Advanced PhD-Level Examination: History of Literary Criticism & Theory

Advanced PhD-Level Examination: History of Literary Criticism & Theory

Question 1: Aristotles Idea of Tragic Catharsis

Aristotle talked about *catharsis* in his book *Poetics*. People have been arguing about what he meant by this for a time. If we look at it from a perspective how does *catharsis* work? Is it about making people feel better or is it something more important for the community?

A) It challenges the rules of society by letting people express their emotions freely.

B) It helps people get rid of emotions like pity and fear so they can be calm and good citizens.

C) It stops people from identifying with the hero of the story making them think critically instead.

D) It is a way to make the plot more interesting without affecting how people feel.

Answer:B

Explanation: Some scholars, like Martha Nussbaum and Gerald Else think that Aristotles *catharsis* is not about making people feel better. It is about helping people get rid of emotions so they can be calm and good citizens. When people watch a tragedy they feel pity and fear. In a safe way. This helps them balance their emotions so they can go back to their community. Be good citizens.

Question 2: Matthew Arnolds Touchstone Method

Matthew Arnold came up with the "Touchstone Method" in his book *The Study of Poetry*. Some people criticize this method for having hidden assumptions. What is the main problem with Arnolds method?

A) It assumes that some art is better than others without explaining why.

B) It focuses much on the way words sound and not enough on their meaning.

C) It says that critics are not important and that only the readers feelings matter.

D) It thinks that art is only good if it is useful for society.

Answer:A

Explanation:Arnolds Touchstone Method says that some lines of poetry are better than others because they have a quality.. This assumption is a problem because it is based on a certain cultural perspective. It is like saying that some art is better than others without explaining why.

Question 3: Samuel Johnsons Pragmatic Anti-Formalism

Samuel Johnson wrote a preface to Shakespeares plays in 1765. He disagreed with the idea that plays should follow rules. What was his reason for disagreeing?

A) He thought that the audience would get confused if the play changed locations.

B) He believed that people could completely imagine themselves in a time and place.

C) He said that the audience is always aware that they are watching a play and can imagine locations and times.

D) He thought that the rules of playwriting were flawed and that Shakespeares plays proved it.

Answer:C

Explanation: Johnson said that the audience is always aware that they are watching a play. They know that the stage is not real and that the actors are just pretending. Because of this they can imagine locations and times as long as the story makes sense.

Question 4: Sir Philip Sidneys Ontological Defense

Sir Philip Sidney defended poetry in his book *An Apology for Poetry*. He said that poets do not lie, because they do not claim that their stories are true. How does this change the way we think about fiction?

A) It makes poetry seem important because it is not based on facts.

B) It shows that poetry is a kind of discourse that can convey deeper truths.

C) It says that poetry is the same as science because it tries to describe the world.

D) It admits that poetry is deceptive. Says that it is necessary for society.

Answer:B

Explanation: Sidney said that poets do not claim that their stories are true so they do not lie. This means that poetry is a kind of discourse that can convey deeper truths. It is not about describing the world in a way but about using imagination to convey important ideas.

Question 5: T.S. Eliots Historiography

T.S. Eliot talked about the "dissociation of sensibility" in his book *The Metaphysical Poets*. He said that there was a change in the way people thought about poetry in the 17th century. What were the consequences of this change?

A) Poetry became more spiritual and combined with science.

B) Poetry stopped using language. Became abstract.

C) Poetry split into two types: one that was intellectual and one that was emotional.

D) Poetry went back to following rules and rejected experimentation.

Answer:C

Explanation: Eliot said that before the century poets like John Donne could think and feel at the same time.. After that poetry split into two types: one that was intellectual and one that was emotional. This meant that poets either thought without feeling or felt without thinking.

Question 6: Samuel Taylor Coleridges Esoteric Epistemology

Samuel Taylor Coleridge defined the **Secondary Imagination** in his book *Biographia Literaria*. He said it was a power that could "dissolve, diffuse, dissipate, in order to recreate". How is this different from the Primary Imagination Fancy?

A) The Primary Imagination is a memory while Fancy is a divine spark.

B) The Primary Imagination is a power that helps us perceive the world while the Secondary Imagination is a power that creates art.

C) The Secondary Imagination is a power that just reflects the world.

D) Fancy is the power that can perceive the divine.

Answer  B

Explanation: Coleridge said that the **Primary Imagination** is a power that helps us perceive the world. The **Secondary Imagination** is a power that creates art by breaking down and recreating the world. **Fancy** is a memory that rearranges things without creating anything new.

Question 7: Thomas Rymers "Poetic Justice"

Thomas Rymer coined the term "Poetic Justice" in his book *The Tragedies of the Age Consider'd*. He said that art should reward people and punish bad people.. What was the deeper reason for this idea?

A) He wanted to promote the idea that people're, in control of their own destiny.

B) He thought that language was unstable and needed to be controlled.

C) He believed that art should show an moral universe.

D) He liked it when stories had endings.

Answer:C

Explanation:Rymers idea of "Poetic Justice" was based on the belief that art should show an moral universe. He thought that art should reward people and punish bad people because this would make the world seem like a more orderly and just place.

Answer:C

Explanation: Some critics, like Rymer did not like the way life can be unfair. They thought that art should show a world than the one we live in. They believed in something called "Poetic Justice" which's the idea that the world is a fair and orderly place because God is in charge. If a story shows bad things happening to people and does not make everything right in the end these critics thought it was bad because it did not show the world as a fair and orderly place.

Question 8: Leavisite Criticism and the Moral Centrality of Scrutiny

F.R. Leavis and Q.D. Leavis used their magazine *Scrutiny* to make English studies important for understanding what is right and wrong in our culture. Which of the statements best describes what Leavisite critics think about literature and its relationship to our society?

A) Literary works are about the words used in them; they do not tell us anything about whether our society is good or bad.

B) Carefully reading literature is a way to resist the effects of modern society, which can make us less human. Leavisite critics look at how a literary work shows us what life is really like and whether it helps us think deeply about important moral issues.

C) Literature should be used to spread ideas that the government wants us to believe.

D) The main purpose of criticism is to show that all ideas about what's right and wrong are just made-up stories.

Answer:B

Explanation: F.R. Leavis was a critic who believed in looking at literature in an thoughtful way. He thought that our modern society was making people less human and that language was being used in a way that was not very meaningful. For Leavis, reading and evaluating English literature was a way to protect our culture from becoming too superficial. He looked at whether a literary work showed an understanding of life and helped us think about important moral issues, which he believed was a way to counteract the bad effects of modern society. Leavisite criticism is about evaluating literature based on its ability to show us what life is really like and to help us think deeply about important moral issues, which is what Leavisite critics, like F.R. Leavis believed in.