In 1955, upon the acceptance of the Hanseatic Goethe Prize, T. S. Eliot delivered one of his most famous and important speeches, regarding the poet’s own experience with one of the ‘great Europeans’. Eliot provides, as he is known to do, a wide variety of thoughtful discussion and analysis in this speech, but in specific I find his notion of representation--that is a character which embodies the given age, above a mere Zeittier--to be the most imperative, though still lined with the Christian and Carlylean thinking which a man of his stature was prone to.
I now write this nearly seventy years after the original recitation; though I have no mantel nor literary friends to picture above my writing desk in the way Eliot describes, if I were to go about collecting postcards of the figures of the past, casting my own pantheon of ‘great Europeans’, Goethe would be chief among them--though I must admit, at this moment, my own disposition leans towards Schiller and Hölderlin (it should be acknowledge Eliot himself claims Hölderlin may be the greater poet of the two). What then, was the characteristic which set this man apart, and what might be learned from his very existence? Though appreciative, I renounce Eliot’s pronouncement of ‘Wisdom’ as some ineffable quality encompassing abundance, amplitude and unity. Instead, I’d like to examine the metaphysical aspect of his claim. Is there such thing as a Redner-der-Zeit?
Perhaps most interesting was the fact Eliot, as he off-handedly acknowledges, was well acquainted with the Goethe of his own age, Mr. Ezra Pound. For those even possessing a cursory knowledge of Modernism and the general trends of the 20th century understand the importance of Mr. Pound, and how, as I have claimed, he might claim the title of our Redner.
In his speech, Eliot makes an interesting note on development. He claims these ‘representatives’ can be more than a mere instrument of the times, they can, instead, be ‘the severest critic of his people and an outcast from it; the man who is representative of his time may be in opposition to the most widely-accepted beliefs of his time’. In this we see an important distinxion. Being the Redner-der-Zeit does not coincide with being a push-over but rather being pure in Artistic pursuits, so much pure, so as to express the epoch as it truly is, whether that is congruent or against. It is to embody the time in spirit--a point to which I will return.
For Pound, our elected Redner of the 20th (or at least its first half before the entire world shifted), this funxion of resistance and conceit coexist paradoxically, very apt for the complexity of Modernism. At its onset, Pound was both riding a wave and forging a path, demanding a sentiment of ‘making it new’ which, itself, ironically, was only a continuation of a long growing movement in the silent recesses of art--see Impressionism, Symbolism, Realism, Naturalism and proto-Expressionism.
It can be, at times, hard to claim Mr. Pound made anything new, and many a harsh critic would claim his disciples did much the same--Eliot included. This would be missing the point of the age. We are not here to squabble over the influence of the Imagists; rather, our main concern is with, firstly, a distillation of Modernism by a means of environmental factors and, secondly, a comparison of these with the characteristics of Mr. Pound.
Modernism, sandwiched between the Romantic-Victorian age and the end of history, stands resolute as humanity’s most innovative period. Here we would see, at the start, the last pronouncements of Nietzsche, and at the end, the perfectly placed words of Nabokov. How rare is it to see a time which first defines the novel then utterly destroys it, as Mr. Joyce demonstrated not far into the interim. But all of this is merely a revisiting of aesthetics. Be careful not to forget the material of this time, which saw perhaps the greatest technological leap since the harnessing of fire and the early produxion of stone, the flourishing of ideas long built into systems and institutions and the great parade of human destruxion. How could one voice fill this voyd, how could one speaker put all of this into words?
In short, Modernism (and we understand this period nebulously as the publication of Heart of Darkness, 1899, to the publication of Pale Fire, ‘62, for piece of mind) was a time of three predominant factors: the culmination and initial consequence of industry (literal modernisation), the culmination and initial consequence of colonialism and the culmination and initial consequence of institutions.
There will be, naturally, those who reject my simplification of the age, but in truth one must admit all other factors fall to the categories mentioned above. For instance, the all-too-common occurrence of individualism, of psychology, of the well-used stream of consciousness; it would seem all of these should in themselves define a category, but I instead suggest these are the culmination (and initial deterioration) of institutions--as when I use that would, it should be understood as reference to long established philosophical ideas originally dismantled by in force by Nietzsche (id est. the dialectic, theological principles, rationalism, Romanticism, individualism, hinterwelt, ethics, etc.). Similarly, the rise of Fascism fits into both the third and second category, coming both from a delusion of Christianity into a secular practice (the ideological, institutional cause), and from the economic concerns of a post-colonial world (the whole project of the Nazi party to create colonies of Eastern Europe). Finally, there’s the experimentation or reinvention of the period, the very ‘make it new’ I spoke of early. Is this, not in itself, the same as the third category? One cannot be new unless it has something to be new against.
With our first goal achieved, we must now move to the second position: does Mr. Pound exhibit qualities which correspond, either positively or negatively, to the demands of his age?
To this point, I have already used his own quote to describe the very epoch twicefold, and in the matter of the others, his own unfortunate fall to corrosive ideologies seems to present him as not beyond the economic concerns, the materiality of industry and Althusser’s later pronouncements on ideology. And, as Eliot mentions of these ‘great Europeans’ in his own work, we can’t help but move beyond this simple condemnation because there should be no doubt, Pound was far from a simple man.
Does Mr. Pound embody the industrialism of the period? Did he not edit Eliot’s Wasteland? Did he not serialise Portrait of the Artist? Did he not reshape London in his image? Though, indeed, none of these are quite so exact--as I have previously spoken of with painters such as Hopper or de Chirico--Pound no doubt fell into the industrial landscape. He, as many of his kind, became dislodged from society, prone to falling into the gaps caused by the widening rift in an orthodox ground, excavated by machines of new terror. After all, it was this modern industry which allowed him to live his illustrious life, always moving back and forth across the pond and never settling, except for an Italian cell, for any number of time.
Does he stand for the culminating factors of colonialism? Well, I admit, for most of his life, he himself had very little to associate with his and it’s absurd to blame a single person for colonial factors, even if that person be Hitler), but he did become a proud supporter of Saló Italy and felt them justified in all their moves, even supporting the aforementioned Austrian.
Well, does he exist as the culmination and decay of institutions? This question should be superfluous to answer. This is the very statement which I have over-invoked to this point.
So, in all necessary regards, Mr. Pound is the epitome of Modernism, the blend of society and time into an individual birthed into it. But then again, there remains more to consider. Most importantly, the difference in world geography and in specilisation.
It is self-evident that this study has only considered, predominantly, Europe and America and has only focused on literature, or tangentially related branches of the humanities. For instance, considering the latter fact, two more figures may come to mind: firstly, Sigmund Freud, who through his pioneering of William James’s psychology, developed a way of thinking that would not only shape literature but all culture going forward and brought forth some unspoken fears of the age; second, Martin Heidegger (or Wittgenstein depending on your disposition) completely modernised the world of philosophy and all thought, similarly reflecting the feelings of the age. (And of course Nietzsche as well). So, why not them? Why solely sit on literature? On art? Simply, no field better encapsulates human life, and the times we live in, on the whole.
In Eliot’s speech, he highlights, as mentioned, Dante, Shakespeare and Goethe as the ‘great Europeans’--a term we reject, though we will come to name these individuals as die Redner in their own right. Notice the similarity. As Lucretius, Dante is a philosopher, theologian, alongside being a poet. Shakespeare a playwright, an actor, a man of letters. Goethe was equally a scientist as a dramatist as a poet and a novelist. None of these are simple individuals because no age is a simple age.
To the second point, there is more of an argument to be made. When I say Pound is the Redner-der-Zeit for Modernism, we must first understand what I mean by Modernism. We have already defined its temporal boundaries, but there are geographic ones as well. The world did not Modernise all at once, did not experience the same change.
For instance, Russia saw a very different Modernism during the the construxion and early thriving of the Soviet Union. They saw the birth of film theory and of Collectivism and Constructivism. Perhaps the most worthy opponent (aside from W. B. Yeats who helped Pound in many regards to become this orator and may himself even be just as worthy) for the title of Modern Speaker is Lu Xun, the voice of China during this time--and arguably for all times after.
Not only did Lu Xun educate the future generation, write literature that would inspire them and the eventual revolution, not only did he participate in the struggle and capture the feeling of the Chinese people, but he was among a handful of other writers and linguists such as Lufei Kui and Hu Shih who revolutionised the very language (and if Wittgenstein is to be believed, this is a significant event).
Most will claim this only affected China, and though reduxionist, this is certainly true. But why not China over Europe, such is why Eliot’s term ‘great European’ though strongly Carlylean, is perhaps more apt.
Can there be a single Redner? Of course not! There is no single age. No single sentiment. No single people. But there came be one who embodies the most prevalent spirit of the world, this is the true Redner, and in this case I believe Mr. Pound to still be the most apt candidate.
One must understand, this does not mean ‘most important person of the time’. If that were the case, the Redner of Modernism would be Einstein, of the century before Napoleon. Genghis Khan in the 13th. Ibn Sina in the 10th. Muhammad in the 7th. Ma Jun in the 3rd. Christ in the 1st. Liu Che in 1st BCE. Alexander in 4th BCE. Socrates in the 5th. Cyrus in the 7th. Even Moses somewhere around the 13th and Abraham around the 21st.
Though, in some cases, there may be overlap with these individuals, in all, these individuals were not the victims of the time but the cause--in many ways.
Alexander gave us Aristotle, not the other way around. Christ, through lineage, produced Dante. Die Redner are victims, victims of the age. It is this very afflixion which gives them the power to communicate the invisible truth of the times.
So, with all that established, who then are die Redner? What are some examples?
I believe Eliot is well justified in his identification--hence why I nickname Pound the Goethe of the 20th century (though we should also understand ‘the times’ do not work according to calendars and dates. These are not confined to individual centuries or movements. These individuals come and go, at one moment embodying the world, and in the next being left behind. That also makes it difficult to produce exact dates). Pound for Modernism. Goethe for Idealism/Romanticism (it’s hard to know what to term this). Shakespeare. Dante. Mark the Evangelist. Augustine. Ruskin. Rumi. Vergil. Jeanne d’Arc--yes, even none artists (though at this point, she is essentially an archetype and a muse).
The point is, environment is our greatest drive, the unspoken voice whispering truths in our ear. There are no great men, no great Europeans, but occasionally, when the times are strong enough, there might be someone so shaped by them that they begin to embody the environment and thus become an archetype for said habitat. That is the Redner-der-Zeit. The is the speaker for the time. That is the voice of the voiceless truth of life.
Comentarios