The Study Of Literature And Music English Literature Essay

The capacity of music to unwrap the interior workings of the existence has a strong topographic point in early Christian idea, inspired by its even earlier function in Grecian doctrine. Over the millenary since antediluvian Pythagoreans imagined the music of the domains ; these being the greatest of all instruments ; aesthetic philosophers have debated the thought of natural musical power, the relationship between music and the word and the capacity of a literary work to be imagined as a public presentation. Even in non-western aesthetic theories like Sanskrit poetics, Sarngadeva identifies music consisting of a elusive bombilation or drone called nada. Of a much wider claim, nothing is the reservoir out of which phonemes ( Varna ) emerge ( vyajyate ) ; and since words ( pada ) emerge from phonemes and complete vocalizations ( vacas ) from words, and all of mundane life ( vyavahara ) comes out of linguistic communication, the universe itself ( jagat ) is entirely dependent upon nada. This all-pervasive, cardinal force of nada exists in two signifiers or manners, “ struck ” ( ahata ) and ‘ unstruck ” ( anahata ) possibly in the sense that a twine, or the vocal chords, can be “ smitten ” to bring forth hearable sound. Nada is therefore both hearable and unhearable, and its unhearable manner retains a certain primacy. A outline of Ayurvedic believing even describes the well-known series of Yogic cakras in the elusive organic structure, in their relation to the ego ( atman ) , and to the production of sound.

Hire a custom writer who has experience.
It's time for you to submit amazing papers!


order now

For centuries, music has been a finding factor in the defining of our literary landscape. Throughout the rational history of the comparative humanistic disciplines, critics and writers likewise have referred to music in relation to literature: chiefly poesy, normally considered per se ‘musical ‘ in its attending to the sonic qualities of words though there are conceptual every bit good as historical differences between both art signifiers. It has been widely recognized that music and poesy sprang from the common beginning of chant or conjuration. These two humanistic disciplines are similar in the sense that they both are presented through the sense of hearing, have their development in clip, and therefore necessitate a good memory for their comprehension. But, poesy, in mediaeval thought, is oriented toward grammar and rhetoric and music has a mathematical and scientific beginning. Musical and mathematical experience may be seen as subliminal actions within our ongoing pursuit for meaningful life, though in many instances hidden from the position of witting deliberation. Leibniz uses Mathematical imagination in his observation that “ music is the secret exercising of arithmetic of a psyche which does non cognize it is numbering. ” In music, its tones have intricate relationships among themselves, but frequently, no relationship to anything outside the musical composing: as Schopenhauer one time pointed out. They inhabit and form a existence of their ain which has merely distant relationships, by analogy, to the general existence in which we live. Often, words in a verse form are representative of world, whereas the linguistic communication of music is abstract. But apart from these constructive differences music and poesy have ever shared many similar ideas- like repeat, beat, speech pattern, pulsation, metre, sequence and dramatic flood tide.

Throughout the ages, the sister humanistic disciplines sometimes went manus in manus and sometimes parted company, but since the terminal of the 19th century musical facets have been used rather extensively in literature, either as a capable affair or as attach toing its built-in construction. Many poets have continued to gestate their art in musical terms-Romantics ( Blake, Keats ) , Victorian ( Tennyson, Swinburne, Pater ) and Modernist ( Hopkins, Eliot, Yeats, Pound, Loy, Stevens, Hughes ) to call a few. Over the past decennaries, an increasing sum of attending has been paid to aesthetic and cultural interactions between literature and music, and the value of both the scholarly Fieldss have been vastly enhanced by the manner in which critical theory has provided new methodological analysiss for musicology and strengthened music ‘s value for literature. Though this connexion sometimes has turned metaphorical, overall, in today ‘s interdisciplinary universe of academic research, ‘music and word surveies ‘ has emerged as a peculiarly popular field of question.

