The Challenge of Literary Movements
FRANCOIS JOST
What is a literary movement? Apparently, this is an easy question to answer. Merriam-Webster says: a movement is an "act or process of moving." Therefore, a literary movement is the act or process by which literature moves: there is a progression. And literature moves, the whole of it, not only certain parts or particles of it. Thus, at the end of a specific movement, literature will be in another place, posi- tion or posture to paraphrase my dictionary than it was at the beginning. But what is literature? In the present context a simple definition may suffice: it is the aesthetic expression, by means of words, of all that which concerns man. It is neither only poetics, nor only aesthetics, neither just sociology nor just philosophy. It is not a mere Wortanschauung or a mere Weltanschauung, but both, and not separately, but jointly. It happens that Merriam-Webster has been relegated to the rare book room and that, oddly enough, everything I have said so far smacks of common sense, a tool perfectly inept for the pursuit of criticism. We should not wonder, therefore, that in handbooks on literary studies "movements" are discussed as static phenomena, while in manuals on physics they are examined in chapters on dynam- ics. A movement, in our distinguished profession, has come to mean a period or an epoch, an era or an age. There are quite a few other pseudo-synonyms, such as trends and schools, circles and coteries. Some critics have doubted the usefulness of movement studies and of literary periodization as well. Each work, they have argued, stand- ing by its own virtue and merits, is unique. Its evaluation, therefore, should not take place within the framework of a period or a genre. There is at least one obvious answer to that objection. No appraisal is possible without implicit or explicit comparisons. Value judgments are based on a set of rules governing the field of aesthetics; clearly, by itself and viewed in isolation no poem is either good or bad. Thus, to ignore comparison amounts to discarding critical appraisals. But who made the rules? The authors themselves by tacitly or overtly compet- ing with their peers; in doing so they give momentum a word re- lated to movement to literary life. The analysis of the driving forces, the dynamics of literature, thestudy of its motor, so to speak, to use again a term derived from movere like movement, suggests some challenging thoughts. I should like to divide them into three parts. It is first necessary to clarify thenature of literary movements; then, to answer questions concerning the role of aesthetic and stylistic movements in literary history; and, finally, to ask ourselves what are the consequences of the separation of aesthetics and stylistics from the whole of literature, not only for literary history but for criticism as well.
1
History teaches us that philosophies have long gestation periods: several decades, most often. By the time one philosophy reaches ma- turity, after centuries, perhaps, the next one may already have been conceived. Since philosophy, by which I mean a basic view and inter- pretation of all things human, is an essential part of literature, literary movements have to encompass a substantial span of time. Gongorism, or Jugendstil, or costumbrismo are not literary movements properly speaking. It appears that Western Literature, so far, has experienced very few movements and a a hundred moves. One may possibly distin- guish six or seven: Classicism, Medievalism, Renaissance, Enlighten- ment, Romanticism, Realism, and, the movement which has not yet been christened and to which I would give the name of Socialism or Materialism, if the terms were not encumbered with so many politi- cal and economic implication This is not the place to expound on the characteristics of the ma- jor movements of the West. Within the stream of the present reason- ing, however, a few remarks about their qualities and properties have to be made. Classicism happens to be the locus classicus of the in- separableness of form and content. The supreme principle of Peri Poletikes rests on imitation, on mimesis, that is, imitation of real life, of significant situations that may present themselves in life, and funda- mental attitudes towards life. Sophocles' tragedies are not just plays, but applied theology and psychology, and Homer's poems are not just songs: they are history and mythology, anthropology and geog raphy; in brief, both are epitomes the Weltbild, of the hu- man condition at the time of their authors. The Romans showed views similar to those of the Greeks. De Arte Poetica may find in the "utile et dulce" its summary, and the phrase means that in every masterpiece reason and aesthetic emotion have to merge, a conditio sine qua non for excellence. In this work, Horace does not even men- tion lyrical poetry, and obviously Aristotle assumes that his friends and disciples read his poetics with his whole philosophical thought in mind. Classicism is not confined to specific centuries. Its doctrine per- vades all individual literatures of the West, not simultaneously nor always to the same extent, to be sure. Classical highlights are seen in seventeenth-century France with Corneille and Racine, and in lateeighteenth-century Germany, culminating in Goethe's "edler Einfalt" and "stiller Grösse," in thought and form. Yet, contemporary criti- cism, sometimes, shows a tendency to emphasize the importance of classical forms at the expense of the exegesis of classical thought. In a sense, however, classicism is beyond the traditional notion of move- ment in so far as it is a recurring phenomenon, defying any clear limi- tation in time. This is not the case with medievalism, although it encompasses a full millenium and spurred remarkable interest within other literary movements, especially that of Romanticism. Most relevant to our subject is the fact that medievalism is endowed with a philosophical soul, theocentrism, which will be converted into anthropocentrism, a change that gave birth to the Renaissance, a movement which im- parted new orientations and new meaning to human existence and, therefore, had far reaching implications for the arts, including the letters. Yet, some modern critics have isolated the formal elements of the entire Renaissance movement; thus the baroque was declared a full-fledged literary movement, even though it seldom transcends aesthetics or poetics. Let us briefly look at another metamorphosis. After the emergence of an enlightened bourgeoisie, Romanticism dominated several coun- tries, but rather quickly changed into Realism, Materialism and So- cialism, this word being stripped of any specific overtones referring to modern ideologies, and used merely in a literary sense. If in Ro- manticism we consider only issues related to philosophical substance and basic interpretations of our existence, the movement may be de- fined as a quest for the self, a victory of the individual over the col- lective, the proclamation of sovereign independence of the human person from any group of human beings. Romanticism rests on the antagonism between the self and society. Socialism, literary Social- ism, on the contrary, rests on the alliance between the self and so- ciety, since society is called upon to protect the self. The crucial idea of Rousseau's Contrat social, published in 1761, bore abundant fruit over the following two centuries. All these reflections may be those of a "terrible simplificateur"; they are intended as an introduction to my major issue: in literary movements, which are necessarily related to primary cultural units, we have to identify and reconcile thematics and styles, matters and manners, "Gehalt" and "Gestalt". This identification and reconciliation is the object and objective of literature, the body of which may conveniently be divided into movements as suggested and practiced by many historians of literature. For a movement is the expressionof a certain way of life, and life is movement.
2
The study of literary movements is not a study in dilemmas, in some "either, or". To think or to shape, that is not the question. Never was philosophy by itself literature, nor was aesthetics by itself literature. Never two molecules of hydrogen by themselves pro- duce the smallest trace of moisture, nor did one molecule of oxygen quench the thirst of a single fly. The study of literary movements, however, may pose a question of priorities. The question of the chicken and the egg? By no means. Primacy has to be granted to the thought or to the emotion. As stated before, critics have often labelled movements according to some particular or peculiar modish vogues, or according to some stylistic innovations characterized by the use of specific poetic de- vices. We are thinking of trends which are less concerned with ad- dressing or answering a human problem, than with initiating or cap- italizing on some temporary preoccupations. One of the reasons why the lyrical muses are today lying on their death-beds is that they have run out of music-inspiring themes. They lack objects worthy of their songs. Deprived of their original literary powers and, therefore, short of breath, they are humming esoterica and exotica, erotica and sex- ofica. We know only of two creators: God and the poet. As creators, they should both make something out of nothing, if we remember the prime meaning of the verb to create, and if we believe in the role and mission of the literary vates. The poet, to be sure, has always been called la creator only by mere analogy. The Bible and Voltaire teach us that Yahweh alone succeeded in creating ex nihilo the