Freud and Literary Criticism

Author(s): Mabel Collins Donnelly

Source: College English, Vol. 15, No. 3 (Dec., 1953), pp. 155-158
Published by: National Council of Teachers of English
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/371867
Accessed: 16-01-2020 22:58 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/371867?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

National Council of Teachers of English is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access to College English

This content downloaded from 180.246.173.124 on Thu, 16 Jan 2020 22:58:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE THREE AGE'S OF HENRY ADAMS 155

objectivity
objectivity to see tohimself
see in
himself exhortation,
perspective "NUNC AGE." And then,
in perspective
and
and to to
realize
realize
that even that
his own
even after
tragedy
his publishing
own his Education, he pref-
tragedy
-and
-and thethe
implied,
implied,
or prophesied,
or prophesied,
trage- trage-
aced his last major work with A Letter to
dy
dyofof his his
country country
and race-were
and notrace-were
American Teachersnot
of History, urging his
final.
final. Through
Through it, he achieved
it, hea wisdom
achieved
colleaguesatowisdom
tackle the problem of scien-
beyond
beyond orthodox
orthodox
religion: religion: tific interpretation to which he had de-
All
All wise
wise
men men voted his last years, redefining it and its
Have
Have oneone
sole purpose
sole purpose
which we never
which possible
lose: solutions,
we never lose: and ending with a
A
Aperfect
perfectunionunion
with thewith
Single Spirit.1"
the SinglefinalSpirit.1"
statement of his philosophy. Once
again, to the teachers of youth in the
But Adams remained to the last the
twentieth
man of action, rather than the mystic. century-and this time with
complete
His poem continued: "But we, who can- seriousness and without irony
-he
not fly the world... ." And his Educa- urged, "now, act."
tion concluded with its note of ambiguous 11 From his late poem, 'Buddha and Brahma."

Freud and Literary Criticism

MABEL COLLINS DONNELLY1

CONSIDERATION
CONSIDERATIONofof
the
the
relation
relation
ofmachine
of was a significant image, for the
Freud's
Freud'swork
worktotoliterary
literarycriticism
criticism
fallsfalls
Romantic the tree, the symbol of process
readily
readilyinto
intofour
foursections:
sections:
Freud's
Freud's
con-con-and becoming, was the treasured image.
nection with the Romantic tradition and It is important to remember that the
with logical positivism; the limitations ofhidden impulses toward growth were not
his epistemology, with concomitant lim- all morbid and evil: the Wordsworthi-
itations of his view of art; significant con- an "spots of time" are as characteristic of
tributions to literary criticism despite the Romanticism as is the "Bateau Ivre,"
larger limitations; the impact of his workand both kinds of life-force are drawn
upon two representative types of critics. upon by Freud. He rationalizes, so to
Lionel Trilling summarizes in a fine speak, the antagonism by the methods
essay2 the relation of Freud's thinking toof logical positivism, that essentially op-
the Romantic tradition, with its antithe-timistic system which, however, parted
ses of decorum and revolt, stasis and company with the "metempirical."4
process. And as Professor Peckham, too, The epistemology of Positivists is lim-
points out,3 if for the non-Romantic theited, and from these limitations derive
1 Author of a biography of George Gissing to be the limitations of Freud's views of art
published by the Harvard University Press in Feb-
and artists. Logically, the empiricist can-
ruary. This is from a paper delivered at Connecticut
College, New London. not concern himself with values. All that
2"The Legacy of Sigmund Freud ... Literary he is entitled to do, by the confines of his
and Aesthetic," Kenyon Review, II (spring, 1940), own system, is to point out the relativity
152-73; as revised in Criticism, ed. M. Schorer,
J. Miles, and G. McKenzie (New York: Harcourt,
of values. Freud, however, was deeply
Brace & Co., 1948), pp. 172-82.
4 According to Leslie Stephen, the phrase was a
3Morse Peckham, "Toward a Theory of Ro- favorite of G. H. Lewes (see Stephen, "Philosophic
manticism," PMLA, LXVI (March, 1951), 5-23. Doubt," Mind, V [April, 1880], 181).

This content downloaded from 180.246.173.124 on Thu, 16 Jan 2020 22:58:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
156 COLLEGE ENGLISH

... the essential

concerned with values; that is to ars poetica
say, he lies in the tech-
found himself compelled to think about of repulsion is
nique by which our feeling
overcome. We can guess at two methods used in
"good" relationships. Here
thisis the crux
technique. of softens the ego-
The writer
the problem, as Trilling points
tistical characterout
of the so
daydream by changes
well: that Freud wishes to think of a and disguises; second, he bribes us by the offer
fixed or "given" reality to which he rec- a purely formal, that is, esthetic pleasure in
of
the presentation of his phantasies. This in-
onciles his neurotic patient; nevertheless,
crement of pleasure which is offered us in order
logically, the reality is a "taken" or to
a release yet greater pleasure arising from
chosen one. Consequently, when he
deeper sources in the mind is called forepleasure.
The true enjoyment of literature proceeds
speaks of art as a substitute gratification
from the release of tensions in our minds.7
and of artists as withdrawing from the
"real" world, he lays himself open to the
Freud's theory of the equilibrium of com-
charge of equating his chosen world with
peting tensions through literature is very
reality, while denying to the artist the much like Aristotle's catharsis.
same liberty. Thus, some critics say, Freud draws a daring parallel between
Freud's world is no more real than the
the play of the child and the creation of
artist's; conversely, art is not mere illu-
the imaginative writer. Unfortunately,
sion, but a "higher Reality," as the Ro-the critic has never ascribed to the child
mantic critics wished to call it.
the ability to evoke a "higher reality";
If such criticism is upheld as primary,and so the critic, especially if he is orient-
then the only importance of Freud's view ed to humanism, rather resents such a
of art "lies in no specific statement that
parallel. The comparison, for Freud's
he makes about art but is, rather, im- purpose at least, is a good one, for he
plicit in his whole conception of the
wishes to make the point that play as he
mind."5 Thereupon, Freud receives
understands it is not the antithesis of
praise for documenting in a scientific age
serious occupation, for it is often carried
that poetry is the very stuff of the mind,
on very seriously indeed; rather is it the
which apprehends in images, but he opposite
is of reality:
denied his thesis that the creation of the
We may say that every child at play be-
artist is not reality.
haves like an imaginative writer, in that he
The denial comes, perhaps, from re-
creates a world of his own, or more truly, he
sentment over Freud's selection of words
rearranges the things of his world and orders it
in a new way that pleases him better. It would
rather than from an idea which Aristotle
be incorrect to think that he does not take this
had introduced as "imitation." Aristotle,
world seriously. On the contrary, he takes his
like Freud, observed that the pleasure
play very seriously and expends a great deal of
derived from viewing an imitation is dif-
emotion on it. The opposite of play is not
ferent from the response accorded "ob- serious occupation but-reality.
jects which in themselves we view with
It is more helpful to remember that
pain. . ..6 Aristotle did not discuss in
detail the nature of the difference, butFreud describes the making of a private
world,
Freud chose to describe it as "forepleas- that is, the reordering of experi-
ure": ence, as the essence of the creative proc-

7 All quotations from Freud are from "The Rela-

5 Trilling, "Freud and Literature," in Criticism,
tion of the Poet to Day-Dreaming" (1908), in
p. 180.
Collected Papers, IV (London: Hogarth Press, 1949),
6 Poetics, trans. S. H. Butcher (4th ed., 1911). 173-83.

This content downloaded from 180.246.173.124 on Thu, 16 Jan 2020 22:58:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 FREUD AND LITERARY CRITICISM 157

ess than it is to ferret out aFreud's work. Edmund

Freudian defi-Wilson uses the
title The
nition of reality. Admittedly, Freud's Wound and the Bow for his col-
no-
tion of reality is open to lection
attack of critical
by the studies;8 and although
logician, but his thesis that thethe
notion of art the
child, by compensation may
neurotic, and the creativenot artist
properlyall deal
be restricted to the influence
much more freely with phenomena, are or reaction to an
of Freud, compensation,
much more daring in their unsatisfactory
reordering reality,
of is prominent in
them than are other members his theory
of ofa neurosis.
given Today it has be-
society, is difficult to gainsay.
come usual for the biographer to seek the
traumatic
. . Long after a child has grown upexperiences
and in the life of his
stopped playing, after he hassubject, the better
for decades at-to understand the
character
tempted to grasp the realities of lifeofwiththe work;
all however, brash
seriousness, he may one day come to a state
use of Freud's methodof invites recrimina-
mind in which the contrast between play and
tion and discredit upon Freud's endeav-
reality is again abrogated.
ors in literary criticism.
If this description may be Two applied
representative toexamples from re-
neurotics, it applies as well centto
criticism
much will of
illustrate the dangers
of sole
literature, best of all to such reliance
works asupon
thethe Freudian meth-
romances of Shakespeare, od, in and the merits
which of the approach, too
reali-
ty and the dream, the fairy often denied.
tale and Mr. theEmpson's analysis
many years ago of George Herbert's long
earthy ballad, jostle one another.
poem "The Sacrifice"-an
Freud's view, rather schematic, as he analysis re-
plete with Freudian
himself admits, of the stimulus to crea- interpretation-was
tion is as follows: justly criticized by Miss Rosemond Tuve
because it showed no awareness of the
Some actual experience which made a
literary and religious sources upon which
strong impression on the writer, and stirred
Herbert
up a memory of an earlier experience, generally had drawn.9 In other words, as
belonging to childhood, then arouses a wishMr. Empson had not known (and as he
that finds a fulfilment in the working question,graciously admitted afterward), Herbert
and in which elements of the recent event and
the old memory should be discernible.
had not so much plumbed his uncon-
scious as he had gone fishing in everyday
According to Freud, even the so-called liturgy. If a moral may be adduced, it is
"ex-centric" novel of Zola, who pro-the necessity for the critic to know social
fessed impassiveness, is consistent withand literary conventions as well as the
the description of the daydream: Freudian method.

... in Zola novels the person introduced as Unfortunately, however, not only
brash
hero plays the least active part of anyone and
use of the Freudian method is at-
seems instead to let the actions and sufferingstacked-this deservedly-but also the
of other people pass him by like a spectator.brilliant use of that method to emphasize
But I must say that the psychological analysesthe movement and tone of a given work.
of people who are not writers has shown us
analogous variations in their daydreams in
8 Edmund Wilson, The Wound and the Bow (New
which the Ego contents itself with the role of
York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1941).
spectator.
9 Rosemond Tuve, "On Herbert's 'Sacrifice,'"
Kenyon Review, XII (winter, 1950), 51-75; William
The method of the biographer-critic
Empson, "Communications" (open letter), Kenyon
has been tremendously influenced by Review, XII (autumn, 1950), 735-38.

This content downloaded from 180.246.173.124 on Thu, 16 Jan 2020 22:58:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
158 COLLEGE ENGLISH

wish-this
Thus Dr. Ernest Jones's paper uponstudent
thewould be greeted
problem of Hamlet,l° especially
with scornthe rea-
or disapproval and a tart re-
sons for his delay in carrying out
mark to "read an In this text
the text."
avowed aim, is regarded Hamlet
by many brilliantly rationalizes most
dis-
criminating critics as helpful
things andbut-and
deceives, it would appear, not
only Polonius but
this is emphasized by them-incapable ofthe critics who take
the
providing a "meaning" for text at face
Hamlet.l value as they would not
One
wonders perhaps whether do, onea would
such critic hope,
is in a comparable
worried over "meaning" situation in life.
in general; to
There infinite-
him there seems to be something is, of course, no single meaning
ly precious in the rejection of meaning
of Hamlet or other great works of art, but
and something dangerous the in
kindaofstudy
interpretation that sensitive
usethat
which attempts to suggest of Freud's method can make is a
brilliant
rationalizations often have underneath valuable one, so valuable that the hos-
emotions violently destructive. The tra- tility so often shown to those who use
ditional critic prefers to regard Hamlet that
as method to help clarify some prob-
a rational being who has good reasons forlems in literature is indefensible in teach-
hesitation: thus Hamlet must ascertain ers who regard as important the testing
whether the Ghost is a good spirit or a and incorporation of new knowledge. In-
spirit damned; or, again, he cannot kill deed, overweening hostility would mean
Claudius at a seemingly opportune mo- the very death of the humanism they
ment because the man is at prayer. Theseprize, for the great aim of humanists has
have been the answers demanded by traditionally been to bring new knowl-
most humanist teachers to the question,edge into relation with values. It would
"Why does Hamlet delay?" Surely, theseem possible to admit the limitations of
benighted student who dared to answer Freud's epistemology without minimiz-
that the fundamental reason for the de- ing the importance of his theory of the
lay comes from the Oedipal conflict-creative process, and his method of
Hamlet's incestuous attachment to hisanalysis as applicable to literary criti-
mother, his unconscious death wishes cism. Let the psychologist and psychia-
against his father, which paralyze him in trist learn more about literary conven-
dealing with the man who carried out his tions, and the literary critic learn more
10 Ernest Jones, Hamlet and Oedipus (New York: about psychology, and in time we shall
W. W. Norton & Co., 1949). have one of the great syntheses, lacking
11 Trilling, "Freud and Literature," p. 178. miracles.

Have you made your reservation for the Fortieth Anniversary

Dinner of the NCTE College Section, Monday, December 28,
Palmer House. Chicago?

This content downloaded from 180.246.173.124 on Thu, 16 Jan 2020 22:58:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms