Seema Minz Ma'am's notes.

Catharsis 

Aristotle defined tragedy as :

“The imitation of an action that is serious and also as having magnitude, complete in itself.”

In the medium of poetic language and in the manner of dramatic rather than of narrative, presentation, involving “incidents arousing pity and fear”  where with to accomplish the catharsis of such emotions. The meaning of Aristotle’s ‘Catharsis’  may be interpreted as purgation or cleaning of emotions. Aristotle believed that when a person watched/read tragedy, tragedy has a purgatory effect on him. Purgation takes place when the reader sympathises with the protagonist and by doing so he cleanses himself by rising above his self interest.

Aristotle’s theory of catharsis may be considered to be his reply to Plato’s charge against tragedy that is devitalises our emotions. The twin emotions of pity and fear are dangerous and unhealthy. According to Dante, pity and fear constitute the two fold audience reaction reaction to the site of tragic suffering. Pity is aroused by the magnitude of the suffering undergone by the protagonist and fear by the knowledge that what extent will the tragic suffering befall on the protagonist. This is the awareness that is brought hope to us when we witness a tragedy. Pity and fear describe a process of mutual and imaginative identification with the agent. When we come out of this involvement we find ourselves in worldly transformed and feel a sense of release and serenity  ( calmness ).

Classicism.

The Greek Masters.

Socrates - Oedipus Rex.

Plato - Republic.

Aristotle - ‘Poetics’.

----

Romans

Horace.

Longinus.

Virgil.

----

The Renaissance.

Sir Philip Sidney.

Elizabeth Age.

University Wits.

Shakespeare.

Marlowe.

---

The Restoration.

John Dryden.

Neo Classical Age.

Dr. Samuel Johnson.

Classicism.

Classicism can be summarised as an aesthetic quality that imitates the ancient writers for its guide and inspiration. Usually the Greek and Roman masters were referred as models. Classicism in English literature was revived during the renaissance. The writers of the renaissance period once again started reading and learning about the classical masters and started initiating them. It was Ben Jonson who established order and discipline in English writing. During the renaissance period there was a duel trend that was followed in criticism. On one hand English criticism of this time adored the classics of as a model and guide and on the other it advocated purity of the native tongue. Away from the foreign influences ( Latin-French Italian ).

Classical and Romantic.

There were two opposed stand points from which the world looked at criticism. The classical and the romantic or the Dogmatic and impressionistic. The classical standpoint also called dogmatic emphasised on uniform standards laid and in particular emphasised on the judicial function of criticism. It was regulated by the rules or ancient classics as codified by Aristotle and his followers. It advocated right judgements as a step towards right enjoyment classical criticism dominated European thought in 16th, 17th and 18th century when Aristotle poetics was acknowledged as the master key to the treasures of literature.

Scalinger, the famous critic of 16th century said “Aristotle is our emperor”, “The perpetual dictator of all the fine arts”. Alexander Pope in his 'Essay On Criticism' 1688 called on English writer to take their standards from the most ancient models. 


"Be Homer’s works your study end delight.

Read them by day, and mediate by night.
Thence form your judgements, thence your maxim’s bring. And trace the muses upwards to their spring."

Characteristics of Neo-classicism.

1. Respect for rules - Rule and discipline were accepted and practiced with enthusiasm in the 18th century. Classical conventions govern not every variety of verse - drama, epic, satire, ode and others. Perfect form was the ideal and the substance or the subject was of minor importance.
2. Intellectual Quality - The neo-classical were governed by a spirit of reason and good sense. They spoke of what was correct. Their writing was bred more in the head than in the heart, rather it was addressed to the intellect and not to the feeling. The neoclassic delighted themselves in wit therefore they deliberately wrote memorable phrases that was philosophical and critical.
3. Insistence on a set poetic style. The preoccupation with form encourages an artificial style. Everyday turns of speech was unacceptable and the language turned out to be standardised. Heroic couplet was the best medium that was exploited.
4. Was based on town life / City based. About 3000 coffee house developed in London in the 18th century. They served to establish contact between authors and readers. Neo-classicism focussed more on city life rather than nature and countryside. Satire came to be practiced more as London life and current fashions offered it unlimited scope.

The Romantic Revival

For over a century, classical conventions were applied to English poetry with striking success. They established the rule of law in literature, by which writers were taught “to think naturally and express forcibly.” A literary technique was evolved which in the words of Pope was “Nature methodised”. Slowly, songs of revolt became visible in works like James Thomson’s ‘The Seasons’ ( 1726 ), Thomas Gray’s ‘Elegy Written in Country Churchyard’ also exhibited early traits of romanticism. In 1798, the publication of The Lyrical Ballads of Wordsworth and Coleridge finally made a sharp distinction between the two modes of literature.

Romanticism is the name given to the new tendency. It was in revolt against authority tradition and convention whether political, social, religious or literary. It expressed a new delight in simplicity of thence, feeling and expression in the worship of nature and in the familiarity with the lives and thoughts of humble men and women. At the same time, it was fascinated by the Mobid ( strange )and the supernatural and also by whatever was remote in time like the pagan world and the middle ages and by the exotic legends and splendours of the east.

From Preface To Lyrical Ballads.

W. Wordswoth.

The primary aim of the poems was to choose incidents and situations from common life in common language. At the same time imagination is used so,ordinary things appear unusual. The primary laws of nature is traced. Humble and rustic life ( simple country people ) was chosen because in this condition ‘the essential passions’ or ‘the basic passions’ of the heart find a better background in which they mature. In the humble and rustic life the basic passions are less under restraint ( under less pressure because of no competition ) and the basic passions are able to express themselves through the use of the simple language of village life ( plainer and more emphatic language ). In this condition our elementary ( basic ) feeling exist in a state of simplicity ( feeling are not mixed and altered ) and they are easily understood and effectively communicated to all. The elementary feelings are therefore durable.

The language of the humble and rustic is adopted because the humble and rustic have same narrow circles in which they interact and therefore they are less under the influence of social vanity. That is why they are able to convey their feelings and opinions in simple and unelaborated expressions. Thirdly, such a language arises out of an experience which is permanent. This language has a quality to be philosophical as it talks talks of the sympathies of men.

Function Of Criticism 

The function of criticism by T. S. Eliot published in 1923 was an outcome of controversy generated by his earlier essay - ‘Tradition and Individual Talent’ ( 1919 ) which John Middleton Murray criticised. Eliot’s views published in that essay gives importance to the historic sense and traditional values of an artist. Eliot wrote the present essay as a reply to Murray’s criticism. Besides criticising his wives, here he sets down his critical stand an issues like the meaning of criticism, the relationship between criticism and creativity, the qualification of a critic and the importance of facts in a critical activity. All this said with the force of authority born out of his stature as a great pact and his stupendous ( very big ) scholarship.

John Wayward writes ;

“I cannot think of a critic who has been more widely read and discussed in his own lifetime, and not only in English but in almost every language, except Russian, throughout the civilised world.”

Eliot begins the essay, by referring to certain ideas he had put forward in his earlier essays, traditional and individual talent. This is because those ideas are relevant to the present essay. In the earlier essay he said that there os an unbroken tradition in literature from former down to this present age. For an artist this tradition is the authority to which he has to owe elegance.

Eliot is clear about the function of criticism, the chief function of criticism is “elucination” of works of art and the correction of taste.”

In this essay, the function of criticism Eliot further adds that the aim of criticism is  “the promotion of understanding and enjoyment of literature.”

Eliot feels that it is not always easy to describe whether or not a critic has been able to fulfil his taste completely. This is because the fact that some critics give expression to their prejudices, whims and likes and dislikes. They do that because they owe their livelihood to such differences and audits. In Eliot such critics are of no value. 

Eliot does not accept Murray;s distinction between classicism and romanticism. Murray says that the genius of the French is classicist and that of the English is romantic. Murray also equates classicism with catholicism and protesticism. Eliot is not happy with this generalisation. He believes that the difference between classicism and romanticism is ;

“the difference between the complete and the fragmentary, the adult and the immature, the orderly and chaotic.”

Eliot is also against the inner voice concept of literary criticism because the function of criticism is to discover some common principles that can lead to the improvement of art. This function could be served only with obedience to the laws and tradition of art, which have been derived from the experience of ages.

Thus, someone believing in the inner voice cannot value criticism. He calls the inner voice as ‘whiggery’.

In the final part of the essay Eliot deals with the major issues related to literary criticism. First issue relates to the distinction between the critical and creative activity. Such a distinction to Eliot is unsatisfactory, he refers to Arnold’s distinction between the critical and the creative and says that such a distinction not valid. According to Eliot a large part of the work of an author in composing his writings is ‘critical labour’. The author in this way criticises his own work by shifting, combining, correcting and testing. Eliot believes that the criticism by a writer of his own work is the best criticism. He even goes to the extent of saying that some creative writers are superior to others because they have a superior critical ability. Thus, Eliot thinks that it is a mistake to separate the creative and the critical activity. He asks “if so large a part of creation is really the criticism is not a large part of what is called critical writing is really creative.”

However, his states that there is a fundamental between creation and criticism creation has no conscious aims but criticism has fixed purpose concerned to something other than itself. Criticism has no conscious aims but criticism has fixed purpose concerned to something other than itself. Criticism could not be autotelic and is aimed at the elucidation of works of art.

Eliot then discusses the qualification of a critic, according to him an ideal critic must have : ‘A very highly developed sense of fact.” He defines fact that has been into “something precise tractable, under control  describing the use of critic”, Eliot says “comparison and analysis are the chief tools of the critic.”

We can compare and analyse successfully only when he knows the fact relating to the literary work. The facts however must be handled with care. He must be able to discuss technical aspects of a literary text like structure and theme and not waste his time in such irrelevant facts such as the number of giraffes in the novels. Thus, facts must be used with cave so that “we are masters and not servants of facts.”

Eliot also believes that critics should read the works themselves rather than reading views about the work. He is against ‘lemon squeeze’ critics who try to squeeze too many meanings from the text. Thus, a good critic follows tradition judges on the basis of facts and his objective. He should not be prejudiced on the basis of some preconceived theories.

Eliot made major contribution to English criticism, George Watson rightly says ;

“Eliot made English criticism look different, but not in a simple sense.”

Watson is struggling that Eliot’s critical methods are revolutionary. He is an extremely wide read critic. In his present essay he uses many quotations. These quotations are made to do the critics works and the reader is made to work on them. ‘The Function Of Criticism’ shows that Eliot took a classicist position. The objective and the scientific approach to criticism sets Eliot apart from many critics who came before him.

From Work To Text 

Roland Barthes was one of the French theorists of the 1960’s and 1970’s. He defines literature as “A message of the signification of things and not their meaning.” By the word, ‘signification’ he understands the process which produces the meaning and not the meaning itself ( process to produce meaning ) . In the essay ‘From Work To Text’ he has studied ‘literary work’ in the light of ‘structuralist’ and ‘post structuralist’ approach to language and meaning. The study of literature has become an inter disciplinary activity.

At the outset of the essay Barthes says that the concept of language and literary work has undergone a change over the past several years. This change is due to a current development in the field of linguistics, anthropology, Marksiom and psychoanalysis. Hence, the approach to criticism has become interdisciplinary and it is associated with a new language. This approach also indicates the study of intertextually which announces that a text is a stratified structure containing echoes and references to other texts. 

Barthes wants a combined approach of Marxism Freudianism and structuralism ( way to analyse it observing its form ), to relativise the scriptures , the readers and the observers ( critics ) relationship. He reveals that the traditional notion of ‘work’ is displaced by a new one called ‘text’. In the essay he bring forward some proposition which indicates what the writer understands by the term ‘text’ and how is it different from ‘work’.

First, the ‘text’ must not be thought as a defined object. One must careful not to say that works are classical while texts are avant garde ( something which is new and brings out a revolution ). They should not be distinguished in terms of modernity and antiqueness. A very ancient work contains ‘some text’ while many products of contemporary literature are text at all. The differences between the work and the text is that ‘ the work is concrete ( product of writer ) occupying portion of book space, the text on the other hand is a methodological field. 

Barthes is of opinion that the opposition between the work and the text recalls the distinction between ‘reality and real’ as proposed by Lacan. The former is displayed, the later is demonstrated ( explaining with proof ). In the same way, the work can be seen in book stores in cast catalogue and on course lists while the text reveals itself and articulates itself according to /against rules.

The second proposition is that the text does not come to stop with good literature. It is difficult to describe the text, because it defies the classification on the basis of genre; it implies an experience which is felt commonly. A poet, a novelist, an essayists, an economist, a philosopher and even a mystic are said to have written ‘texts’. Barthes says that “the text is that which goes to the limit of the rules of enunciation ( rationality, readability and so on )”

Thirdly, the text is approached and experiences in relation to sign and the work closes itself on a signified. A sign consists of a signifier and signified. The field of the text is that of a signifier whereas the work closes itself on a signified. Barthes states that the work is moderately symbolic but a text is radically symbolic. In this way the text is restored to language. Like language it is structured but decentered without closure. ( Many meaning can be taken from ‘text’ but very limited meaning can be taken from ‘work’. )

The fourth assumption is that the text is plural. Barthes goes on to say that the text’s plurality depends on the plurality of signifiers that weave it. The text is like a cloth. In fact, Barthes believes that the text does not have fixity of meaning rather it has potentiality for multiple meaning. Hence, text is plural.

The fifth assumption holds that the work is caught up in a process of filiation ( interconnected ). Each text is ‘inter text of another text’. The reader should be in search for the ‘source of’ and ‘influence upon’ a work. Here, Barthes welcomes the author’s right in the interpretation of a text. He says. 

“it is not that the author cannot ‘come back’ into the Text; however, he can only do so as a ‘guest’ so to speak.”

The sixth assumption is that the work is an object of consumption. The reader / the critic for that matter is an active consumer of the literary text. The text acts upon the reader and makes him reproduce the text in the reading process. The role of the leader is that of the interpreter and hence the critic is ‘The Co-Author’ of a text who executes the work. The text asks the reader for an active collaboration. This is a great innovation. Many people feel bored while confronting the modern text or the movie or printing because they cannot produce the text, play it, open it, out and make it go.

Barthes final proposition reveals the approach of pleasure through the text. He says that there certainly exists a pleasure associated with the text. ‘The work’ gives pleasure to the reader, where as the text provides him, enjoyment, which is pleasure without separation. While the reader goes through a work he derives pleasure out of it but he rarely reproduces the work in the reading process. On the other hand, while reading a text. The reader or the critic interprets the text and recreates it and enjoys it.