best of all possible worlds, while the poet, in order to create the best pos- sible poem, needs an idea, needs motion and emotion. A poet writ ing ex nihilo ends up with an accusative, he creates nihil. A school like l'art pour l'art is not a literary school, but an aesthetic school. By this I do not necessarily mean to express a value judgment, de- spite the fact that this school aggravated the illness of the muses and that any subsequent poet writing in the same vein may hasten their demise. Style and other formal qualities not only grant a literary work ex- trinsic beauty: they ensure that its content endure, provided that content is worth such a happy fate, "Denn das Gemeine geht klanglos zum Orkus hinab," b," as Schiller says. From the colder parts of the North Atlantic smoked and salted herring are shipped to warmer regions, where they are consumed without hazard to one's health. Thus mas- terpieces are handed down to us from previous centuries: their style remains their conserving and preserving element. Clearly, style as- sumes a function and does not exist by itself. In the modern pantry where poetry has been stored for at least one hundred years we findmore sacks of salt than cans of fish. Brecht illustrates the situation with a story. "Bei der Bemühung um die Form," he says, "geht der Stoff verloren." Mr. Keuner, Brecht's character, worked once with a gardener. One day he had to trim a laurel and give it the shape of a globe for decorative purposes. He worked and cut, and finally the sphere was perfect. His master, inspecting the result of so much labor said: "Well, I see the sphere, but where is the laurel?" Surely, Brecht could have written some other stories in a similar vein. They might have ended like this: "Well, I hear the notes, but where is the music?" or "Well, I see shapes and colors, but where is the painting?" Saint Paul may forgive me if, after Brecht, I paraphrase a passage of his first epistle to the Corinthians. If the poet speaks without a message to be delivered, he is nothing but sounding brass, or a tinkling cym- bal. He indulges in a movement that may be listed under the rubric "cymbalism" not symbolism. Literature expresses a Weltanschauung: it is not a mere Wortanschauung, if I may repeat my dichotomy.
III
These ideas concerning the function of style are far from being ing new. Let us briefly examine the judgment of two well known eigh- teenth-century naturalists, famous also in the history of French liter- ature, Buffon and Bernardin de Saint-Pierre. In his Discours sur le style (1753) the former declares: "Les ouvrages bien écrits sont les seuls qui passent à la postérité," a thought I have already expressed here. "Si l'objet en lui-même est grand", he continues,... "le ton sera non seulement grand, mais sublime." These statements lead up to the well known sentence: "Le style est l'homme même," that is, style is man's heart and mind, an idea echoed the following century by Schopenhauer who declared: "Der Stil ist die Physiognomie des Geistes."
Bernardin de Saint-Pierre's view on the relationship between con- tent and form is similar to that of Buffon. No work passes the test of time without complying with the traditional prerequisites: it has to show formal beauty and has to contain some prominent thought. In the Avis preceding his novel Paul et Virginie he proclaims that form and content jointly produce a work of art, explaining that "le style est à la pensée non ce que l'habit, mais ce que les muscles sont au corps." More than Buffon does, he insists on the primacy of the content. Quoting Horace, he observes that words naturally are born out of the subject matter, out of the thought, out of the physically palpable and the spiritually tangible, that is, ex rebus: "Rem verba sequuntur," literally, "the words follow the thing." The thing, actionand meaning, give birth to the word.The philosophy of stylistics developed and expounded by the twoFrenchmen does not apply only to works of prose. It is fully sup- ported by Emerson, who speaks as a poet most of his poetry con- tains didactic elements when he satirizes those of his colleagues for whom "the finish of the verses is primary." In his essay on The Poet, dated 1844, he states: "It is not meters, but a meter-making argument that makes a poem." He summarizes his doctrine by add- ing: "The thought and the form are equal in the order of time, but in the order of genesis the thought is prior to the form." Forty years later, the hierarchy of values was reversed by Verlaine, who began. his "Art poétique" with this line:Music before anything else,finishing the poem with this statement:And all the rest is literature,that is, futile literary devices or impertinent reflections. Verlaine limits himself to an analysis of auditory merit. There is no utile in- volved. Literature has become mere form.
IV
The reason that we have insisted on the essential and vital unity of content and form in literature should be obvious. While there are movements in which we clearly see literature in its fullest meaning, as previously noticed, there are others in which only certain specific aspects of literature are involved. In other words, movements vary greatly as far as their nature and their function are concerned. Some excerpts from the litany of all isms may immediately spur our aware- ness of that variety. Overlooking the numerous variants of manner- ism and concepts in all major linguistic areas of Renaissance and
Baroque, let us mention without any logical or chronological order some literary or artistic phenomena closer to us: we have existential-ism and socialist realism, dadaism and surrealism, symbolism and modernism, impressionism and expressionism, formalism and con-cretic, avant-gardism and futurism, cubism and absurdism. Some"ismomaniacs" speak of receptionism (meaning the Rezeptionsästhetik) or of cinematism, some others of negrism or of horrorism. None of these "isms" qualifies as a movement in a fundamental sense.It would be possible to establish a bona fide scale indicating the ap-proximate proportion of each of the two basic literary elements-content and form within every single move or school. Some ofthem, obviously, are more concerned with aesthetics for aesthetics'sake than with the aesthetic expression of some significant aspect ofour human condition or of the ultimate meaning of our life. Too often the lines of the "Parnassiens," for example, either narcissistic- ally expound like a sonnet to the sonnet or illustrate an artistic creed. Art, and in particular literary style, has become an end in it self and is not anymore a mea means to an end. In recent times the pendu- lum of movements has shifted more or less regularly from philosophy to aesthetics and back. A synthesis and a system are most urgently needed, holistic rather than atomistic interpretations. One might ask why exclusive "cénacles" and "chapelles" have sodrastically multiplied especially during the last one hundred and fifty years. Their priests and chaplains rarely indicate their overall religious and philosophical affiliation, while they are always most keenly aware of the specific denomination of the church they are promoting and collecting from. As a result, a history of recent literature based on moves and movements might resemble a grandiose collage fresco with no frame of reference or organizing concept, a "theatrum mun- di" without any unified up-stage. This relatively recent multiplica- tion of moves and movements, incidentally, sometimes creates the erroneous impression that in former periods, whatever their longev- ity, each poet had to swim or drown in the same current, while in fact he proved to follow some secondary drift or to be a most inde- pendent personality. The reasons for the recent proliferation of "groupuscules" should be sought not only in the steadily growing effectiveness of the media, but also in the writer' ever-increasing awareness of his right to t to propagate principles born out of his prac tices out of any tradition. By fragmenting the history of literature and philosophy theorists have contributed to the acceleration of history as a whole.
V
Where, then, does the comparatist see the challenge of literary movements? Before addressing that question, let me briefly return to my point of departure. Why should criticism be concerned with movements rather than with periods defined by sets of formal traits and ideational norms? Because time is passing, moving, and therefore the Heraclitian approach to any fragment or aspect of history - whether social, political or literary is the only valid approach. Panta rhei: all studies on anything human are basically studies in changes. A literary period is an abstraction, while literary movements reflect facts. Literature is static only during the short span of time needed for the reading of one single work. As soon as I move to thenext, I will be noticing an intriguing change, and therefore facing thequestion of literary movements. At no point, I should insist, have I suggested that literary criticismshould consist solely of the study of the literary substance, nor have I insinuated that we may well consider the study of literary aesthetics a frivolous occupation. On the grounds of such an assertion a hypo- thetical author of a Literary Commedia would relegate me to the sixth circle of the "Inferno", where I could at length discuss the mat- ter with some other heretics. Man needs truth and beauty together and altogether, at least he needs questing for truth and beauty. Fur- thermore, I am not proposing that in practice the adjective "literary," when applied to a noun designating a movement which in fact is not fully literary, but only stylistic, should be deleted and omitted. It may continue to decorate any movement, even if that movement con- centrates only on particular aspects of literature. There is no reason to quibble over words when their meaning is clear. The word "liter- y often has to be understood metaphorically. It is a synecdoche, ary the whole being given for one part. It was and is definitely my intention, however, to point to basic differences in breadth, in significance, and in the very nature, of scores of movements. They cannot be compared without taking these differences into account. My intention was and is to remember that the history of ideas is an essential part of literary history, that thoughts and emotions, not forms and styles, put the universe in motion, and that thoughts and emotions, therefore, are essential to movements, to cultural dynamics, just as forms and styles are essen- tial to cultural statics, that is, to any serene analysis and quiet con- templation and to the conservation of the content as well. For the comparatist, the challenge of literary movements is if 1 may speak tautologically a challenge of comparison. Confrontations should be made at least on two levels, that of time and that of space. He does not restrict himself to the analysis of one move or movement, knowing that without an inquiry into several, it is not possible to understand even one, just as he does not fully understand any single literature without knowing others. A comparison in space, that is, a study of a particular movement in diverse linguistic areas, represents the other half of a comparatist's duty. Furthermore, since his study comprises several movements he must look for some common denomi- nator or some differentia specifica among them. Thus the challenge of literary movements consists not only of the search for a unifying element in each of them, but in the search for a principle that will make these movements comparable. In the third part of Zur Logik der Kulturwissenschaft, Ernst Cassirer suggests that in fundamental cultural movements he specifically refers to the Renaissance itis necessary to identify the "Richtung," a unity of direction, while a search rch for a unity of "Sein," their passive existence, is a vain enter rise. The entire cultural organism follows a teleological coursewhich may not be detected in each organ seen individually. To con
COMPARATIVE LITERATURE STUDIES
clude with a comparison, the study of literary movements should beat the same time a differential and an integral calculus: also achallenge!
FRANÇOIS JOST University of Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an essay by François Jost, a literary critic, discussing the concept of literary movements. Here's a summary:
Jost argues that literary movements are not just periods or styles, but rather dynamic processes that reflect changes in literature and culture. He emphasizes the importance of understanding the unity of content and form in literature, citing examples from classical to modern literature.
Jost criticizes the tendency to focus solely on aesthetics or stylistic innovations, neglecting the philosophical and thematic aspects of literature. He advocates for a holistic approach, considering both the literary substance and aesthetics.
Jost also discusses the challenge of comparing literary movements, suggesting that comparatists should analyze movements across time and space, identifying common denominators and differentia specifica. He concludes that the study of literary movements requires a balance between differential and integral calculus, acknowledging the complexity and dynamism of literary phenomena.
Key points:
- Literary movements are dynamic processes, not static periods or styles.
- Content and form are inseparable in literature.
- Aesthetics and philosophy are equally important in understanding literary movements.
- Comparatists should analyze movements across time and space.
- The study of literary movements requires a balance between differential and integral calculus.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
François Jost's essay "The Challenge of Literary Movements" delves into the intricate nature of literary movements, examining the difficulties inherent in defining, categorizing, and understanding them. Jost’s analysis is not just a reflection on the nature of literary movements themselves, but also on the methodologies and approaches scholars use to study them. He challenges the traditional views that seek to impose order on the fluid and dynamic nature of literary history, arguing for a more nuanced understanding.
Defining Literary Movements:
Jost begins by addressing the fundamental issue of defining literary movements. He notes that literary movements are often understood as groups of writers and works that share certain characteristics, whether they be thematic, stylistic, ideological, or temporal. However, he quickly points out that these categories are often more ambiguous than they appear. The characteristics that define a movement are not always consistent across all its members, and the boundaries between movements are frequently blurred. For instance, while Romanticism is typically associated with an emphasis on emotion and nature, not all Romantic works adhere strictly to these themes, and some works traditionally classified as Romantic might share traits with other movements.
Jost argues that the problem of definition is compounded by the fact that literary movements are not static. They evolve over time, influenced by various factors, including the sociopolitical context, the individual developments of writers within the movement, and the critical reception of their works. This evolution makes it difficult to pin down a movement’s defining characteristics at any given point in time.