Virginia Woolf had one time proposed that “ the artistic virtue of prose is frequently demeaned or overlooked for the simple ground that it uses the same matter-of-fact practical linguistic communication of mundane communicating, prose holding ‘taken all the soiled work on to her ain shoulders ; has answered letters, paid measures, written articles, made addresss, served the demands of business communities, tradesmans, attorneies, soldiers, provincials ‘ ( Woolf, ‘The Narrow Bridge of Art ‘ . Collected Essays. 1966 ) , but the figure of musically inspired 19th and twentieth-century novels have instead contradicted and strengthened musico-literary relationships. From De Quincey ‘s ‘Dream-Fugue ‘ , in The English Mail-Coach, Huxley ‘s Point Counter Point, Virginia Woolf ‘s The Waves and James Joyce ‘s Ulysses, to more modern-day plants by Peter Ackroyd ‘s English Music, Toni Morrison ‘s Jazz, Anthony Burgess ‘ Napoleon Symphony, Robert Pinget ‘s Passacaille, Gabriel Josipovici ‘s Goldberg Variations and Vikram Seth ‘s An Equal Music ; works derived from music, inspired by music, or thematically ‘musical ‘ prose pieces have shown a really funny interactive, interdisciplinary, and multimedial nature that testify a closer sistership between the humanistic disciplines. This phenomenon has come to be called intermediality, defined as utilizing more than one artistic medium in the creative activity of a work of art. And it wo n’t be incorrect to suggest that a changeless preoccupation with the construct of ‘musicality ‘ might hold played a cardinal function in construing these texts on “ musical ‘ footings linked progressively with the readings of narrative techniques.

From Roland Barthes ‘ theory of literary counterpoint to Mikhail Bakhtin ‘s analysis of polyphonic music in Dostoevsky ‘s novels, the construct of musicalness in literature has been a major preoccupation of many literary critics and theoreticians. Given the presence of narrative in about all human discourse, musicalness draws to a great extent from narrative theory that places music following to linguistic communication itself as typical human traits. Fredric Jameson writes about the ‘all-informing procedure of narrative ‘ , which he describes as ‘the cardinal map or case of the human head ‘ and Lyotard calls narrative ‘the quintessential signifier of customary cognition ‘ . Research workers in the field of word and music surveies strive to bring out or to situate narrative elements in musical texts, to assorted consequence in which music serves as an foundation or forming metaphor which serves hermeneutic, even heuristic intents.[ two ]However, used as in interdisciplinary surveies, the really construct of ‘musicality ‘ is still considered peculiarly cloudy and debatable. Emilie Crapoulet, in her essay “ Voicing the Music in Literature ”[ three ]writes – “ Musicality as a construct is frequently understood to mention straight to the art of music and yet it is so general that it encompasses a scope of different manners, genres and apprehensions of what music is and frequently contradicts the traditional musical analyses, the most extreme of which assert that music is a closed, self-referential system which can merely be understood from within with a proficient internal vocabulary, or from the psychological or neurological experiments affecting encephalon scans, which endeavour to depict what happens in the encephalon when one listens to music. ” One can easy follow this inclination of construing music as “ the ” ego contained art in excellence from the nineteenth-century and Modernist European literary landscape that voiced and fuelled treatments of the possible musicalness of linguistic communication, most compactly in Walter Pater ‘s aestheticist pronouncement of 1893, that “ All art invariably aspires towards the status of music ‘ ( Walter Pater, The Renaisance,1967 ) . Constantly, such apprehension of music as an unpolitical and impersonal signifier of art, with some absolute associations, some “ otherness ” in relation to non-musical falls short in appreciating the spread between music itself and the significance ( s ) and value we attribute to it. Whereas, music has ever has been a portion of life, non as independent forms of sound but as embedded in the remainder of the universe, as civilization, as constructions of ordinary human personal businesss, the really construct of ‘musicality ‘ being peculiarly debatable has overlooked the fact that music itself has borrowed signifiers and significances derived from literature, narrative and linguistic communication ; the ocular humanistic disciplines and sculpture throughout the ages. And hence, construing texts in footings of “ musicalness ” remains elusive unless one takes the contradictory and many-sided nature of the interaction between text and music a little more critically and program to develop a clear conceptual model that involves the different waies the two art signifiers can take, based on the desire of the creative person or that of the mind.[ four ]

Looking at this history, it is non hard to grok that traditional, musico-literary research carried out by literary critics accordingly had a strong literary prejudice. The most common nature of this early research was committed to roll uping grounds of mentions to, or happenings of, music in single literary plants, and to elaborating their utilizations and maps. The major participant in the field of history of musico-literary ‘interart surveies ‘[ V ]was Calvin S. Brown, whose seminal comparative survey on Music and Literature, focused on structural analogies between the two humanistic disciplines. Calvin, researching the poesy of Walt Whitman and Conrad Aiken showed how the natural poetic methods of managing word symbols resemble musical development, and how these poets have, on juncture, produced close musical analogies by a heightening of these methods. Harmonizing to Brown, in so far as the poet is concerned- with such proficient affairs as metre, rime, vowel rhyme, and initial rhyme, he affords a close analogue to the composer ; but the composer has at his bid a far greater assortment of sounds than the poet, and far greater freedom in his agreement and combination of them, but as a regulation his sounds convey nil which is non a portion of the hearable universe. The poet constantly trades with sounds which do convey something beyond themselves, and this fact, while greatly restricting his accomplishments in the kingdom of pure sound, opens up to him other possibilities which are closed to the composer. He notes that between 1848 and 1855 Walt Whitman had developed an alone manner of poesy composing that astonished his readers and a great trade of influence on Whitman ‘s poesy was music. It was non merely one of the major beginnings of his inspiration, but frequently worked like the cardinal metaphor in his life and work, both as a metaphysical mentality and as a practical world. Many of Whitman ‘s four 100 verse forms contain musical footings, names of instruments, and names of composers and over 1200 scenes ( in readying for public presentations and a recording Thomas Hampson unearthed over 400 scenes for voice and piano entirely ) .

Calvin besides feels, Whitman must hold been practically a musical nonreader, for his mentions to music are of a unvarying commonness: “ The music director beats clip for his set and all the performing artists follow him, ” – ” The Jay in the forests ne’er studied the gamut, yet trills reasonably good to me, ” – ” With music strong I come, with my horns and my membranophones. ” But, he foregrounds the fact that poets like Whitman are blessed with an extraordinary ear for interior beat ( s ) which they can joint in extremist free, rolled, thrusting poetries capable of regenerating the full universe of poetic linguistic communication. He relied on both his innate musicalness and his experience as a music journalist to explicate aesthetic rules that would transport over into his poesy. His vocalist is poet, prophesier, bard, mysterious celebrant of the self- ; the poet in everyman, in the worker, in the person. To sing is to joint both the psyche and the Self. His analysis of Whitman ‘s magnum musical composition Leaves of Grass gives a conceptual model of Whitman ‘s “ poetic ” manners frequently termed as ‘musical ‘ in an effort to exceed one ‘s limited disciplinary mentality in order to better analyse the elusive fluid boundaries that exist between the humanistic disciplines.

For Calvin, Conrad Aiken ‘s involvement in music is seeable even in the rubrics of his verse form, where we find nocturnes, tone verse form, fluctuations, dissonants, and symphonic musics. He describes Aiken as examining for musical effects from the beginning of his poetic calling, and though many poets have used rubrics incorporating musical deductions, and many have been fond of musical mentions and elaborately developed symbols, Calvin shows that no 1 has been every bit successful as Aiken in conveying the musicalness of his subjects. While analyzing the aggregations Nocturne of Remembered Spring: And Other Poems ( 1917 ) and Selected Poems ( 1924 ) , he shows how the formal agreement of a good trade of Aiken ‘s poesy is based on musical rules instead than on the more widely accepted poetic 1s. Calvin writes- “ His symbols are developed and combined in ways parallel to the composer ‘s handling of subjects in which music is that prototype of the person and the existence which it was to Schopenhauer. ”

In the aftermath of Brown, a turning figure of bookmans and critics cultivated this field and one of the most outstanding bookmans among them is Steven Paul Scher. Scher ‘s first parts to the field of word and music surveies, his work- “ Notes Toward a Theory of Verbal Music ” , though still literature centred, managed his replacements to open up to more general topics, represented, for illustration, by John Neubauer ‘s geographic expeditions of the possible narrativity of music, Lawrence Kramer ‘s work in the country of a “ Musical Narratology ” , Michael Halliwell ‘s heterotaxy of Patrick White ‘s authoritative Australian novel Voss into an opera “ Singing the State ” and many more after that. And today, the diverseness of modern-day critical theories including cultural surveies have opened up even newer ways of gestating the relationships between literature and music. One manner to depict this culturally-oriented survey of music and text is the stance of taking active involvement in a list of obliging modern-day subjects or involvements that the dominant signifiers of understanding music since the Enlightenment had left out. The omitted issues include cultural pattern, political orientation, individuality formation, narrativity, race, gender, gender, and the organic structure, etc. In this mode, the bequest of cultural surveies has immensely increased the scope of plants and contexts offering possibilities of different sort ( s ) of ‘translations ‘ between literary and other signifiers at the same clip as they draw attending to what is alone about each[ six ]. Lawrence Kramer writes in Signs Taken for Wonders, Words, Music, and Performativity, “ Contrary to certain common expostulations, cultural musicology has ne’er denied the being of past involvement in ‘extramusical ‘ or contextual issues. Nor has it shown any deficiency of involvement in, so captivation with, the internal kineticss of musical plants or genres. But it breaks with earlier attacks, including the ethnomusicological attacks to which it has sometimes been compared, by sing music non as a vehicle or contemplation of a comparatively stable set of societal, cultural, or historical conditions, but as a signifier of human bureau that shapes and intervenes in such conditions, and does so, non exceptionally, but as an ordinary effect of musical pattern. The consequence is to disenable the differentiation ( which is true a practical convenience ) between ‘music ‘ as a self-contained whole – whether that be the whole of the musical graphics or of genre or manner or of organized plangency conceived on the largest graduated table – and the societal and historical Fieldss of the ‘extramusical ‘ “

Another manner that Krammer defines this new tendency is to state that it has sought to “ reconceive the semiotic capacities of music, and in peculiar to redefine the relationship between music and marks ” . Sceptical of the semantic power of marks, the cultural attack has tended to decrease their value in favor of a less restrictive hermeneutics ; for hermeneutics has tended to presume the precedence more normally granted to semiologies. This reorientation is a measure in the right way. Its of import effects include:

1 ) a positive reappraisal of the long-disparaged relationship between music and the words – the necessary vehicles of hermeneutics, and

2 ) an extension of hermeneutics into the sphere of a type of linguistic communication non traditionally considered when in treatments of words and music: the performative speech-act.

Delia district attorney Sousa Correa, Katia Chornik and Robert Samuels in the essay “ Literature and Music: Interdisciplinary Research and Teaching at The Open University ” writes – “ Theories that emphasise the unstable referentiality of linguistic communication have revived and enriched analogies between music and literature.[ seven ]Now, linguistic communication is valued for the referential uncertainness that was antecedently music ‘s privilege, and music offers adjustment, if complex, analogies for literature. Indeed, a charming signifying power is frequently taken as a defining characteristic of literary as opposed to practical linguistic communication, whilst the nineteenth-century strong belief that music can incarnate rational idea has enjoyed a resurgence amongst music theoreticians. In Wittgenstein ‘s phrase, as Daniel Albright puts it, ‘Understanding a sentence is much more kindred to understanding a subject in music than one may believe ‘[ eight ]. “ Harmonizing to Lawrence Kramer, : ‘the opposition to meaning one time embodied by music now seems to be an inextricable portion of meaning itself ‘ .[ nine ]Accredited with a ‘new musicology ‘ , during the 1980s, Kramer ‘s major undertaking over the past 15 old ages and after, has been to use a diverseness of critical theories to musical texts.[ x ]Music itself, Kramer proposes, “ taking a stance that might be traced back to the American Pragmatist philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce, should ‘be understood as portion of a general signifying procedure ‘[ xi ]. Thus Music ‘s ‘meaning ‘ can be discussed as a ‘cultural pattern ‘ in a manner non antecedently encouraged either by systematic music analysis or by music historiography. It becomes possible to discourse the cultural contexts and significance of plants such as Beethoven ‘s ‘Ghost ‘ Three, in relation to which Kramer analyses how narrative concepts might assist to incorporate the admired, yet parlous, powers of transcendency attributed to instrumental music. ”

In the instance of word and music surveies, a resoluteness to travel beyond disciplinary boundaries emphasizes a assortment of disputing theoretical duties. For some, the impact of cultural surveies is more debatable than for others. Delia district attorney Sousa Correa, Katia Chornik and Robert Samuels in the essay “ Literature and Music: Interdisciplinary Research and Teaching at The Open University ” writes – “ Peter Dayan sees work informed by cultural surveies and the tradition of post-romantic unfavorable judgment with which he is engaged as two separate manners of analyzing text-music relationships. His concern is that cultural surveies ‘ seemingly value-neutral preoccupation with historical context, and peculiarly its disclaimer of aesthetic judgement, tells us small about the adamant inquiries of what literature and music are and why and how they matter to us – essentialist inquiries from which many of us shrink, but which are the account for the presence of our pupils before us in category. ” Related concerns have been raised by bookmans who are themselves engaged in the cultural survey of music. Kramer identifies this quandary as both welcome and yet debatable because the current accent that “ enquiries about ‘how ‘ music is performed ‘displace ‘ instead than ‘complement ‘ inquiries about ‘what ‘ constitutes ‘the societal force of the musical work ‘ . The musicologist Rachel Cowgill has commented that there is, ‘a inclination in musicology for us to specify ourselves as “ contextualists ” ; but so the context becomes the country of survey, and there ‘s a large hole in the center which was the music ” .

From a non-western position, nevertheless, my reading of Sanskrit Poetics affirms, that though chiefly philosophical and bad in character, it can supply some sidelong range and encouragement for critical theorising in the field of poesy and music. From the earliest beginning of Bharata and Bhamaha, up to the present twenty-four hours, a long tradition of originative minds have come up with plants of profoundly analytical and literary virtue. Yet, when it comes to the application of these theories to bing literary or musical plants, Sanskrit critical theories do non have much enthusiasm in footings of response. K. Krishnamoorthy traces the grounds behind this funny phenomena in The cardinal footings of Sanskrit literary unfavorable judgment reconsidered that it is due to the built-in ambiguities and contradictions within the available significances of the cardinal constructs that by denying any consentaneous or precise understanding hinder the thought of concrete application in pattern. He emphasises upon the altering position of footings like alamkara and rasa by assorted Sanskrit authors through the centuries while set uping this statement. The standard of good poesy and the nature of originative delectation were two pressing issues that invariably preoccupied the analytical Hagiographas of Sanskrit poetics and to get at a satisfactory solution to these jobs, about every critic was preoccupied with the impression that words and significances ( sabdartha ) form the organic structure of poesy and with the hunt for what constitutes its psyche ( atman ) . In other words, the equation of poesy to a human being ( kavyapurusa ) with a organic structure and a psyche was in the head of about every critic.

Consequently, all literary theories were built up with this given as the base which accounts for some of the drawbacks inherent in them. Assorted constructs like-alamkara, rasa, guna, riti, dhvani, anumiti, vakrokti and aucitya came into being and authors at different times upheld and maintained different constructs as the “ psyche ” of poesy or the chief implicit in poetic entreaty. The disciples of the alamkara school, like Bhamaha, for illustration idea of poesy as holding a organic structure ( kavyasarir ) which required adornment. Constituted of two basic elements sound ( sabda ) and significance ( artha ) , it was a merger of elements of poetic art and poetic subject or capable. Though this was the foundation on which the later theorists began to try deeper analysis, being theological in character, the whole idea of poesy seemed equivocal and desiring in account in footings of modern ethos. Therefore, between the representation and the response of the key-concepts of application of these theories to Sanskrit poetics, there emerged a spread in the understanding denying it the fruitful enthusiasm that it should hold received from the ulterior coevals.

Krishnamoorhy notes that the first and first critical construct in Sanskrit literary theory is alamkara. Though normally translated as figures of address, it in the existent sense was used in the widest aesthetic application to include everything that brought approximately poetic beauty or kavyasobha, particularly imagery and emotion ( rasadi ) . Furthermore, while imagination as the critical linguistic communication of poetic emotion, its atman instead than merely functioning as overlying embroideries. The really nucleus of alamkara theory provides equal importance to sound feelings every bit good as to poetic images, It besides emphasizes how vakrokti, or the indirect usage of linguistic communication constitutes the really kernel of the poetic procedure. Though in ulterior times, the term loses all its wider significance and comes to intend as a generic term meaning merely two types of figures ( arthalankaras and sabdalankaras ) , it is evident that they seem to hold possessed some cognitions of rasa. Krishnamoorthy says- ” It besides keeps the door unfastened for a few exclusions which may be pure poesy by sheer expanse of personal or universalized emotion ( rasavad, preyas, urjasvin, samahita and bhavika alamkaras ) . The being of suggested and implicative senses and their ability to bring forth poetic entreaty. With Vamana, the significance of the word alamkara, gets narrowed down into the construct of Guna-riti. He analyses Bhamaha ‘s equivocal averment of the poetic beauty of sabda and artha into gunas or qualities associating them to the interior character of the poetic organic structure as a whole. He distinguished gunas into two sorts. His 10 gunas of sabda included “ characteristics of workmanship like verbal felicitousness, self-respect, concentration and gradual acclivity or descent in syllabic quality and measure “ and on the other manus the 10 gunas of artha covered “ diverse elements of poetic art like- concentration of thought diarrhea, lucidity, informant, evenness of idea, the originative flicker, indirect mode, grandness and emotional excitement. The constructs of guna and riti, closely linked and both being abstractions could non happen support. It is merely with Anandavardhana, that the indirect component in poesy has been expounded as dhvani. He had seen while emotions and feelings could merely pass on through indirect manner, alamkara and vastu could be straight conveyed. The usage of implicative imagination in three gunas that he skillfully retained from Bhamaha sugariness, clarity and glare can be used non merely with manner, but with the poetic emotion or rasa, a construct that found its first feeling in Bharat ‘s Natyasastra as being a thought-feeling synthesis emerging out of moving and bring forthing musical consequence. Though Bharata has besides dealt with music extensively in Natyasastra and it is true that after the Samaveda that dealt with ritual vocalizations of the Vedas, the Natyashastra is the first major text that trades with music at length, much of the treatment of music in the Natyashastra focal points on musical instruments, emphasizes several theoretical facets that remained cardinal to Indian music: like constitution of Shadja as the first, specifying note of the graduated table or gramma, rule of consonant rhyme and the impression of musical manners or jatis which are the beginning of the impression of the modern melodious constructions known as ragas. Several facets of musical public presentation are besides mentioned, peculiarly its application to vocal, instrumental and orchestral composings, though it does non cover at length on the rasas and bhavas that may be evoked by music. One needs to turn to Abhinavagupta ‘s treatise, who by doing rasa synonymous with aesthetic experience has opened up treatments sing the usage of poetic imagination.

Keeping all these different positions in head, we therefore need to near a individual, complicated inquiry: what is the relationship between literature and music? Can music let us to unite the reading of civilization with literary reading what is involved in the formation of a specifically literary linguistic communication? Is it possible to retrieve a sense of music ‘s traditional affinity with `the literary ‘ and the `musical ‘ in literature? The self-contradictory sense that literature is most distinctively ‘literary ‘ where it is most ‘musical ‘ reaffirms the longstanding association between music and poesy as sister humanistic disciplines. Whilst the impression of a uniquely literary linguistic communication may be theoretically tangible, music offers a vocabulary that denotes effects of linguistic communication that are hard or impossible to joint as significance. As an insignia of undeterminable significance, music maps about as an every bit powerful codification in the interface between authors and readers. Work in literature and music hence extends a really broad scope of attacks, from geographic expeditions whose chief purpose is historical analysis to shut textual and theoretical analysis of the relationships between the literary and the musical with the sudden outgrowth of cultural surveies slightly perplexing the full procedure. While by traveling beyond a historicist construct of music, and sing it in footings of cultural phenomena we can truly analyze the deductions of a musical construct of art in a big cultural context, looking at alternate non-western aesthetic traditions can besides open up some more audacious attacks and pressing theoretical issues within both subjects – whether comparative responses of musical and literary figures, musical scenes as `readings ‘ of texts, or closer definitions of narrative techniques and generic confederations that might into account the musical aesthetics of both past and present. The multiplicity of topics of word and music surveies offers astonishing profusion ; and that it is a turning and vivacious country of research is beyond uncertainty though can be slightly perplexing in its evident heterogeneousness.

Endnotes

x

Hi!
I'm Heather

Would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out