Abstract

These contributions, although undoubtedly philosophically relevant, are not in themselves philosophical. This is as it should be. I do not wish to imply that their unphilosophical character is a deficiency. They are legitimate and necessary enquiries, undertaken within a special field, although often ranging beyond a narrowly specialist interest. They display, in their best examples, the concrete working out and application of some or other theory, often programmatically stated, sometimes implied, or simply taken for granted. But there is little or no enquiry into the principles of the critical and interpretative activity as such, so as to bring some order and consistency into the profusion of frequently incompatible theoretical assumptions. The rich but confused situation in Germany has not even produced an I. A. Richards to shock people, and there has been no growth of schools or theories of criticism. The need for clarification of the criteria employed in the critical endeavour is not often recognized. We find even in the more constructive proposals a striking vagueness of terminology, a noticeable and often embarrassing tendency to completely wild speculation. It is evident from the professional journals that "meta-critical" discussions and controversies are comparatively rare.