The Construction of Literary Movements:
One of Jost’s key points is that literary movements are, to a significant extent, constructed by critics and historians. He explains that literary history is often written retrospectively, with critics looking back and grouping works and authors into movements based on certain perceived similarities. This process is not merely descriptive but also prescriptive; it involves selecting which works and authors are considered representative of the movement and which are not. As a result, the canon of a literary movement can be shaped as much by what is excluded as by what is included.
This construction process is influenced by various cultural, political, and social factors. For instance, during the 19th and early 20th centuries, the canonization of certain literary movements was often driven by nationalistic or ideological agendas. The choice of which authors to include in a movement could reflect the values and priorities of the critics and historians doing the categorization, rather than an objective assessment of the literature itself.
Jost also notes that the retrospective construction of literary movements can obscure the diversity of literary production within a given period. By focusing on a select group of works and authors, critics can create the impression that a movement was more homogenous than it actually was. This can lead to a simplistic understanding of the period and its literature, overlooking the complexities and contradictions that often characterize literary movements.
The Fluidity of Literary Movements:
Jost goes on to discuss the fluid nature of literary movements, emphasizing that they are not confined to specific time periods or geographical locations. Movements can span across centuries and continents, influencing writers in different contexts and leading to the emergence of new, related movements. For example, while Modernism is typically associated with the early 20th century, its influence can be seen in later movements such as Postmodernism, which both continues and reacts against the ideas of Modernism.
This fluidity also means that the influence of a literary movement can extend far beyond its original context. Jost points out that certain movements, like Romanticism or Realism, have had lasting impacts that continue to shape literature in different ways even after the movement itself is considered to have ended. The ideas, themes, and styles associated with these movements can be revived and reinterpreted in new contexts, leading to what Jost calls the "afterlife" of a literary movement.
The Role of Interdisciplinary Approaches:
Given the complexities involved in understanding literary movements, Jost advocates for an interdisciplinary approach to their study. He argues that literary movements cannot be fully understood in isolation from the broader cultural, social, and political contexts in which they emerge. For example, the rise of Modernism in the early 20th century cannot be separated from the social upheavals of the time, including the aftermath of World War I, the rise of industrialization, and the increasing skepticism towards traditional values and beliefs.
Jost suggests that incorporating insights from fields such as history, sociology, and cultural studies can provide a more comprehensive understanding of literary movements. By examining the ways in which literature interacts with other aspects of society, scholars can gain a deeper understanding of the factors that drive the emergence and evolution of literary movements. This interdisciplinary approach also allows for a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between individual works and the movements to which they belong.
Challenges for Literary Scholars:
Jost concludes his essay by reflecting on the challenges that the fluid and constructed nature of literary movements poses for literary scholars. He warns against the temptation to impose rigid categories on literary history, arguing that this can lead to a reductive understanding of literature. Instead, he advocates for a more flexible approach that recognizes the complexity and diversity of literary movements.
One of the key challenges, according to Jost, is the need to balance the desire for order and classification with the recognition that literary movements are inherently messy and difficult to define. He suggests that scholars should approach literary movements with a degree of skepticism, questioning the assumptions and biases that underlie traditional categorizations. This skepticism should be accompanied by a willingness to embrace the ambiguities and contradictions that often characterize literary movements.
Another challenge is the need to recognize the limitations of the retrospective construction of literary movements. Jost argues that scholars should be aware of the ways in which the canonization of certain works and authors can distort our understanding of a movement. By paying attention to the works and authors that have been excluded from the canon, scholars can gain a more complete and accurate picture of a literary movement.
Conclusion:
François Jost’s exploration of "The Challenge of Literary Movements" offers a critical perspective on the ways in which literary movements are defined, constructed, and understood. He challenges the traditional views that seek to impose order on the fluid and dynamic nature of literary history, arguing for a more nuanced and flexible approach. By recognizing the complexities and ambiguities that characterize literary movements, scholars can gain a deeper understanding of the literature of the past and its ongoing influence on the present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment