There are many useful perspectives—"critical approaches," "schools," "philosophies," "orientations"—that will enhance your appreciation of a literary text. Here are just a few of the major critical perspectives: historical, philosophical, biographical, psychological, and New Critical.

1.Historical Criticism: This is a broad, fluid term that has meant different things to different people at different times. Generally, this perspective now emphasizes enjoying a literary text by also understanding that text’s (and its author’s) relationship to the time period. For example, with Richard III, how much do we need to know about Elizabethan politics, religion, and religion in order to understand the play? Or, more specifically, what were a guardian's (Richard's) duties to his wards (the princes)? In understanding Richard's evil, do we need to know the legal status of the punishments of Richard's victims? To appreciate Richard's defeat, should we know about military life in Shakespeare's---or Richard's---time? To understand Shakespeare's attitude toward Richard, do we need to know how Richard was viewed in the 1590s?

There are many sub-categories of Historical Criticism. For example, the play's women might interest a feminist critic. Feminist studies, of course, focus on literature in relation to women, especially contemporary theories about women and society. Another popular form of historical criticism is New Historicism. New Historicists often use an interdisciplinary approach, not so much to interpret literary history (a complexity that resists interpretation) as to observe, perhaps comment on, it piece by piece. New Historicists, for example, use the methods of the social scientists to analyze literature through demographics, public records, literary ephemera, manuscripts, private documents, and forgotten/temporary classics. For example, Richard was a fascinating character. He was represented not merely by Thomas More and Raphael Holinshed (Shakespeare's primary sources) but by many authors. Was Shakespeare influenced by works such as ballads, sermons, and tales about Richard?

2.Ideological Criticism: A critical orientation closely related to historical criticism is ideological criticism. This criticism often works from the assumption that literature confirms the ruling ideology (belief-system) of the era that produced it. Literature, then, is often a sophisticated form of propaganda or, sometimes, "anti-propaganda" (an attack on the hegemonous/dominant ideology). Either way, literature is defined within an ideological context. This type of ideological critic would ask how Richard III endorses—or subverts—aristocratic norms of religion, love, family, and government. Richard III is a vivid example of this at several levels. Richard lost his throne to the grandfather of the queen in 1593, Elizabeth I. Was Shakespeare then giving his audience the official story about how the Tudors got the throne? On the other hand, weren't people supposed to believe that aristocrats in general, and kings in particular, were divinely sanctioned? And, in the play, Shakespeare represents them as fools and murderers, joined by a single lust for power. Does Shakespeare then profoundly subvert official belief? Possibly, but some ideological critics argue that challenges to official belief, when staged by official culture, actually strengthen the official culture, which effectively controls rather than incites dissent. For example, we read of murderous authorities in Richard III---and instead of revolting, we get used to the idea: "that's the way it is."

Other scholars—past and present—claim that a particular ideology is not merely a belief-system but argue that it is "the truth," that history operates according to the laws of a particular philosophy or "ideology." Scholars who espouse this philosophy then analyze a literary text as "evidence" that confirms that ideology.

Religion is one of the most popular philosophical orientations. For example, a dominant idea in Richard III is the idea of divine retribution: God uses Richard to punish men and women for their sins (e.g. Clarence, Buckingham, Rivers and Grey, and even Edward is implicitly punished for his lusts by dying early and having his legitimate son murdered).

Another very popular form of this type of ideological criticism is—or was---based on the work of Karl Marx, especially his idea of dialectical materialism. Marxist literary critics read literary texts to see how they confirm the laws of Marxism. For example, how does Richard III confirm Marx’s view of class struggle, especially during an era of dying feudalism yielding to bourgeoise capitalism: Edward's affair with citizen Shore's wife, and Richard's media even for the citizens and Lord Mayor (a commoner), take on new meaning within a Marxist context.

Other popular critical orientations include Positivism (popular in the Victorian era, Positivists viewed history as a scientific "March of Progress") and Nihilism (a reaction to Positivism, as it maintained that history had no goal).

3. Biographical Criticism: This critical approach emphasizes the life of the author as a key to understanding his or her work. For example, did Shakespeare model Richard on anyone he knew? Did Shakespeare's relationship with any woman affect his creation of Ann (who marries her husband's killer)? What was Shakespeare's personal experience with aristocrats? And what about the personal anecdote about Shakespeare and "Richard III"?

 4. Psychological Criticism: This criticism is useful in two ways. First, closely relating to biographical criticism, psychological criticism emphasizes understanding the "mind" or "personality" of the author, especially as that mind/personality shapes, and is mirrored by, his literary output. Second, these critics read literary works as evidence that supports a psychological outlook. In other words, fictional characters and events (rather than the author) operate according to the "laws of psychology."

Of course, in order to analyze a personality, you should have a theory or "philosophy" about the personality. The theories of Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) have been by far the most popular for literary analysis. One of Freud’s tenets is that the unconscious—especially in terms of sexuality—greatly determines behavior. For example, what's the connection between Richard's hostility to women and his violence? Is the deformed, ugly hunchback, a failure in the bedroom, attempting to compensate with another kind of weapon (the phallic sword) on the battlefield? Many psychologists would say that he was. Or how does Richard's relationship with his mother determine his behavior? Freud's famous oedipal theory claims males at an early age experience a sexual attraction for the mother, an attraction that is suppressed by the child's fear of the father. Is it significant that Richard, just as he is about to marry his brother's daughter (who would be, in some way, like the mother, Duchess of York), is killed in battle against a man who then marries his intended bride?

Another once popular school of psychology (Analytic Psychology) was created by Carl Jung (1875-1961). His theory of the Collective Unconscious was especially useful for literary critics and scholars. This theory maintained that individual consciousness is linked to a central "mainframe computer," and that this mainframe provides everyone with a few basic programs, called "archetypes," or fundamental patterns (or structures, and so Structuralism). A literary work will succeed, or endure, if it represents one of these patterns/structures (which the individual unit [a person] will recognize and assimilate). Stories that enact these patterns are often myths, but this mythic quality actually appears in most powerful literary works (and Jung is often studied in relation to Mythological Criticism).

For example, does Richard III contain any primary pattern that we also have seen in the other two plays we've read, Oedipus and Faustus? Aren't all three plays about the punishment of the protagonist for his crimes? How did that happen? Why? I certainly didn't plan it.

Working from the perspective of Post Structuralism, many scholars/critics argue that literary structures do not exist and that, upon close examination, literature does not sustain any consistent meaning. The most popular form of Post Structuralism is Deconstruction (which "deconstructs" a text to reveal the absence of consistent meaning).

5. New Criticism: This school of criticism reacted against the biographical, psychological, and historical approaches. New Critics argued that the scholars were so busy with history and biography that they had forgotten about the text! They also claimed that if knowing extensive history and biography were required, only a professor would be licensed to read! New Critics maintained that the only requirements for reading a text were the reader and the text. This approach was new in the late 1930s, but its influence is still with us. For example, we don't need anything but the text to see how many lines are in the play, to discern literary devices, to determine the versification, to see which lines are prose and which poetry, etc.

Look at Act 5, scene 1, lines 494-517, in Measusre for Measure. What questions might each type of critic listed above ask after reading this passage? Devise two questions for each type of criticism (for a total of ten questions).

This is a more difficult assignment. If you complete this assignment, I'll add 5 pts. to a major test grade. You must post your answer in the WEB-CT "E-Mail-Messages-Postings-Online Discussions/Class Discussions/Critical Thinking forum." You also must respond to a posting.

The Prentice-Hall Guide to English Literature, commenting on a Thomas Hardy masterpiece, Return of the Native, says that the novel "suffers from a weak conception of the central character, Clym" (p.844). This is an extraordinarily revealing statement about the nature of literature. List at least 5 reasons why---or devise 5 questions raised by the statement---in relation to the nature of literature. Hint: the statement, in my opinion, is true.