THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT’S
WOMAN - JOHN ROBERT FOWLES
John Robert
Fowles, one of the greatest novelists of international stature, was born on
March 31, 1926, in Leigh-on-Sea, Essex, England.As he grew up in the English suburban
culture, his early life was intensely conventional.After the education from the University of
Edinburgh, Fowles had two years military service.However, he realized in 1947 that military
life was not fit for him.Then he spent
four years in Oxford.Having had several
teaching jobs, he served as English department Head at St. Gordic College, London.
Though Fowles never identified himself as an existentialist, the writings of
Jean Paul Sartre and Albert Camus motivated him to develop a feeling that the
world was absurd.
The term ‘New Historicism’ was coined
by the American critic Stephen Greenblatt (b:1943) in his book ‘Renaissance
Self fashioning: from more to Shakespeare’ (1980).New historicism is a method of literary
criticism that emphasizes the history of the text by relating it to the configurations
of power, society or ideology in a given time.Though there were many critics in the 1970s
with the same tendencies, this book challenged conservative critical views
about Jacobean theatre and linked the plays much more closely with the
political events of their era than previous critics done.Actually, historicism is a theory in which history
is seen as a standard of value or a determinant of events.But, New Historicism is a method based on the
parallel reading of literary and non literary texts, usually of the same
historical period.It practices a study
in which literary and non-literary texts are given equal weight and constantly
inform and interrogate each other.It
involves an intensified willingness to read all the textual traces of the
past.It has a combined interest on both
the ‘Textuality of History’ and the ‘Historicity of the Texts’.
The practice of giving ‘equal
weighting’ to literary and non-literary material is the first and major
difference between the ‘new’ and ‘old’ historicism.A new historical essay will place the
literary text with in the form of non-literary text.Greenblatt’s main innovation was to juxtapose
the plays of the Renaissance period with the horrifying colonialist policies pursued
by all the major European powers of the Era.Through ‘The Modernist Shakespeare’ of Hugh Grady, he draws allegation to
‘the marginalization and dehumanizing of suppressed others’, by starting an
essay with the analysis of a contemporary historical document which overlaps in
some way with the subject matter of the plays.Thus, new historicism accepts Derrida’s deconstructive reading.Whatever is represented in a text is thereby
remade. Thus its aim is not to present
the past as it really was, but to present a new reality by re-situating it.
As an example of ‘old’ historicism,
we may consider E.M.W Tillyard’s, ‘The Elizabethan World Picture’(1943) and
Shakespeare’s History plays (1944), where conservative mental attitude of Elizabethan
and their outlooks reflected in Shakespeare’s plays are taken into considerations.Here the traditional approach to Shakespeare
is characterized by the combination of the historical framework with, the
practice of ‘close reading’.But, the New
Historicism is resolutely anti-establishment, always on the side of liberal
ideals of personal freedom and accepting and celebrating all forms of difference
and ‘deviance’.It is powerful enough to penetrate the most
intimate areas of personal life.New historicism
deals with power struggles with a social system, how it affects people and also
how they rebel against it.‘The Tempest’
is the play full of such struggles between Caliban and Prospero. Prospero accuses Caliban of being ungrateful
for all that he has taught and given. So, he calls him a lying slave, where as
Caliban sees Prospero and Miranda as imperialists who took control of his
island.Thus, according to the New Historicists
‘The Tempest’ is about colonization and freedom apart from forgiveness. In this way, the New Historicism opens up new dimension for the reader. The
goal of new historicists is to comprehend literature through its historical and
cultural context while analysing the cultural and intellectual history
portrayed by the literature.
Though
the New Historicism is founded upon post-structuralist thinking, it avoids the
latter’s dense style and vocabulary.Instead it presents its data and draws its conclusions.The data is also allowed to be interpreted.The material itself is often distinctive and fascinating.It is totally different from those produced
by any other critical approach and immediately gives the reader the feeling
that the new territory is being entered.The political edge of the new historicist is sharp and at the same time
it avoids the problems faced by the Marxist criticism and helps them to have a
critical enquiry of their own and thereby enrich the process of defining,
classifying and evaluating the works of literature. In this way the past is no doubt revived for
the utility of the present. Moreover,
cultural materialism is actually one of the major anthropological perspectives for
analysing human societies. But, the key
difference between New Historicism and cultural materialism is that New
Historicism focuses on the oppression in the society that has to be overcome in
order to achieve change, where as cultural materialism focuses on how that
change is brought about.Though the
methods of New Historicism are not greatly valued or admired by historians, its
approach is a way of ‘doing’ history which has a strong appeal for non-historians.
Cleanth Brooks (1906-1994) is an
eminent American teacher and critic.His
‘Modern poetry and tradition’ (1939) and ‘The Well-Wrought Urn: studies in the
structure of poetry’ (1947), were important in establishing the new criticism
that stressed close reading and structural analysis of literature.He made an impact on the critics of his time
through his critical pronouncements that were helpful to establish
suggestiveness in poetry.He is of the
opinion that the statements and images in a poem are in an organic
relationships, with a part qualifying and adding meaning to the other.So, a conscious effort is made by the poet to
convey the precise meaning through the use of poetic language where words
attain diverse meanings.The referential
language is incapable of representing the specific message of the poet.So, the uses of ambiguity and paradox become
inevitable.As the language of the
poetry is different from the language of science in the poet’s language,
connotations play a great part as denotations.
