ROMANTICISM AND CLASSICISM--T.E.HULME

ROMANTICISM AND CLASSICISM

T.E.HULME

[Lecture notes by Dr. S. Sreekumar

 Prepared for Annamalai University MPhil Scholars]

This is a revised version. The Blog has another essay with the same title

Disclaimer

Scholars, please note:

These study materials are only for classroom purposes. The explanations are not original in any sense but taken from various sources. These notes are offered with the sole intention of helping students and research scholars with a quick overview of Hulme’s ideas. Those who would like to have a deeper or original study of the subject must look elsewhere for assistance.

Brief Biographical Note

T.E HULME (1833 – 1917) was a philosopher and aesthetician. He was killed in the First World War. From his unpublished papers, Herbert Reed edited a volume of critical essays entitled Speculations from which ‘Romanticism and Classicism’ is taken. This essay can be read as the manifesto of Imagism, especially in its recommendation of a dry hard style of poetry. Hulme is the thinker behind the Pound-Eliot revolution in English poetry. His influence is visible in the poetry of Eliot. The essay advocates a preference for Classicism over Romanticism and establishes a modernist poetics based on that.

It must be remembered that ‘Romanticism’ and ‘Classicism’ are pliable terms.

THE SENSE OF THE PAST Lionel Trilling

THE SENSE OF THE PAST

Lionel Trilling

[Lecture notes by Dr. S. Sreekumar]

Disclaimer

Scholars,  please note:

These study materials on Trilling are only for classroom purposes. The explanations are not original in any sense but taken from various sources. These notes are offered with the sole intention of helping students and research scholars with a quick overview of Trilling’s ideas. Those who would like to have a deeper or original study of the subject must look elsewhere for assistance.

A Brief Summary  [ 1300 words]

At the outset, Trilling questions the status of the study of literature in the Universities of the United States. He says that what is studied is not literature but its history. There is a dispute in the Universities between ‘criticism’ and ‘scholarship’— ‘criticism’ is seen as the aggressor and ‘scholarship’ the defender. The study of literature is often viewed with suspicion. Considering literature as an object of knowledge removes the active power of literature.

Often, literary history tries to approximate the methods of science. The genetic study of art is one such method. The genetic study may give ‘added value’ to a work but the study may easily become ‘vulgarized’ when the conditions are treated as primary and the work as secondary.  The genetic study may give a degree of certainty to a work but such scientific certainty is neither needed nor desirable. New critics revolted against the scientific study of literature. They wished to restore the autonomous status of literature and to see it as an agent of power.