Comitato Direttivo/Editorial Board:
Danilo Manca (Università di Pisa, editor in chief ), Francesco Rossi (Università di Pisa),
Alberto L. Siani (Università di Pisa).
Comitato Scientifico/Scientific Board
Leonardo Amoroso (Università di Pisa), Christian Benne (University of Copenhagen),
Andrew Benjamin (Monash University, Melbourne), Fabio Camilletti (Warwick
University), Luca Crescenzi (Università di Trento), Paul Crowther (NUI Galway),
William Marx (Université Paris Ouest Nanterre), Alexander Nehamas (Princeton
University), Antonio Prete (Università di Siena), David Roochnik (Boston University),
Antonietta Sanna (Università di Pisa), Claus Zittel (Stuttgart Universität).
Comitato di redazione/Executive Committee:
Alessandra Aloisi (Oxford University), Daniele De Santis (Charles University of
Prague), Agnese Di Riccio (The New School for Social Research, New York), Fabio
Fossa (Università di Torino), Beatrice Occhini (Università di Napoli “L’Orientale”),
Elena Romagnoli (Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa), Marta Vero (Università di Pisa,
journal manager).
ODRADEK. Studies in Philosophy of Literature, Aesthetics, and New Media Theories.
ISSN 2465-1060 [online]
Edited by Università di Pisa
License Creative Commons
Odradek. Studies in Philosophy of Literature, Aesthetics and New Media Theories is
licensed under a Creative Commons attribution, non-commercial 4.0 International.
Further authorization out of this license terms may be available at http://zetesisproject.
com or writing to: zetesis@unipi.it.
Layout editor: Stella Ammaturo
Volume editor: Marco Piazza and Denise Vincenti
Philosophy in Literature
A Strategic Approach to the Debate
on Philosophy and Literature
Marco Piazza and Denise Vincenti1
From Kant to the present, in different and divergent ways,
philosophy and literature become inextricably intertwined
precisely through their radical separation.
Colebrook 2019, p. 13
1. Philosophy of literature, philosophy
and literature, philosophy in literature
In the last two decades, the problem of the relationship between philosophy and literature has engendered a multitude of approaches, which outline,
especially within the Anglo-American debate, a fairly clear picture and an embryonic form of canonisation. On the European side, the lively debate on the
indistinctness of philosophy and literature2, which
arose during the 1980s, was followed by a relatively
stable phase, arguably caused by the passing of some of its chief representatives (Derrida, Rorty).
Likewise in Italy, except for some attempts to define
1 Section 1 is to be ascribed to Marco Piazza, whereas section 2 to Denise Vincenti.
2 Piazza (2013).
PhilosoPhy in literature
the problem through the theoretical and methodological perspectives of Ontological realism – according to which literature is nothing but a subset of
the macro-object ‘artwork’3 –, no relevant changes
can be detected. Ontological realism is in fact just
one of the many lines of inquiry pursued at international level, namely the one traditionally labelled
as philosophy of literature4. Yet, new studies and research have recently caught on in the Anglo-American milieu, thereby redefining the debate on the complex relationship between philosophy and literature.
In this area, we witness for instance various efforts
at combining disparate approaches. Although these
new directions have the advantage of delivering increasingly accurate overviews on the state-of-the-art
of the debate, they do not always rely on a sound
methodology. Indeed, they are sometimes limited to
gathering contributions from different fields, as in
the case of the collective volume edited by John &
McIver Lopes (2003), or to advocating a brotherhood between different perspectives, to be pursued both
by literary theorists working in literary studies, and
by philosophers dealing with the philosophy-literature nexus5.
The problem of the relationship between philosophy and literature is indeed quite intricate with
regard to its theoretical and epistemological foundations. Firstly because of the difficulty in defining
the two objects ‘philosophy’ and ‘literature’, concei3 Barbero (2013).
4 This position can nonetheless boast a more perspicuous and well-defined project
compared to the others.
5 Selleri & Gaydon (2016): Introduction.
8
Marco Piazza and Denise Vincenti
ved sometimes as disciplines, cultural products or
relatively autonomous activities, placed on an equal
footing from a taxonomic viewpoint; sometimes as
subspecies one of the other, especially if we consider philosophy as a form of literature – as scholarship has done, also in the wake of Richard Rorty’s
positions6. Certainly, it is possible to detect the core of their difference by showing how philosophy
could also be a form of life and how it could connect
to some non-linguistic practices7. Nevertheless, we
should hardly neglect the fact that this form of life needs to translate in some forms of writing, in
other words that it needs to acquire a literary form8.
Another critical point is that the cultural object ‘literature’ appears to be younger that the cultural object
‘philosophy’9, although it is possible to backdate its
birth by considering it in continuity with the cultural object ‘poetry’10.
Undoubtedly, if we aprioristically assume that
philosophy and literature have different purviews
and domains, it is tempting to embrace Ontological realism, which postulates literature as a subset
of the macro-object ‘artwork’. On this basis, philosophy, conceived as a non-artistic practice, acquires
the full right to reduce this subset to its own subject
of study, thereby giving birth to a branch of aesthetics named ‘philosophy of literature’ (objective
possessive case). As a matter of fact, such a position
6 Rorty (1978); cf. Shusterman (2010), p. 7.
7 Shusterman (2010), p. 9.
8 Ibidem, p. 11.
9 Ribard (2000).
10 Piazza (2013), pp. 39-40.
9
PhilosoPhy in literature
does nothing other than reaffirm, centuries later,
Plato’s and Aristotle’s gesture – the former initiating ‘ontology of literature’, the latter ‘philosophy
of literature’ itself, of which he would be the full-fledged father11. Albeit quite elegant from a syllogistic
viewpoint, this position is not completely satisfying.
What is missing is indeed the awareness, reached in
the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, of the absence of a clear demarcation line between philosophy
and literature, and of the importance of the (problem of) style in philosophy12. Likewise, it seems not
to acknowledge a. the existence of a philosophical
literature (namely a literary theory which deals with
the literary object ‘philosophy’)13, and b. its relationship with philosophy of literature (objective possessive case) and, more in general, with aesthetics14. Although, according to some scholars, literature theory
– taught within the Departments of literary studies,
and focused on comparative literature and on so-called Cultural Studies – and philosophy of literature –
taught within the Departments of philosophy and
especially by those who deal with literary aesthetic
– are two indistinguishable fields15, if we consider
this relationship from a hermeneutic viewpoint, the
problem becomes complicated and broadens.
First of all, the hermeneutic perspective, attentive to the challenges issued from the debate on
11 Carroll & Gibson (2015), p. xxi; on Aristotle cf. also Lamarque (2009), p. 1.
12 Frank (1992).
13 This position can be conceived for instance as an inquiry on the literary genres
employed by philosophy.
14 D’Angelo (ed. 2012).
15 Carroll & Gibson (2015), pp. xxi-xiii.
10
Marco Piazza and Denise Vincenti
the indistinctiveness of philosophy and literature,
can easily claim the irreducibility of literature to a
philosophical subject, on the basis that philosophy
has meditated on the problem of its expression and
style from the very beginning. To acknowledge the
epistemological and methodological complexity of
the problem of style in philosophy does not mean
reducing this very discipline to a literary genre –
an outcome, by the way, that seems to be opposite
to that reached by Ontological realism. On the contrary, it means postulating the impossibility for philosophy of looking at literature as a mere otherness,
and rewriting/rethinking their long history of mutual demarcations (most of them successful, albeit
rarely persuasive, especially if we consider them
through the lenses of Nietzsche’s, Wittgenstein’s
or Derrida’s reflections16). Otherwise said, if we do
not consider philosophy and literature as two independent fields and, consequently, philosophy as a discipline which should reduce literature to one of its
objects, it is possible to embrace the idea that philosophy and literature are two writing practices which evolved over the centuries and gave rise to different canons, having manifold points of intersection
in terms of literary genres and styles. These points
of convergence can be investigated and analysed
through the theoretical and methodological tools of
both fields, without succumb to the temptation of
considering them the exclusive prerogative of only
one discipline17.
16 See Benjamin (1994); (1998).
17 Piazza (2013), p. 41.
11
PhilosoPhy in literature
The widespread contraposition between a philosophy drawing ideal and abstract theorisations and
a literature focusing on the particular in the universal18 is nothing but a cultural product. Rather, it is
the very basis on which the long narrative of these two disciplines and of their opposition has been
grounded. Even if it is undeniable that these two
fields respectively show a different ratio of reason
and imagination, universal and particular, detached
perspective and involved perspective, this specificity does not entail an ontological difference between
philosophy and literature, originating rather from
their longstanding strategic efforts at putting a demarcation line between themselves. These efforts
have ancient roots, but they do not deliver on what
they promise, namely the pureness of the two fields
and their perfect differentiation19. Although this perspective is not upheld by all scholars, it is widely accepted that this dialectic leads philosophy and literature to correct their assumptions by recurring one to
the other20. On this basis, it is possible to explain the
philosophical recourse to literary genres (including
genres linked to poetry and drama, such as poem, dialogue, narrative, diary, etc.), at the expense of those
genres traditionally associated with philosophy since
more suitable to the rigour of its speculation (treatise, essay, dissertation, etc.). Stocker uses the term
‘philosophy as literature’ to indicate that line of in18 A contraposition which associates the faculty of reason with philosophy and the
faculty of imagination with literature, also opposing philosophical detachment
to literary-poetical involvement. See Eldridge (2009), p. 5.
19 Piazza (2013), p. 39.
20 Eldridge (2009), p. 4.
12
Marco Piazza and Denise Vincenti
quiry focusing on “the way philosophy can appear in
the main literary genres” and including the “discussion of the genres”, in the sense that “philosophical
discussion of the genres and the philosophical use
of genres” would be “interactive processes”21. Philosophy is therefore written through literary genres,
from dialogue to essay, from poem to autobiography,
from biography to aphorism, from fragment to diary,
from novel to tale, to name but a few22.
The idea is thus catching on that ‘philosophy of
literature’ should be complemented by ‘philosophy
and literature’, conceived by some scholars as ‘philosophy in literature’23. According to Carroll and
Gibson “the study of philosophy in literature differs
from philosophy of literature in that the former typically takes as its object a particular work, or genre or
author, while the philosophy of literature takes all literature or great swathes of it in its purview, examining it in terms of the animating questions of metaphysics, epistemology, philosophical psychology,
ethics, political theory, and aesthetics”24. On his side,
Lamarque distinguishes three levels in the study of
philosophy and literature: a. the identification of a
philosophical meaning in a literary work, made by
literary critics and without recourse to philosophical
tools; b1. a philosophical inquiry into a literary text
written by a philosopher, made through a comparison
21 Stocker (2018), p. 2.
22 Eldridge (2009), part I. Genres; D’Angelo (ed. 2012).
23 Carroll & Gibson (2015), p. xxii. This classification recalls the distinction
between ‘philosophy of literature’ and ‘philosophy in literature’ postulated by
Lamarque (2009), pp. 3-4.
24 Ibidem.
13
PhilosoPhy in literature
with their philosophical works and around a shared
philosophical topic; b2. a philosophical inquiry into
a literary text, conceived as a philosophical work (a
sort of incorporation of literature into philosophy);
and c. the use of fictional works to expand or develop philosophical ideas25. For Lamarque, it is in this
third level that “philosophy in literature intersects
with philosophy of literature”, since both rely on some pivotal questions: whether and how fiction could
support truth; whether and how literature, in addition to “giving pleasure”, could teach us something26.
It is precisely in the name of a wider approach to
the question of the relationship between philosophy
and literature that we have conceived the call for papers at the basis of this special issue. Our aim was
indeed to deliver an overview, which did not limit
itself to the narrow borders of ‘philosophy of literature’, but enhanced the entire ambit of ‘philosophy
in literature’, also trying to preserve the latter from
the deconstructionist deviations which penalised it
from the 1980s to the 2000s. Before introducing the
papers featured in this issue, it is worth recalling,
through some examples, the main models adopted
by ‘philosophy of literature’ and ‘philosophy and literature’.
25 Lamarque (2009), pp. 3-4.
26 Ibidem, p. 4.
14
Marco Piazza and Denise Vincenti
2. New trends and directions in ‘philosophy
and literature’ and ‘philosophy of literature’
Following the cultural, institutional, and theoretical changes of the late twentieth century, the contemporary debate on the relationship between philosophy and literature has taken on different forms
and features. New approaches and ways of defining
the interactions between the two fields have indeed
arisen in recent decades, mirroring the complexity
of the previous discussions on post-modernism, deconstructionism, literary theory, aesthetics, etc., and
as a response to the fragmentation engendered by
these positions. Although a certain fragmentation
is still present today – translating in a multitude
of methodologies and theories –, some attempts to
merge different approaches have started informing
more recent studies on the subject.
To depict what we could define the ‘state-of-theart’ of contemporary studies on philosophy and literature is not a straightforward task, nor is it exempt
from pitfalls. Firstly, as mentioned, because of the
shifting nature of such a debate and the corresponding efforts at combining different and sometimes
opposite perspectives. Secondly, and above all, because of the absence of a clear-cut demarcation line
between methodologies, approaches and theoretical
views. This second feature is probably the most noticeable and puzzling one, since it prevents us from
consistently labelling each and every perspective.
Indeed, it may happen that a particular analysis of
the philosophy-literature nexus could fall into diffe15
PhilosoPhy in literature
rent labels, or display a mixed methodology, which
complicates our understanding of its positioning.
On the other hand, this interconnection between disciplinary approaches and methods is the actual richness of these kinds of studies, one that is increasingly chased and encouraged by the latest essay
collections from both fields. Due to this complexity,
no attempt to draw a thorough and exhaustive picture of the contemporary debate would be satisfactory.
Yet, to present its overall ‘geography’, by illustrating
the main models it is composed of, could at least shed
light on it.
Generally speaking, one criterion for defining
the physiognomy of such a debate consists of understanding how scholars conceive the connection
between philosophy and literature. Different forms
of connection indeed entail as many different perspectives and ways of exploring this peculiar relationship. As recalled in the first section, the manifold
lines of inquiry on this nexus could be ideally grouped in two main categories: ‘philosophy and literature’ and ‘philosophy of literature’. Now, these two labels undoubtedly have several points of intersection.
But they also present some specificities, in terms of
models and methodologies, on which we now intend
to focus.
As far as philosophy and literature is concerned,
we should acknowledge that the kind of approach
varies depending on the meaning assigned to the
word ‘and’. Does the ‘and’ indicate a simple comparison, or a form of interaction? Is it inclusive, or exclusive? Eldridge, for instance, takes the ‘and’ seriously,
16
Marco Piazza and Denise Vincenti
claiming that the study of philosophy and literature
is not reducible to philosophy of literature or to philosophy in literature. The aim is to analyse the “relations of complementarity and opposition” between
the two, and not to reveal philosophical problems
hidden within literary works. Indeed, according to
him, these models (i.e. philosophy of literature and
philosophy in literature) tend to disregard “the powers and interest of literature”, as well as the “uneasy
affinities and disaffinities between the two” as cultural practices1. In this sense, the ‘and’ introduces the
possibility of looking at life from different perspectives (literary, philosophical), which have the same
right to speak on a specific topic, but which adopt
different, and even irreducible viewpoints2. At other
times, instead, the ‘and’ becomes a way of combining philosophy and literature in the name of interdisciplinarity3. In Anglophone academia, this model has gained remarkable consensus over the years4.
The Centre for Research in Philosophy and Literature, founded in 1985 at the University of Warwick,
stands as one of the first expressions of this trend
and as its most fertile cradle5. The search for a syncretistic and interdisciplinary approach is today at
the basis of several journals, like “Philosophy and
Literature” and “New Literary History”, studies6, essay collections7 and local initiatives. The idea is not
1 Eldridge (2009), p. 13.
2 Ibidem, pp. 13-14.
3 For a definition of this term, see Selleri & Gaydon (2016), pp. 5 ff.
4 Ibidem, p. 2.
5 Piazza (2003), p. 11; Warner (2010), p. 121.
6 Gorman (1999); Currie (2010); Eagleton (2012); Cascardi (2014).
7 John & McIver Lopes (eds 2003); Rudrum (ed. 2006); Hagberg & Jost (eds 2010);
17
PhilosoPhy in literature
to simply compare these two practices, but to foster
their brotherhood and define a new way of thinking,
also able to respond to the new challenges brought
about by technological progress, politics, post-humanism, bioethics, etc8.