‘The Well Wrought Urn: Studies in
the Structure of poetry’ is a collection of eleven essays and ‘The Language of
Paradox’ is the first essay of this collection.The essay begins with the statement ‘Few of us are prepared to accept
the statement that the language of poetry is the language of Paradox’.This happens because all consider Paradox as
a mere figure of speech and fail to notice the effectiveness of this literary
device.‘Paradox’ literarily means the
assertion of the unification of opposites.When a poet can neither present his experiences as a statement nor as an
abstraction like a scientist, he uses paradox.Here, the poet can unify the complexities of human experiences into one
whole to represent the manifestation of a total experience.Thus Paradox becomes ‘appropriate and
inevitable to poetry’.In order to
ascertain his assertion, Brooks analyses several poems minutely to conclude
that paradox is one of the common and a necessary structural properties
contained in poetry.
Brooks analyses how paradox works in
Wordsworth’s sonnet ‘Composed upon Westminster Bridge’
Never
did sun more beautifully steep
In
his first splendour, valley, rock or hill…..
The
paradoxical situation is depicted in the usual unattractive noisy, smoky
industrial city of London and the splendour of the morning in the smokeless
air.These lives present the contrast
between the mechanical and dull life of London and the freshness and glory of
the morning images.Wordsworth is
shocked and amazed at the paradoxical picture of London.Under the impression of death, the city acquires
the organic life of nature.
According to Brooks the use of
paradox rests on wonder in Romantic poetry but in Neo-classics it depends on
irony.To prove this he quotes a stanza
from Alexander Pope’s poem, ‘An Essay on man: Epistle II’
Created half to rise, and half to
fall;
Great Lord of all things, yet a prey
to all;
Sole Judge of truth, in endless
error hurl’d;
The Glory, Jest, and riddles of the
world.
Pope
describes the pathetic condition of Man here.Though Man considers himself the best of God’s creation, he meekly
surrenders to everything he controls, and becomes a slave of all that he
possesses.Man claims to be the judge of
truth, but commits errors.Among God’s
creation, man is the glory, joke and puzzle that the world has ever seen.
Brooks is also of the opinion that paradox
is a central device in metaphysical poetry.Here he talks about John Donne’s ‘The Canonization’ where the title
contains a metaphor in the form of a paradox.Donne treats the profane love of the two lovers to be the divine love of
a pair of hermits, who have renounced worldly desires and pleasures. The two
lovers consider their body a hermitage. They
sacrifice everything for the sake of love and they are regarded as saints.The comparison is carried on till the end of
the poem.Even the lovers are compared
to the phoenix that rises from its ashes.Moreover, the lovers realize that the Well Wrought Urn, ‘a pretty room’
that would hold the lover’s ashes would not be considered insignificant when
compared to the ‘half acre tomb of Prince.Moreover, he says that Donne marvellously maintains the simultaneous
duality and singleness of love and the double and contrary meanings of ‘die’,
that’s both sexual union and literal death in this poem.In this way conveying several meanings with
the right depth and emotion is impossible in any language without the help of
paradox.
According to Brooks the urn that holds the
ashes of the phoenix as well as the ashes of the phoenix lovers is the poem
itself.He is also of the opinion that
the very urn is similar to Keat’s ‘urn’ that contains truth and beauty.Thus, an analysis of paradox in a work of art
will draw inferences either to reconcile the opposites or to harmonize
them.So, he says that paradox is
essential to the structure of a poem and also claims that the language of
poetry is the language of paradox.
Karl Marx (1818-1883) a German Philosopher and
Friedrich Engels (1820-1895) a German sociologist were the joint founders of
Marxism. They themselves called their economic theories
‘Communism’. They designated their belief in the state ownership of industry,
transport etc rather than private ownership. They announced the advent of
communism in their jointly written ‘Communist Manifesto’ of 1848. As
Marxism is a materialist philosophy, it looks for concrete, scientific, logical
explanations of the world of observable fact. It doesn’t believe in the
existence of a spiritual world ‘elsewhere’. The aim of Marxism is to
bring about a classless society, based on the common ownership of the means of
production, distribution and exchange. Though they did not put forward
any comprehensive theory of literature, Marxism stresses that a writer’s social
class and its prevailing ‘ideology’ have a major bearing on what is written by
a member of that class.
In 1905, Lenin argued that literature must
become an instrument of the party. So, experimentation was banned
then. So, there were two streams, ‘Engelsian’ stream that stressed
the necessary freedom of art and the ‘Leninist’ stream that insisted an art
that committed to the political cause of the Left. In 1920s and
1930s ‘Engelsian’ which was also called ‘Russian Formalism’
flourished. The most prominent members of the group were Victor
Shklovsky and Boris Eichenbaum. The familiar world appear new to the
common man through Shklovsky’s idea of ‘defamiliarization’.
The French Marxist thinker Louis Althusser
(1918-1990) developed the Marxist approach through the introduction of various
concepts like 'Overdetermination' and 'Ideology'. Overdetermination that borrowed from Freud refers to an effect that arises from various causes rather than
from a single factor. This concept undercuts simplistic notions of
one-to-one correspondence between base and superstructure. Ideology
is another term of him. ‘Ideology’ is a system of representations of
images, myths, ideas and concepts endowed with an existence and has a
historical role at the heart of a given society. It obscures social reality by
naturalizing beliefs and by promoting values that support it. The
civil society spreads ideology through law, text books, religious rituals and
norms so that the people imbibe them without their knowledge.
'Decentering' is the key term of Althusser to
indicate structures which have no essence or focus or centre. Art
has a relative autonomy and is determined by the economic level only ‘in the
last instance’. Althusser then talks about 'Interpellation', a trick where
all are made to feel that they are choosing when really they have no choice.
Interpellation makes us feel like a free agent when things imposed upon us. He
also makes a distinction between the state power and state control. State power
is mentioned as repressive structures that include the law courts, prisons, the
police force and the army. They are the external
forces. But, the power of the state is also mentioned by their
internal consent. Althusser calls them as ideological structures or
state ideological apparatuses. They are such groupings as political
parties, schools, the media, the churches, the family and art that foster an
ideology, a set of ideas and attitudes. Then they feel that they are
freely choosing what is in fact being imposed upon them. This is
where the writers and critics of Leninist stream focused their attention and
tried to utilize literature as an instrument of the party. Apart
from Althusser Terry Eagleton, the best known British Marxist critic has also
had his contributions to Marxist criticism.
The founder of Italian communist party Antonio
Gramsci (1861-1934) was a politician, philosopher, and linguist. He
introduced concepts like 'Hegemony' and 'Subaltern'. 'Hegemony' is the
domination of particular section of the society by the powerful
classes. Most often it works through consent rather than by
power. It is the moral and intellectual leadership of the upper
class in a particular society. The term 'Subaltern' is a collective
description for a variety of different and exploited groups who lack class
consciousness. But, now it is being used to represent all
marginalized sections like Dalit, women and minorities.
Marxist criticism emphasizes on class,
socioeconomic status, power relations among various segments of society and the
representations of those segments. Marxist criticism is valuable
because it enables readers to see the role that class plays in the plot of a
text.
So, Marxist criticism has basically its conflict
with Post-Structuralism and Post –Modernism. Moreover, it is against
Psycho analysis that isolates individuals from the social structures in which
they exist. The Marxist critics make a division between the ‘overt’
(surface) and the ‘covert’ (hidden) content of the literary work and then
relate the covert subject matter of the literary work to basic Marxist themes,
such as class struggle, the progression of society through various historical
stages, such as the transition from feudalism to industrial
capitalism. Thus, the conflicts in King Lear is made to be read as
being ‘really’ about the conflict of class interest between the rising class
(the bourgeoisie) and the falling class (the feudal overlords). Moreover,
they also succeed in their explaining the nature of a whole literary genre in
terms of the social period which ‘produced’ it.
But they never discuss the details of a specific historical situation
and relate it closely to the interpretation of a particular literary text, like
the critics of new Historicism and cultural materialism with an archeological
spirit.
Feminism is the belief in full social, economic and
political equality for women.Numerous
feminist movements and ideologies have developed over years and represented
different viewpoints and aims since 19th century.Charles Fourier, a French philosopher is
credited with having coined the word ‘feminism’ in 1837.Depending on the historical movement, culture
and country, feminists around the world have different causes and goals.However, the feminist movements are divided
into four ‘waves’ and through these movements won right to vote, legal and
social equality, individuality and diversity and fight against violence against
women now through ‘me too’ movement.
The woman’s movement of the 1960 greatly influenced by
Virginia Woolf’s ‘A room of one’s own (1929)’ and Simone de Beauvoir’s ‘The
Second sex (1949)’.The feminist
literary criticism of today is the direct product of the ‘women’s movement’ of
the 1960s.The representation of women
in Literature was felt to be one of the most important forms of ‘Socialization’
and ‘Conditioning’.In 1970s Elaine
Showalter coined ‘gynocriticism’.She
defined it as ‘the history, styles, themes, genres and structure of writing by
women, the Psychodynamics of female creativity; the trajectory of the
individual or collective female career; and the evolution or laws of a female
literary tradition’.
However, there are divisions within feminism on its aims,
goals methods, theories and inspirations apart from the waves of it.The ‘Cultural feminism’ believes that the
contributions of ‘female culture’ such as child care, domestic work etc have
been disregarded and greatly devalued in society as the social systems have
evolved with ‘Male culture’.Liberal
feminism stresses the importance of gender norms and gender socialization in
the society.Similarly Marxist feminism
too argues for gender equality.Radical
feminism focuses on the violence that women suffer and fights against gender related
violence. Ecofeminism believes that it is the patriarchal system that causes
the oppression of both women and the environmental.The men in power are able to take advantage
of both women and the environment because they see them passive and
helpless.Post colonial feminism that
emerged in the third world countries believe that they have to work for gender
equality within the logic of their own cultural models.Post-modern feminism believes that there is
not one unique absolute definition for gender.So, there is no single basis for women’s subordination and no single
method of dealing with the issues.
Apart from this, Showalter has also detected in the history
of women’s writing a feminine phase that covers 1840-1880, in which women
writers imitated dominant male artistic norms and aesthetic standards.Another feminist phase in between 1880 and
1920, in which, radical and often separatist positions are maintained.Finally, a female phase that from 1920s that
looked particularly at female writing and female experience.Yet another issue was also there concerning the
existence of a language that is inherently feminine.According to Virginia Woolf, as the language
use is gendered, when a woman turns to novel writing, she finds that there is
‘no common sentence ready for her use’.She quotes many sentences from Charlotte Bronte and George Eliot.But, Jane Austen rejected it and instead
‘devised a perfectly natural, shapely sentence proper for her own use.However, Elaine Showalter in her essay,
‘Towards a feminist poetics’ advocates a new way of reading.She stresses that women should turn to female
experience as the source of an autonomous art.The feminist criticism, free from the divided consciousness of
‘daughters’ and ‘sisters’ is to be made a permanent home.
Feminist criticism can be divided into two varieties.The first one is concerned with woman as a
reader of male produced literature.It
is a historical grounded enquiry.Its
subjects include the images and the stereotypes of women in literature, the omissions
and misconceptions about women in criticism and the exploitation and
manipulation of the female audience in popular culture and film.The second type is concerned with women as a
writer.That is with woman as the
producer of literature.Its subjects
include the Psychodynamics of female creativity linguistics and the problems of
female language.This Gynocriticism is a
type of criticism designed by feminists to evaluate works by women as feminist
works.It takes into consideration the
circumstances in which a work of art is produced, the point of view of the
author, and the motivation and attitudes of the characters.One of the problems of feminist critique is
that it is male-oriented.If we study
the stereotypes of women and the limited roles play in literary history, we are
trying to learn what not women have felt and experienced, but only what men
have thought women should be.So, the
task of feminist critics is to find a new language, a new way of reading that
can integrate women’s intelligence and experience, their reason and their
suffering.This enterprise should not be
confined to women.Women are not only
the daughters and sisters of men but also their teachers, publishers and many
others.So, all women who are also
critics, poets and philosophers should also share it with them.So, as Showalter says feminist criticism is
not simply a visiting criticism, it is here to stay.
Archetypal
Criticism - The Archetypes of Literature - Northrop Frye (1921-1991)
Northrop Frye was born
in Southern Quebec province Canada. He
studied theology and was keenly interested in Canadian literature, culture and
education. Though his critics charge him
with arbitrariness in his taxonomy and catergorisation of literary works, his
influence as a literary critic, theorist and educator extended worldwide. His first book on William Blake won him
fame. In his second book, ‘Anatomy of
Criticism’, he articulated the role of archetypal symbols, myths and generic
conventions in creating literary meaning.
The word ‘Archetype’
was derived from the Greek word ‘Archetypon’, means, “beginning pattern”. According to Frye Archetype in literary
criticism refers to a recurrent image, character, plot, theme or pattern that
have passed through by its repetitions in many works across the centuries. To prove his point, Frye draws sources from
different areas including Bible. The
detailed studies of primitive myths by James Frazer and Jessie Weston have also
helped him. But, the main source for
Frye, perhaps, was the Psychologist Carl Jung, particularly Jung’s account of
the ‘Collective Consciousness’.
In defining genuine criticism, Frye
says that it is connected to but different from philosophy, theology, history
and the social sciences. Knowledge of
‘archetypes’ enables us to perceive the shared myths that literary works rely
on and explore. Through this awareness,
we can glimpse the underlying ‘Structure’ of the structures of all works. Creative writers have used myths in their works
and critics analyse texts for a discovery of “Mythological patterns”. This kind of critical analysis of a text is
called Archetypal Criticism. T.S. Eliot
has used mythical patterns in his creative works. The waste land is a fine example for it.
There is a type of criticism, which focuses only on an analysis of a
text. Such criticism confines itself to
the text and does not give any other background information about the
text. This type of criticism is called
formalistic or structural criticism. In
historical criticism the background information helps the reader to understand
the text. So, the reader needs both
these criticisms to have a better understanding of the text. Archetypal criticism is a synthesis of
structural criticism and historical criticism.
Owing to Jealousy, Othello, in the
Shakespearean play inflicts upon himself affliction. This is the particular truth of the drama
from which the reader learns the general truth of life that Jealousy is always
destructive. This is called the
inductive method of analysis under structural criticism. Similarly, the historical inductive method
that helps the reader understand the genre of drama originates from Greek
religion. So, Archetypal criticism, the
combination of both these criticisms is an all inclusive one. It involves the efforts of many
specialists. An editor analyses the
text. A rhetorician analyses the
narrative pace. A literary social
historian studies the evolution of myths and rituals. Thus, a thorough understanding of the text is
possible under archetypal criticism.
As a matter of fact, the world of
nature is governed by rhythm and it has got a natural cycle. The seasonal rhythms in a solar year are
spring, summer, autumn and winter. This
kind of rhythm is also there in the world of animals and human beings. Crops are planted and harvested rhythmically
every year and they have their seasons.
During planting and harvest, sacrifices and offering are made which are
rituals. Actually, works of literature
have their origins in such rituals and the archetypal critic discovers and
explains them.
A writer usually gets a concept or
idea of his work in a moment of inspiration.
Then he expresses what he has ‘perceived’ in the form of proverbs,
riddles and folktales. He uses myths
either deliberately or unconsciously, and it is the critic who discovers the
archetypes, myths in a work. Every myth
has a central significance in a myth centre.
That may be God, Demigod, Super human or Legend.
Frye classifies myths into four categories.
1. The Dawn is spring and is said to be birth
phase. The birth of a hero, his revival
and resurrection, his defeating the powers of darkness and death are all the
happenings here. The father and mother
are the subordinate characters here.
This phase is with archetypes of comedy and rhapsodic poetry.
2. The Zenith is summer and is said to be
marriage or triumph phase. Myths of
Apotheosis of the sacred marriage and of entering into paradise are found in
this phase. The companion and the bride
are the subordinate characters. This
phase has the archetypes of romance and pastoral poetry.
3. The Sunset is autumn and is said to be the
death phase. Myths of fall, of dying
God, of violent death and of sacrifice and of the isolation of the hero are
found in this phase. The traitors are
the subordinate characters here. This
phase has the archetypes of tragedy and elegy.
4. The darkness is winter and is said to be
the desolation phase. Myths of the
triumph of these powers, myths of floods and the return of chaos and the myths
of the defeat of the hero are seen in this phase. The witch and ogre are the subordinate
characters here. This phase has the
archetypes of satire.
These are the four
categories of myths that Frye identifies in different types of works written by
different writers. Thus, Frye classifies
the literary universe into four categories, corresponding to the four natural
seasons: Comedy corresponds to spring; romance to summer; tragedy to autumn and
satire to winter. Apart from these
Northrop Frye says that there is a quest–myth that makes the hero goes in quest
of a truth or something else. In this
way a critic can analyse myths and finds how a drama, a lyric or an epic has
been evolved. Moreover, Frye is also of
the opinion, that there are twelve brand archetypes namely, The Innocent,
Everyman, Hero, Orator, Explorer, Creator, Ruler, Magician, Lover, Caregiver,
Jester, and Sage.
Moreover, according to
Frye, to attain perfection the comic and tragic visions of life that are used
in the creation should be analysed. In a
comic vision of life in a myth the human world is presented as a community. There a here is presented as the representative
whereas in a tragic vision of life, the human world is in tyranny. Similarly, in the comic visions of life, in a
myth, the animal world is presented as a community of domesticated animals like
a flock of sheep with pastoral images.
But, in the tragic visions of life, there are vultures, serpents,
dragons and so on. According to Frye all
who deal with literature need two powers, a power to create and a power to
understand. As criticism has every
characteristics of a science, it should have a systematic study with any piece
of literature that it deals with.
Moreover, every poet has his private mythology, his own spectroscopic
band or peculiar formation of symbols, of much of which, he is quite unconscious. So, the critic should take over, where the
poet leaves off and with the help of literary psychology he should connect the
poet with the poem. No doubt, this is
quite possible if he applies archetypal criticism here.
T.S.
ELIOT’S LITERARY CRITICISM – TRADITION AND INDIVIDUAL TALENT
Thomas Stearns Eliot (1888 – 1915) was a versatile genius
who during his lifelong span of literary activity achieved distinction as a
poet, playwright, journalist and critic.In 1948, he was awarded Nobel Prize for his outstanding, pioneer contribution to present day poetry.As
he said, his criticism was merely a 'by-product' of his 'private poetry work
shop'.The value of Eliot’s criticism
arises from the fact that he speaks with authority and conviction and his prose
style is as precise and memorable as his poetry.The critical concepts like ‘Dissociation of
sensibility’, ‘Unified Sensibility’ and ‘Objective Correlative’ have gained for
him wide popularity and appeal.
The phrase ‘Objective Co-relative’ was first used by Eliot
in his essay on ‘Hamlet’.Eliot defines
‘objective co-relative’ as ‘a set of objects, a situation, a chain of events’,
which shall be the formula for the poets’ emotion, so that ‘when the external
facts are given, the emotion is at once evoked’.In his opinion the emotion can best be
expressed in poetry through the use of some suitable objective
co-relative.For example in ‘Macbeth’
the dramatist has to convey the mental agony of Lady Macbeth and he does so in,
‘The sleep, walking scene’, not through direct descriptions, but through an
unconscious repetition of her past actions.Her mental agony has been made objective so that it can as well be seen
by the eyes as felt by the heart.Here
the external situation is adequate to convey the emotions.Instead of communicating the emotions
directly to the reader, the dramatist has embodied them in a situation or chain
of events that suitably communicate the emotions to the reader.But, ‘Hamlet’ is an artistic failure as the
external situation does not suitably embody the effect of a mother’s guilt on
her son.The disgust of Hamlet is also
in excess of the facts as presented in the drama.
Another popular phrase ‘Dissociation of sensibility’ and
‘Unification of Sensibility’ were first used by T.S. Eliot in his essay on the
Metaphysical poets of the early 17th century.By ‘Unification of Sensibility’ he means ‘a
fusion of thought and feeling’, ‘a recreation of thought into feeling’.Such fashion of thought and feeling is
essential for good poetry.Bad poetry
results when there is ‘dissociation of sensibility’.There the poet is unable to feel his
thoughts.Eliot finds such unification
of sensibility in the metaphysical poets, and regrets that dissociation of
sensibility set in the late 17th century.According to him, 'Tennyson and Browning are
poets; and they think, but they do not feel their thoughts as immediately as
the odour of a rose.But, a thought to
Donne was an experience; it modified his sensibility'.Similarly Eliot’s 'The Theory of Impersonality
of poetry’ is the greatest theory on the nature of the poetic process after
Wordsworth’s romantic conception of poetry.According to him poetry is not letting loose of emotion but an escape
from emotion, not an expression of personality, but an escape from
personality.Moreover as he considered
drama as one among several forms of poetry, he always advocated for a revival
of poetic drama in the modern age.
TRADITION
AND INDIVIDUAL TALENT
The ESSAY ‘Tradition and Individual talent’ was published
in 1919 in the Times literary supplement, as a critical article.The essay is divided into three parts.The first part gives us Eliot’s concepts of
Tradition and the second part deals with his theory of the impersonality of
poetry.The third part sums up the whole
discussion.
According to T.S Eliot the word ‘tradition’ is disagreeable
to English ears.Because, when they
praise a poet, they praise him for those aspects of his work, which are
‘individual’ and ‘original’.Actually
they praise the poet for the wrong thing here.If they examine the matter critically with an unprejudiced mind, they
will realize that the best and the most individual part of a poet’s work is
that, which shows the maximum influence of the writers of the past.Here, tradition does not mean a blind
adherence to the ways of the previous generations.For Eliot, tradition is a matter of much
wider significance.Tradition, in the
true sense of the term, cannot be inherited.It can only be obtained by hard labour.This labour is actually, knowing the past writers.It is the critical labour of shifting the
good from the bad.A writer who has the
historic sense feels that the whole of the literature of Europe from Homer down
to his own day, including of his own country, forms one continuous ‘literary
tradition’.As tradition represents the
accumulated wisdom and experience of ages, its knowledge is essential for
really great and noble achievements.
The sense of Tradition doesn’t mean that the poet should
try to know the past as a whole, take it to be a lump or mass without any
discrimination.The past must be
examined critically and only the significant in it should be acquired.The poet must also realize that the main
literary trends are not determined by the great poets alone.Smaller poets also are significant.According to T.S. Eliot, knowledge does not
merely mean bookish knowledge and the capacity for acquiring knowledge differs
from person to person.Shakespeare, for
example could know more of Roman history from Plutarch than most men can from
British museum.Such awareness of tradition
sharpens poetic sensibility and is indispensible for poetic creation.
In the second part of the essay Eliot develops further his
theory of the impersonality of poetry.He compares the mind of the poet to a catalyst and the process of poetic
creation to the process of a chemical reaction.Suppose there is a jar containing oxygen and sulphur dioxide.These two gases combine to form sulphurous
acid, when a fine filament of platinum is introduced into the jar.The combination takes place only in the
presence of the piece of platinum, but the metal itself does not undergo any
change.It remains inert, neutral and
unaffected.The mind of the poet is like
the catalytic agent. It is necessary for
combinations of emotions and experiences to take place, but it itself does not
undergo any change during the process of poetic combination.The experiences which enter the poetic
process, says Eliot, may be of two kinds.They are emotions and feelings.Poetry may be composed out of emotions or feelings or out of both.
As Eliot believes that poetry is not letting loose of
emotion but an escape from emotion and it is not the expression of personality
but an escape from personality, it doesn’t mean that he denies personality or
emotion to the poet.Only he needs the
poet depersonalize his emotions.There
should be an extinction of his personality.This impersonality can be achieved only when the poet surrenders himself
completely to the work that is to be done.It is possible only if he acquires a sense of tradition and the historic
sense along with the sense of the present moment of the past.This is how the separation of art from artist
is achieved.
SIR.
PHILIP SIDNEY’S AN APOLOGY FOR POETRY/THE DEFENCE OF POESY
(CRITICISM 5)
Sir Philip Sidney was born
on 30th November 1554 in Kent.In 1582
he was knighted and became the member of Parliament.In 1586 he was mortally wounded in the battle
field and succumbed to it. It
is said as he lay dying Sidney composed a song to be sung by his deathbed.In the last quarter of the 16th century, the
need for a proper understanding of the nature and function of poetry was widely
felt.Moreover, in 1579, Stephen Gossen,
who was a puritan published a treatise, ‘The School of abuse’, in which he
attacked poetry and drama of the age.The book was also dedicated to Sidney.So, Sidney besides being a public servant, who was also a man of letters
of great reputation, wrote his Apology for poetry in order to vindicate poetry
against the onslaughts of the puritans.Though it was written in 1583, it was published in 1595 by Henry Olney
with the title ‘Aplogy for poetry’ and in 1598 by William Ponsonby with the
title ‘Defence of Poesy’ posthumously.
In
‘Apology for poetry’ Sidney talks about the antiquity and universality of
poetry. Apart from discussing the kinds
of poetry and their usefulness, he strongly objects tragicomedy and the
violation of the unities. Moreover his
remarks on style, diction and versification are very effective. He defines poetry as an art of imitation. As
it is representing, counterfeiting or figuring forth, it is really a speaking
picture and so its end is to teach and delight.
Sidney
divides poetry into three broad divisions namely religious poetry,
philosophical poetry and true kind of poetry.
Religious poetry praises God, where as philosophical poetry imparts
knowledge of philosophy, history, astronomy etc. He is of the opinion that as it is “The sweet
food of sweetly uttered knowledge”, it is not to be condemned. The third kind of poetry are divided into
lyric, pastoral, heroic, tragic, comic and satiric etc. Pastoral poetry deals with the loneliest life
and thus arouses sympathy and admiration for simple life. Similarly elegiac poetry arouses sympathy for
the suffering and the miserable. Thus,
they soften the heart. Comedy and satire
laugh at follies and imitate common errors in a ridiculous fashion and so are
effective in warning men against such errors.
Tragedy reveals the wickedness of men and women and reveals the
uncertainty of life. Lyric hymns praise
God and Men and thus, enkindle virtue and courage. The Epics present the pictures of heroic men
and heroic action and thus inspires men to heroic action. Thus, he argues and proves that
there is no any evil in any of these kinds of poetry.
The aim of poetry is
accomplished by teaching most delightfully a notable morality. Since the object of all arts and sciences is
to lift human life to the highest altitudes of perfection, in a way they are
all servants of poetryThe philosopher teaches virtue and vices in abstract arguments
where as the historian by showing them through examples and experiences of the
past ages. But, the poet gives perfect
examples of vices and virtues and makes virtue succeed and vice fail in his
poetry. Thus, Sidney demonstrates the
superiority of poetry over history and philosophy.
The Senecan drama and the
Aristotelian precepts were the sources of Sidney’s theory of tragedy. He
follows the medieval tradition and says that tragedy should show the fall of
tyrants. He condemns modern tragedy for
the incongruous mingling of the comic and tragic and the gross violation of the
unities. However, the rule of the three
unities of action, place and time were not followed in England even after his
strict demand. Sidney defines comedy, “as an imitation of the common error of
life which are represented in the most ridiculous and scornful manner. So, that the spectator is anxious to avoid
such errors himself”. So, he condemns
contemporary farcical comedy and is in favour of a comedy of a more
intellectual kind. According to him the
proper material for comedy are the weaknesses, follies and foibles of mankind
of a harmless kind. Thus, he considers
comedy a weapon of social reform.
Sidney
is unique as a critic. He is judicial,
creative and original. He inaugurated a
new era in the history of English literary criticism.His practical criticism is an illuminating piece of literary
criticism. Doubtless, his treatise is a
landmark in the history of English criticism in England. So, more truly than Dryden he is the father
of literary criticism in England.
The exact date and authorship of the Greek Treatise ‘On the
Sublime’ is unknown.Two Longinuses are
claimed to be the author of this treatise.It was actually in 1554 that the Italian critic Robortello ascribed it to
a rhetorician named Dionysius Longinus of the first century AD and this
authorship was generally accepted up to the beginning of the 19th
century.Then some critics pointed out
that the work belonged to another Longinus who lived in the 3rd
century AD.As we are told that the
treatise was written to correct the faults of an essay on the same subject by
one Caecilius, who is definitely known to have belonged to the 1st
century AD, we must accept the later half of the first century AD as the most
likely date of its composition.So, no
doubt Dionysius Longinus is the author of this treatise.
‘On the Sublime’ is the most precious legacy of the
Greco-Roman period and a critical record of great worth and significance.Though one third of the original document is
missing, it contains a lot to be considered as one of the best pieces of
criticism that have come down to us from the antiquity.The treatise is addressed to one Terentianus,
a friend or a pupil of Longinus.Longinus tells him of his purpose of correcting the faults of
Caecilius’s essay on the ‘Sublime’ and makes some other preliminary
observations.
Sublimity is a certain loftiness and excellence in
language.It is only through sublimity
that the greatest poets and prose writers of Greek and Latin have delivered
their eminence and gained immortality.Sublimity does not merely persuade.It carries us away almost irresistibly.Sublimity is a gift of nature.It
won’t come from the painstaking observance of the rules of rhetoric.For the further explanation of the nature of
the Sublime, Longinus compares the true Sublime with the false Sublime.The false Sublime is characterized by bombast
of language which is as great an evil as swellings in the body.This ugly and parasitical growth in
literature appears from the pursuit of novelty in the expression of ideas which
may be regarded as the fashionable craze of the day.
The true Sublime ‘Pleases all and pleases always’ as it
arises from lofty ideas clothed in lofty language.It gives us joy and exalts our spirits, as it
expresses the thoughts of universal validity, the thoughts common to men of all
ages and countries.To acquire the true
sublimity both nature and art are equally necessary.He says “Fine writing needs the curb, as well
as the spur”.He complains Caecilius for
his omitting some of the five sources of Sublimity.Either he believed that Sublimity and emotion
were one and the same thing and always existed and developed together or he thought that emotion had no contribution to make to Sublimity.So, he was wrong.In Longinus’s opinion there is nothing so
productive of grandeur as noble emotion in the right place.
According to Longinus the five principal sources of Sublime
are, Grandeur of thought, passion, the uses of figures, diction and dignified
composition.Noble and lofty thoughts
find their natural expression in lofty language.Lofty thoughts itself is an echo of greatness
of soul.Such greatness and nobility of
soul can be cultivated by nourishing the mind on thoughts that are
elevating.So, one who wants to attain
this must feed his soul on the works of the great masters like Homer and
Capture some of their greatness.
The second source of the Sublime is vehement and inspired
passion.There should be genuine
emotion.Strong and powerful emotion
would contribute more to loftiness of tone in writing.The third source of attaining excellence of
style is the use of figures.Figures
should not be used mechanically, rather, they must be rooted in genuine
emotion.Longinus does not deal with all
figures, but only with those that give distinction to style.The figures treated are the rhetorical
question, Asyndeton or the omission of conjunction, hyperbaton or inversion,
periphrases, a roundabout way of saying things by which the use of common place
words is avoided and Apostrophe or address to abstract or inanimate
objects.These all will bring the
expression a richer note and more tuneful rhythms.
The fourth source of the Sublime is diction which includes
choice and arrangement of words, as well as the use of metaphor and
simile.Both ordinary and striking words
must be suitably chosen, for both are necessary for the formation of an
impressive style.Similarly metaphors
are necessary to give elevation to style.Along with metaphors he considers the use of hyperboles, which he says,
must also rise from emotion.The fifth
source of Sublime is dignified and noble composition and arrangements.By this he means a verbal order that is
usually called rhythm.Words must be
harmoniously set.Such harmonious
combination of words appeals to the soul and enables the reader to share the
emotions of the author. The true Sublime uplifts the soul and fills the mind with joy. As it overcomes the test of time, it remains memorable. Here, Longinus quotes the lines of Iliad and proves the force and vigour of Homer that captures the desperate mood of Ajax in the mist and baffling night.
Zeus, father, yet save tho'u Achaia's sons
From beneath the gloom.
And make clear day, and vouchsafe unto us with our eyes to see!
So, it be but in light, destroy us!
Here, he doesn't plead for life as it will demean his stature. Instead, he craves for death that is worthy of his bravery. Thus he proves how Homer uses appropriate thought, emotion and dictum to suit the intensity of emotion that befits the situation. This is what he says as sublimity. True sublimity has social implications because of its possessing inherent moral values. So, it is enjoyed by all, irrespective of time, place and age. So low and undignified vocabulary ill sounding words and vulgar idioms should be avoided.Brevity is effective, but consciousness of
expression will mar the Sublime.These
are the views of Longinus on the Sublime.
Longinus is one of the greatest critics of antiquity. Like Aristotle, he based his theories on
existing Greek literature.He likewise
aimed at a rational explanation of literary phenomena.So, his methods of theorizing are analytic,
inductive, psychological and historical.He is said to be a pioneer in the field of analytical criticism as he
has applied the analytical method in his analysis of one of the important love
lyrics of Sappho (570 BC – Greek Poetess).He is also said to be the first romantic critic as he emphasizes on
imagination and emotion.A lot of
similar things in the pages of Longinus’s ‘On the Sublime’ will never grow old
and its freshness and light will continue to charm all ages.That is why it remains towering among all
other works of its class.
Frank
Raymond Leavis (1895-1978) is one of the leaders of Cambridge critics, who had
their major influence in English literary studies from the mid
1920s. He was also Charismatic and undisputed leader of the critical
world of England. F.R. Leavis believed that literature should be
closely related to criticism of life and that it is therefore a literary
critic’s duty is to assess works according to the author’s and society's moral
position. In that way, he not merely inherited, but took upon
himself the role of the torch bearer of the humanistic tradition earlier
initiated by his spiritual predecessor Arnold. So, F.R. Leavis is of
the opinion that literature affords us examples of writers like Arnold, Ruskin,
Conrad and Lawrence who showed what it is to lead an ideal life, a life not
accessible to the one promoted by Science and technology.
‘The
Great tradition’ (1948) of F.R. Leavis is a work in fictional poetics
discussing the merits of Jane Austin, George Eliot, Henry James and Joseph
Conrad. It was he who declared boldly that D.H. Lawrence belonged to
the great tradition of novelists. ‘Scrutiny’ is a journal that he
published for twenty one years along with his wife Queenie Roth, a specialist
in British fiction is his best contribution to English letters. Though
‘Hard Times: An analytic note’ is included in ‘The great Tradition’, it does
not form a part of the principal discussions of the book. Leavis is
of the opinion that Charles Dickens is primarily an entertainer, a caricaturist
who cannot be considered significant as Henry James. The great
novelists, George Eliot, Henry James and Joseph Conrad in the tradition
identified by Leavis are pre-occupied with form for they are technically
original and use their genius to frame uniquely appropriate methods and procedures
in their art.
According
to Leavis, George Eliot’s novels are the creations from her personal
experiences that are closely related to the middle and lower class of the rural
England of the 19th century. Henry James is a genius
who creates an ideal civilized sensibility and possesses the capacity to
communicate by the finest means of implication. Joseph Conrad is also an
innovator in form and method who takes serious interest in life.
However Leavis gives great importance to
Dickens's 'Hard times'. The title ‘Hard Times’ is significant as it deals with
the inhumanities of Victorian civilization. Leavis considers ‘Hard
Times’ a moral fable with a definite intention that exhibits satiric irony in
the first two chapters. The descriptiveness of the passages in Hard
Times reveals the sensitivity of Dickens and from the employment of symbolism
that emerges out of metaphor, the candid portrayal of the Victorian society
stands apart. Sissy’s symbolic significance shows the vitality of
life that is resourceful and provides a stark contrast to the lifeless rigidity
of utilitarian principle. While Sissy represents vitality, Bitzer is more
unemotional and mechanical in approach. This shows Dickens unique
capacity to represent human spontaneity with skill and deftness. The
descriptions of the circus athletes, their agility, frivolousness and their
movements are perfectly designed by Dickens. The circus life
represents the vital human impulse that is trampled under
utilitarianism. Through this Dickens expresses profound reaction to
industrialism that has degraded life in the Victorian society.
Dickens
observes life in the urban scene where the usual depiction of human kindness
and essential virtues assert themselves in the midst of ugliness and banality of
life. Sissy Jupe functions to convey the artistic flexibility of
Dickens that finds her confronting utilitarianism with great
subtlety. The irony of situation is effectively designed when
Gradgrind’s daughter is married off to Bounderby. Louisa’s development
under Gradgrind shows inhibition of natural affection and her capacity for
‘disinterested devotion’ is in sharp contrast to the vitality and force of life
as depicted by Sissy Jupe. Here, Leavis praises Dickens for his
revealing the pathos related to the mechanistic life with a poetic
beauty. So, he calls Dickens an imaginative genius, a poetic
dramatist whose possibilities of concentration and flexibility in the
interpretation of life can only be compared to a dramatist like Shakespeare.