors - conception
of literature included - determine the selection of textual fragments in support
of statements
made about texts. What is clear, however, is that it is in the
critics interest to refer in their discourse to those textual passages which lend
themselves to elaboration.
We are seriously hampered in our understanding
of the grounds underlying
the agreement which critics can reach on a texts meaning or value by the
existence of a great variety of conceptions
of literature which we are unable to
distinguish
in any precise way. Differences between conceptions
of literature
pertain to their subject matter, viz. to the premises concerning
literatures
alleged nature and function and to the definitions
of literary techniques. This
naturally
leads to differences
in the terminology
used by critics. Formally,
however, conceptions
of literature can barely be differentiated
one from the
other. It is true that they may vary in degree of explicitness
and in the
consistency
of the underlying
premises. But such differences are relative: no
conception
of literature is so explicit that it allows one to determine:
(9

which conditions
given text;

underlie

the applicability

of a certain

definition

to a

414

(ii)

C.J. ran Rees / How a hreray

work becomes a musrerplece

which statements conflict with the premises and definitions

conception of literature A, but concur with those contained

B;
(iii) why a certain configuration
of words
valued positively or negatively.

in the literary

included in a
in conception

text deserves

to be

The apparent or even real consistency which might be attached to a collection

of literary conceptual premises, as long as they are considered independently
from their use. is lost in practice by the use of argumentative
strategies by
means of which literary critics attempt to lend some plausibility
to their
statements. The use of any conception
of literature is unavoidably
connected
with the unregulated
and idiosyncratic
use of these argumentative
strategies
which frequently
give rise to barely concealed
contradictions
in a critics
discourse. Consequently,
not only is the identification
of a particular critics
conception
of literature seriously hampered but, with respect to discussions
between critics, there is the additional
difficulty of determining
whether their
dissensions over the interpretation
or evaluation of a given text arose from the
fact that they had recourse to divergent conceptions
of literature - possibly
without themselves being aware of it - or from the fact that they used the same
conception
of literature in different ways. It is evident that critics themselves
are also concerned by the problem of deciding whether the same or a different
conception
of literature is at stake. It is not inconceivable
that they assess
resemblances
and differences between their critical viewpoints, not so much by
the conception(s)
they adhere to or believe they adhere to, as by the periodicals
in which they, together with some critics and to the exclusion of yet others.
publish their discourses.
Besides, similarities
between critics regarding
the
authors (from the past or the present) considered as important and selected for
review might present significant indicators allowing those concerned to assess
the degree to which they share a particular conception of literature.
The reason for admitting a certain heterogeneity
between the conceptions of
literature to which a critic may have recourse rests in the fact that the repertory
selection - although being roughly the same within all forms of criticism seems to be justifiable
in many different ways. Criticisms interest in the
admissibility
of a certain number of heterogeneous
approaches may be clarified as follows. All forms of criticism view the literary text as a multi-interpretable object, i.e. as admitting a variety of interpretations
based on divergent
conceptions
of literature.
This multi-interpretable
facet is considered
in all
forms of criticism to be an essential characteristic
of literary texts. We are
concerned here with a dogma which adepts of different conceptions
of literature discuss critically without any one group being able to irrefutably reject the
other conceptions.
By sticking to this dogma each form of criticism acquires
for itself a degree of legitimacy indispensable
for its relative autonomy.
On
account of its multi-interpretable
nature a literary text is believed to be open to

C.J. oan Rees / How a litera?

work becomes a masterpiece

415

any approach propounded

by one of the three distinct forms of criticism. At
the same time, however, this tenet of multi-interpretability
legitimizes any
specific approach developed within each of these forms; it further warrants that
each type of textual analysis is deemed complementary
to any other form of
criticism. Since the facets possessed by a literary text according to this dogma
are countless,
each form of criticism is justified
in maintaining
that it is
developing a new and relevant perspective on literary texts.
An important conclusion reached on the strength of the above arguments is
that the use of a conception
of literature is an institutional,
viz. a collective,
matter and can never be considered as purely the affair of an individual.
This
does not mean, however, that one may ignore the individual critic. It is up to
the individual critic to give substance to the authority conferred upon him by
virtue of the institution
within which he is operating. He would fail to satisfy
that task by merely reproducing
the value judgments
of his fellow members in
the institution
criticism. He will gain status for himself - and along with it
additional authority over and above that conferred upon him by the institution
- by pronouncing
value judgments
which might be perceived as a refinement
or improvement
of those already passed by his peers. He will further specify
the reputation enjoyed by an author or publishing house in the literary field by
sometimes deviating in his approval or disapproval
of certain works from the
stock selection of his colleagues. In order to realise this, he has to satisfy a
certain number of conditions.
First, he will have to draw up discourses on
literary texts which, by their subtle use of generally accepted argumentative
strategies, are thought to be convincing.
Further, his repertory selection must
fundamentally
be the same as that of his colleagues. On the question of who
the greatest authors of the period are, no one critic can afford to be at variance
with the majority. But within the agreed framework of authors and publishing
houses generally acknowledged
as important,
the way is open to a considerable
number of varying opinions and judgments.
A critic may point to the work of
renowned
authors that, in his opinion, was erroneously
neglected;
he may
point to national and international
predecessors of famous authors; he may try
to develop new, competing
and more comprehensive
perspectives
regarding
highly esteemed works. The general principle behind all this is that, no matter
how much wilfulness a critic might display in his choice of standpoint,
he is
bound to respect the established repertory and most of the prevailing literary
conceptual
devices. This indicates unequivocally
that both the credit awarded
to a critic for his views and the expertise attributed
to him on account of this
credit are institutionally
determined [18]. Since the 1970s the number of people
(181 The more prestigious

a critics position within the institution criticism, the stronger his case
for valorizing his discourse.
It is possible to assess such prestige according
to the number of
reactions to his discourse, his being invited to contribute
to reviews and to act as a member of
juries and panels, an editor of anthologies and the like.

having received a form of higher education has increased considerably.

Journalistic critics have also increasingly been recruited from the group of graduates
of higher education, not infrequently
even from the group of academic critics.
It is possible for a critic to function within various segments of criticism
since, as has been pointed out, there are no fundamental
differences either
between conceptions
of literature
or between the argumentative
strategies
determined
by these conceptions.
A more socially determined reason seems to
me to be that the generation of critics operating within the various segments of
criticism is the same age, not only as the literary authors who at present
determine
the new literary scene, but also as the reading public who have
increased greatly in number since the 1960s and who, by following these
authors with interest, legitimize them as writers of importance. This increase in
the literary reading public gives critics the unique chance to have their vieus on
living literature confirmed by the interest of people of the same generation and
thus to speak with more authority on the subject of literature.

References
Aagaard-Mogensen.
L.. ed.. 1976. Culture and art. Atlantic Highlands. NJ: Humanities
Press.
Abrams, M.H., 1974. Theories of poetry. In: A. Premingsr et al.. eds. pp. 639-649.
Altick. R.D.. 1957. The English common reader. A social history of the mass reading public
1800-1900.
Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Bevington. M.M., 1941. The Saturday Review. 1855-1868.
Representative
educated opinion in
Victorian England. New York: Columbia University Press.
Bourdieu, P., 1977. La production
de la croyance. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales 13:
3-43.
Bourdieu. P., 1979. La distinction.
Paris: Minuit.
Bourdieu, P., 1980a. The production
of belief: contribution
to an economy of symbolic goods.
Media, Culture and Society 2: 261-293. (Extract from Bourdieu 1977.)
Bourdieu, P.. 1980b. Questions de sociologic. Paris: Minuit.
Cohen, T., 1975. Review of Tilghman (1973). JAAC 34: 204-206.
Cowley, M.. 1958. The literary situation. New York: The Viking Press.
Cox, R.G.. 1937. The great reviews. Scrutiny 6: 2-20; 155-175.
Dickie, G., 1974. Art and the aesthetic. An institutional
analysis. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.
Everett, E.M.. 1939. The party of humanity.
The Fortnightly
Review and its contributors.
1865-1874. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press.
Genette,
G., 1980. Narrative
discourse.
An essay in method. Ithaca and London:
Cornell
University Press.
Graham, W., 1966. English literary periodicals. New York: Octagon Books. (1st ed. 1930.)
Hernadi. P.. ed.. 1981. What is criticism? Bloomington.
IN: Indiana University Press.
Janssens,
G.A.M.,
1968. The American
literary review. A critical history 1920-1950.
The
Hague/Paris:
Mouton.
Knapton.
J. and B. Evans, 1967. Teaching a literature centered English program. New York:
Random House.
Kramer, Judith R., 1970. The social role of the literary critic. In: MC. Albrecht. J.H. Barnett and
M. Griff, eds.. The sociology of art and literature. London: Duckworth.
pp. 437-454.

C.J. can Rees / How a litermy work becomes o masterpiece

417

Lycan. W.G. and P.K. Machamer,

1973. A theory of critical reasons. In: B.R. T&man. ed. pp.
87-112.
Marchand,
L.A., 1941. The Athenaeum.
A mirror of Victorian culture. Chapel Hill, NC: The
University of North Carolina Press.
Mulhern, F., 1979. The moment of Scrutiny. London: New Left Books.
Preminger, A.. F.J. Warnke and O.B. Hardison, eds., 1974. Princeton encyclopedia
of poerry and
poetics. Princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press.
Radford, C. and S. Minogue, 1975. The complexity of criticism: its logic and rhetoric. JA.-\C 34:
411-430.
(Also in: C. Radford
and S. Minogue.
1981. The nature of criticism.
Sussex:
Harvester Press.)
van Rees, C.J., 1979. Laristotelisme
de la poetique neoclassique en France. In: Travaus recents
sur le XVlIe sitcle. Actes du 8eme colloque de Marseille organise par le Centre Meridional de
Rencontres sur Is XVlIe sikle. pp. 81-90 (90-97 discussion).
van Rees, C.J.. 1981. Some issues in the study of conceptions
of literature:
a critique of the
instrumentalist
view of literary theories. Poetics 10: 49-89.
van Rees, C.J. and H. Verdaasdonk.
1978. Literatuurwetenschap
en literatuuropvattingen.
In: Ch.
Grivel, ed., Methoden in de literatuurwetenschap.
Muiderberg:
Coutinho. pp. 27-42.
Rogerson, B., 1974. Criticism. Types. In: A. Preminger et al., eds. pp. 163-173.
Roper, D., 1978. Reviewing before the Edinburgh. 1788-1802. London: Methuen.
Schmidt, S.J., 1982. Grundriss der empirischen
Literaturwissenschaft.
Band 2. Zur Rekonstruktion
literaturwissenschaftlicher
Fragestellungen
in einer empirischen
Theorie
der Literatur.
Braunschweig/Wiesbaden:
Vieweg.
Schiicking. L.L.. 1944. The sociology of literary taste. London:Kegan
Paul, Trench. Trubner. (First
published in Germany, 1924. Die Soziologie der literarischen
Geschmacksbildung.)
Smith, R.A., ed., 1971. Aesthetics and problems of education. Urbana/Chicago/London:
L-niversity of Illinois Press.
Spector, R.D., 1966. English literary periodicals and the climate of opinion during the seven years
war. The Hague: Mouton.
Sutherland,
J.A., 1978. Fiction and the fiction industry. London: The Athlone Press.
Tilghman,
B.R.. ed.. 1973. Language
and aesthetics.
Contributions
to the philosophy
of art.
Kansas, KS: University Press of Kansas.
Verdaasdonk,
H., 1981a. Literatuurbeschouwing
en argumentatie.
Amsterdam:
Huis aan de drie
grachten.
Verdaasdonk.
H., 1981b. On the possible roles of institutionalized
beliefs in the theory of
literature:
interpretation
as the context-dependent
grouping
of word material.
Poetics 10:
457-482.
Watson, G., 1973. The literary critics. A study of English descriptive criticism. London: \Voburn
Books. (1st ed. 1960.)
Wellek, R., 1963. American
literary scholarship.
In: R. Wellek. Concepts of criticism. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press. pp. 296-315.
Wellek, R., 1977. The new criticism: pro and contra. Critical Inquiry 4: 611-624.
Wellek, R., 1981. Literary criticism. In: P. Hernadi, ed. pp. 297-321.
Williams, R., 1971. The long revolution. Harmondsworth:
Penguin. (1st ed. 1961.)