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.

FREUD AND LITERATURE--Lionel Trilling

FREUD AND LITERATURE

Lionel Trilling

S. Sreekumar

Trilling was an American literary critic and teacher who brought psychological, sociological, and philosophical methods and insights into criticism. His critical writings include studies of Matthew Arnold (1939) and E.M. Forster (1943), as well as collections of literary essays: The Liberal Imagination (1950), Beyond Culture: Essays on Literature and Learning (1965).

Trilling maintained an interest in Freud and psychoanalysis throughout his career. However he never based his criticism on any one system of thought. His attitude to criticism was similar to that of Matthew Arnold: (the) “disinterested endeavor to learn and propagate the best that is known and thought in the world.” Therefore, Trilling brought a wide range of ideas and positions to his criticism. He always remained loyal, like E. M. Forster, to the tradition of humanistic thought. His goal was to educate and stimulate the enlightened middle classes.