@article{oai:kitami-it.repo.nii.ac.jp:00006506,
 author = {平野, 温美},
 issue = {1},
 journal = {北見工業大学研究報告},
 month = {Jan},
 note = {application/pdf, “The critical power is of lower rank than　the creative,” wrote Matthew Arnold in 1864 in his essay “The Function of Criticism at the Present Time.” He said in it that the function of literary criticism lies in the making of “an intellectual situation of which the creative power can profitably avail itself.” Ever since a great number of essays under the same or similar title have been written both by artists and critics. As literature came to be taught in colleges or universities in this century, literary criticism began to call for its own theory so as to be taught and conveyed to the students as a conceptual knowledge and as a structure of thought. In this paper I introduce some of the essays on the function of literary criticism written since the time of Matthew Arnold up to the present day and try to explicate three different viewpoints among them. Those who belong to the first group share the view that literary criticism is a secondary or subordinate activity to the creative which, to use the word by T.S. Eliot, is an “autotelic” activity. J.E. Spingarn, on the other hand, reminded us of the “creative function” of criticism and insisted on the necessity of the “new criticism” in 1910. Those in the second group reject the view that literary criticism is a kind of parasite on literature and try to establish its own theory and principles which are of practical use in the application. The third group is not the corresponding or counterpart view of the first and the second. Rather its standpoint can be said to bean another way of approach to literary criticism. The conspicuous method is the use of already established learnings such as psychology, philosophy, or history in the excercise of literary exposition and judgement. But after all, a part of what Matthew Arnold said, his expectation, still holds true. He insisted that criticism must be “bound to a joint action and working to a common result.” The view is transmitted through T.S. Eliot to F.R. Leavis. Although the second group may seem to hasten in the pursuit of the logical and conceptual knowledge of criticism, in is a necessary step toward the systematic knowledge about literature which wil be the common result.},
 pages = {131--137},
 title = {批評の機能について -その三つの立場-},
 volume = {12},
 year = {1981}
}