Under the wide label ‘philosophy and literature’,
another model to be included is ‘philosophy in literature’ – despite some scholars’ reluctance about
such an inclusion9. From a general standpoint, this
category embraces all those positions which aim to
detect philosophical themes in literary works. Nevertheless, this search for philosophical ideas takes on
different meanings, depending on the perspective adopted by scholars. We could, in fact, discern at least
three conceptions of philosophy in literature: a. an
analysis of literary works, conceived as instances of
philosophical stances – that is the case, for example,
of considering Sartre’s Nausea as an illustration of
Being and Nothingness10. This sense of philosophy in
literature overlaps the second definition given by Lamarque to ‘philosophy and literature’11; b. a study of
the philosophical references in literary texts (e.g. explicit references to a philosopher, current of thought
or philosophical tradition). Such a position consists
of examining the cultural references of a writer and
the influences exercised by philosophical concepts,
ideas and theorisations on literary works, by relying
especially on the historical method. The main issue
Schroeder (ed. 2010); Selleri & Gaydon (eds 2016); Stocker & Mack (eds. 2018).
8 Rudrum, Askin, Beckman (eds. 2019).
9 Eldridge (2009), p. 13.
10 Ibidem.
11 Lamarque (2009), pp. 3-4.
18
Marco Piazza and Denise Vincenti
of this approach is that it can lead to an extrinsic
comparison between philosophy and literature; c. an
inquiry into the cultural references of a literary text
from a theoretical viewpoint12. The aim of this model is to present these references as theoretical devices, able to engender actual philosophical stances. In
this case, philosophical positions display a poetical
function, in terms of characterisation of the characters and narrative development. An extreme case of
this process is the thesis novel, where philosophical
intentions prevail over literary contents13.
Philosophy in literature is thus an important part
of philosophy and literature, one that examines the
presence of philosophical positions in literary texts.
Yet, its three main approaches also intersect with
a specific form of philosophy of literature. Before
addressing this convergence, it is worth analysing
what is meant by ‘philosophy of literature’ and exploring its main directions. ‘Philosophy of literature’ is quite a broad category, which encompasses
the most heterogeneous and disparate positions. Its
very definition is further complicated by the fact that
the possessive case can be both objective (opc) and
subjective (spc): whereas, in the first case, the stress
is on the word ‘philosophy’, in the second one, the focus is on literature, and on its possibility of providing philosophical insights14. As far as the first definition is concerned, philosophy of literature (opc)
corresponds to a study conceiving literature as part
12 Piazza (2013), p. 45.
13 Macherey (1992); Dumoulié (2002), pp. 52-53.
14 Piazza (2013), p. 45.
19
PhilosoPhy in literature
of the philosophical speech and as one of its main
objects. In this sense, philosophy of literature partially overlaps with philosophical aesthetics. Within this general trend, nevertheless, a distinction has
to be made between those positions which adopt the
methodology of Analytical philosophy, and those
which can be aligned with Continental philosophy15.
Indeed, the Analytical approach deals with general questions related to or raised by literature, such
as defining the art object, defining the location of
aesthetic qualities, defining aesthetic appreciation as
more cognitive or emotive, etc.16 This position also
embraces reflections on epistemology and ontology
of literature, with specific attention to the truth-fiction nexus, as well as the question of language and
style17. The Continental approach, focusing more
on the actual dialogue between philosophy and literature, is in turn composed of multiple interpretative trends. Although deconstructionism has been a
major model for this approach since the 1970s, the
bankruptcy of this very position (and of its simplistic drift toward the indistinctiveness of philosophy
and literature) has paved the way for other perspectives, such as hermeneutics and phenomenology18.
15 Stocker (2018), p. 15.
16 Ibidem, p. 17.
17 Examples of this approach are: New (1999); Zamir (2002); Davis & Matheson
(eds 2008); Barbero (2013); Callus, Corby, Lauri-Lucente (eds 2013).
18 See Stocker (2018). It has to be noted that, while in the 1980s philosophy
departments barred their doors to deconstructionists, those of literature
started aligning with this very position: this encounter marks the birth of
the so-called ‘literature theory’, namely a theoretical reflection on literature
pursued by literary theorists and integrated by comparative literature and
Cultural studies (Rudrum [ed. 2006], p. 3). Its belonging to philosophy of
literature is still a subject of discussion.
20
Marco Piazza and Denise Vincenti
A different way of looking at philosophy of literature is to consider the possessive case as subjective.
In this respect, philosophy of literature amounts to
a study of the presence of philosophical stances in
literary works. This interpretative model has something to do with the three approaches of ‘philosophy
in literature’ mentioned above. It is indeed possible to
investigate philosophical ideas in literature by considering writers’ references to philosophers, or by
wondering whether these references might be at the
origin of certain literary conceptions. Yet, philosophy of literature (spc) is not limited to that. This
position also deals with the philosophy engendered
by literature, namely with the original and profound
insights provided by writers. According to Sabot, this
inquiry can be pursued in two ways: a. through a didactic scheme, for which literary texts do not autonomously produce philosophical stances, being rather
subordinated to a philosophical project that precedes
and determines them; and b. through a hermeneutic
scheme, for which literature is able to produce original ideas, inaccessible to philosophy, that nevertheless
have to be interpreted by philosophy19. Sabot’s classification takes as a reference studies on Proust’s Recherche – which seem to be cases in point for this form
of philosophy of literature (spc). According to this
classification, a didactic scheme would thus consider
Proust’s novel as a point of convergence of various
philosophical suggestions (Romanticism, dialectic
materialism, Bergson’s philosophy, etc.)20; whereas
19 Sabot (2002), pp. 42-43.
20 See Henry (1981); (1983); (2000). Today, the most complete and thorough
21
PhilosoPhy in literature
a hermeneutic scheme would instead highlight the
novelty of Proust’s thought with regard to some pivotal concepts, such as for instance temporality21.
In the light of the intriguing complexity of the
contemporary debate, this special issue intends to
investigate a specific nexus between philosophy and
literature: the philosophical readings of nineteenthand twentieth- century writers. This line of inquiry
ranks at the intersection of philosophy in literature
and philosophy of literature (spc), since it merges
historical research on the dialogue between writers
and philosophers, and theoretical analyses on the
‘philosophies’ sketched out – almost implicitly – by
writers. The objective of this volume is twofold: a.
pointing out the influence of philosophical conceptualisations on a specific work or literary corpus; and b.
detecting the theoretical sources of a writer, by historically reconstructing his readings, interests and
influences. From Fëdor Dostoevskij to W.G. Sebald,
passing through Henry James, Maurice Maeterlinck,
Miguel de Unamuno, James Joyce, Fernando Pessoa,
Guimarães Rosa and Thomas Bernhard, this issue
takes into account various writers of the nineteenth
and twentieth century, belonging to different countries and displaying different cultural and conceptual
models. Although not exhaustive, this overview tries
to provide readers with some meaningful examples
of how literature has entered into dialogue with philosophy. As we have seen, the question of the respective domains of philosophy and literature is far from
study on the philosophical influences of Proust’s novel is Fraisse (2013).
21 See Ricœur (1984). See also Descombes (1987) and Macherey (2013).
22
Marco Piazza and Denise Vincenti
being exhaustively settled. And the need to address
the problem through a broader and more comprehensive perspective seems to be imperative. Our aim
was thus to take part in this debate and hopefully
give new strength to it, showing how ‘philosophy in
literature’ could fruitfully interact with ‘philosophy
of literature’.
23
PhilosoPhy in literature
Bibliography
Barbero, C. (2013): Filosofia della letteratura, Roma: Carocci.
Benjamin, A. (1994): The Plural Event, London: Routledge.
Benjamin, A. (1998): Philosophy’s Other. The Plural Event as
“Literature”, «Paragraph», 20/1, pp. 227-260.
Callus, I., Corby, J., Lauri-Lucente, G. (eds 2013): Style in Theory. Between Literature and Philosophy, New York (NY)-London: Bloomsbury.
Carroll N., & Gibson, J. (2015): “Introduction”, in: N. Carroll
& J. Gibson (eds), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy
of Literature, London: Routledge, pp. xxi-xxiii.
Cascardi, A. (2014): The Cambridge Introduction to Literature
and Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Colebrook, C. (2019): “General Introduction: Opposition of
the Faculties, Philosophy’s Literary Impossibility”, in: D.
Rudrum, R. Askin, F. Beckman (eds.), New Directions in
Philosophy and Literature, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Currie, G. (2010): Narratives and Narrators: A Philosophy of
Stories, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
D’Angelo, P. (ed. 2012): Forme letterarie della filosofia, Roma:
Carocci.
Davis, D. & Matheson, C. (eds 2008): Contemporary Readings in
the Philosophy of Literature. An Analytical Approach, Toronto: Broadview Press.
24
Marco Piazza and Denise Vincenti
Descombes, V. (1987): Proust. Philosophie du roman, Paris: Minuit.
Dumoulié, C. (2002): Littérature et philosophie. Le gai savoir de
la littérature, Paris: A. Colin.
Eagleton, T. (2012): The Event of Literature, Yale (CT): Yale
University Press.
Eldridge, R. (2009): “Introduction”, in: R. Eldridge (ed.), The
Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Literature, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3-15.
Fraisse, L. (2013): L’éclectisme philosophique de Marcel Proust,
Paris: Presses de l’Université Paris-Sorbonne.
Frank, M. (1992): Stil in der Philosophie, Stuttgart: Reclam.
Gorman, D. (1999): The Use and Abuse of Speech-Act Theory for
Criticism, «Poetics Today», vol. 20, pp. 93-119.
Hagberg, G. & Jost, W. (eds 2010): A Companion to the Philosophy of Literature, Malden (MA)-Oxford: Blackwell.
Henry, A. (1981): Marcel Proust: théories pour une esthétique, Paris: Klicnksieck.
Henry, A. (1983): Proust romancier. Le tombeau égyptien, Paris:
Flammarion.
Henry, A. (2000): La tentation de Marcel Proust, Paris: PUF.
John, E. & McIver Lopes, D. (eds 2003): The Philosophy of
Literature: Contemporary and Classic Readings: An Anthology,
Malden (MA)-Oxford: Blackwell.
Lamarque, P. (2009): The Philosophy of Literature, Malden
(MA)-Oxford: Blackwell.
25
PhilosoPhy in literature
Macherey, P. (1992): À quoi pense la littérature?, Paris: PUF.
Macherey, P. (2013): Proust entre littérature et philosophie, Paris:
Éditions Amsterdam.
New, C. (1999): Philosophy of Literature: An Introduction, London: Routledge.
Piazza, M. (2003): Alle frontiere tra filosofia e letteratura. Montaigne, Maine de Biran, Leopardi, Pessoa, Proust, Derrida,
Milano: Guerini e Associati.
Piazza, M. (2013): La scrittura dei filosofi e la filosofia degli
scrittori, «Bollettino della Società Filosofica Italiana», vol.
210, pp. 35-49.
Ribard, D. (2000): Philosophe ou écrivain? Problèmes de délimitation entre histoire littéraire et histoire de la philosophie en
France, 1650-1850, «Annales HSS», vol. 2, pp. 355-388.
Ricœur, P. (1984): Temps et récit II. La configuration dans le récit
de fiction, Paris: Seuil.
Rorty, R. (1978): Philosophy as a Kind of Writing: an Essay on
Derrida, «New Literary History», 10/1, pp. 141-160 (then
in: Consequences of Pragmatism: Essays 1972-1980, Minneapolis (MN): Minnesota University Press, 1982, pp. 90-109).
Rudrum, D. (ed. 2006): Literature and Philosophy. A Guide to
Contemporary Debates, London: Palgrave MacMillan.
Rudrum, D., Askin, R., Beckman, F. (eds 2019): New Directions
in Philosophy and Literature, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Sabot, Ph. (2002): Philosophie et littérature. Approches et enjeux
d’une question, Paris: PUF.
26
Marco Piazza and Denise Vincenti
Schroeder, S. (ed. 2010): Philosophy of Literature, Malden
(MA)-Oxford: Blackwell.
Selleri, A. & Gaydon, Ph. (2016): “Introduction”, in: A. Selleri
& Ph. Gaydon (eds), Literary Studies and the Philosophy of
Literature, New Interdisciplinary Directions, Cham: Palgrave
MacMillan, pp. 1-14.
Shusterman, R. (2010): “Philosophy as Literature and More
than Literature”, in: G.L. Hagberg & W. Jost (eds), A Companion to the Philosophy of Literature, Malden (MA)-Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 7-21.
Stocker, B. (2018): “Introduction”, in: B. Stocker & M. Mack
(eds), The Palgrave Handbook of Philosophy and Literature,
London: Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 1-37.
Stocker, B. & Mack, M. (2018): The Palgrave Handbook of Philosophy and Literature, London: Palgrave MacMillan.
Warner, M. (2010): “Philosophy and Literature: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow”, in S. Schroeder (ed.), Philosophy of
Literature, Malden (MA)-Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 112-133.
Zamir, T. (2002): An epistemological basis for linking philosophy
and literature, «Metaphilosophy», vol. 33, n. 3, pp. 321–336.
27